REPORT OF THE
NCAA DIVISION I ACADEMICS/ELIGIBILITY/COMPLIANCE CABINET
1. ACTION ITEMS.
·
Legislative – Requests for Legislative Action at the October NCAA
Division I Management Council Meeting. (See Attachment A for the full text of
the proposals forwarded to the NCAA Division I Management Council as
noncontroversial/
emergency legislation.)
(1) NCAA Division I Proposal No. 2004-150 (Amateurism – Definition and Applications – Professional Team).
(a) Recommendation. The NCAA
Division I Academics/Eligibility/
Compliance Cabinet recommends that the Management Council adopt
noncontroversial legislation specifying that a team will not be considered
professional if it provides any of its players with "other reasonable
expenses" (as opposed to "other reasonable incidental to
participation.") [For, 22, Against 9, Abstain, 3]
(b) Rationale. The intent of the recent change to the definition of a professional team was to provide clarity to the membership and ensure that teams that provide players money in excess of actual and necessary expenses are considered professional under NCAA legislation. However, including the phrase "incidental to participation" resulted in an interpretation that causes certain amateur teams to be considered professional. For example, as worded, the new definition causes teams that merely provide laundry money to its players to be considered "professional," because such expenses are not directly tied to practice or competition. The intent of the new definition was not to have such teams (e.g., Espoir teams) trigger the definition of a professional team by simply providing laundry money. The proposed change in language will allow interpretive flexibility so teams that truly are not paying players do not trigger the NCAA definition of a professional team. This proposal is submitted as noncontroversial legislation as it is consistent with the intent of the legislation as initially proposed and merely broadens the legislation to provide greater flexibility in addressing potential student-athlete well-being concerns.
(c) Budget Impact. None.
(2) Proposal No. 2004-151 (Eligibility – Seasons of Competition Waiver – Competition While Eligible).
(a) Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously requests that the Management Council adopt noncontroversial legislation amending the criteria for the season of competition waiver (competition while eligible) so that it more closely models the criteria used to administer hardship waivers.
(b) Rationale. The seasons-of-competition waiver for competition while eligible was initially modeled on the seasons-of-competition waiver for competition while ineligible. However, a review of the provision reveals that the waiver should be more in-line with the criteria for the hardship waiver, as the first three circumstances listed in the extenuating circumstances portion of the criteria (i.e., family illness, financial hardship or dropped sport) are beyond the control of the student-athlete and the institution. More specifically, the hardship waiver legislation does not require the competition under review to have occurred at an NCAA institution. Further, a hardship waiver may be granted if the student-athlete competed in less than 20 percent of the season and the competition occurred during the first half of the season. Moreover, an institution is not required to withhold a student-athlete from competition in order to qualify for a hardship waiver. Finally, the coaching error provision is not included in this proposal. As such, instances citing erroneous advice from a coach still would require the competition to have occurred at an NCAA institution during the non-championship season or during a scrimmage or exhibition. Such circumstances also will continue to require withholding the student-athlete from competition. Finally, the changes are noncontroversial in nature and will alleviate confusion by aligning the seasons-of-competition waiver (competition while eligible) with the hardship waiver.
(c) Budget Impact. None.
(3) Proposal No. 2004-152 (Eligibility – Hardship Waiver – Administration).
(a) Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously requests that the Management Council adopt noncontroversial legislation (with an immediate retroactive effective date) specifying that NCAA membership services staff and NCAA Division I Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee serve as the appellate bodies for hardship-waiver requests. [Note: Institutions that are members of an NCAA conference would still submit requests through the conference office; however, if the conference office determines an
appeal is warranted, the conference office would appeal to the membership services staff and Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee instead of the NCAA Division I Management Council Administrative Review Subcommittee.]
(b) Rationale. Currently, the Administrative Review Subcommittee reviews hardship-waiver requests in instances when the wavier criteria have not been met and the conference office has denied the case. Independent institutions submit hardship-waiver requests to the staff and the Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee serves as the appellate body for such requests. The staff and Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee also serve as the appellate body for such waivers filed by NCAA Divisions II and III institutions. For consistency and equality purposes, the staff and the Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee should serve as the appellate body for all hardship-waiver appeals, including those currently under the purview of the Administrative Review Subcommittee. Finally, this change is merely administrative in nature and, thus, is noncontroversial.
(c) Budget Impact. None.
(4) Proposal No. 2004-153 (Administrative Regulations – Recruiting Calendars – Softball – Quiet Period).
(a) Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously recommends that the Management Council adopt emergency legislation that eliminates the quiet period following the NCAA Division I Women's Softball Championship.
(b) Rationale. The Division I women's softball championship was recently extended by one week. As a result, the start of the quiet period is delayed by one week so that it now occurs during a time that historically has included many events in which prospects participate. Eliminating the quiet period will permit institutional coaching staff members to continue to attend these events. This request is submitted as emergency legislation, as both event sponsors and college coaches currently are planning 2005 schedules. Finally, this legislation is supported by the Women's Softball Coaches Association.
(c) Budget Impact. None.
(5) Proposal No. 2004-154 (Financial Aid – Definition and Application – Honorary Academic Award/Research Grant).
(a) Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously recommends that the Management Council adopt noncontroversial legislation to eliminate the requirement that honorary academic awards/research grants be published in the institution's catalog.
(b) Rationale. Current legislation
requires that honorary academic awards/
research grants be published in the institution's catalog. However, due
to recent technological advances, many institutions no longer include these
types of awards in their published catalogs or have ceased publishing such
catalogs. As such, the current legislation is outdated. This
proposal revises the honorary academic awards/research grant legislation by
replacing the "published in the institution's catalog" requirement
with a specification that such awards or grants are standing scholarship awards
or established research grants and are available pursuant to an institution's
financial aid policies and procedures applicable to all students.
(c) Budget Impact. None.
(6) Proposal No. 2003-24 (Financial Aid – Terms and Conditions – Period of Award).
(a) Recommendation. The cabinet recommends that the Management Council adopt as emergency legislation Proposal No. 2003-24, which was revised to include two additional exceptions to the proposed prohibition on term-by-term financial aid awards. [See Part B of the legislative informational items of this report for further details on the revised proposal.] [For 30, Opposed 1, Abstain 2]
(b) Rationale. As revised, Proposal No. 2003-24 addresses specific concerns raised by the membership through the governance structure and comment process. Specifically, the proposal now includes an exception to address the use of a term-by-term award to re-award aid previously provided to a student-athlete who discontinues enrollment after midyear graduation. Under the revisions, institutions would have the option to award the remaining aid to a student-athlete who has not previously received athletics aid. Further, the cabinet approved a second revision to recognize the need for flexibility when an institution may have unused athletics aid available.
Awards provided pursuant to the proposed exceptions are subject to all other regulations regarding the provision of athletics aid (e.g., subject to renewal notification requirements, within institutional team limits, etc.).
(c) Budget Impact. None.
2. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS.
a. Legislative – Comments on Proposals to be Initially Considered by the Management Council in January 2005.
(1) Proposal No. 2004-7 (Eligibility – Practice Waiver – United States Olympic Committee/National Governing Body). The cabinet unanimously supports this proposal. Current legislation permits individual sport participants with eligibility remaining who are not enrolled full time to participate in practice sessions at the institution under specified conditions. The proposed legislation provides a waiver opportunity to team sports student-athletes that currently is available to student-athletes in individual sports. The cabinet agreed that the legislation should not differentiate on the opportunity for Olympic student-athletes to participate in practice sessions simply because of the sport in which they participate.
(2) Proposal No. 2004-28 (Awards and Benefits – Benefits, Gifts and Services – Coaching Career Educational Program). The cabinet unanimously supports this proposal. This proposal will assist institutions in providing opportunities for minority female basketball players to explore coaching opportunities. The proposal enhances student-athlete well-being and is merely permissive legislation, thus allowing (not requiring) institutions to pay actual and necessary expenses associated with the educational seminar.
(3) Proposal No. 2004-29 (Financial Aid – Voluntary Withdrawal – Re-Awarding of Aid – Divisions I-A and I-AA Football). The cabinet unanimously supports the proposal, as it grants institutions the flexibility to immediately re-award athletically related financial aid to a student-athlete who has been a member of the team for at least one year. In its support, the cabinet noted that if the aid is awarded to a student-athlete who has only been in residence for one academic year, the initial-counter provisions will apply.
(4) Proposal No. 2004-30 (Awards and Benefits – Midyear Enrollees – Expenses for Postseason Bowl Games – Division I-A Football). The cabinet unanimously supports this proposal and agrees with the sponsor's rationale that
in recent years, it has become more common for institutions to provide expenses for midyear enrollees to attend and practice at postseason bowl games. This practice has evolved into a potential recruiting advantage and may inhibit the ability of student-athletes who have practiced with the team throughout the year from receiving expenses to attend the postseason bowl game.
(5) Proposal No. 2004-32 (Personnel – Off-Campus Contacts/Evaluations – Divisions I-A and I-AA Football). The cabinet unanimously supports the proposal and agrees with the sponsor's rationale.
(6) Proposal No. 2004-33 (Recruiting – Camps and Clinics – Divisions I-A and I-AA Football). The cabinet unanimously supports the proposal and agrees with the sponsor's rationale.
(7) Proposal No. 2004-35 (Recruiting – Tryouts – Nonscholastic Basketball – Women's Basketball). The cabinet unanimously opposes this proposal as presented. The cabinet would support the proposal if the sponsors modified it to include men's basketball. In the event the sponsor does not support the suggested modification, the cabinet shall sponsor an alternative proposal. [For 32, Against 1]
(8) Proposal No. 2004-37 (Recruiting – Recruiting Materials – Promotion of NCAA or Conference Championship). The cabinet unanimously supports the proposal and agrees with the sponsor's rationale.
(9) Proposal No. 2004-42 (Academic Performance Program – Penalties and Rewards – Rewards). The cabinet opposes this proposal. Although the cabinet supports the concept of establishing incentives related to the academic performance program, it noted that the NCAA Division I Committee on Academic Performance is currently reviewing the topic. Further, the suggested incentive in this proposal is premature and narrow in scope. Greater discussion is needed to establish a comprehensive and equitable system by which all institutions may have opportunities to benefit from incentives. Finally, the proposal fails to specify the source of the suggested additional funds, and the identified academic success rate of 60 percent may be too low to operate as a true incentive for institutions.
(10) Proposal No. 2004-43 (Ethical Conduct – Gambling Activities). The cabinet did not take a position on Proposal No. 2004-43 and chose to defer to the NCAA Sports Wagering Task Force. Due to the recent sports wagering survey, the Sports Wagering Task Force is reviewing all issues related to sports wagering, including reviewing current legislation and thus, would be a more appropriate group to provide a recommendation.
(11) Proposal No. 2004-44 (Awards and Benefits – Expenses Provided by the Institution for Practice and Competition – Reimbursement). The cabinet supports Proposal No. 2004-44. Due to student-athletes' class schedules and other time commitments, student-athletes on occasion have to provide their own transportation to and from practice sites. This proposal allows institutions to reimburse such student-athletes for travel expenses. Further, this is merely permissive legislation that addresses student-athlete well-being issues; it does not require institutions to cover such costs.
(12) Proposal No.2004-47 (Recruiting – Offers and Inducements – Benefits for Family Members of Prospects). The cabinet unanimously supports the proposal and agrees with the sponsor's rationale, but also requested that staff consider whether the change could be accomplished through an interpretation of the current bylaw.
(13) Proposal No. 2004-48 (Eligibility – One-Time Transfer Exception). The cabinet took no position on this proposal. In July 2003, the Management Council asked the cabinet to review a recommendation from the NCAA Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee to amend the one-time transfer exception. In response, the cabinet recommended that the Management Council appoint an ad hoc group composed of various constituents to consider the current exception and whether it should be amended. The NCAA Division I One-Time Transfer Ad Hoc Group is currently reviewing the one-time transfer exception legislation and the cabinet prefers to review the findings and the recommendations of the group prior to forming a position.
(14) Proposal No. 2004-49 (Recruiting – Local Sports Clubs – Women's Volleyball). The cabinet unanimously opposes this proposal as presented. The cabinet would support the proposal if the sponsor modified it to include the prohibition against engaging in coaching activities during both quiet and dead periods. In the event the sponsor does not support the suggested modification, the cabinet shall sponsor an alternative proposal.
(15) Proposal No. 2004-53
(Eligibility – Season of Competition – Nonqualifier). The cabinet unanimously supports
this proposal. This proposal permits a nonqualifier or a partial
qualifier to earn a fourth season of competition provided he or she has
completed 80 percent of his or her designated degree program prior to the
beginning of the fifth year of collegiate enrollment. The research
collected and reviewed by thecademic consultants demonstrated that a
student-athlete who had earned 80 percent of his or her designated degree
program prior to their fifth year of collegiate enrollment was in a position to
graduate within five years. This proposal would reward a student-athlete
who has demonstrated his or her commitment to academics by providing the
student-athlete with the opportunity to earn a fourth year of
eligibility. Further, a nonqualifier who has completed 80 percent of his
or her degree program is in a position to graduate within the same time frame
as any other student-athlete. The cabinet requests that the sponsors of
the legislation revise the proposal to clarify that the student-athlete must complete
80 percent of his or her designated degree program prior to the term that
begins the fifth calendar year after the
student-athlete's initial term of full-time collegiate enrollment. This
clarification will be consistent with the application of the five-year clock
legislation (e.g., student-athlete initially enrolls as a full-time student
spring 2004; therefore, he or she must have completed 80 percent of his or her
degree program before spring 2008.)
(16) Proposal No. 2004-54 (Personnel – Off Campus Recruiting – Division I-A Football – Exception). The cabinet unanimously supports the proposal and agrees with the sponsor's rationale.
(17) Proposal No. 2004-56 (Recruiting – Tryouts – Private Lessons – Equestrian). The cabinet unanimously supports the proposal and agrees with the sponsor's rationale.
(18) Proposal No. 2004-57 (Recruiting – Camps and Clinics – Football or Basketball). The cabinet opposes this proposal, as it could result in increased time demands placed on prospective student-athletes and additional intrusions during a prospect's high-school academic year. [For 32, Against 1]
(19) Proposal No. 2004-58 (Financial Aid – Exempted Government Grants – United States Military Annuitant Pay). The cabinet unanimously supports this proposal, as it increases opportunities for student-athletes to receive financial aid that is generally available to other non-athlete students in similar circumstances.
(20) Proposal No. 2004-60 (Eligibility – Validity of Amateur Status – International Student-Athlete). The cabinet opposes this proposal as presented. Although there is a need to have a system and process in place that would assist in ensuring competitive equity in the area of amateurism, this proposal lacks the details necessary to establish such a process. The cabinet asked the staff to review the concept presented within the proposal and provide recommendations to the NCAA Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet Subcommittee on Agents and Amateurism. [For 32, Against 1, Abstain 0]
(21) Proposal No. 2004-61 (Playing and Practice Seasons – Summer Practice –Facility Fees). The cabinet did not take a position on this proposal and chose to defer to the position of the NCAA Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet and its Playing and Practice Seasons Subcommittee, given that body's expertise regarding playing and practice seasons legislation.
(22) Proposal No. 2004-63 (Personnel – Volunteer Coaches). The cabinet took no position on this proposal.
(23) Proposal No. 2004-67 (Recruiting – Camps or Clinics – Student-Athlete Employment – Sports Other Than Football). The cabinet unanimously supports the proposal and agrees with the sponsor's rationale.
(24) Proposal No. 2004-68 (Recruiting – January Dead Period – Division I-A Football). The cabinet unanimously supports the proposal and agrees with the sponsor's rationale.
(25) Proposal No. 2004-69 (Recruiting – Contact and Evaluations – Division I-AA Football). The cabinet took no position on this proposal; however, it did agree to reconsider the proposal after receiving comments from the American Football Coaches Association.
(26) Proposal No. 2004-70 (Amateurism – Composition of Professional Sports Counseling Panel). The cabinet unanimously opposes this proposal as presented. The cabinet would support the proposal if the sponsor modified it to exclude "any person employed by a sports agent or agency" from serving as a member of a professional sports counseling panel. This modification would address those situations where individuals who also work for agents (i.e., "runners") would be precluded from serving on an institutional professional sports counseling panel. In the event the sponsor does not support the suggested modification, the cabinet shall sponsor an alternative proposal.
(27) Proposal No. 2004-71 (Awards and Benefits – Maximum Value of Awards – Postseason Bowl Games). The cabinet unanimously supports this proposal. The proposal addresses a student-athlete well-being issue and does not have a financial impact on member institutions. Further, as stated in the sponsor's rationale, currently, there are no limits on awards provided to participants of NCAA championships. As such, this proposal merely creates consistency in the permissible maximum value of awards for participation in a postseason bowl games and NCAA championships.
(28) Proposal 2004-73 (Eligibility – Seasons of Competition – Division I-A Football). The cabinet opposes this proposal. Additional research and analysis are needed regarding the concept of five seasons of eligibility.
(29) Proposal No. 2004-78 (Recruiting – Contacts – Official Visits). The cabinet unanimously supports the proposal and agrees with the sponsor's rationale.
(30) Proposal No. 2004-79 (Recruiting – Contact Restrictions at Specified Sites – Basketball). The cabinet unanimously supports the proposal and agrees with the sponsor's rationale.
(31) Proposal No. 2004-80 (Recruiting – Camps and Clinics – Division I-AA Football). The cabinet took no position on this proposal.
(32) Proposal No. 2004-82 (Awards and Benefits – Expenses for Practice and Competition – Postseason Competition). The cabinet unanimously supports this proposal and agrees with the sponsor's rationale. Further, the proposed changes to the current legislation on this issue will enhance student-athlete well-being.
(33) Proposal No. 2004-84 (Awards and Benefits – Practice or Competition Expenses – Apparel for Community Service or Team Travel). The cabinet unanimously opposes this proposal as presented. The cabinet would support the proposal if the sponsor modified it to include the logo restrictions currently contained in NCAA Bylaw 12.5.4. Although this is a student-athlete well-being issue and provides the opportunity for all teams to dress consistently at no cost to the student-athlete, without the amendment, shirts provided by the institution for community service or team travel would not be subject to logo restrictions. Due to the public nature of these events, the cabinet agreed that the same standard should apply to this apparel that currently exist for competition apparel. In the event the sponsor does not support the suggested modification, the cabinet shall sponsor an alternative proposal.
(34) Proposal No. 2004-85 (Awards and Benefits – Conference Awards – Expenses). The cabinet unanimously supports this proposal and agrees it supports the Association's emphasis on rewarding student-athletes for their academic success. Further, the cabinet noted that current legislation permits a conference office to provide these expenses for athletically related awards.
(35) Proposal No. 2004-86 (Eligibility – Progress Towards Degree – Credit Earned Prior to Initial Full-Time Collegiate Enrollment). The cabinet unanimously opposes this proposal. Proposal No. 2004-86 is completely adverse to the intent of the new progress-towards-degree requirements, specifically to the intent of the 18/27-hour requirement and the six-hour requirement. Further, the purpose of the current legislation is to ensure that student-athletes are students during the academic year. Therefore, only credits that are earned during the academic year should be used to satisfy the 18/27-hour requirement and the six-hour requirement. If this legislation is adopted, it will erode the impact of the new academic reform package.
(36) Proposal No. 2004-87 (Administrative Regulations – Recruiting Calendar – Women's Volleyball). The cabinet unanimously supports the proposal and agrees with the sponsor's rationale.
(37) Proposal No. 2004-89 (Recruiting – Official Visit – Transportation). The cabinet unanimously supports the proposal and agrees with the sponsor's rationale.
(38) Proposal No. 2004-90 (Recruiting – Precollege Expenses – Use of Institution's Facility). The cabinet opposes this proposal. Permitting a state high-school association to use a member institution's facilities at a reduced rate could provide a recruiting advantage to those institutions with the most desirable facilities. Those institutions would be used by the associations and would attract standout prospective student-athletes. Further, this legislation treats the high-school associations differently from other charitable organizations who seek to use a member institution's facilities. [For 29, Against 3, Abstain 1]
(39) Proposal No. 2004-91 (Recruiting – Tryout – Definition of Open Event). The cabinet opposes this proposal as it creates a confusing definition and is not necessary. The current definition of an open event is clear and this proposal would result in monitoring challenges for compliance officers. [For 32, Oppose 1]
(40) Proposal No. 2004-98 (Recruiting – Official Visit – Parent Transportation). The cabinet unanimously opposes this proposal, as it would place an undue burden on already stressed athletics department budgets. In addition, the interaction between prospects, coaches and student-athletes may be inhibited by the presence of a parent, and the prospect would not be exposed to an accurate sense of his or her everyday experience as a student-athlete.
(41) Proposal No. 2004-99 (Recruiting – Number of Official Visits – Prospect Limitations). The cabinet opposes this proposal. Reducing the number of official visits may adversely affect lower-profile Division I institutions and/or those student-athletes who need all five visits to make a decision regarding college enrollment. [For 18, Against 11]
(42) Proposal No. 2004-106 (Recruiting – Evaluations at Noninstitutional Camps or Clinics – Division I-A Football). The cabinet unanimously opposes this proposal. Attendance at these camps is a recruiting activity and must be counted among the permissible number of evaluations.
(43) Proposal No. 2004-107 (Financial Aid – Re-Awarding Aid – Division I-A Football). The cabinet took no position on this proposal. As noted, the cabinet supports Proposal No. 2004-29, which also addresses the issue of re-awarding aid related to a voluntary withdrawal in football.
(44) Proposal No. 2004-110 (Recruiting – Signed Prospective Student-Athlete Access – Men's Basketball). The cabinet unanimously opposes this proposal as presented. The cabinet would support the proposal if the sponsor modified it to (a) preclude a prospective student-athlete from engaging in a certified foreign tour prior to his initial full-time enrollment at the institution; (b) remove the provisions permitting on-or-off-campus contact (including telephone calls and correspondence) by a representative of an institution's athletics interest; and (c) remove the provision to allow an institution to provide three complimentary admissions to a prospect to attend an away-from-home game on one occasion, provided a prospect has signed a National Letter of Intent (NLI) or, for those institutions not subscribing to the NLI, a written offer of admission and/or financial aid are removed. The proposal as originally written may focus the attention of prospective student-athletes on basketball rather than on academic mission. Further, providing three complimentary admissions to an away-from-home game does not assist in assimilating a prospect into the institution's team or developing a relationship with coaching staff members. Finally, providing greater access to a prospect by athletics representatives is contrary to establishing a relationship with the institution's coaches and student-athletes. In the event the sponsor does not support the suggested modification, the cabinet shall sponsor an alternative proposal.
(45) Proposal No. 2004-111 (Awards and Benefits
– Additional Benefits – Men's Basketball). The
cabinet unanimously opposes this proposal, as it raises equity issues because
the specified benefits would apply only to men's basketball
student-athletes. Additionally, the proposal does not completely define
the term "immediate family" and presents concerns with respect to
fiscal responsibility of member institutions.
(46) Proposal No. 2004-112 (Eligibility – Seasons of Competition – Preseason or Informal Games – Men's Basketball). The cabinet unanimously opposes this proposal as presented. The cabinet would support the proposal if the sponsor modified it to limit its application to participation during only the first season of competition at the certifying institution. The proposal is consistent with the philosophy on student-athlete well-being. However, without a modification specifying that theexception is available only during the first season of competition at the certifying institution, "run-offs" of student-athletes may be encouraged due to poor performance. Also, without some limitations these scrimmages and/or exhibition contests could be used as tryout opportunities each year. In its review of this proposal, the cabinet noted the current legislation allows a maximum of only two exempted preseason contests/scrimmages. Finally, the cabinet will continue to review the issue of permitting student-athletes in all sports to participate in preseason scrimmages and exhibition contests without using a season of competition. In the event the sponsor does not support the suggested modification, the cabinet shall sponsor an alternative proposal.
(47) Proposal No. 2004-114 (Personnel – Off-Campus Recruiting – Men's Basketball). The cabinet supports the proposal and agrees with the sponsor's rationale. [For 32, Opposed 0, Abstain 1]
(48) Proposal No. 2004-118 (Recruiting – Camps and Clinics – Employment of Athletics Staff Members – Men's Basketball). The cabinet unanimously supports the proposal and agrees with the sponsor's rationale.
(49) Proposal No. 2004-119 (Recruiting – Contacts and Evaluations – Men's Basketball). The cabinet unanimously opposes this proposal as presented. The cabinet would support the proposal if the sponsor modified it to remove the provisions that permit tryouts and decrease the permissible number of official visits. Tryouts are unrelated to the intent of providing additional access between prospects and coaches. As such, the tryout provision should be removed or voted on separately. Further, reducing the number of official visits may adversely affect lower profile Division I institutions and/or those student-athletes who need all five visits to make a decision regarding college enrollment. In the event the sponsor does not support the suggested modification, the cabinet shall sponsor an alternative proposal.
(50) Proposal No. 2004-120 (Recruiting – Printed Recruiting Materials – General Correspondence – Men's Basketball). The cabinet unanimously supports the proposal and agrees with the sponsor's rationale.
(51) Proposal No. 2004-121 (Awards and Benefits – Support Services – Mentoring Activities – Men's Basketball). The cabinet takes no position on this proposal. Although it supports the concept of mentor/mentee relationship between a coach and a student-athlete, it does not believe that it should be a legislated requirement.
(52) Proposal No. 2004-122 – Administrative Regulations – Recruiting Calendars – Women's Basketball. The cabinet unanimously supports the proposal and agrees with the sponsor's rationale.
(53) Proposal No. 2004-123 (Administrative Regulations – Recruiting Calendars – Women's Basketball – Dead Period). The cabinet unanimously supports the proposal and agrees with the sponsor's rationale.
(54) Proposal No. 2004-124 (Recruiting – July Evaluation Period – Communication with Prospects – Women's Basketball). The cabinet unanimously supports the proposal and agrees with the sponsor's rationale.
(55) Proposal No. 2004-125 (Administrative Regulations – Recruiting Calendars – Women's Basketball – April Contact and Evaluation Periods). The cabinet unanimously supports the proposal and agrees with the sponsor's rationale.
(56) Proposal
No. 2004-126 (Administrative Regulations – Recruiting Calendars –
Women's Basketball –
(57) Proposal 2004-127 (Awards and Benefits – Expenses for Student-Athlete's Friends and Relatives – Occasional Meals – Women's Basketball). The cabinet unanimously opposes this proposal as written. Division I Bylaw 16.6.1.5 currently permits refreshments for family members on an occasional basis and further expansion of this legislation is unnecessary.
(58) Proposal No. 2004-129 (Eligibility – Seasons of Competition – Preseason Contests – Women's Basketball). The cabinet unanimously opposes this proposal as presented. The cabinet would support the proposal if the sponsor modified it to limit its application to participation during only the first season of competition at the certifying institution. Although the proposal is consistent with the philosophy on student-athlete well-being, the cabinet prefers legislation that specifies that the exception is only available to student-athletes during the first season of competition at the certifying institution. This modification will help ensure that student-athletes are not "run-off" due to poor performance or that these scrimmages and/or exhibition contests are used as tryout opportunities each year. In its consideration of this proposal, the cabinet noted that current legislation allows a maximum of only two exempted preseason contests/scrimmages. Finally, the cabinet will continue to review the issue of permitting student-athletes in all sports to participate in preseason scrimmages and exhibition contests without using a season of competition. In the event the sponsor does not support the suggested modification, the cabinet shall sponsor an alternative proposal.
(59) Proposal No. 2004-130 (Personnel – Employment with Professional League or Team – Women's Basketball). The cabinet supports the proposal and agrees with the sponsor's rationale. [For 22, Against 8, Abstain 2]
(60) Proposal No. 2004-131 (Personnel – Off-Campus Recruiting – Women's Basketball). The cabinet unanimously supports the proposal and agrees with the sponsor's rationale.
(61) Proposal No. 2004-132 (Personnel – Off-Campus Recruiting – Recruiting Travel Combined With Other Travel – Women's Basketball). The cabinet unanimously supports the proposal and agrees with the sponsor's rationale.
(62) Proposal No. 2004-134 (Recruiting – Camps and Clinics – Coaches' and Student-Athlete Employment – Women's Basketball).
(a) Part A: The cabinet unanimously opposes Part A of the proposal. The proposed restriction adversely affects student-athlete well-being and professional development opportunities.
(b) Part B: The cabinet supports this part of the proposal and agrees with the sponsor's rationale. [For 30, Opposed 1, Abstain 1]
(63) Proposal No. 2004-135 (Recruiting – Communication Methods – Women's Basketball). The cabinet opposes this proposal as written. The cabinet disagrees with the portion of rationale stating that instant and text messaging are more intrusive than electronic mail. Further, the proposal is contrary to the cabinet's recent efforts to deregulate this area of the recruiting bylaw.
(64) Proposal No. 2004-136 (Recruiting – Contacts – Parents Who Serve As Coaches of Nonscholastic and Scholastic Teams – Women's Basketball). The cabinet unanimously opposes this proposal as written. Specifically, it does not agree that parents of prospective student-athletes are coaching such teams to gain greater interaction with collegiate coaches. In fact, a parent taking on such coaching activities could actually be detrimental to the other prospects on such teams.
(65) Proposal No. 2004-137 (Recruiting – Contacts Subsequent to Commitment to Attend Institution – Women's Basketball). The cabinet unanimously supports the proposal and agrees with the sponsor's rationale.
(66) Proposal No. 2004-138 (Recruiting – Official Visits – Number of Official Visits – Women's Basketball). The cabinet opposes the proposal and noted that reducing the number of official visits may adversely affect lower profile Division I institutions and/or those student-athletes who need all five visits to make a decision regarding college enrollment. [For 20, Opposed 7]
(67) Proposal 2004-139 (Recruiting – Recruiting Materials – Media Guides – Women's Basketball). The cabinet unanimously supports this proposal at this time, although it indicated a preference for Proposal No. 2003-32. Proposal No. 2003-32, as revised by the cabinet in June, addresses the concerns raised in this proposal. However, should Proposal No. 2003-32 be defeated, the cabinet would support Proposal No. 2004-139.
(68) Proposal 2004-140 (Recruiting – Recruiting Materials – Presentation Materials – Women's Basketball). The cabinet unanimously opposes this proposal as it unnecessarily broadens the scope of the current legislation and increases recruiting costs for member institutions.
(69) Proposal No. 2004-141 (Recruiting – Telephone Calls – Women's Basketball). The cabinet unanimously supports the proposal and agrees with the sponsor's rationale.
(70) Proposal No. 2004-142 (Recruiting – Tryout Exceptions – Scholastic and Nonscholastic Events – Women's Basketball). The cabinet unanimously opposes this proposal, as it creates an unintended consequence for those institutions that have affiliated high schools that use the institution's facilities.
(71) Proposal No. 2004-144 (Recruiting – Definition of a Student-Athlete and Various Benefits – Women's Basketball). The cabinet unanimously opposes this proposal as written. For consistency purposes, the cabinet encourages the sponsor to modify this proposal so that it comports with Proposal No. 2004-110. The cabinet would then support this proposal if modified per its position statement for 2004-110. In the event the sponsor does not support the suggested modification, the cabinet shall sponsor an alternative proposal.
(72) Proposal No. 2004-146 (Recruiting – Evaluations During the Academic Year – Nonscholastic Events – Women's Basketball). The cabinet unanimously supports the proposal and agrees with the sponsor's rationale.
(73) Proposal No. 2004-147 (Amateurism –
Professional Draft – Basketball. The cabinet opposes this
proposal as it negatively impacts the well-being of basketball
student-athletes. The existing draft exception legislation allows
student-athletes to make more informed decisions about their potential
professional future.
b. Other Legislative Informational Items (See Attachment B for the full text of the revised/amendments to proposals.)
· Revision to Proposal No. 2003-24 (Financial Aid – Terms and Conditions – Period of the Award). The cabinet unanimously agreed to revise the proposal to include two additional exceptions to the proposed prohibition on term-by-term financial aid awards. The first exception permits an institution to award the balance of an athletics scholarship initially awarded to student-athlete who graduates midyear and leaves the institution to another student-athlete(s) for less than a full-academic year provided the recipient receiving the remaining aid has not previously received athletics aid from the certifying institution. The second exception specifies that one time during a student-athlete's enrollment at the institution, the institution may award that student-athlete athletics aid for less than a full-academic year provided the recipient has not previously received such aid from the certifying institution. Awards provided pursuant to the proposed exceptions are subject to all other regulations regarding the provision of athletics aid (e.g., subject to renewal notification requirements, within institutional team limits, etc.).
c. Nonlegislative.
(1) College and
Nontraditional Courses. The cabinet revised the NCAA Initial-Eligibility
Clearinghouse intercept process to permit the clearinghouse to use college
and/or nontraditional courses that do not appear on the high-school transcript,
provided the following: (a) the high school certifies in writing that the
course would have appeared on the transcript, but for the timing that the course
was completed and the production of the student's transcript; (b) the course
satisfies the definition of a core course; (c) the high school certifies in
writing or provides a policy indicating the use of college and/or
nontraditional courses is available for any student at the high school; (d)
inclusion of the course results in the student being certified a qualifier; and
(e) NCAA staff certifies that all other elements of the applicable legislation
are satisfied. Currently, a prospective
student-athlete may use college and nontraditional courses to satisfy
initial-eligibility requirements, provided the course appears on the
high-school transcript. However, sometimes because the course is
completed toward the end of the prospective student-athlete's senior year or
after the student's graduation, a high school may not able to place such
courses on the transcript. In such cases, a member institution must file
an initial-eligibility waiver on behalf of the prospective student-athlete in
order for the clearinghouse to use the course to certify initial-eligibility
status. Eliminating the need to file a waiver will reduce bureaucracy for
member institutions as well as the time devoted processing such waivers.
(2) Initial-Eligibility Waivers – Partial Approvals. The NCAA Division I Initial-Eligibility Issues Subcommittee asked the NCAA Division I Legislative Review/Interpretations Committee (LRIC) to issue an interpretation permitting a student-athlete who received a partial approval of an initial eligibility to receive the benefits of a partial qualifier as listed in Figure 14-7 of the 2004-05 NCAA Division I Manual. [Reference: Attachment C] The NCAA Division I Initial-Eligibility Waivers Committee currently has the authority to partially approve initial-eligibility waivers for student-athletes certified under the 14 core-course requirement. Such partial approvals may allow the student-athlete to practice and/or receive athletically related financial aid during his or her first year of collegiate enrollment. The cabinet agreed that a clarification regarding benefits for partially approved student-athletes is necessary due to the elimination of partial qualifier legislation in the 2005-06 academic year.
(3) Core-Curriculum Time Limitation and the Completion of Graduation Requirements. The Initial-Eligibility Issues Subcommittee asked the LRIC to issue an interpretation permitting a prospective student-athlete who receives an incomplete grade, completes make-up work and/or completes extra credit after the eighth semester to use such core courses to satisfy initial-eligibility requirements provided: (a) granting of the incomplete or extension, as well as the completion of the core course, meets the high-school's policies for all students; (b) the ability to make-up work and/or complete extra work after the grade and credit have been granted meets the high-school's policies for all students; (c) the completed core course and/or improved grade is placed on the high-school transcript for the prospective student-athlete's eighth semester; and (d) the prospective student-athlete completes the core course and/or additional work prior to initial full-time enrollment at a collegiate institution. Currently, a 2004 February official interpretation provides relief to a prospective student-athlete who receives an incomplete during his or her eighth semester of high-school enrollment, and allows such a student to complete course work after the eighth semester and use such work for initial-eligibility purposes. A prospective student-athlete who is permitted by his or her high school to complete missed assignments and/or make up work after the eighth semester should be treated in a manner consistent with the official interpretation. This revision would be sensitive to high-school policies that provide prospective students flexibility to complete their core-course work. Finally, enrolled student-athletes are often afforded this same flexibility at their respective collegiate institutions.
(4) Transfer Students and the New Progress-Towards-Degree Requirements. The NCAA Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet Subcommittee on Continuing Eligibility requested the LRIC archive a February 20, 2003, Item No. 3 official interpretation and revise a February 20, 2003, Item No. 4 official interpretation to specify that in order to be a immediately eligible at the certifying institutions, a transfer student-athlete must successfully complete the following progress-toward-degree requirements after attendance at a foreign institution, domestic four-year college or a two-year college for the specified time: (a) equivalent of one semester/one quarter – six semester or six quarter hours; (b) equivalent of one academic year (e.g., two semesters/ three quarters) – 24-semester or 36-quarter hours; (c) equivalent of three semesters/four quarters – 30-semester or 42-quarter hours; or (d) equivalent of four semesters/six quarters and thereafter – percentage of degree requirements. Further, it is not necessary to certify that a transfer student from a foreign institution has completed six credit hours in the previous term of full-time enrollment. For a transfer student-athlete from a domestic four-year college or a two-year college, an institution must certify that the student completed six credit hours the previous term of full-time enrollment, regardless of when the student enrolls in the Division I institution (e.g., fourth semester, eighth semester). The changes to the interpretations will continue to enforce the academic consultants' intent to hold transfer students to the credit-hour requirements, while alleviating some of the confusion regarding application of the new legislation and the previous interpretations.
(5) Student-Athlete Reinstatement Policies and Procedures. The cabinet approved the policies and procedures for the Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee. [Reference: Attachment D.] All changes were editorial in nature and reflect the current practices of the Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee.
(6) NCAA Division I Coaches Certification Test. The cabinet received a report from the NCAA Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet Subcommittees on Recruiting and Continuing Eligibility regarding the coaches certification test. The Subcommittee on Recruiting reviewed feedback and comments on the exam in addition to a document outlining staff enhancements. The cabinet agreed that there is no need to change the administration (e.g., annual on-line exam, open-book format, 80 minute time limit,) or topics covered on the exam (e.g., bylaws and inclusion of new legislation). However, it did agree to indicate questions addressing newly adopted legislation and to devote a set percentage of questions on the test to progress-toward-degree requirements. Further, the cabinet asked the staff to review test questions to ensure that they are straightforward and readable. It also directed staff to permit coaches to access missed questions and correct answers immediately after the test has been scored; however, the distribution of hardcopies of completed tests is still precluded.
(7) Professional Team Status of Domestic Teams. The cabinet reviewed a letter from Tom Yeager, chair of the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions, to the Management Council regarding the professional team status of domestic teams. The cabinet agreed to have the Subcommittee on Agents and Amateurism further examine the issue at its February 2005 meeting. More specifically, the Subcommittee on Agents and Amateurism will invite representatives from various coaches associations to discuss issues related to nonscholastic teams.
(8) Request from the Management Council Regarding Inflationary Adjustment to Bylaw 20.9.1.2-(b). In its July report, the Management Council requested that the NCAA Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet Subcommittee on Financial Aid explore the number of institutions that currently use Bylaw 20.9.1.2-(b) to satisfy the minimum financial aid requirements and determine whether inflationary adjustments applied an institutional basis should are necessary. The Subcommittee on Financial Aid discussed this request and developed a plan for gathering additional information will consider possible recommendations at a future meeting.
(9) Committee Appointments. The cabinet unanimously approved the following committee appointments:
· Paula Morrow of Iowa State University to the NCAA Division I Progress-Toward-Degree Waiver Committee.
· Mary Ann Tripodi of Long Beach State University to the Initial Eligibility Waivers Committee.
Cabinet Chair: Alan Hauser, Appalachian State University, Southern Conference
Diane Dickman, Membership Services
Kevin Lennon, Membership Services
[b1]JLC/DED: Didn't think we were still referring to a "student-athlete reinstatement staff" --- shouldn't it be membership services?
[b2]JLC/DED: We will only include this parenthetical if we know there are cabinet sponsored amendments to amendments at the time the report is due. Steve and Lynn are hoping that most of the sponsor's will accept the cabinet's suggested revisions thus eliminating the need to have an amenment to amendment.