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 Management Council as noncontroversial/emergency legislation.)
(1) NCAA Proposal No. 2005-157 – Recruiting Calendar – Quiet Period – Women’s Ice Hockey.
(a)
Recommendation. The NCAA Division I Academics/Eligibility/
Compliance Cabinet recommends that the Management Council support and forward
to the NCAA Division I Board of Directors for adoption Proposal No. 2005-157 as
noncontroversial legislation. The proposal would, in women’s ice
hockey, establish a quiet period beginning with the Monday prior to the
American Hockey Coaches Association convention through
(b) Rationale. Restricting recruiting activities during this time encourages attendance at the sport’s national convention. Similar restrictions currently exist in other sports. The American Women’s Hockey Coaches Association voted to establish this quiet period. This recommendation is requested as noncontroversial legislation inasmuch as broader consultation and debate are unlikely to improve the proposal in any substantial way, significant disagreement or alternative points of view will not be generated and there does not appear to be a significant impact on existing legislation or proposed legislation. Similar amendments to recruiting calendars have been adopted as noncontroversial legislation.
(c) Budget Impact. None.
2. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS.
a. Legislative – Comments on Proposals to be Initially Considered by the Management Council in January 2006.
(1) Proposal No. 2004-48 – Eligibility – One-Time Transfer Exception. The cabinet unanimously opposes Proposal No. 2004-48, which would permit four-year college transfers in all sports to use the one-time transfer exception. The cabinet believes that the proposal does not promote academic progress toward graduation, particularly for those sports that have a history of academic
underperformance. Instead, the cabinet supports other transfer proposals that are limited in scope, but provide relief in specified circumstances.
(2) Proposal No. 2005-24 – Amateurism – Promotional Activities – Use of Student-Athlete’s Name or Picture to Promote a Camp. The cabinet unanimously supports Proposal No. 2005-24 as written, which would specify that a violation of the bylaw restricting the use of a student-athlete’s name or picture to directly advertise or promote a camp does not affect the involved student-athlete’s eligibility. The cabinet agrees with the sponsor’s rationale that student-athletes have no culpability for these violations and no competitive advantage is gained. In addition, student-athletes historically have been reinstated without conditions for such violations.
(3) Proposal No. 2005-26 – Amateurism – Promotional Activities – Institutional, Charitable, Educational or Nonprofit Promotions. The cabinet opposes Proposal No. 2005-26, which would revise the restrictions related to the use of a student-athlete’s name, picture or appearance in institutional, charitable, educational or nonprofit promotional activities. The cabinet is concerned that, as written, the proposal may compromise the “principle” of amateurism and is not consistent with limitations on the use of the names or pictures of student-athletes in other bylaws (e.g., camp brochures). Further, allowing 25 percent of the promotion to include the presence of a commercial entity will be difficult to calculate consistently among institutions. [Vote count to oppose 21-6].
(4) Proposal No. 2005-27 – Recruiting – Official Visits – Complimentary Admissions. The cabinet unanimously supports Proposal No. 2005-27, which specifies that for violations involving the receipt of complimentary admissions during an official paid visit in which the value of the benefit is $100 or less, the eligibility of a prospective student-athlete shall not be affected conditioned on the individual repaying the value of the benefit to a charity of his or her choice. The cabinet agreed with the sponsor’s rationale. Specifically, the proposal provides uniformity with similar instances involving receipt of improper benefits and is consistent with deregulation efforts.
(5) Proposal No. 2005-28 – Administrative Regulations – Five-Year Waiver – Circumstances Beyond Control of the Student-Athlete. The cabinet unanimously supports Proposal No. 2005-28, which for purposes of applying extensions of the five-year rule, specifies that a circumstance considered beyond the control of the student-athlete includes a student-athlete being unable to participate in collegiate athletics due to a life threatening or incapacitating injury or illness suffered by a member of the student-athlete’s immediate family provided the injury or illness is clearly supported by contemporaneous medical documentation. The proposal supports student-athlete well-being and is a logical change to the application of the five-year rule waiver. Furthermore, this proposal is consistent with current administration of other eligibility-related waivers.
(6) Proposal No.
2005-37 – Amateurism – General Regulation – Validity of
Amateur Status – Prospective or Transfer Student-Athlete. The cabinet
unanimously opposes Proposal No. 2005-37 as written. This proposal would
require NCAA certification of the amateur status of any prospective
student-athlete (including two- and four-year transfers) initially enrolling at
an NCAA Division I institution. The cabinet is overwhelmingly supportive
of establishing an amateurism clearinghouse. However, due to concerns
related to the complexity of the endeavor, the large volume of student-athletes
seeking certification and the quickly approaching fall National Letter of
Intent signing period, the cabinet encourages the Management Council to modify
the effective date to
(7) Proposal No. 2005-54 – Eligibility – Graduate Student or Postbaccaulaureate Participation – Transfer Eligibility. The cabinet unanimously supports Proposal No. 2005-54, which would permit a student-athlete who is enrolled in a graduate or professional school other than the institution from which he or she previously received a baccalaureate degree to participate in intercollegiate athletics regardless of any previous transfer. In the spirit of student-athlete well-being, student-athletes that complete their degrees and have eligibility remaining should be able to transfer and enroll in the graduate program of their choice without NCAA transfer restrictions.
(8) Proposal No. 2005-81 – Eligibility – Transfers – Nonrecruited Student-Athlete. The cabinet supports Proposal No. 2005-81, which would permit a student-athlete to use the nonrecruited student exception to the transfer residency requirement, provided he or she has neither competed nor engaged in countable athletically related activities in intercollegiate athletics beyond a 14 consecutive-day period, which begins with the date on which the student-athlete first engages in countable activities. The 14 consecutive-day period allows for student-athletes to engage in a minimal amount of athletically related activities that does not include intercollegiate competition. A student-athlete who is not recruited and only engages in minimal athletically related activities should qualify for an exception to the transfer residency requirement. Further, institution commitment in such cases often is minimal and under such circumstances transfer restrictions should not apply. [For 26, Against 1].
(9) Proposal No. 2005-82 – Eligibility – Transfers – One-Time Transfer Exception – Student-Athlete Not Recruited by Original Four-Year Institution. The cabinet unanimously supports Proposal No. 2005-82, which would allow a football, basketball or men’s ice hockey student-athlete, who was not recruited by the original four-year institution and who has never received institutional athletically related financial aid, to be eligible for the one-time transfer exception. An institution’s commitment to a student-athlete who was not recruited and was not awarded athletics aid is minimal and, in the spirit of student-athlete well-being, should not restrict a student-athlete from eligibility for the one-time transfer exception.
(10) Proposal No. 2005-83 – Eligibility – Transfers – Return to Original Institution without Participation Exception. The cabinet unanimously supports Proposal No. 2005-83, which would permit a student-athlete to use the return to original institution exception to the transfer residency requirement, provided he or she neither competed nor engaged in countable athletically related activities in intercollegiate athletics at the previous institution beyond a 14 consecutive-day period, which begins with the date on which the student-athlete first engages in countable activities. The 14 consecutive-day period allows for student-athletes to engage in a minimal amount of athletically related activities that does not include intercollegiate competition. In the spirit of student-athlete well-being, student-athletes should not be penalized for a small amount of participation.
(11) Proposal No. 2005-84 – Eligibility – Transfers – Two-Year Nonparticipation Exception. The cabinet unanimously supports Proposal No. 2005-84, which would permit a student-athlete to use the two-year nonparticiapation exception to the transfer residency requirement, provided he or she neither competed nor engaged in countable athletically related activities in intercollegiate athletics beyond a 14 consecutive-day period, which begins with the date on which the student-athlete first engages in countable activities. In the spirit of student-athlete well-being, a student-athlete who only engages in minimal athletically related activities during a two-year period should qualify for an exception to the transfer residency requirement.
(12) Proposal No. 2005-92 – Recruiting – Contacts Subsequent to National Letter of Intent Signing – Men’s Basketball. The cabinet unanimously opposes Proposal No. 2005-92, which specifies that in men’s basketball, once a prospect has signed a National Letter of Intent (or written offer of financial aid or admission for those institutions not subscribing to the National Letter of Intent), an institution may contact a high school academic official on the prospect’s high school campus an unlimited number of times outside a contact period (except during a dead period) for the purpose of discussing matters specifically related to the prospect’s initial eligibility. The intent of the proposal may be accomplished in other ways. Coaching staff members may continue to communicate with high school academic officials via telephone and e-mail and, if necessary, institutional coaching staff members are permitted to travel to the locale of the prospect’s educational institution and meet with such individuals at a location other the educational institution.
(13) Proposal No. 2005-93 – Recruiting – Communication Restrictions at Nonscholastic Events During the April Contact Period – Men’s Basketball. The cabinet unanimously supports Proposal No. 2005-93, which, in men’s basketball, would prohibit communication with the prospect, the prospect’s relatives or legal guardians, the prospect’s coach or any other individual associated with the prospect, as a result of the prospect’s participation in basketball, directly or indirectly, during the April contact period when a prospect is participating in a nonscholastic event. Further, it would permit institutional staff members to telephone a prospect’s high school coaches while the prospect is participating in nonscholastic events during the April contact period. The cabinet agrees with the sponsor’s rationale. In particular, the proposal is consistent with restrictions applicable during the summer evaluation period and ensures that coaches attending such events are in attendance for the purpose of evaluating those prospects participating without attempting to make inappropriate contact.
(14) Proposal No. 2005-99 – Amateurism – Promotional Activities – Promotion by Third Party of Highlight Film, Videotape or Media Guides. The cabinet unanimously opposes Proposal No. 2005-99, which would allow institutions to designate a third party to sell photographs of student-athletes in a manner similar to the sale of highlight films and media guides. It is appropriate for the institution to maintain control over the sale of photographs of student-athletes.
(15) Proposal No. 2005-103 – Eligibility – Full-Time Enrollment – Exception – Special Academic Degree Program. The cabinet unanimously opposes Proposal No. 2005-103, which would permit a student-athlete to participate in practice and competition while enrolled in less than a minimum full-time program of studies, provided the student-athlete is required by his or her designated degree program to be enrolled in a part-time academic program consisting of both full-time employment and part-time coursework and the certifying institution determines the program to be equivalent to a full-time course load. Due to the small number of institutions with these types of academic programs and the recent transition of full-time enrollment waivers from the NCAA Division I Management Council Administrative Review Subcommittee to the NCAA Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet Subcommittee on Continuing Eligibility, it is appropriate to continue to review these circumstances through the waiver process.
(16) Proposal No. – 2005-104 – Eligibility – General Eligibility Requirements – Drug Testing Consent Form – 14-Day Grace Period. The cabinet unanimously supports Proposal No. 2005-104, which would specify that a student-athlete who is trying out for a team is not required to complete the NCAA drug testing consent form for 14 days from the first date the student-athlete engages in countable athletically related activities or before the student-athlete participates in a competition, whichever comes first. This proposal provides institutions with a means to avoid spending an excessive amount of time on the completion of paperwork for student-athletes who ultimately will not remain with an institution’s team. It also is consistent with the adoption of a similar timeframe for placing student-athletes on the squad list.
(17) Proposal No. 2005-105 – Eligibility – Hardship Waiver – Calculation – Cross Country. The cabinet unanimously opposes Proposal No. 2005-105, which would specify that for purposes of applying the hardship waiver, the NCAA regional cross country meet may be counted as one date of competition in determining the institution’s schedule or completed dates of competition, provided no qualifying standards exist for participation in the meet. The cabinet believes that the application of the hardship waiver should be consistent for all sports and saw no compelling reason to create an exception for cross country.
(18) Proposal No. 2005-106 – Eligibility – Intercollegiate Competition – Use of Equipment During Academic Year. The cabinet unanimously supports Proposal No. 2005-106, which would permit an enrolled student-athlete to use equipment that includes institutional identification, received from the institution, during the academic year without such use constituting intercollegiate competition. The proposal is consistent with the application of current legislation permitting the use of such institutional equipment during the summer. Student-athletes currently may use the same equipment during the year when participating in permissible outside competition if the institutional identification is covered. Whether the identification is covered should not be a factor in determining if a student-athlete has engaged in intercollegiate competition.
(19) Proposal No. 2005-107 – Eligibility – Progress-Toward-Degree Requirements – Fulfillment of Percentage-of-Degree Requirements. The cabinet unanimously opposes Proposal No. 2005-107, which would establish the minimum percentage-of-degree requirements of 30/45/60 for student-athletes enrolled in a six-year degree program that requires at least 200 semester hours or 300 quarter hours to earn a degree. While the cabinet supported the basic concept, no data was provided to support applying the indicated percentage of degree benchmarks uniformly to all six-year programs. Based on the minimal number of six-year programs in existence, it is more appropriate for such situations to be addressed through the waiver process.
(20) Proposal No. 2005-108 – Eligibility – Seasons of Competition – Divisions I-A and I-AA Football. The cabinet unanimously opposes Proposal No. 2005-108, which, in football, would permit a student-athlete to engage in five seasons of competition within five years of the student-athlete’s initial full-time collegiate enrollment. An issue of this magnitude requires extensive study and analysis before action can be taken. In addition, it was noted that the NCAA Presidential Task Force on the Future of Division I Intercollegiate Athletics is studying this issue.
(21) Proposal No. 2005-109
– Eligibility – Transfer – One-Time Transfer Exception
– Division I-AA Football. The cabinet opposes Proposal No.
2005-109, which would specify that a football student-athlete who transfers
from a Division I-A institution to a Division I-AA institution may qualify for
the one-time transfer exception, provided the student-athlete has two or more
seasons of competition remaining. The cabinet believes there is no compelling
reason to create an additional transfer restriction in Division I-AA
football. [Vote count to oppose
(22) Proposal No. 2005-110 – Eligibility – Transfer – One-Time Transfer Exception – Division III and Graduate Students. The cabinet unanimously opposes Proposal No. 2005-110, which would limit the one-time transfer exception to a student-athlete who transfers from an NCAA Division III institution to a Division I institution or a graduate student from any four-year collegiate institution who is enrolled in a graduate or professional school of an institution other than the institution from which he or she previously received a baccalaureate degree. There is no compelling reason to create an additional restriction that would impact student-athletes who currently qualify for the one-time transfer exception. Furthermore, the cabinet supports Proposal No. 2005-54, which eliminates the requirement that a graduate transfer student-athlete must meet the provisions of the one-time transfer exception in order to be eligible.
(23) Proposal No 2005-111 –
Eligibility – Transfer Regulations – Four-
(24) Proposal No. 2005-112 – Financial Aid –
Maximum Limitations – Field Hockey. The cabinet unanimously opposes Proposal
No. 2005-112 as written, which would eliminate the restriction that requires a
counter who practices or competes in field hockey and one or more other sports
(other than basketball or women’s volleyball) to be counted in field
hockey. The cabinet encourages the sponsors to modify the effective date
of Proposal No. 2005-112 from immediate to
(25) Proposal No. 2005-113 – Financial Aid – Aid from Outside Sources – Athletics Aid Not a Major Criterion – Rowing. The cabinet unanimously opposes Proposal No. 2005-113, which would specify that a rowing student-athlete may receive aid for which athletics participation is not a major criterion and restricts the recipient’s attendance to a specific institution, provided the student-athlete is not recruited, has not received athletics aid and has not previously participated in rowing. It is not appropriate to establish an exception for a single sport that is contrary to the intent of the outside financial aid legislation. The prohibition regarding the receipt of outside aid that is restricted to a single institution should continue to apply to all sports regardless of prior participation or recruited status.
(26) Proposal No. 2005-114 – Financial Aid –
Counters – Football or Basketball, Varsity Competition. The cabinet
opposes Proposal No. 2005-114, which, in football and basketball, would
specify that a student-athlete who was recruited by the awarding institution
and who receives institutional financial aid granted without regard in any
degree to athletics ability does not have to be counted in the
institution’s maximum awards limitations until the student-athlete engages
in varsity intercollegiate competition. This proposal is in
opposition to Proposal No. 2002-82, which was developed and sponsored by the
cabinet. The cabinet continues to support a financial aid model that is
accountable and responsive to student-athletes by opting for the tangible
benefits of student-athletes’ well-being over the speculation of
competitive equity and stockpiling. [Vote count to oppose
(27) Proposal No. 2005-115 – Financial Aid – Maximum Equivalency Limits – Women’s Swimming and Diving. The cabinet unanimously opposes Proposal No. 2005-115, which, in women’s swimming and diving, would increase the maximum equivalency limit from 14 to 16. Although the cabinet generally supports expanding opportunities for women’s sports, the current override status of Proposal No. 2004-21 must be considered. The same concerns related to budgetary limitations will apply in the case of swimming and diving. In addition, the rationale related to how diving student-athletes count toward championship participation is better addressed as a championships issue. Any increase to maximum grant-in-aid limitations should be supported by data and other empirical evidence. Consideration should be given to a broader dialog on the interplay between championships issues and other factors (e.g., average squad size, the number of student-athletes required for practice and competition, injury rates) as they relate to the maximum grant-in-aid limitations.
(28) Proposal No. 2005-116 – Financial Aid – Maximum Institutional Grant-In-Aid Limitations By Sport – Equivalency Computations – Countable Financial Aid – Need-Based Institutional Aid. The cabinet unanimously opposes Proposal No. 2005-116, which would specify that all institutional need-based financial aid must count toward team financial aid limitations. This proposal is in opposition to Proposal No. 2003-23-A, which was developed and sponsored by the cabinet. The cabinet continues to support a financial aid model that is accountable and responsive to student-athletes by opting for the tangible benefits of student-athletes’ well-being over the speculation of competitive equity and stockpiling.
(29) Proposal No. 2005-117 – Financial Aid – Summer Financial Aid – Prior to Initial Full-Time Enrollment at the Certifying Institution – Athletics Aid. The cabinet unanimously opposes Proposal No. 2005-117, which would permit an institution that has been granted a waiver of the full-time program requirement due to its nontraditional academic calendar to award summer financial aid to an incoming student-athlete who is enrolled in a minimum number of credit hours that is the equivalent of one-half of a regular full-time course load at the institution. This issue is best addressed through a waiver process. It is unclear how many institutions are affected by the circumstances outlined in the proposal.
(30) Proposal No. 2005-118 – Personnel – Graduate Assistant Coach – Rowing. The cabinet unanimously supports Proposal No. 2005-118, which, in women’s rowing, would permit an institution to employ a graduate assistant coach. The cabinet agrees with the sponsor’s rationale, specifically noting the large squad sizes in women’s rowing and the need to ensure the safety and well-being of student-athletes. Further, the addition of a graduate assistant coach provides additional professional development opportunities, which will contribute to the growth of the sport.
(31) Proposal No. 2005-119 – Personnel – Limitations on Number of Coaches – Men’s Tennis. The cabinet unanimously opposes Proposal No. 2005-119, which, in men’s tennis, would increase from one to two the number of coaches that may recruit off campus at any one time. The cabinet expressed concerns regarding the administration of an institution’s men’s tennis program when both men’s coaches are away from campus recruiting. A broader review of the legislation that specifies the number of coaches who may recruit off campus at any one time would be appropriate for all sports.
(32) Proposal No. 2005-120 – Personnel – Limitations on Number of Off-Campus Recruiters – Water Polo. The cabinet unanimously opposes Proposal No. 2005-120, which, in water polo, would increase the number of head and assistant coaches from two to three and would specify that three coaches may recruit off campus at any one time. The cabinet expressed concerns regarding the administration of an institution’s water polo program when all coaches are away from campus recruiting. A broader review of the legislation that specifies the number of coaches who may recruit off campus at any one time would be appropriate for all sports.
(33) Proposal No. 2005-121 – Personnel – Off-Campus Recruiting – Golf. The cabinet unanimously opposes Proposal No. 2005-121, which, in golf, increases from one to two the number of coaches who may recruit off campus at any one time. The cabinet expressed concerns regarding the administration of an institution’s golf program when both coaches are away from campus recruiting. While the cabinet agreed with the sponsor’s rationale on several points, it felt it is necessary to conduct a broader review of the legislation specifying the number of coaches who may recruit off campus at any one time in all sports.
(34) Proposal No. 2005-127 – Playing and Practice Seasons – Men’s Rowing. The cabinet unanimously opposes Proposal No. 2005-127, which would establish men’s rowing as an NCAA sponsored sport with an NCAA championship, a limit of five equivalencies and coaching limitations of three total coaches, two who can recruit off campus. The cabinet expressed concerns related to the establishment of a championship for men’s rowing before the general structure of the sport is established as an NCAA sponsored sport. Generally, when a sport is added as a sponsored sport by the NCAA, it is accomplished through a broad-based effort involving all three divisions and the sport’s national governing body. In order to establish a national collegiate championship in any sport, all divisions must be involved in the process.
(35) Proposal No. 2005-145 – Recruiting – Recruiting Person Days – Women’s Basketball – 130 Days. The cabinet unanimously opposes Proposal No. 2005-145, which, in women’s basketball, would increase the number of recruiting-person days from 85 to 130. The cabinet noted that the Women’s Basketball Coaches Association opposes this proposal. The impact of legislation establishing 85 recruiting-person days, which was adopted in April 2005, is yet to be seen and an increase will result in increased demands and pressure on women’s basketball coaches.
(36) Proposal No. 2005-146 – Recruiting – Contact Restrictions at Practice or Competition Site – Women’s Field Hockey Exception. The cabinet unanimously opposes Proposal No. 2005-146, which would permit contact with a prospective student-athlete in field hockey on the day prior to the United States Field Hockey Association’s annual Field Hockey Festival. The proposal may increase the intrusion factor for prospects participating in the event. Further, permitting such contacts would increase pressure on field hockey coaches to attend the event in situations where significant travel costs are involved due to the location of such events.
(37) Proposal No. 2005-147 – Recruiting –
Contacts – April Contact Period – Gymnastics. The cabinet
opposes Proposal No. 2005-147, which, in gymnastics, would eliminate the one
permissible contact during April of the prospect’s junior year. The
cabinet has sponsored Proposal No. 2005-75, which, in all sports other than
football and basketball, would eliminate the junior year contact and telephone
call. The change should be made for all sports impacted by the rule and
not on a sport-by-sport basis. [Vote count to oppose
(38) Proposal No. 2005-148 – Recruiting –
Contacts – April Contact Period – Women’s Ice Hockey.
The cabinet opposes Proposal No. 2005-148, which, in women’s ice hockey,
would eliminate the one permissible contact during April of the
prospect’s junior year. The cabinet has sponsored Proposal No.
2005-75, which, in all sports other than football and basketball, would
eliminate the junior year contact and telephone call. The change should
be made for all sports impacted by the rule and not on a sport-by-sport
basis. [Vote count to oppose
(39) Proposal No. 2005-149 – Recruiting – Contacts Subsequent to Signing of National Letter of Intent or Other Commitment – Divisions I-A and I-AA Football. The cabinet unanimously opposes Proposal No. 2005-149, which, in football, would permit coaching staff members to contact a prospect on one occasion at the prospect’s high school during the month of May to discuss academic matters, provided the prospect has signed a National Letter of Intent, or for an institution that does not subscribe to the National Letter of Intent, the institution’s written offer of admission and/or financial aid. The intent of the proposal may be accomplished in other ways (e.g. in-home visit). Coaching staff members may continue to communicate with such prospects via telephone and e-mail and, if necessary, institutional coaching staff members are permitted to travel to the locale of the prospect’s educational institution and meet with such prospects at a location other than the educational institution. Establishing a specialized contact may lead to unintentional violations involving other prospects at the educational institution.
(40) Proposal No. 2005-150 – Recruiting – Limitation on Number of Evaluations – Attendance at Scholastic and Nonscholastic Events – Divisions I-A and I-AA Football. The cabinet unanimously opposes Proposal No. 2005-150, which would specify that institutional staff members are restricted to evaluating regularly scheduled high school, prep school and two-year college contests and practices that are conducted under the supervision of the high school or two-year college coach and would specify that staff members are not permitted to attend nonscholastic evaluation events (e.g., group tryout, combines). The cabinet supports the concept of this proposal, but prefers a modified version of Proposal No. 2005-151 as an alternative. Proposal No. 2005-150 would continue to permit high school coaches to conduct group tryouts and combines on a member institution’s campus and does not adequately address the competitive equity concerns raised by football coaches.
(41) Proposal No. 2005-151 – Recruiting – Limitations of Number of Evaluations – Spring Evaluation Period – Divisions I-A and I-AA Football. The cabinet unanimously opposes Proposal No. 2005-151 as written, which, in football, would limit evaluations to specific events during the spring evaluation period. The cabinet encourages the sponsors to modify the proposal to include two-year college prospective student-athletes and extend the scope of the proposal to encompass events that occur during any contact or evaluation period throughout the calendar year. The cabinet would support this proposal if modified. In the event the sponsor does not support the suggested modification, the cabinet shall sponsor an alternative proposal. The cabinet noted the undue pressure on both coaches and prospects to attend and participate in tryout camps and combine activities. Hosting such activities on a member institution’s campus is inconsistent with tryout legislation and provides a significant recruiting advantage for the host institutions.
(42) Proposal No. 2005-152 – Recruiting –
Telephone Calls to Prospects – Time Periods for Telephone Calls –
Exception – Compliance Coordinator. The cabinet opposes
Proposal No. 2005-152, which would permit compliance coordinators to make
telephone calls to or receive telephone calls from prospective student-athletes
with no limit to the timing or number of calls made, provided the calls relate
only to compliance issues. Ample opportunities currently exist to address
concerns regarding compliance issues and prospects. Institutions may make
unlimited telephone calls to prospects after a prospect signs a National Letter
of Intent and prospects may make unlimited collect and toll-free telephone
calls to institutions after specified dates. Finally, allowing unlimited
calls prior to a prospect’s signing of the National Letter of Intent
could invite potential abuse of the process. [Vote count to oppose
(43) Proposal No. 2005-153 – Recruiting –
Telephone Calls to Prospects – Women’s Ice Hockey. The
cabinet opposes Proposal No. 2005-153, which, in women’s ice hockey,
would eliminate the one permissible telephone call to prospects in March of the
junior year in high school. The cabinet previously sponsored Proposal No.
2005-75, which, in all sports other than football and basketball, would
eliminate the junior year contact and telephone call. The change should
be made for all sports impacted by the rule and not on a sport-by-sport
basis. [Vote count to oppose
(44) Proposal No. 2005-154 – Recruiting –
Transportation – Transportation for Official Paid Visit –
International Prospects – Temporary Residence. The cabinet
unanimously opposes Proposal No. 2005-154 as written, which would permit an
institution to pay an international prospect’s actual round-trip
transportation costs for his or her official visit to its campus from a
temporary residence in the
(45) Proposal No. 2005-155 – Recruiting – Tryouts – Tryout Camps – Host Institution. The cabinet unanimously opposes Proposal No. 2005-155 as written, which, in all sports, would preclude an institution from hosting or sponsoring a tryout camp, clinic, group workout or combine event at any location. The cabinet encourages the sponsor to modify the proposal to permit coaches to attend such off-campus events only if the event is open for all coaches who wish to attend. The cabinet would support this proposal if modified. In the event the sponsor does not support the suggested modification, the cabinet shall sponsor an alternative proposal. The cabinet also supports Proposal No. 2005-151, which would, in football, preclude an institution from hosting or sponsoring a tryout camp, clinic, group workout or combine. The same competitive equity concerns exist in all sports, therefore, hosting such events should be precluded in all sports; however, the cabinet believes coaches in sports other than football should be permitted to attend an event if it meets the provisions of the current rule (e.g., not restricted to specific institutions or conferences).
(46) Proposal No. 2005-156 – Recruiting – Recruiting Calendar – Dead Period – Women’s Field Hockey. The cabinet unanimously opposes Proposal No. 2005-156, which, in women’s field hockey, would eliminate the dead period surrounding the NCAA Division I Field Hockey Championship. Eliminating the dead period surrounding the championship will put undue pressure on coaches, who would otherwise attend the championship, to be engaged in recruiting activities. Further, institutions participating in the championship may be placed at a recruiting disadvantage.
(47) Proposal No. 2005-158 – Recruiting – Offers and Inducements – Academic Support/Use of Training Room Facilities. The cabinet unanimously supports Proposal No. 2005-158, which, in all sports, would permit an institution that does not subscribe to the National Letter of Intent to provide academic support services and use of its training-room facilities to a prospective student-athlete who has signed the institution’s written offer of admission and/or financial aid and is enrolled in the institution’s summer term prior to the student-athlete’s initial, full-time collegiate enrollment. The cabinet agrees with the sponsor’s rationale. The provision of such services is supportive of the well-being of prospects enrolled in the institution’s summer term and allows such prospects to receive the same benefits as those who enroll at institutions that subscribe to the National Letter of Intent program.
(48) Proposal No. 2005-159 – Recruiting – Official Visit – Meals on Official Visit – Prospect’s Children. The cabinet unanimously supports Proposal No. 2005-159, which would permit an institution to provide meals for a prospective student-athlete’s children during the prospect’s official visit. The cabinet agrees with the sponsor’s rationale. The provision of such expenses is logical and provides no significant recruiting advantage. In addition, permitting such expenses reduces the monitoring burden placed on the institution during official visits in which the prospect’s children are present.
(49) Proposal No. 2005-160 – Recruiting –
Official Visit – Entertainment/Tickets on Official Visit – Student
Host – Entertainment Allowance. The cabinet opposes Proposal
No. 2005-160, which would specify that costs incurred by an athletics department
staff member who accompanies a prospect during entertainment on an official
visit shall not be included in the official cost entertainment allowance.
Institutions with large recruiting budgets will gain a recruiting advantage by
encouraging staff members to be present during such activities. The
original intent of the entertainment allowance was to permit the student host
to entertain the prospect outside of coordinated official visit activities.
All funds used for this purpose should be deducted from the
allowance. [Vote count to oppose
(50) Proposal No. 2005-161 – Recruiting – Prospective Student-Athlete – Application – Safety Exception. The cabinet unanimously opposes Proposal No. 2005-161, which would permit a prospective student-athlete who is receiving institutional athletics financial aid to attend summer school prior to initial full-time enrollment to engage in activities permitted under the safety exception in the applicable sports. Allowing prospects to engage in athletically related activities permitted under the safety exception is contrary to the original academic intent to provide financial aid the summer prior to initial full-time collegiate enrollment. In addition, prospects may engage in voluntary activities outside of the presence of institutional coaching staff members.
(51) Proposal No. 2005-162 – Recruiting –
Prospective Student-Athlete – Attendance at
(52) Proposal No. 2005-163 – Recruiting – Recruiting Person Days – Women’s Basketball – 105 Days. The cabinet unanimously opposes Proposal No. 2005-163, which, in women’s basketball, would increase the number of recruiting person days from 85 to 105. The cabinet noted that the Women’s Basketball Coaches Association opposes this proposal. The impact of legislation establishing 85 recruiting-person days, which was adopted in April 2005, is yet to be seen and an increase will result in increased demands and pressure on women’s basketball coaches.
(53) Proposal No. 2005-164 – Recruiting –
Sports Camps and Clinics ---Employment of Prospects. The cabinet
opposes Proposal No. 2005-164, which, in sports other than football, would
permit an institution to employ a prospect in its summer camp or clinic
provided the prospect has signed a National Letter of Intent or the
institution’s written offer of admission and/or financial aid, has
graduated from high school and is enrolled in the institution’s summer
term prior to initial full-time enrollment. The cabinet expressed concern
that permitting these individuals to be employed in institutional sports camps
and clinics could interfere with the pursuit of academic goals during an important
transition period. [Vote count to oppose
b. Other Legislative Informational Items. (See Attachment B for the full text of the revised proposals.)
(1) Modification of Proposal No. 2005-25 – Amateurism – Institutional Charitable, Educational or Nonprofit Promotions – Student-Athlete Involvement. The cabinet unanimously agreed to modify the proposal to specify that items featuring an individual student-athlete’s name, picture or likeness (e.g., name on a jersey, bobblehead), other than informational items, may not be sold. However, items containing the name, picture or likeness of an individual student-athlete that are informational in nature (e.g., media guide, schedule cards, institutional publications) or items with names or pictures of two or more student-athletes may be sold only at the member institution at which the student-athlete is enrolled, institutionally controlled (owned and operated) outlets or outlets controlled by a charitable or educational organization (e.g., location of the charitable or educational organization, site of charitable event during the event). The proposal, as originally written, would have prohibited the sale of items that were not intended to be precluded. It was necessary to add a distinction that allows the sale of informational items (e.g., media guides, schedule cards, institutional publications) as well as any item that includes the name, picture or likeness of two or more student-athletes. Informational items are defined as those in which the primary purpose of the item is to inform and not for the institution to profit from the sale of the item.
(2) Modification of Proposal No. 2005-29 – Committees – NCAA Division I Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee – Composition – Student-Athlete Representative. The cabinet unanimously agreed to modify the proposal to specify that the proposal have an immediate effective date. The NCAA Division I Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee holds meetings in December and June. With an immediate effective date, the committee will be able to have a student-athlete representative attend its June meeting.
(3) Modification of Proposal No. 2005-30 – Initial Eligibility – State Administered ACT. The cabinet unanimously agreed to modify the proposal to specify that a state administered ACT may also be used satisfy Bylaw 13 official visit academic requirements. Official visit academic requirements specified in Bylaw 13 require an institution to obtain a prospect’s ACT or SAT test score prior to the provision of an official visit. Currently, such scores must be taken on a national testing date and state administered test scores may not be used to satisfy initial-eligibility requirements and therefore, may not satisfy the official visit test-score requirement. In the event state administered test scores may be used to satisfy initial-eligibility test-score requirements, it is appropriate that such scores may also be used to satisfy the test score requirement in order to provide a prospect an official visit.
(4) Modification of Proposal No. 2005-31 – Recruiting – Initial Eligibility Standards – Notification to Prospective Student-Athletes. The cabinet unanimously agreed to modify the proposal to specify that a violation of the bylaw be considered de minimis and, thus, an institutional violation; however, the eligibility of prospective student-athletes would not be affected.
(5) Modification of NCAA Proposal No. 2005-41 – Conditions and Obligations of Membership – Student-Athlete Statement – Required Signatures. The cabinet unanimously agreed to modify the proposal to require the director of athletics and head coach in the sport to sign the squad-list form. Proposal No. 2005-41 would eliminate the requirement that the director of athletics and head coach in the sport in which the student-athlete participates sign each student-athlete statement as required by the prescribed form. The intent of the proposal is to eliminate the “Affirmation of Eligibility Form,” which is used to fulfill the legislated requirement that the coach and director of athletics sign each student-athlete statement. This modification should address concerns related to maintaining the involvement of coaches and director of athletics in the eligibility certification process.
(6) Modification of Proposal No. 2005-46 – Financial Aid – Elements of Financial Aid – Summer Financial Aid and Enrolled Student-Athletes. The cabinet agreed to modify the proposal to specify that a student-athlete shall not receive athletically related financial aid to attend the certifying institution’s summer term or summer school unless the student-athlete received athletically related aid from the certifying institution during the student-athlete’s previous academic year at that institution. The cabinet noted feedback related to the proposal and the possible application that would allow student-athletes to receive full athletically related financial aid awards in the summer and never count against the maximum team financial aid limitations. Such an application would be contrary to the intent of the maximum team limitations. However, it was noted that the Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund may be used for summer school attendance regardless of receipt of athletically related financial aid during the academic year. In light of this use of the Student-Athlete Opportunity Fund, the elimination of the proportionality requirement remains appropriate. [For 25, Against 2, Abstain 0]
(7) Modification to Proposal No. 2005-75 – Recruiting – Contacts and Evaluations – Sports Other than Basketball and Football. The cabinet unanimously agreed to modify the proposal to specify that the proposal have an immediate effective date. The proposal should be effective as soon as possible in order to impact the current academic year.
(8) Withdrawal of Proposal No. 2005-43 – Amateurism – Involvement With Professional Teams – Draft List – Men’s Ice Hockey Exception. The cabinet unanimously agreed to withdraw the proposal. The National Hockey League and its players’ association reached an agreement in principle on the terms of a new Collegiate Bargaining Agreement, which removed the process by which a player could opt in to the draft. Thus, the legislation is no longer necessary.
(9) Withdrawal of Proposal No. 2005-66 – Amateurism – Definitions and Applications – Student-Athlete. The cabinet unanimously agreed to withdraw the proposal. On further review of the concept, the cabinet noted that the proposal could have unintended results. For example, individuals that should be considered a student-athlete (e.g., recruited nonqualifier) might not invoke the definition of a student-athlete under the proposal. The current rule is appropriate and identifies those individuals that should be classified as “student-athletes.”
c. Nonlegislative.
(1) Eligibility for
Athletically Related Aid for Division I Transfers. At the request of
the NCAA Division I Committee on Academic Performance, the cabinet reviewed a
May 18, 2005, letter to Kevin Lennon, vice president for membership services
from the National Association of Basketball Coaches and specifically, the
concept of requiring a transfer student-athlete to be eligible at the
institution he is leaving to be eligible to receive athletically related aid at
the institution to which he is transferring. The cabinet philosophically
supports the concept; however, there were initial questions regarding the
concept’s application to student-athletes who are “
(2) Initial-Eligibility Waivers – Test-Score Time Limitation Waivers for Foreign Student-Athletes. The cabinet revised initial-eligibility waiver policies and procedures to allow the NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse to certify the test-score time limitation waivers for international student-athletes, effective immediately. Prior to this change, the initial-eligibility waiver process included a provision whereby a foreign student-athlete who did not have the opportunity to take an ACT or SAT test prior to initial full-time collegiate enrollment could become a qualifier through the waiver process. The student-athlete still must achieve a qualifying test score at his or her first opportunity, and must meet all other initial-eligibility requirements. By permitting the clearinghouse to approve such cases, the student-athlete will receive a timelier response, and the institution will not have to complete and file as much paperwork, thereby streamlining the eligibility process for such student-athletes. The clearinghouse will work with NCAA staff regarding all such cases, to make sure proper procedures are being followed.
(3) Use
of Remedial Courses for Four-Year Transfers. The Subcommittee
on Continuing Eligibility requested the NCAA Division I Legislative Review/
Interpretations Committee review and recommend that the Management Council
modify an
(4) Evaluation of Prospective Student-Athletes Prior to the Ninth Grade. The NCAA Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet Subcommittee on Recruiting requested that the Legislative Review/Interpretations Committee review and recommend that the Management Council modify a July 18, 2001, official interpretation, Item No. 1, to specify that a coaching staff member may evaluate prospective student-athletes who have not yet entered the ninth grade only during permissible contact and evaluation periods.
(5) Equivalency Computations and the Receipt of Athletics Aid for Less than a Full Academic Year. The NCAA Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet Subcommittee on Financial Aid requested that the Legislative Review/Interpretations Committee review two staff interpretations related to equivalency computations when student-athletes receive athletics aid for less than the full academic year. Specifically, the interpretations relate to situations in which student-athletes are no longer members of a team or join a team midyear. The subcommittee recommends that the Legislative Review and Interpretation Committee reverse the August 2, 1991 staff interpretation (reference: 8/2/91, item a) to indicate that when a student-athlete is no longer a member of the team and does not receive athletics aid for subsequent terms in the academic year, other institutional aid received during the subsequent terms is not countable toward the institution’s team limit. The subcommittee also recommends that the Legislative Review and Interpretation Committee review and reverse the September 7, 1988 staff interpretation (reference: 9/7/88, item f) to indicate that athletics aid may be initially provided to a student-athlete during the academic year regardless of whether the student is receiving other institutional aid.
(6) NCAA Division I Coaches Certification Exam. The cabinet received a report from the Subcommittee on Recruiting regarding the coaches certification exam. The subcommittee reviewed comments from the Big Ten Conference regarding the exam and agreed with its recommendations. The subcommittee noted that the exam will undergo a formal review by the Collegiate Commissioners Association Compliance Administrators for content and format and is supportive of that group’s ability to include other pertinent constituents (e.g., faculty athletics representatives) in the annual review.
(7) Bylaw 13.1.4.1 – Waiver of Contact Period. The cabinet received a report from the Subcommittee on Recruiting regarding Bylaw 13.1.4.1, which permits the Management Council to approve waivers of the specified contact periods in football and basketball for those institutions with admissions deadlines subsequent to legislated recruiting time periods. The subcommittee requested formal comment from the Ivy Group and the Patriot League regarding the bylaw. Specifically, the subcommittee requested information as to the impact current recruiting calendars have on institutions with admissions deadlines subsequent to legislated contact periods.
(8) Bylaw 13.4.1 – Recruiting Materials – Institutional Note Cards. The cabinet received a report from the Subcommittee on Recruiting regarding the use of institutional note cards. The subcommittee requested formal comment from the Collegiate Commissioners Association Compliance Administrators regarding institutional note cards and postcards. The subcommittee is considering recommending legislation to eliminate the provision that permits institutions to send such materials to prospective student-athletes due to the interpretive complications related to defining such items and that communication may be accomplished through the use of general correspondence.
(9) Bylaw 13.12.1.1 – Definition – Sports Camps and Clinics. The cabinet received a report from the Subcommittee on Recruiting regarding the practice of conducting institutional camps and clinics at locations other than the institution’s campus. Specifically, many permissible institutional camps are relocated from the institution’s campus to another locale and some concern was expressed as to the intentions of the institution in the decision to conduct an institutional camp at an alternate location. The subcommittee requested that each of the coaches associations provide formal feedback regarding the practice of and reasons for conducting institutional camps and clinics at locations other than the institution’s campus.
(10) Proposal Nos. 2002-82 (Financial Aid – Counters – Football or Basketball, Varsity Competition) and 2003-23-A (Financial Aid – Countable Financial Aid – Team Limits). The cabinet received a report from the Subcommittee on Financial Aid regarding Proposal Nos. 2002-82 and 2003-23-A. The subcommittee discussed the status of the proposals and the fact that the Board of Directors has deferred, at the request of the Management Council, consideration of them until its October meeting. The subcommittee continues to support the proposals as drafted. However, in the alternative, the subcommittee would also support option two of the recommendations presented to the Management Council in the document developed by the staff to assist in its review and formulation of a recommendation to the Board of Directors. Option two removes the need-based aid provision from Proposal No. 2003-23-A.
(11) Review of Meal Legislation in Bylaws 15 and 16. The cabinet received a report from the Subcommittee on Financial Aid regarding its review of legislation related to meals for student-athletes in Bylaws 15 and 16. The subcommittee’s review focused on meals that may be provided to student-athletes as incidental to participation. The subcommittee requested feedback from the Collegiate Commissioners Association of Compliance Administrators regarding circumstances in which it would be appropriate to provide meals as incidental to participation, rather than being restricted under current legislation.
(12) Implications of Hurricane Katrina. The cabinet received reports from the NCAA staff, the Subcommittee on Financial Aid and the NCAA Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet Subcommittee on Initial-Eligibility Issues regarding the current and possible future implications related to Hurricane Katrina. The Subcommittee on Initial-Eligibility Issues recommended contacting various entities (e.g., National Association of Secondary School Principals, state educational agencies, National Federation of State High School Associations) to gather information to determine how these entities will proceed regarding high school graduation requirements and the retrieval of academic data that has been lost or destroyed.
(13) Review of Legislative Concepts from the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics and Faculty Athletics Representatives of the Cabinet. The cabinet received a report from the NCAA Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet Ad Hoc Governance Group. The ad hoc group met with the leadership of the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics and faculty athletics representatives (FAR) of the cabinet to review legislative concepts related to the role and composition of campus athletics boards, faculty governance bodies, collection of academic data and financial aid renewals. Group members noted their initial support for a requirement that each Division I institution have a campus athletics board and that the institution’s faculty athletics representative hold a position on the campus athletics board. Further, a faculty member must chair the campus athletics board and “substantial faculty involvement” should be demonstrated. The group also indicated initial support for concepts related to faculty governance bodies, while noting that “consultation” regarding appointment of the faculty athletics representative could happen through contact with a faculty governance body’s officers. In addition, the group agreed that collection of data on student-athlete course enrollment and grades by course section might be addressed through the athletics certification self-study process. To this end, the group plans to review outcomes from the September meeting of the NCAA Division I Committee on Athletics Certification, as the Committee on Athletics Certification plans to discuss academic integrity requirements at that time and may elect to collect such information through the athletics certification process. Finally, the group began review of the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics’ concept regarding financial aid renewals and noted that, under some circumstances, a campus disciplinary officer might be the appropriate final authority for renewing or not renewing an institutional financial aid award based in any degree on athletics ability. The group will continue to review these concepts during the February cabinet meeting to determine whether or not they wish to recommend full cabinet support.
(14) Committee Appointments. The cabinet unanimously approved the following committee appointments:
(a)
Shondell Reed of
(b) Quentin Ball of St. Peter’s College to the Initial-Eligibility Waivers Committee.
(c)
Rhonda Hatcher of
(d) James Frey of Educational Credential Evaluators, Inc. to the Foreign Student Records Committee. [Note: This is a common committee and, as a result, the appointment will be effective on approval by the NCAA Division II governance structure.]
Cabinet Chair: Jacqueline Blackett, Columbia University-Barnard College, Ivy Group
Lynn Holzman, Membership Services
Kevin Lennon, Membership Services