A G E N D A

Report of the NCAA Division I Board of Directors meeting.

August 9, 2007

1. Minutes of the April 26 Board of Directors meeting. [Supplement No. 1]

BD ACTION: Approved the minutes as distributed. (Unanimous Voice Vote.)

2. Report of April 26 meeting of the NCAA Executive Committee. [Supplement No. 2]

BD ACTIONS:

a. Received a brief update on actions from the April 26, 2007, Executive Committee meeting along with a preview of that group’s August 9, 2007, meeting. As part of the update, learned that the Executive Committee Working Group on Membership Issues, which has been examining membership growth in Division III and reclassification trends from Division II to Division I, supported the idea of a membership moratorium in Division I given the interrelation of membership issues across the Association.

b. Heard from the chair of the Management Council’s Membership Subcommittee who explained:

· That in 2000 when the membership approved a two-year moratorium to allow each division an opportunity to address issues related to membership growth, Division I developed a more detailed educational assessment program and standards to more clearly distinguish football playing institutions among subdivisions.

· As a result of that earlier work, the transition process has improved but the migration to Division I has not slowed down, which has and can result in changes to the format and conduct of NCAA championships.

· It now appears both prudent and reasonable to take time to assess and study the impact of this membership migration and develop reasonable philosophical expectations and legislative requirements that should be adhered to by all institutions desiring to transition to or remain in Division I.

c. Discussed the fact that it appears four years is a reasonable time for a moratorium in light of the examination of the Executive Committee working group and the fact Division I is undertaking potential changes in its governance structure, which will likely take some time to establish a framework to address membership issues

d. Used its emergency authority to adopt Proposal No. 2007-10 – NCAA Membership – Division I Membership Moratorium. Intent: To specify that for a four-year period beginning August 9, 2007, no institution may begin the Division I provisional or reclassification membership process (including the exploratory process, no institution may begin the multidivisional membership reclassification process and no new single sport or multisport conference shall be elected to Division I conference membership. [Vote: For 14 – Adams, Bantz, Barker, Brogan, Curran, DiGiorgio, Geoffroy, McFarland, Powell, Raines, Ray, Weber, White, Zimpher; Against 1 – Grube; Abstain 1 – Ribeau; Not present 2 – Bruininks, Rozanski – Effective Date: Immediate.]

[NOTE: For the full text of the proposal, see Attachment.]

e. Asked that the Membership Subcommittee develop an education document further explaining the implications of the moratorium.

3. Litigation update. [Supplement No. 3]

BD ACTION: Received a report from the NCAA general counsel regarding current cases involving the Association.

4. Governmental relations report. [Supplement No. 4]

BD ACTION: Received a report and took no action.

5. NCAA president’s report.

· Introduction of the new Division I Men’s Basketball Academic Enhancement Group. [Supplement No. 5]

BD ACTIONS:

(1) Received a report from the NCAA President in which he noted that we are at a critical time in the academic reform movement, with four years of APR data becoming available and the squad size adjustment scheduled to go away. The number of sport programs potentially subject to penalties, especially in the sport of men’s basketball, could greatly increase, and the pressure to lessen the standards could mount;

(2) Learned that the President has established a new Basketball Academic Enhancement Working Group, which is a vertically integrated group of presidents, faculty, coaches and administrators, charged with assessing factors that have contributed to the current academic climate in men’s basketball and with developing strategies to enhance academic performance and graduation rates;

(3) Met the chair of the Basketball Academic Enhancement Working Group who noted this group has great potential, which presents both opportunities and challenges, and were informed that this group will work diligently to identify potential solutions in order to report back to the Board in a timely fashion;

(4) Discussed at length the importance of the Board of Directors being firm in its commitment to academic reform and in clearly stating this new working group will not be presented with an opportunity to “rework” academic reform, but rather will be charged with finding ways to enhance academic performance within the current reform structure.

(5) Noted the importance of making the Board of Directors’ position clear to the Division I membership and determined to offer a public statement of support regarding academic reform. (Unanimous Voice Vote.)

(6) Endorsed the following statement: (Unanimous Voice Vote.)

Division I Board of Directors Statement Regarding Academic Reform.

The Division I Board of Directors strongly and unanimously reaffirms its commitment to improving the academic success of all student-athletes in every sport. That was the charge of the Board four years ago when the current iteration of academic reform was begun and it accurately reflects the Board’s resolve today. Through its unanimous expression of support, the Board makes clear that it will stay the course in its initiative to improve graduation success.

Academic reform in Division I is beginning its fourth year of implementation, and the Division I Board of Directors recognizes that the initiative is entering a significant period of time when specific sport concerns may be expressed. As a result, the Board anticipates that pressure will increase to diminish the effects of or abandon academic reform. It is appropriate to fine-tune reform implementation and to mitigate unintended consequences. The Division I Board of Directors will remain open to the advice and counsel of the intercollegiate athletics community so that appropriate implementation is realized, but we are unbending in our determination to support the mission of higher education – educate students.

6. Update regarding on-going discussions pertaining to youth basketball. [Supplement No. 6.]

BD ACTIONS:

a. Received an update on efforts of the NCAA along with other men’s basketball stakeholders to develop a stronger structure and foundation for youth basketball, in an attempt to:

· More accurately communicate to participants and their families about the youth basketball environment;

· Present a clear understanding about the value of education;

· Help ensure the development of core basketball skills; and

· Ensure a safe and healthy environment for participatants.

b. Learned that this initiative, which is a high priority for the NCAA, includes a four pillared approach of:

· Educating about the holistic development that can and should occur as a result of participation.

· Protecting the integrity and future of the game.

· Conducting a self diagnosis which includes examining behavior and playing rules.

· Casting a wide net to ensure there is community involvement and engagement.

[NOTE: The project is currently in the modeling phase and the goal is to find a workable solution to this issue within the next six to eight months.]

7. Report of the August 7, 2007, teleconference of the Division I Presidential Advisory Group. [Supplement No. 7.]

BD ACTION: Received a report from the Division I Presidential Advisory Group’s August 7, 2007, conference call and heard comments from the group’s chair throughout the meeting regarding pertinent points raised by the group.

8. Review of the Governance Subcommittee’s recommendations to revise the Division I governance process and structure. [Supplement No. 8]

BD ACTIONS:

a. Received an update from the chair of the Governance Subcommittee in which he highlighted recent changes to that group’s recommendations in response to comments received from the Board of Directors and the membership over the course of the spring. Revisions include:

· Further illuminating the Board of Directors role in the governance structure (both legislative and non-legislative).

· Clarifying the Board’s final approval authority on all legislation by adding language that states the Board of Directors is the ultimate legislative authority in Division I and will set both the legislative and non-legislative agendas for the divisions.

· Enhancing language regarding faculty athletic representative role in the governance process by adding language, which provides “the various relevant perspectives of faculty and athletic administrators of both genders and all ethnicities (shall) be adequately represented under the new governance structure.”

· Adding language to include specific positional and diversity principles and strengthened the Board of Director’s oversight authority for representational issues. Specifically, the subcommittee stressed the important role the Board will play in reviewing the slate of nominees for cabinets and councils by ensuring there are adequate levels of representation before approving appointments.

· Further defining the role of the Leadership Council and its function by noting the Council is the primary advisory group to the Board of Directors on strategy and policy issues and by noting that the Council will provide background information, comments, advice on non-legislative matters and on selected legislative proposals.

· Clarifying the reporting lines for committees under the Leadership and Legislative Councils.

· Determining that the Football, Men’s Basketball and Women’s Basketball Issues Committees remain in the proposed structure with thought that sports committees may be able to take on the issues discussions in the future.

· Affirming the idea that all conferences within a subdivision will rotate representatives at the same time to provide for more flexibility in appointments.

b. Approved a motion to instruct the Governance Subcommittee to change its recommendations to specify that the Division I Committee on Infractions and Infractions Appeals Committee shall report to the Board of Directors under the proposed new structure rather than the Leadership Council in order to ensure the proper level of oversight over legislative and policy matters. (Unanimous Voice Vote.)

[Note: As is currently the case, the committees shall not report to the Board of Directors with regard to specific cases.]

c. Offered no objection to the Governance Subcommittee’s plan to share its recommendations with the membership in preparation for the October series of governance meetings, when the Board of Directors will be asked to use its emergency legislative authority to adopt the subcommittee’s final recommendations.

[NOTE: During discussion, individual BOD members expressed varying opinions regarding the composition of the Board and whether all multisport conferences should be represented. Additionally, it was reported that the Division I Presidential Advisory Group indicated general support for the Governance Subcommittee’s recommendations, but that some members expressed concern that not all conferences will be represented on the Board of Directors.]

9. Legislative Issues.

a. Membership override requests. [Supplement No. 9]

(1) Proposal No. 2006-40 – Recruiting – Recruiting Materials – Electronic Transmissions. Intent: To specify that electronically transmitted correspondence that may be sent to a prospective student-athlete is limited to electronic mail and facsimiles.

BD ACTIONS:

(a) Were informed that 34 member institutions submitted requests to override the Board of Directors’ adoption at its April 26, 2007, meeting of Proposal No. 2006-40;

(b) Discussed the proposal and its earlier action, noting the Board debated the matter at great length in April and had heard from the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee that they supported the legislation;

(c) Took no further action. Accordingly, the override request will be subject to a membership vote at the 2008 NCAA Convention.

[NOTE: At least a 5/8 majority vote of individual active members present including conference members in the governance structure, and voting shall be required to override the legislative action taken by the Board of Directors. The vote shall be based on the principal of one institution, one vote and the vote shall be taken by roll call.]

[NOTE: Individual PAG members indicated general support for sustaining the Board of Directors earlier adoption of Proposal No. 2006-40, in light of the comments of support received from the Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee.]

(2) Proposal No. 2006-87 – Playing and Practice Seasons – Number of Dates of Competition – Maximum Limitations – Golf. Intent: In golf, to permit an institution to participate in a total of nine three-day tournaments (with a maximum of 54 holes per tournament) or 24 dates of competition.

BD ACTIONS:

(a) Were informed that 69 member institutions submitted requests to override the Board of Directors’ adoption at its April 26, 2007, meeting of Proposal No. 2006-87;

(b) Briefly discussed the proposal, noting there are a variety of opinions on this proposal regarding the impact on missed class time and scheduling opportunities; and

(c) Took no further action. Accordingly, the override request will be subject to a membership vote at the 2008 NCAA Convention.

(3) Proposal No. 2007-9 – Financial Aid and Playing and Practice Seasons – Maximum Institutional Grant-In-Aid Limitations by Sport – Squad Size Limitation – Baseball. Intent: To specify that: (a) there shall be an annual limit of 11.7 on the value of financial aid awards (equivalencies) to counters and an annual limit of 27 (30 in 2008-09) on the total number of counters in baseball at each institution; (b) an institution shall award athletically related financial aid to each counter at a minimum value of 33 percent of an equivalency; and (c) an institution shall declare, by the day prior to its first scheduled contest in the championship segment of the playing and practice season, a squad of a maximum of 35 student-athletes who shall be eligible to participate in countable athletically related activities during the remainder of the championship segment.

BD ACTIONS:

(a) Were informed that 72 member institutions submitted requests to override the Board of Directors’ adoption at its April 26, 2007, meeting of Proposal No. 2007-9;

(b) Received a presentation from the Baseball Academic Enhancement Working Group as that group sought to offer possible solutions to the memberships’ override concerns;

(c) Amended Proposal 2007-9 as follows:

i. There shall be an annual limit of 11.7 on the value of financial aid awards (equivalencies) to counters and an annual limit of 27 (30 in 2008-09) on the total number of counters in baseball at each institution;

ii. An institution shall provide each counter athletically related and other countable financial aid that is equal to or greater than 25 percent of an equivalency; and

iii. An institution shall declare, by the day prior to its first scheduled contest in the championship segment of the playing and practice season, a squad of a maximum of 35 student-athletes who shall be eligible to participate in countable athletically related activities during the remainder of the championship segment.

(d) Directed the Baseball Academic Enhancement Working Group to continue considering other financial aid options such as a dollar figure correlated with the amended minimum percentage requirement. (Unanimous Voice Vote – Effective Date: August 1, 2008 (25 percent minimum equivalency requirement effective for student-athletes who initially enroll full time at the certifying institution on or after August 1, 2008.)

[NOTE: Proposal No. 2007-9, as amended, is now in a new 60-day membership override period and a vote will not occur at the 2008 NCAA Convention with regard to the override request on Proposal No. 2007-9 in light of the Board of Directors action in amending the legislation.]

[NOTE: For the full text of the proposal, see Attachment.]

b. Proposal tabled by the Board. [Supplement No. 10]

· Proposal No. 2006-17-B – Ethical Conduct – Sports Wagering Activities – Pools and Fantasy Leagues. Intent: To specify and clarify prohibited sports wagering activities and the individuals to whom the prohibitions apply and to specify that sports wagering includes participation in a pool or fantasy league in which there is an opportunity to win a prize.

BD ACTIONS: Defeated the proposal. [Vote: For 3 –Ray, Weber, White; Against 12 – Adams, Bantz, Barker, Brogan, Curran, Geoffroy, Grube, McFarland, Powell, Raines, Zimpher; Abstain 1 – DeGiorgio; Not present 2 – Bruininks, Rozanski.]

c. Administrative bylaw clarification. [Supplement No. 11]

BD ACTIONS:

(1) Used its emergency authority to reaffirm the NCAA Executive Committee’s existing authority and responsibility for establishing policies related to NCAA championships by adopting Proposal No. 2007-11 – Executive Regulations – Administration of NCAA Championships – Authority Of Management Council, Board Of Directors And Executive Committee. Intent: To specify that all NCAA championships shall be conducted in accordance with the general policies established by the Championships/Competition Cabinet, Management Council, Board of Directors and/or the Executive Committee. (Unanimous Voice Vote – Effective Date: Immediate .)

[NOTE: PAG members noted while the actions do not change the Executive Committee’s current authority and only reaffirm it, they thought this was a prudent act.]

[NOTE: For the full text of the proposal, see Attachment.]

(2) Agreed to sponsor Proposal No. 2007-12 -- Organization -- Executive Committee -- Duties And Responsibilities. Intent: To Clarify the Executive Committee’s Existing Authority to Adopt and Implement Policy. (Unanimous Voice Vote.)

[NOTE: Given that this proposal calls for an amendment to a dominant provision, which is defined as “a regulation that applies to all members of the Association and is of sufficient importance to the entire membership that it requires a two-thirds majority vote of all delegates present and voting in a joint session at an annual or special Convention,” this proposal will be considered by the Association’s membership during the 2008 NCAA Convention.]

10. Discussion with the NABC regarding improving academic performance in men’s basketball.

BD ACTIONS:

a. Met with the Executive Director of the NABC along with six NABC coaching members who will also be serving on the Men’s Basketball Academic Enhancement Working Group and were informed that academic reform had been positive for the game of men’s basketball; that the community is concerned about the number of low academic performing programs and that the coaches are grateful for an opportunity to be part of the solution.

b. Heard from the coaches that men’s basketball faces some unique challenges in improving academic performance, which include:

· Late night TV games;

· As many as three games per week;

· Limited red shirting;

· A high rate of coaching transition;

· Academic support for many recruits which come from lower socio-economic areas;

· A two-academic semester playing season;

· The enticement of professional sports;

· Lengthy conference tournaments; and

c. Expressed support for the coaches’ efforts and noted that all of Division I must work together to find ways to improve the level of academic performance in men’s basketball.

11. Update from the Committee on Academic Performance (CAP). [Supplement No. 12]

BD ACTIONS:

a. Learned that the Committee on Academic Performance is continuing its extensive review regarding the impact of transfer on the APR and graduation rates and that the committee is discussing the possibility of providing adjustments on a case by case basis when there is evidence of a transfer with a strong academic profile rather than considering altering the APR for all transfers as research shows retention is a strong predictor of graduation. [NOTE: More information and data will be provided to the Board on this issue at its October meeting. By October, there may be a better definition of strong academic profiles.] and

b. Were informed that the committee at its July meeting approved a revision to the historical-penalty review process, which will result in a greater number of teams meeting the improvement standard. [NOTE: Pursuant to this revision institutions will be required to have a Fishers Exact Test (FET) score of less than or equal to 0.5 to satisfy the review factor requiring meaningful NCAA Division I Academic Progress Rate (APR) improvement.]

c. Learned that the committee approved a model that emphasizes institutional resources in the application of mitigation for historical penalties.

12. Update on the work of the Oversight and Monitoring Group. [Supplement No. 13]

BD ACTIONS:

a. Received an update from the Division I Oversight and Monitoring Group, which was charged by the Board to:

· Prioritize consideration of the recommendations listed in the “Second Century Imperatives Report;”

· Develop strategies for possible consideration of the initiatives;

· Monitor consideration of the initiatives; and

· Inform the Board regarding the progress that has been made.

b. Learned that the Oversight and Monitoring Group is committed to keeping reform at the forefront by seeking meaningful change in such key areas, as building partnerships with other higher education associations, athletic certification, and fiscal responsibility.

c. Were informed that in September, Division I member institutions will receive pilot financial dashboard indicators in an effort to provide presidents with accurate, timely