A G E N D A

Report of the NCAA Division I Board of Directors meeting

November 1, 2007

Section One

Actions taken on items considered only by the

Board of Directors.

1. Opening remarks.

2. NCAA president?s report.

BOARD ACTIONS: Received a report from the NCAA president in which he, among other things:

a. Discussed the important work of the Basketball Academic Enhancement Working Group, noting the significance of being mindful of the unique aspects associated with the various sports;

b. Reminded the Board that while good progress is being made in the area of academic reform, presidential leadership is critical to address the challenges that may arise to the reform movement and engaged the group in a lively discussion regarding the impact of the reform efforts on campus;

c. Provided an update regarding ongoing efforts of the NCAA and other men?s basketball stakeholders to develop more structure for youth basketball; and

d. Informed the group about the National Office?s Green Team initiative, which is designed to encourage the staff to follow environmentally sound common-sense practices.

3. Report of the Division I Presidential Advisory Group. [Reference BD Supplement No. 5.]

BOARD ACTION: Received a report from the Division I Presidential Advisory Group?s October 31, 2007, meeting and heard comments from the group?s chair throughout the meeting regarding pertinent points raised by the group.

4. Consideration of the Governance Subcommittee?s recommendations to revise the Division I governance process and structure. [Reference BD Supplement No. 7.]

BOARD ACTIONS:

a. Received a report from the chair of the Management Council?s Governance Subcommittee in which he reviewed the subcommittee?s work over the past two year years as it sought to assist the Board by enhancing the level of leadership in the governance structure, and reviewed the governance subcommittee?s recommendations, the highlights of which are set forth below as follows:

(1) Division I Board of Directors. That there be no change to the structure of the Division I Board of Directors as that body should retain its primacy in the structure and serve as the division?s principal leadership body. The intention being that as a result of the proposed restructuring, the Board will be aided in its role to establish working principles for the division, set the divisional agenda (both the legislative and non-legislative) and examine broad policy initiatives.

(2) Division I Presidential Advisory Group. That the Division I Presidential Advisory Group shall remain intact as this body plays an important role in advising the Board as it seeks to lead the division. Since only 18 of the 31 multisport conferences are represented on the Board, the Presidential Advisory Group remains critical to ensuring communication among all conferences at the presidential level.

(3) Restructuring of the Management Council. That the Management Council be restructured into two distinct bodies that will report to the Board of Directors. These bodies will be called the Leadership Council and the Legislative Council.

(a) Leadership Council. The Leadership Council will be the primary advisory group to the Board of Directors on strategic and policy issues. The Leadership Council will focus on examining issues on the horizon of intercollegiate athletics and will assist the Board by providing background information, comments and advice on both non-legislative and legislative matters. The Leadership Council will be charged with helping to chart the division?s course and its members will be expected to have a national focus in their deliberations rather than an institutional or a conference-based one. This body will not only receive authority as directed by the Board of Directors to act on a wide array of matters, but it will also be responsible for identifying issues that could impact intercollegiate athletics as a whole. The level and type of advice offered by the Leadership Council will be determined by the nature of issues being examined. It is also anticipated that this forward looking body will help identify legislative proposals that will warrant review by the Board. It is envisioned that the Leadership Council will be populated by a diverse group of leaders who the Board and the governance structure can feel confident will be able to address the major issues facing the division. [Note: The Leadership Council shall have 31 members with one representative from each of the 31 multisport conferences and shall follow a system of weighted voting reflective of the current voting balance among conferences in the governance structure.]

(b) Legislative Council. The Legislative Council, with Board oversight, will serve as the primary legislative body in the Division I governance structure. This body will assume most of the legislative functions currently performed by the Management Council. The intent behind this recommendation is to provide increased expertise and coordination in the legislative area, which is especially important given the volume of legislation and the need for interim conference communication in Division I. The Legislative Council will be responsible for considering and ultimately voting on all legislative proposals being considered in the annual legislative cycle, much like the Management Council does now. It is intended that the Legislative Council will take final action on the day-to-day legislative matters necessary for the efficient management of Division I, leaving discretion to the Board to act on the broader issues facing the division. It is envisioned that the Board (with advice from the Leadership Council) will identify proposals early in the cycle that will ultimately warrant final Board approval, but it should be noted that the Board will have discretion to review specified proposals at any point designated for legislative review in the cycle. [Note: The Legislative Council shall have 31 members with one representative from each of the 31 multisport conferences and shall follow a system of weighted voting reflective of the current voting balance among conferences in the governance structure.]

(4) Elimination of the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet and the Championships/Competition Cabinets. That the Academics/Eligibility/ Compliance Cabinet and the Championships/Competition Cabinet be eliminated and replaced with a series of smaller, issue-specific cabinets that have more limited topical jurisdiction than the current cabinets. The rationale behind this recommendation is that each smaller cabinet with more limited jurisdiction will be better able to provide expertise to the Board and councils, while at the same time being more nimble than the current cabinets. [Note: Whenever possible, each cabinet shall work as a body of the whole rather than functioning as a series of subcommittees.]

? Cabinets. The following six issue-specific cabinets are being recommended:

? Academics Cabinet. (21 members)

? Administration Cabinet. (21 members)

? Amateurism Cabinet. (21 members)

? Championships/Sports Management Cabinet. (31 members - system of weighted voting reflective of the current voting balance among conferences in the governance structure.]

? Recruiting Cabinet. (21 members)

? Student-Athlete Awards, Benefits and Financial Aid Cabinet. (21 members)

[Note: Of the 21 members, each of the 11 Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) conferences will be represented and the other 10 members will come from among the 20 Football Championship Subdivision (FCS)/Division I conferences on a rotating basis. The conferences will be responsible for working together on appointments. The involved 20 conferences will be represented on no fewer than two but no more than three cabinets at any one time.]

(5) Legislative Process. That no substantial changes be made to the Division I annual legislative process as the process appears to be effective and be well understood by the membership. The only major change under the new structure is that while the Board of Directors will remain empowered to oversee all legislative actions, the Board will no longer be required to take action on every legislative proposal as it will only be required to act on those proposals which it determines require further review. To ensure that the Board has proper legislative oversight and authority necessary to examine any proposal in the annual legislative cycle, no legislative action by the Legislative Council will be considered final until after the conclusion of the Board of Directors meeting.

(6) Representational Issues. It is a goal of the structure that the various relevant perspectives of faculty and athletics administrators of both genders and all ethnicities be adequately represented. To that end, the Board will have explicit responsibility in evaluating the overall slate of conference nominees to ensure there are adequate levels of representation before approving appointments. Further, as its first agenda item the Leadership Council will be asked to examine whether there are additional ways to enhance the level of diversity in the structure while still providing conferences with some level of flexibility in the appointment process.

(a) Gender and Diversity Requirements. That the legislated minimums of 20 percent ethnic minorities and 35 percent of either gender be applied independently to two separate groups of governance bodies, i.e. the three 31-member governance bodies and the five 21-member governance bodies. The appointment process will be subject to additional Board oversight to help ensure that each governance body is balanced.

[Note: The Football Bowl Subdivision will be responsible for meeting the diversity requirements at each of the two tiers at the level approximately equal to their percentage of representation at that tier (1/3 and 1/2) and that the other two subdivisions should together be responsible for the diversity requirements at each of the two tiers at a level equal to their percentage of representation (2/3 and 1/2).]

(b) Positional Requirements. No specific minimum percentages with regard to positional representation have been recommended but it has been clearly stated that intercollegiate athletics is woven into the fabric of higher education, and it is imperative that the faculty voice be heard as part of the proposed new governance structure. As part of the Board?s oversight role, it will examine positional requirements.

e b. Used its emergency legislative authority to adopt the Governance Subcommittee?s complete recommendations to restructure the Division I governance structure. (Unanimous Voice Vote. Note: Due to his role as chair of the Division I Board of Directors, James Barker elected to abstain from voting on this matter. Effective Date: September 2008.)

5. Discussion of issues related to the Division I Membership Moratorium.

BOARD ACTIONS:

e a. Agreed to adopt Proposal No. 2007-116, which specifies that in a four-year period, beginning August 9, 2007, no institution shall be permitted to seek classification or reclassification in the Football Championship Subdivision. [Vote: For 12 ? Adams, Bantz, Brogan, Bruininks, Geoffroy, Grube, Mullen, Raines, Ray, Ribeau, White, Zimpher; Abstain 1 ? Due to his role as chair of the Division I Board of Directors, James Barker elected to abstain from voting on this matter; Against 3 ?Curran, McFarland, Weber; Not present 2 ? DiGiorgio, Powell.]

b. Noted that a Division I institution starting football could not immediately qualify for the Football Bowl Subdivision and would be required to be placed in the Football Championship Subdivision for a minimum of two years in order to demonstrate compliance with bowl subdivision criteria.

6. Update regarding the Division I Men?s Basketball Academic Enhancement Group. [Reference BD Supplement No. 8.]

BOARD ACTIONS:

(a) Received an update on the work of the Division I Men?s Basketball Academic Enhancement Group, and learned that the group has divided into five subcommittees, which are predominately chaired by university presidents. These subcommittees are charged with identifying possible strategies for improving academic performance and graduation rates in the topical areas set forth below:

? Transfers ? Both Incoming and Outgoing.

? ?0 for 2? Phenomenon.

? Academic Preparation and Academic Support.

? Coach/Player Relationships.

? Playing and Practice Seasons.

(b) Heard from Board members serving on the group that they are optimistic that meaningful strategies and recommendations will be developed by the subcommittees aimed at improving the academic culture and level of academic performance in men?s basketball; and

7. Basketball Distribution ? Unit Value. [Reference BD Supplement No. 9.]

BOARD ACTIONS:

a. Learned that the Division I Men?s Basketball Committee is exploring ways to assure the most positive experience for the student-athletes and institutions involved in the Opening Round of the Division I Men?s Basketball Championship, included seeking ways to more effectively increase awareness of the game, possibly announcing the two participating teams slightly earlier when possible and (to the extent practicable) enhancing transportation to the site of the game; and

e b. Approved a request from the Division I Men?s Basketball Committee to add a single unit, beginning with the 2008 game, to be awarded to the winner of the opening-round game. [Vote: For 13 ? Adams, Bantz, Brogan, Bruininks, Curran, Geoffroy, Grube, McFarland, Mullen, Ribeau, White, Weber, Zimpher; Abstain 1 ? Due to his role as chair of the Division I Board of Directors, James Barker elected to abstain from voting on this matter; Against 2 ? Raines, Ray; Not present 2 ? DiGiorgio, Powell.]

8. Membership override request with regard to Proposal No. 2007-09, as amended, and update on the work of the Baseball Academic Enhancement Group. [Reference BD Supplement No. 10.]

BOARD ACTIONS:

(a) Were informed that 58 member institutions submitted override requests with regard to Proposal No. 2007-9, as amended by the Board of Directors, at its August 9, 2007;

(b) Discussed the fact the proposal was part of the overall academic reform package developed at the request of the Board by the Baseball Academic Enhancement Working Group, and noted that the Board in amending the proposal, sought to be responsive to membership concerns while at the same time being true to the overall reform effort.

(c) Determined to take no further action so that the override requests would be subject to a member vote at the 2008 NCAA Convention and agreed that given that this proposal is fundamental to the package of proposals adopted by the Board for the purpose of addressing poor academic performance in that sport, the Board of Directors will take measures to contact other Division I presidents and chancellors in advance of the 2008 Convention to request support in ensuring that the override request is unsuccessful. (Unanimous Voice Vote. Note: Due to his role as chair of the Division I Board of Directors, James Barker elected to abstain from voting on this matter.)

[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.]

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

BOARD ACTIONS:

a. Received a report on the October 30 meeting of the Committee on Academic Performance, learned more about the committee?s continued review of the impact of transfer student-athlete behavior on graduation rates and the NCAA Division I Academic Progress Rate (APR) and took the following action:

? Implementation of Additional Occasion-Two Historical Penalties for Low-Performing Baseball Teams. Approved an addition to the Occasion-Two Historical Penalty structure to include a reduction in the length of the playing season and number of contests against outside competition for any baseball team subject to Occasion-Two Historical Penalties, as follows:

(a) A baseball team subject to Occasion-Two Historical Penalties that demonstrates significant improvement, as evidenced by a favorable review of the ?improvement? factor, will be subject to a five percent reduction to the length of playing season and number of contests against outside competition, to be deducted from the applicable NCAA maximums.

(b) A baseball team subject to Occasion-Two Historical Penalties that does not meet the improvement review will be subject to a 10 percent reduction to the length of playing season and number of contests against outside competition, to be deducted from the applicable NCAA maximums.

e (Unanimous Voice Vote. Note: Due to his role as chair of the Division I Board of Directors, James Barker elected to abstain from voting on this matter. Effective Date: August 1, 2009. Notification of these penalties will occur during the 2008-09 academic year.)

[NOTE: The reductions to the playing season and number of contests must be taken in addition to any other reductions to the number of contests or length of playing season imposed on the team (e.g., Occasion-Two Historical Penalty requiring an additional day without countable-related activity or penalty imposed due to a violation of NCAA legislation). A baseball team subject to a reduction to the playing season and number of contests must impose such penalties the year after the institution receives notification of the penalty. All waiver requests regarding this penalty will be processed through the committee?s existing waiver procedures for historical penalties.]

11. Update regarding transfer data. [Reference BD Supplement No. 12.]

BOARD ACTION:

a. Received a thorough presentation of data on the academic performance of transfer student-athletes, which confirmed that retention is a strong predictor of graduation and indicated that a student-athlete who presents a strong academic high school profile is less likely to become an ?0/2? student-athlete. The data also showed that those student-athletes who perform well academically and earn a large amount of academic credit in their first year of collegiate enrollment are more likely to receive a bachelor?s degree.

b. Learned that the Committee on Academic Performance is reviewing the impact of transfer student-athlete behavior on graduation rates along with the NCAA Division I Academic Progress Rate (APR), and that the committee is considering a model in which the retention point for a transfer would be adjusted if the student-athlete presented a specified minimum academic profile (e.g., as indicated by the student-athlete?s grade-point average). Under this model, such student-athletes would earn a ?1/1? in the final term in the cohort.

c. Asked a number of questions of the research staff and offered comments to assist the Committee on Academic Performance as it seeks to examine other models to consider the impact of transferring at its January meeting.

12. New Graduation Success Rate Data. [Reference BD Supplement No. 13.]

BOARD ACTION: Did not hear report due to time restrains.

13. What to expect at the 2008 NCAA Convention.

BOARD ACTIONS: The group briefly reviewed the schedule of pertinent Division I and Association-wide events scheduled for the 2008 NCAA Convention in Nashville, Tennessee. The events are set forth below as follows:

a. Schedule of events. [Reference BD Supplement No. 14.]

Saturday, January 12

? Legislative Forum.(12:30 ? 2:30 p.m.)

? Division I Business Session ? At the conclusion of the Legislative Forum.

[Note: Vote on the override of Proposal Nos. 2006-40, 2006-87 and 2007-9, as amended will occur during the Division I Business Session.]

? Association-wide Membership Issues Forum (2:30 -3:30 p.m.)

? Opening Business Session. (4 ? 5:30 p.m.)

[Note: Vote on Proposal No. 2007- 12 will occur during this session.]

? Trade Show. (5:30 ? 6:30 p.m.)

Sunday, January 13

? Division I Issues Forum. (8 ? 11:30 a.m. )

? Honors Celebration. (5 ? 6:30 p.m.)