REPORT OF THE

Joe Alleva, Duke University

Mitch Barnhart, University of Kentucky

Brad Bates, Miami University (Ohio)

Cathy Beene, Georgia Southern University

Sherri Booker, Atlantic Sun Conference

Pete Boone, University of Mississippi

Greg Burke, Northwestern State University

Lisa Campos, University of Texas at El Paso

Joan Cronan, University of Tennessee

Raynoid Dedeaux, Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference

Susan Delaney-Scheetz, Pennsylvania State University

Jim Fallis, Northern Arizona University

Carolyn Schlie Femovich, Patriot League, chair

Kenneth Ferguson, University of Missouri, Kansas City

James Fiore, Stony Brook University

Richard Giannini, University of Southern Mississippi

Woody Gibson, High Point University

Heather Gores, Gonzaga University

Ed Grom, The Summit League

Rob Halvaks, Big West Conference

Terri Howes, West Virginia University

Christine Hoyles, Pacific-10 Conference

Carol Iwaoka, Big Ten Conference

Bruce Jaffee, Indiana University, Bloomington

Bruce Johnson, Missouri State University

Bob Keefer, Mount St. Mary’s College

Colleen Lim, Yale University

Clyde McCoy, University of Miami (Florida)

Jane Miller, University of Virginia

Marilyn M Moniz-Kaho’ohanohano, University of Hawaii, Manoa

Danielle Neault, University of the Pacific, student-

athlete

James O'Fallon, University of Oregon

Steve Pederson, University of Nebraska, Lincoln

Alicia Pete, Prairie View A&M University

Nance Reed, Towson University

Sarah Reesman, University of Missouri, Columbia

Nancy Roberts, Rider University

Judy Rose, University of North Carolina, Charlotte

Jeff Schemmel, San Diego State University

Paula Smith, University of California, Irvine

Jeffrey Stapleton, Monmouth University

Jon Steinbrecher, Ohio Valley Conference

Jim Sterk, Washington State University

Ron Strollo, Youngstown State University

Mike Thomas, University of Cincinnati

Pamela Wettig, University of Denver

Chris Woolard, Conference USA

David Berst, NCAA

Wayne Burrow, NCAA

Joni Comstock, NCAA

Beth DeBauche, NCAA

Brad Hostetter, NCAA

Tom Jacobs, NCAA

Greg Johnson, NCAA

Charnele Kemper, NCAA

Dave Schnase, NCAA

examination, the cabinet does not believe that establishing legislative parameters will result in positively enhancing participation opportunities for women. Rather, the cabinet believes that participation opportunities can best be enhanced by establishing a clear set of expectations regarding the use of male practice players. These expectations will shape the practice at the national level and will ensure the practice is reviewed and discussed at the campus level.

Further, the cabinet believes that the Division I membership would benefit from the development of comprehensive and clear educational materials regarding permissible use of male practice players. Currently, there does not appear to be a consistent understanding.

In addition, the cabinet believes the practice of using male practice players should be reviewed periodically to ensure that positive participation opportunities for women are being promoted and trends are being reviewed.

(3) Estimated Budget Impact. None.

(4) Student-Athlete Impact. None.

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS.

1. Legislative Informational Items.

a. Proposals Sponsored by the Cabinet for Initial Consideration by the Management Council in January 2008.

(1) NCAA Bylaw 30.7.7 – Foreign Tours - Practice.

(a) Recommendation. Based on a recommendation from the cabinet’s Playing and Practice Season Subcommittee, the cabinet agreed to sponsor legislation to specify that an institution is prohibited from conducting practice prior to departure for a foreign tour, if the practice occurs outside the playing and practice season during the week preceding the institution’s final examinations and/or during the week of the institution’s final examination period.

(b) Rationale. Current legislation prohibits out-of-season countable athletically related activities from occurring during the week preceding an institution’s final examination period and during the final examination week. The intent of this prohibition is to provide additional time for student-athletes to focus and prepare for exams. However, the out-of-season limitations have not historically been applied to the permissible practices held in preparation for foreign tours. Since institutions have discretion in scheduling foreign tours, the cabinet agreed that the prohibition of practice during the noted weeks also should apply to practice prior to a foreign tour.

(d) Estimated Budget Impact. None.

(e) Student-Athlete Impact. Student-athletes may have increased time to prepare for their final examinations.

(2) Recruiting — Prospective Student-Athlete Who Has Signed a National Letter of Intent — Communication During July Evaluation Periods — Women’s Basketball.

(a) Recommendation. Based on a recommendation from the Division I Women’s Basketball Issues Committee, the cabinet agreed to sponsor legislation to amend Bylaws 13.1.3.1.3, 13.1.6.8.1 and 13.1.7.2.2-(c) to permit, in women’s basketball, an institution to communicate (e.g., telephone calls, contacts, printed recruiting materials) with a prospective student-athlete who has graduated from high school and has signed a National Letter of Intent (NLI) (or for those institution’s not utilizing the NLI in women’s basketball or for those prospective student-athlete’s not eligible to sign the NLI, the institution’s written offer of admission and/or financial aid) during the July evaluation periods.

(b) Rationale. Under current legislation in women’s basketball, during the July evaluation periods, coaches are not permitted to communicate in any form with any prospective student-athlete, a prospective student-athlete’s relative(s), legal guardian(s) or individuals associated with the prospective student-athlete as a result of the prospective student-athlete’s involvement in basketball. This prohibition was designed to reinforce that the July evaluation period should be for observations only and not a time when contacts or communication with outside influences are made in an effort to recruit particular basketball prospective student-athletes. The reasons for the communications prohibition in the July evaluation periods do not seem applicable with regard to prospective student-athletes who have graduated and signed a NLI. Such prospective student-athletes are past the recruitment phase and preparing for collegiate enrollment. By July, these signed prospective student-athletes have frequently formed strong relationships with their future collegiate coaches and rely on these coaches to provide information regarding their upcoming collegiate experience.

(d) Estimated Budget Impact. None.

(e) Student-Athlete Impact. None.

(3) Personnel — Limitations on the Number and Duties of Coaches — Off-Campus Recruiting—Women’s Basketball — Nonscholastic Weekends During Academic Year.

(a) Recommendation. Based on a recommendation from the Women’s Basketball Issues Committee, the cabinet agreed to sponsor legislation to amend Bylaw 11.7.4 to increase from three to four the number of women’s basketball coaches who may evaluate prospective student-athletes off campus at any one time, at nonscholastic events during the academic year. (For 25½, Against 20)

(b) Rationale. In women’s basketball, evaluations at nonscholastic events may occur only two weekends during the academic year (the last full weekend of the fall-contact period and the Friday, Saturday and Sunday of the spring evaluation period). Due to the limited opportunities for coaches to evaluate at nonscholastic events during the academic year (a total of six days), it may be difficult for coaches to attend many events, given the current limit on the number of permissible recruiters. By allowing one additional coach to engage in off-campus evaluations during these identified weekends, institutions will be able to more efficiently evaluate prospective student-athletes. Further, other legislation such as the overall number of 100 recruiting-person days and five recruiting opportunities per prospective student-athlete would still be applicable.

(d) Estimated Budget Impact. Potential cost savings for institutions as this proposal does not provide for additional recruiting days; rather, it is intended to allow for more efficiency in the recruiting process.

(e) Student-Athlete Impact. None.

(4) Playing and Practice Seasons — Basketball-Preseason Practice-On-Court Practice.

(a) Recommendation. Based on a recommendation from the Women’s Basketball Issues Committee and the cabinet’s Playing and Practice Seasons Subcommittee, the cabinet agreed to sponsor legislation to amend Bylaw 17.5.2 to specify that an institution may not commence on-court preseason basketball practice sessions prior to 5 p.m. (rather than 7 p.m.) on the Friday nearest October 15. (For 33, Against 9)

(b) Rationale. In 2005, legislation was adopted moving the permissible start time for on-court, preseason basketball practice sessions from midnight to 7 p.m. The rationale for moving the start time five hours earlier was to allow student-athletes, coaches, training staff, prospective student-athletes, students and the general public an opportunity to participate in a practice in the evening and return home at a more reasonable hour. This rationale still holds true but given the 7 p.m. start time, there are still many programs that are scheduling late practices because they share facilities with other sports programs. Accordingly, these scheduling challenges have the potential to impact the health and safety of student-athletes and diminish the celebration surrounding the start of the basketball season. By allowing on-court practice to begin at 5 p.m., the window for practice is expanded and more scheduling flexibility is created.

(d) Estimated Budget Impact. None.

(e) Student-Athlete Impact. Student-athletes will spend no more time involved in practice activities, but the time scheduled for practice should be more attentive to student-athlete health and safety concerns.

(5) Wrestling – Number of Dates of Competition.

(a) Recommendation. Based on a recommendation from the Wrestling Committee and the cabinet’s Playing and Practice Seasons Subcommittee, the cabinet agreed to sponsor legislation to specify that an institution may substitute, on two occasions, wrestling-dual meets contested on two-consecutive days in place of two-day meets.

(b) Rationale. Dual meets are the cornerstone of building a fan base for the sport of wrestling and, therefore, the committee believes that to continue to grow the sport, there needs to be more dual-meet matches during the regular season. In addition, this change would not increase the number of calendar days on which wrestling competition occurs or impose a hardship on the student-athletes. The change will allow for flexibility in the type of competitions (e.g., two-day meets or dual meets contested on two-consecutive days) scheduled for those particular dates. Finally, the length of the playing and practices season and the limit of 16 dates of competition would remain unchanged.

(d) Estimated Budget Impact. None.

(e) Student-Athlete Impact. None.

(6) Recruiting - Contacts with National Letter of Intent Signees - Football.

(a) Recommendation. Based on a recommendation from the Division I Football Issues Committee, the cabinet agreed to sponsor legislation to specify that institutional football coaching staff members may be permitted to make two contacts with their NLI signees at the prospective student-athlete’s educational institution during the spring evaluation period. Further, to specify that a staff member from the prospective student-athlete’s educational institution (e.g., coach, academic counselor, principal) must be present for such contacts. Finally, to specify that any visit to the educational institution that includes only contact with a signed prospective student-athlete during the spring evaluation period shall be considered one of the institution’s two permissible spring evaluation opportunities at that school.

(b) Rationale. Currently, football coaches may have contact with NLI signees at their educational institution only during a contact period. Coaches evaluate at educational institutions during the designated spring evaluation period but must make arrangements to have contact with their signees at some other location (e.g., home, restaurant). It is important for coaches to continue to monitor the academic progress of the prospective student-athlete. Permitting a meeting at the educational institution with the academic counselor and the prospective student-athlete is less bureaucratic and may assist in developing better academic evaluations of the prospective student-athlete. Because the prospective student-athlete has already signed a NLI, there is no recruiting advantage gained by allowing these contacts under these circumstances and permitting contact on the prospective student athlete’s campus allows coaches to be more efficient with their time during a busy recruiting period.

(d) Estimated Budget Impact. Minimal. In most cases, coaches are visiting the educational institution to evaluate other prospects.

(e) Student-Athlete Impact. None.

7. Recruiting – Football Spring Evaluation Period - Scholastic Evaluations.

(a) Recommendation. Based on a recommendation from the Division I Football Issues Committee, the cabinet agreed to sponsor legislation to specify that all evaluations conducted by an institutional football coach during the spring evaluation period shall be limited to regularly scheduled high school, preparatory school and two-year college contests/tournaments and practices and regular scholastic activities involving prospective student-athletes conducted under the supervision of a high school coach. Evaluations at nonscholastic events shall be prohibited. Also, evaluations of activities devoted to strength, agility or speed (e.g., combines) are prohibited regardless of the supervising entity.

(b) Rationale. This proposal is designed to place greater emphasis on the scholastic environment in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes while minimizing the role of nonscholastic external influences in the recruiting process. The recent proliferation of nonscholastic camps, clinics and combines where organizers attempt to showcase a prospective student-athlete's talents has created an unhealthy recruiting environment in football that impacts verbal commitments, media attention and college-choice decisions. It also has placed unnecessary pressure on prospective student-athletes to prepare for and attend these events during the academic year, potentially interfering with other academic commitments. Consistent with the NCAA's emphasis on student-athlete well-being, this proposal strives to increase the involvement of the prospective student-athlete's high school coach and the importance of the scholastic environment and establish a more appropriate and effective evaluation of prospective student-athletes so that sound judgments can be made in the recruiting process by coaches and prospective student-athletes. Football coaches will be able to evaluate prospective student-athletes at nonfootball scholastic activities (e.g., district track meets, high school baseball tournaments) under this proposal. Further, football coaches will continue to be prohibited from evaluating prospects at events devoted to agility, flexibility, speed or strength tests (e.g., combines) even if conducted by a scholastic entity.

(d) Estimated Budget Impact. Institutions may save recruiting dollars by attending fewer nonscholastic events (e.g., camps, clinics or combines) during the spring evaluation period.