SUPPLEMENT NO. 10A

DI Mgmt Council 10/07

REPORT OF THE

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION

DIVISION I CHAMPIONSHIPS/COMPETITION CABINET

Hyatt Regency Savannah

Savannah, Georgia

June 26-27, 2007

REPORT OF THE

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION

DIVISION I CHAMPIONSHIPS/COMPETITION CABINET

Hyatt Regency Savannah June 26-27, 2007

Savannah, Georgia

Participants:

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

Sarah Bobert, Marquette University; Morgan Burke, Purdue University; Carlton Cooper, Southern Methodist University; Mary DiStanislao, University of Pennsylvania, Ian McCaw, Baylor University; and Brenda McCoy, Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference were not able to attend the meeting. No alternates attended in place of Sarah Bobert, Mary DiStanislao or Ian McCaw. Carol Iwaoka, Big Ten Conference, attended in place of Morgan Burke; Raynoid Dedeaux, Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference attended in place of Brenda McCoy; and Chris Woolard, Conference USA, attended in place of Carlton Cooper.

REPORT OF THE

NCAA DIVISION I CHAMPIONSHIPS/COMPETITION CABINET

The NCAA Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet submits this report from its June 26-27, 2007, in-person meeting in Savannah, Georgia. [Note: All votes were unanimous voice votes unless otherwise indicated. Subcommittee positions are noted unless part of the consent package.]

ACTION ITEMS.

1. Legislative Action Items.

a. NCAA Drug-Testing Program - Duration of Ineligibility.

(1) Recommendation. Based on a recommendation from the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sport, the cabinet agreed to recommend that the NCAA Division I Management Council adopt noncontroversial legislation to specify that the period of ineligibility for a positive drug test will begin on the date of the collection of the drug-test specimen and extend a minimum of 365 days and result in the loss of a minimum of one season of competition in all sports. Further, the student-athlete will be withheld from additional games at the end of the 365-day period if the student-athlete competed in games during the period from the collection of the specimen to the confirmation of the positive drug-test result.

(2) Effective Date. Immediate.

(3) Rationale. The current drug-testing legislation mandates a one-year penalty for any positive drug test and withholding from competition for one year beginning with the date the specimen is tested positive for a banned drug. However, when a student-athlete requests and is granted reinstatement, the start of the 365-day period of ineligibility is calculated by using the date the specimen is collected rather than when it is tested positive. This proposal will update the legislation to reflect the current practice used by the NCAA Division I Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement when considering requests for reinstatement.

(4) Estimated Budget Impact. None.

(5) Student-Athlete Impact. None.

b. Recruiting — Contacts and Evaluations-Telephone Calls to Prospective Student-Athletes — Collect and Toll-Free Telephone Calls — Women’s Basketball.

(1) Recommendation. Based on a recommendation from the NCAA Division I Women’s Basketball Issues Committee, the cabinet agreed to recommend that the Management Council adopt noncontroversial legislation to amend NCAA Bylaw 13.1.3.6 for women’s basketball to permit institutional staff members to accept collect and toll-free telephone calls placed by prospective student-athletes and prospective student-athletes’ parents and legal guardians, provided the calls are not placed earlier than the Thursday after the conclusion of the NCAA Women’s Final Four of the prospective student-athlete’s junior year in high school..

(2) Rationale. Permitting a prospective student-athlete to make a collect or toll-free telephone call beginning with the Thursday after the conclusion of the Women’s Final Four ensures the time frame under which prospective student-athletes may call coaches and mirrors that in which coaches may first permissibly telephone prospects. Such consistency in the legislation would provide for easier administration and understanding of the rules by prospective student-athletes and their families.

(3) Effective Date. Immediate.

(4) Estimated Budget Impact. None.

(5) Student-Athlete Impact. Minimal, as it is within the prospective student-athlete’s discretion to place a collect or toll-free telephone call to a coach.

c. Administrative Regulations – Final Four Basketball Event Certification – Men’s Basketball

(1) Recommendation. Based on a recommendation from the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Issues Committee, the cabinet agreed to recommend that the Management Council adopt noncontroversial legislation to rescind NCAA Bylaw 30.18 in men’s basketball, which currently permits NCAA Division I men’s basketball coaches to attend a single basketball event selected at the discretion of the institution certified by the NCAA and held in conjunction with and conducted within a 30-mile radius of the championship site and host city of the Division I Men’s Basketball Championship.

(2) Rationale. The event certification process was established to permit coaches to attend a single event during the Division I Men’s Basketball Championship (i.e., Final Four weekend) designed to be a celebration of the sport. The events were not intended to be conducted for the purpose of allowing prospective student-athletes to showcase their skills in front of college coaches. The original event that prompted the current legislation involved a team of prospective student-athletes representing the United States participating against a foreign team and is no longer conducted in conjunction with the Men’s Final Four. Most, if not all, of the participants were no longer prospective student-athletes and had committed or signed with various institutions. The limitation of attending one event also ensured that coaches maintained the opportunity to attend other meetings and activities conducted as part of the championship.

Over the last several years, several events have received certification and are being operated by nonscholastic operators. Though they are meeting the certification criteria, it is questionable as to whether the events are meeting the intent and spirit of the original legislation. Many of these events span the entire course of a day or weekend and are clearly not celebratory in nature but are operated and promoted as recruiting events designed to attract coaches who attend the Division I Men’s Basketball Championship. The proposed elimination of the certification program will reinstate a full dead period surrounding the championship, thus reinforcing the celebratory nature of the weekend and reducing the pressure on coaches to engage in recruiting activities during this time period. The cabinet noted that the Women’s Basketball Issues Committee indicated its desire to maintain this certification program for events surrounding the Women’s Final Four.

The cabinet believes this proposal should be adopted as emergency or noncontroversial legislation to be effective before the 2008 championship and to provide ample time to inform event operators and coaches of the change.

(3) Effective Date. Immediate.

(4) Estimated Budget Impact. None.

(5) Student-Athlete Impact. None.

d. NCAA Bylaw 17.10.3 - First Contest Date – Field Hockey.

(1) Recommendation. Based on a recommendation from the cabinet’s Playing and Practice Seasons Subcommittee, the cabinet agreed to recommend that the Management Council adopt noncontroversial legislation to specify that the first permissible contest date in field hockey would be the Friday prior to the eleventh weekend prior to the start of the NCAA Division I Field Hockey Championships. An alumni contest may continue to be played the weekend prior to the first scheduled contest.

(2) Rationale. Throughout the playing season, institutions have the flexibility of scheduling contests on Fridays and Sundays, providing additional recovery time for student-athletes between contests. This change would make the first weekend consistent with the rest of the season. Further, the cabinet noted that the proposal moves the first-contest date back by only one day and would have a minimal academic impact, if any. The cabinet noted the NCAA Division I Field Hockey Committee and National Field Hockey Coaches Association support of this change.

(3) Effective Date. August 1, 2008.

(4) Estimated Budget Impact. Student-athletes may be required to return for the first preseason practice one day earlier.

(5) Student-Athlete Impact. Student-athletes may be required to return for the first preseason practice one day earlier.

2. Nonlegislative Action Items.

[Note: The Management Council Administrative Committee addressed this action.]

a. NCAA Wrestling Committee – Committee Representation.

(1) Recommendation. That an exception to NCAA Constitution 4.8.1 be granted so that the cabinet will be able to appoint more than 50 percent of the NCAA Wrestling Committee from one subdivision.

(2) Rationale. Currently, wrestling is sponsored by 43 Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) institutions, 30 NCAA Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) institutions and five Division I institutions. Such sponsorship numbers justify flexibility for the committee to have more than 50 percent of its members from FBS institutions. The cabinet will

propose legislation to seek a permanent exception to Constitution 4.8.1 (see legislative Informational Item No. 9 in this report). In the meantime, the cabinet recommends that a waiver be provided so that the cabinet can address some Wrestling Committee composition challenges immediately. Specifically, the committee needs additional administrators to administrate the championship effectively and efficiently. The only administrator nominees for a current vacancy are from FBS institutions.

(3) Estimated Budget Impact. None.

(4) Student-Athlete Impact. None.

b. Men’s and Women’s Ice Hockey Rules Committee – Nominations.

(1) Recommendation. That the Management Council support a recommendation that would allow single-sport ice hockey conferences to submit nominations for the Men’s and Women’s Ice Hockey Rules Committee on behalf of NCAA Divisions II and III individuals whose institutions compete at the Division I level.

(2) Rationale. A recent legislative change permits Divisions II and III representation on rules committees when the relevant sport is sponsored by less than 30 percent of the membership. Currently, the Men’s and Women’s Ice Hockey Rules Committee is the only rules committee in this category. Allowing single-sport hockey conferences to nominate individuals from NCAA Divisions II or III institutions is an appropriate mechanism to allow such individuals to be nominated.

c. Male Practice Players.

(1) Recommendation: Based on a recommendation from the cabinet’s Special Subcommittee Examining the Use of Male Practice Players, the cabinet recommended that the Management Council support the following plan to address the Council’s charge to examine the use of male practice players. (For 43, Against 1)

(a) Statement of Expectation. That a statement of expectations be developed regarding the use of male practice players. This statement shall assist institutions in examining their own practices to ensure the practices do not diminish positive participation

opportunities for women and helps enhance the participation experience of all involved. Institutions shall be encouraged to review this statement in relation to their institutional practices to determine if these expectations are adequately being met. (See Attachment A.)

(a) Education Materials. That the educational materials regarding current NCAA regulations pertaining to the permissible use of male practice players be disseminated to the Division I membership to ensure that the practice is in compliance with existing legislation. Survey results appeared to indicate there is not a consistent understanding in the Division I membership regarding existing regulations. Accordingly, efforts must be made to further publicize the current regulations to ensure more uniformity in practice. Educational materials should be provided to coaches, administrators, student-athletes and faculty athletic representatives; additionally, that an assessment tool be developed to assist institutions in reviewing the practice of the use of male practice players.

(b) Best Practices. That coaches associations be encouraged to work with their memberships to identify best practices regarding the use of male practice players, mindful of the fact that the focus of these practices should be on establishing positive participation opportunities for women.

(c) Periodic Oversight. That the practice of institutions using male practice players be periodically reviewed to assess trends and to ensure that women’s participation opportunities are not being negatively impacted. This assessment process may include membership surveys, student-athlete exit interviews and further discussions with the NCAA Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee.

(2) Rationale. The cabinet believes the examination regarding the use of male practice players over the course of the past year has been healthy for Division I. As a result of this examination, the Division has a better understanding of the current landscape regarding the use of such practice players. There is more transparency regarding the practice and an enhanced level of awareness regarding this issue. Based on the survey results, membership feedback and the cabinet subcommittee’s

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.

(c) Effective Date. Immediate.

(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.

(c) Effective Date. Immediate.

(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.

(c) Effective Date. Immediate.

(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.

(c) Effective Date. August 1, 2008.

(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.

(c) Effective Date. August 1, 2008.

(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.

(c) Effective Date. August 1, 2008.

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

(e) Student-Athlete Impact. None.