January 2005 Management Council agenda

2005 NCAA Convention Division III Legislative Proposal

Question and Answer Guide

Published December 9, 2004

Proposal No. 1: MEMBERSHIP -- CONDITIONS AND OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBERSHIP -- MANDATORY BINDING ARBITRATION

Source: NCAA Division III Presidents Council (Management Council).

Question: The 2005 NCAA Convention Official Notice said the Presidents Council intends to withdraw this proposal. Why was that decision made and will we see this proposal again in the future?

Answer: Because this proposal has not yet been introduced into the NCAA Division I legislative cycle, the Presidents Council determined that it should be withdrawn from the 2005 Convention. While not initially put forward as a common provision, the Presidents Council does not want to consider this proposal if it would not be an Association-wide initiative. This proposal may be presented at a future Convention if all divisions agree to put it forward for vote.

Question: What exactly is mandatory binding arbitration?

Answer: Under mandatory binding arbitration, NCAA members agree not to sue the NCAA and agree that all disputes will be settled via binding arbitration. Binding arbitration is a formal process through which an arbitrator has the authority to decide the dispute in accordance with the arbitrator's perception of the law. The arbitrator's decision is final and binding on the parties if the parties agree in advance to be bound by the arbitrator's decision.

Proposal No. 2: PLAYING AND PRACTICE SEASONS -- POSTSEASON CHAMPIONSHIPS PARTICIPATION -- NATIONAL COLLEGIATE GYMNASTICS ASSOCIATION NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP

Source: NCAA Division III Presidents Council [Management Council (Playing and Practice Seasons Subcommittee)].

Question: Does this lengthen the playing season in women's gymnastics?

Answer: Yes. Under current legislation, institutions must include the National Collegiate Gymnastics Association (NCGA) National Championships in their declared playing season (now 19 weeks). With this proposal, a team could have a 19-week regular season, and then compete in the NCGAs.

Question: How many teams are invited to the NCGAs and when does the event occur?

Answer: The NCGA is comprised of 16 women's teams that are split into two regions. A regional championship is usually conducted in the second weekend of March. The national championship happens two weeks after the regional meet. Three teams from each region will qualify to nationals, plus up to three all-around athletes and eight event specialists from each region will qualify as individuals.

Question: Under this proposal, would it be permissible for a Division III institution to compete in both the NCGA and the NCAA national championship? Have Division III institutions competed in the Association-wide championship in the past and if so how frequently?

Answer: It would be permissible for a Division III institution to compete in both events, but no Division III women's teams or individuals have made it to the NCAA Gymnastics Championship since at least 1995, which was the genesis of this proposal. Division III men have been qualifying for the NCAA Gymnastics Championship on a regular basis since 1995 which is why the proposal was only sponsored for a women's event, the NCGA championship.

Proposal No. 3: PLAYING AND PRACTICE SEASONS -- OUT-OF-SEASON EXCEPTION – GYMNASTICS

Source: New England Women's and Men's Athletic Conference.

Question: Under current bylaws, what role can a coach play in supervising the facility when gymnastics student-athletes are doing voluntary workouts outside the playing and practice season?

Answer: If the institution has a facility that is open to all students, the coach can monitor the facility for safety purposes if that duty is part of his or her job. However, it is not permissible for a coach to provide instruction to his or her student-athletes outside the playing and practice season. Therefore, any "spotting" of student-athletes could not include instruction.

Proposal No. 4: PLAYING AND PRACTICE SEASONS -- ANNUAL EXEMPTIONS -- ALUMNI CONTESTS IN NONTRADITIONAL SEGMENT

Source: Empire 8.

Question: Why does this proposal look different than the exemption lists in the 2004-05 NCAA Division III Manual?

Answer: In September, an editorial revision was issued regarding contest exemptions in the nontraditional segment for baseball, field hockey, lacrosse, soccer, softball and women's volleyball. The intent of 2004 Convention Proposal No. 63 was that contest exemptions should not be applicable in the nontraditional segment, or, in other words, that any outside competition must be limited to one date in the nontraditional segment. When the proposal was drafted, language limiting the annual exemptions to the traditional segment was included in baseball and soccer, but was inadvertently excluded from field hockey, lacrosse, softball and women’s volleyball. The editorial revision adds the missing language to the appropriate sports and clarifies that no contest exemptions apply in the nontraditional segment for baseball, field hockey, lacrosse, soccer, softball and women's volleyball. The proposal in the 2005 Official Notice was drafted based on the revised language. The current legislation can be found on the Legislative Services Database on the NCAA Web site.

Question: Would this allow two different dates of competition in the nontraditional segment?

Answer: Yes. An alumni contest could be conducted on one day and the one regular date of competition could occur on another day. In either case, the days count towards the 16-day limit in the nontraditional segment.

Question: With this proposal, can an institution exempt an alumni contest in the traditional and nontraditional segment for the same sport?

Answer: No. Only one alumni contest could be exempted per academic year. The institution could choose to play more than one, but only one can be exempted.

Proposal No. 5: PLAYING AND PRACTICE SEASONS -- OUT-OF-SEASON ATHLETICALLY RELATED ACTIVITIES – FOOTBALL

Source: American Southwest Conference and New Jersey Athletic Conference.

Question: Would offensive and defensive alignments be permissible?

Answer: Per an October 20, 2004, official interpretation on this proposal, permissible skill instruction activities may include offensive and defensive alignments related to passing, catching and kicking related drills; however, no contact may occur in the conduct of the skill instruction activities.

Question: Since the proposal eliminates the language about pass patterns and position specific agility drills, would those activities be permissible?

Answer: Per an October 20, 2004, official interpretation on this proposal, pass patterns and position-specific agility drills remain permissible. Based on the application of the proposal, that language became redundant and thus appears as deleted language in the proposal.

Question: Does this proposal add weeks to the football playing and practice season?

Answer: No. Football continues to have an 18-week playing and practice season.

Proposal No. 6: EXECUTIVE REGULATIONS -- AUTOMATIC QUALIFICATION -- GOLF AND TENNIS

Source: NCAA Division III Presidents Council [Management Council (Championships Committee)].

Question: Why is the access ratio different for golf and tennis than for the rest of the sports?

Answer: Because of the individual portion of the championship. Once the individual participants are factored in, the access to the championship is higher than 1 to 7.5.

Question: Why was cross country not included in this proposal?

Answer: The NCAA Division III Championships Committee studied the sport of cross country and determined that the nature of the championship does not merit this individual sport automatic-qualification format. Note however, that the Championships Committee is pursuing other enhancements to the cross country championship.

Proposal No. 7: ELIGIBILITY -- HARDSHIP WAIVER AND SEASON OF COMPETITION WAIVERS -- COMPLETED OR SCHEDULED CONTESTS

Source: NCAA Division III Presidents Council [Management Council (Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee)].

Question: The rationale statement of this proposal says the current legislation is inconsistent in using "scheduled" versus "completed" contests when calculating for the various waivers, but it appears from the proposal that the Division III standard was already consistent with "completed" contests. Does that rationale statement include an error?

Answer: Yes, that sentence should not have appeared in the rational statement for this Division III proposal because Division III bylaws consistently use the standard of completed contests for the waivers in question. The point of the proposal is not about consistency per se, but to use the calculation that most benefits the student-athlete, and to provide the ability to file the waiver prior to the conclusion of the season in question.

Question: Do the contests or dates of competition have to be scheduled at the beginning of the season in order to meet the requirements of the hardship waiver?

Answer: When an institution is calculating the hardship waiver using scheduled contests, the contests must be scheduled prior to the first contest of the traditional segment. This will permit an institution to calculate the waiver and file a waiver prior to the conclusion of the season in question.

Question: Can you use scheduled contests for one student-athlete on a team and completed contests for another student-athlete on the same team?

Answer: Yes. You assess eligibility for the waiver based on the method (completed or scheduled) that best benefits the individual student-athlete.

Proposal No. 8: ELIGIBILITY -- SEASON-OF-PARTICIPATION WAIVER -- COMPETITION WHILE ELIGIBLE – PENALTY

Source: NCAA Division III Presidents Council [Management Council (Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee)].

Question: Why does this proposal have an effective date of immediate, for any competition occurring on or after August 1, 2003?

Answer: This date was set because the NCAA Division III Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee has jurisdiction over waiver requests for competition occurring on or after August 1, 2003, and believes that a retroactive effective date will allow all student-athletes who satisfy the waiver criteria to be treated similarly by the committee.

Proposal No. 9: ELIGIBILITY -- TRANSFER REGULATIONS -- LIMITED PRESEASON PARTICIPATION

Source: NCAA Division III Presidents Council [Management Council (Interpretations and Legislation Committee)].

Question: How many changes are actually made with this proposal?

Answer: The one substantive change of this proposal is to establish that a student-athlete with only limited participation in intercollegiate athletics can use the same transfer exception as those student-athletes with no participation. The rest of the proposal constitutes editorial changes to clarify existing legislation.