REPORT OF THE

NCAA DIVISION III STUDENT-ATHLETE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS.

1. NCAA Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC) Survey. The committee reviewed the recently tabulated conference survey results. The survey was sent earlier in the fall to all Division III commissioners to evaluate the performance of the Division III SAAC representatives as well as the committee’s overall methods of communication with conferences. The committee spent time reviewing the various responses and comments posted by the commissioners and determined that action steps now need to be taken to ensure a positive outcome. The committee charged the conference SAAC/independents project team to take the lead. The project team will develop guidelines to assist committee members in communicating with their assigned conferences in a timely manner. The committee agreed that the survey is a valuable instrument and recommended updating it on an annual basis.

2. 2006 NCAA Convention Proposed Legislation.

a. Proposal No. 1: Amateurism – Promotional Activities. The committee voted to support the proposal.

b. Proposal No. 2: Recruiting – Tryouts – Exception. The committee voted to support the proposal for all coaches. The committee voted to oppose the amendment-to-amendment. By limiting the legislation to golf and tennis coaches, equal opportunities are not provided to all Division III coaches and prospective student-athletes. Many Division III coaches rely on sources of income beyond that of their intercollegiate coaching. By limiting this proposal to only golf and tennis, financial opportunities are taken away from coaches in all other sports.

c. Proposal No. 3: Eligibility – Seasons of Competition. The committee voted to support the proposal. The choice should be left up to the student-athletes should they remain at their college or university for a fifth year and still have a season to participate in athletics while completing their degree. This choice is consistent with all students; as student-athletes should have the same opportunity to choose when to participate in extra-curricular activities.

d. Proposal No. 4: Eligibility – Seasons of Participation – Participation at any Collegiate Institution. The committee voted to oppose the proposal. This proposal is inconsistent with the Division III philosophy as it penalizes certain student-athletes wishing to transfer from Division I or II to a Division III institution. This creates pressure on that student-athlete to consider his or her athletics standing as a deciding factor in the rationale for transferring.

e. Proposal No. 5: Eligibility – Graduate Student/Postbaccalaurate Participation – Exception. The NCAA Division III Presidents Council has withdrawn this proposal and re-emphasized the authority of the NCAA Division III Management Council Administrative Review Subcommittee to review the eligibility of graduate students and grant waivers on a case-by-case basis.

f. Proposal No. 6: Division III Membership – Sports Sponsorship – Minimum Contest Requirements. The committee voted to support the proposal.

g. Proposal No. 7: Division III Membership – Active Membership – Sports Sponsorship Requirement. The committee voted to oppose the proposal. This proposal suggests a structure where the increase in enrollment requires an additional sport per 100 students. The committee would argue that it is unreasonable to assume that these would all be traditional students with an interest in participating in intercollegiate athletics. More specifically, enough of these students would need to be of the same gender with interests in the same sport.

h. Proposal No. 8: Division III Membership – Active Membership – Six Sports For Males/Mixed and Female Teams. The committee voted to oppose the proposal. The committee’s primary fear is that by adding additional sports particularly to smaller institutions it may put a strain on athletics programs. Additional sports would require increases in funding (e.g., coaches, facilities, athletic trainers). The addition of one sport could also cause problems with compliance of Title IX. A rebalancing would be necessary and the committee fears schools may need to add more than one sport. This could further strain these programs, departments and institutions.

i. Proposal No. 9: Division III Membership – Philosophy Statement – Integration of Administration – Academic Performance – Admission Policies. The committee voted to support the proposal.

j. Proposal No. 10: Division III Membership – Philosophy Statement – Elimination of In-Region Competition Emphasis. The committee voted to oppose the proposal.

k. Proposal No. 11: Executive Regulations – Selections of Teams and Individual for Championships Participation – Maximum Size of Championships Fields. The committee voted to support the proposal.

l. Proposal No. 12: Division III Membership – Maximum Capacity. The committee voted to take no position on the proposal and wait on the NCAA Executive Committee report. Being that this proposal has the ability to affect the Association at large, as a collective group the committee felt that it was necessary to wait for the Executive Committee’s report regarding this matter. SAAC will continue to gain as much insight while keeping the student-athletes best interests at heart as the division continues to grow.

m. Proposal No. 13: Division III Membership and Championships Selection – Member Conference – Self-Study Guide and Limited Realignment Period. The committee voted to support the proposal. This proposal promotes positive realignment with the inclusion of the necessary conference self-study. The committee believes that the self-study is essential and gives a direct voice to the student-athletes in crucial issues relating to conference realignment. The self-study also enhances the student athlete experience by improving the function and effectiveness of existing conferences which is consistent with the Division III philosophy.

n. Proposal No. 14: Executive Regulations – Automatic Qualification – Conference Realignment Period. The committee voted to oppose the proposal.

o. Proposal No. 15: Executive Regulations – Selection of Teams and Individuals for Championships Participation – Automatic Qualification – Seven Institution Requirement – Two-Year Grace Period. The committee voted to oppose the proposal.

p. Proposal No. 16: Executive Regulations – Selection of Teams and Individuals for Championships Participation – Primary Criteria – Ranking and Selection – Strength-of-Season/Conference index. The committee voted to take no position on the proposal. The committee was not comfortable in making a decision without seeing an example of the strength of season index.

q. Proposal No. 17: Playing and Practice Seasons – Exception to Playing Season Limitations and Contest Exemption – Postseason Championship Event. The committee voted to support the proposal.

r. Proposal No. 18: Playing and Practice Seasons – Nontraditional Segment Length and Maximum Contest Limitations. The committee voted to take no position on the proposal. The committee felt there were both benefits and drawbacks with this proposal. As student-athletes, the committee is always in favor of maximizing opportunities, which is consistent with the Division III philosophy. Student-athletes felt extra time could provide additional team building and more time for preparation for competition. However, the feedback on the current use of the nontraditional season does not seem to be in line with student-athlete well-being. The information that the committee gathered from their constituents indicates an increased number of hours spent on the practice days and the one date of competition. Also, some student-athletes felt that it created an academic burden. The increased number of hours appeared to result in more time spent on the field possibly due to the legislative reform package of 2004.

s. Proposal No. 19: Institutional Control – Self-Study Report – Failure to Submit. The committee voted to support the proposal; however, SAAC recommended that institutions should notify student-athletes if its institution is in probation or restricted status.

t. Proposal No. 20: Financial Aid – Failure to Submit Annual Electronic Report – Application of Restricted Membership Status. The committee voted to support the proposal; however, SAAC recommended that institutions should notify student-athletes if its institution is in probation or restricted status.

u. Proposal No. 21: Ethical Conduct – Unethical Conduct – Prescription Drugs. The committee voted to support the proposal.

v. Proposal No. 22: Personnel – Limitations on Scouting of Opponents – Exhibition Contests. The committee voted to support the proposal.

w. Proposal No. 23: Recruiting – Official Visits – Meal Location. The committee voted to support the proposal.

x. Proposal No. 24: Recruiting – Tryouts – Competition Against Prospective Student-Athletes. The committee voted to support the proposal.

y. Proposal No. 25: Recruiting – Prohibited Expenses – Donation of Used Athletics Equipment. The committee voted to support the proposal.

z. Proposal No. 26: Eligibility – Transfers Residence Requirement – Championship Eligibility. The committee voted to support the proposal.

aa. Proposal No. 27: Awards and Benefits – Benefits, Gifts and Services – Permissible – Occasional Meals. The committee voted to support the proposal.

bb. Proposal No. 28: Playing and Practice Seasons – First Contest and Practice Date – Football. The committee voted to support the proposal.

cc. Proposal No. 29: Playing and Practice Seasons – Maximum Contest Limitations – Lacrosse. The committee voted to support the proposal.

3. Conference SAAC Spotlight. The Conference SAAC Spotlight features "best practices" and quality initiatives by conference SAACs. The selection objectives include communication (e.g., engaging chancellors and presidents and other campus leaders, commitment and communication with the national SAAC, establishment and use of a

conference SAAC Web site), community outreach and sportsmanship initiatives, SAAC meeting structure (e.g., in-person meetings, conference calls) and leadership opportunities (e.g., leadership conferences, professional development). The committee voted to highlight the State University of New York Athletic Conference in the next Division III Newsletter as the spotlight SAAC. The committee also commended the Ohio Athletic and Middle Atlantic State Conferences for all their excellent SAAC initiatives.

4. NCAA Committee on Women's Athletics (CWA). Kayla Hinkley was elected to replace Mike Unwin as the SAAC representative to CWA.

5. SAAC Manual. The committee plans to have the SAAC manual ready for distribution at the 2006 Convention as a component of the best practices CD Rom compiled by the Future of Division III Oversight Group.

6. Certification of Insurance. The committee discussed student-athlete feedback regarding the certification of insurance which was implemented in fall 2005. Some comments included money out of pocket for student-athletes, student-athletes being ineligible until they show proof of insurance, as well as the necessary signatures from parents, which was burdensome for international student-athletes. Overall, the comments were positive for the certification of insurance. The committee recommended that institutions provide the certification of insurance forms to current student-athletes in the spring so that information can be gathered from their parents/legal guardians along with the necessary signatures.

7. Male Practice Players. The committee discussed student-athlete feedback regarding the use of male practice players. It was found that basketball, soccer and volleyball are the sports that most often used male practice players. Some comments included using male practice players only in the preseason; male practices players can be a distraction, females were strong enough and do not need a male to make them better; and male practice players should go through the same procedures as student-athletes, which includes physicals, good academic standing and completing NCAA forms. Overall, committee members reported that female student-athletes liked having male practice players and did not see a problem with it.

Committee Chair: Sameer Khan

Staff Liaison(s): J.D. Hamilton, Statistics

Sarah MacInnis, Education Services

Susan Peal, Membership Services