DRAFT

 
 
JULY/AUGUST 2002 UPDATE

 

 

NCAA DIVISION III PRESIDENTS COUNCIL/MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE FUTURE OF DIVISION III

 

Consistent with its charge, the focus of the work of the NCAA Division III Presidents Council/Management Council Joint Subcommittee on the Future of Division III since its establishment in February 2002 has been to examine and articulate the educational values of the academic and athletics experiences and their application within Division III and to explore options related to possible legislative and organizational changes.  Knowledge and appreciation of the diversity of the Division III membership (size, type, constituent group) has been a priority in the discussions and identification of options for consideration.  This initial status report on the work of the five subgroups of the joint subcommittee provides an update to the governance structure and general membership and a framework to stimulate discussions.   Each subgroup met twice via conference call.  The Oversight Group met via conference call March 26 and again July 10 to review the progress of each subgroup.  Oversight Group recommendations and feedback (in bold) were submitted to the Councils for input and will be forwarded to the subgroups for review during September/October conference calls.   The subcommittee strongly encourages broad constituent distribution, dialogue and input between August and December in preparation for the 2003 NCAA Convention – Division III Forum.

 

Status Reports 

 

·                    Championships (Suzanne Coffey, oversight group representative).

 

1.                  Championships Structures – Options to Consider

 

·        Model 1 – one division/one national championship. 

 

·        Model 2 – two subdivisions and two national championships. 

 

·        Model 3 – two subdivisions in the preliminary rounds, playing to one national champion. 

 

·        Model 4 (regional championships) – one division playing to four regional champions in each sport.

 

2.                  Issues Related to Championships Structure

 

·        Cost to include staffing.  Specific cost to be determined.  Model 1 – costs remain status quo.  Model 2 – likely most expensive with addition of game/staff expense and committee structure for additional national championship.  Model 3 – additional expenses likely for one additional game and staff.  Model 4 – possibly least expensive due to decrease in games and staff.

·        Length of postseason play.  Model 4 may be the shortest with elimination of national championship, followed by Models 3, 2 and 1.

 

·        Impact on conferences, including conference championships and postseason opportunities.  Models 1 and 4 may have no impact.  Models 2 and 3 have potential impact.

 

·        Access

 

·        Overall ratios between sports and subdivisions (including conferences and independents).  Access ratios would remain consistent with current access ratios for all four models.

 

·        Overall competitive quality.

 

3.                  Institutional self-selection – all sports or sport-by-sport.

 

4.                  Governance Structure – Championships and Sport committees – must be addressed.

 

·                    Eligibility and Recruiting (Leon Lunder, oversight group representative).

 

1.                  Academic Eligibility – Options to Consider

 

·        Redefine eligibility to include practice or competition.  A student-athlete would be limited to four seasons of eligibility.  Practice or competition during a season would count as one of four available seasons.

 

·        Initial and continuing eligibility – Continue to minimize infringements on institutional autonomy.

 

2.                  Athletics Eligibility

 

Seasons of Competition – Options for Consideration

 

·        10-Semester/15-Quarter rule – retain current 10-semester/15-quarter eligibility clock but focus on the undergraduate experience. 

 

·        Eight-semester/12-quarter clock - participation based on seasons of participation (practice or competition).  Foster academic success and completion of degree in a reasonable time. 

 

·        Four-year running clock – continuous clock based on initial enrollment.  Oversight Group concern related to changed majors and study abroad.

 

·        Final semester of eligibility—Consider steps to prevent enrollment in less than a full-time program of studies merely to extend eligibility.  Athletics should not inhibit degree completion.  Oversight Group recommends removal of issue if eligibility limits to “participation” are redefined to include practice and competition.  Also, consider establishing a maximum number of courses or credit hours beyond which a student would use a semester or quarter of eligibility (e.g., one course).

 

·        Graduate Student/Postbaccalaureate Participation – Consider permitting students in graduate or postbaccalaureate programs the opportunity to participate in intercollegiate athletics regardless of the institution attended as an undergraduate.  [Referred by NCAA Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC)]

 

3.                  Recruiting – Options to Consider

 

·        Off-campus recruitment – Establish a principle that athletics recruitment should comply with established policies and procedures applicable to the admissions process.  Retain current legislation to prohibit in-person, off-campus recruitment and contacts with student-athletes until completion of junior year in high school.

 

·        Transfer contact rule – Consider steps to strengthen it to preclude unsolicited contact and subsequent transfer and enrollment.  Address through enforcement and eligibility-restoration process.

 

·        Special admissions for student-athletes - Consider impact of such policies.


·                    Financial Aid (Susan Bassett, oversight group representative).

 

1.                  Financial Aid – Options to Consider

·        Model 1 – Status quo.  No consideration of athletics in award packaging buttressed by proposed audit.  Primary focus. 

 

·        Model 2 – Permit consideration of athletics in granting of aid up to need ("preferential packaging").  Limited focus.

 

·        Model 3—Permit consideration of athletics in granting of aid (merit or other) but not greater than an agreed upon amount or percentage based on institutional cost of attendance.  Limited focus.  Oversight group recommends elimination of this model; it is not consistent with the Division III philosophy. 

 

2.                  Re-examine provisions of NCAA Bylaw 15.01.5 (athletics funds or endowments established prior to January 1, 1979).

 

 

·                    Membership (Marcia Kierscht, oversight group representative).

 

1.                  General Membership Requirements – Options to Consider

 

·        Sports sponsorship requirements.  Retain current requirements of 5 and 5; increase the minimum based on division-wide average of almost 16 total or decrease based on institutional autonomy.

 

·        Multidivision classification.  Discuss impact and further limits to this opportunity.

 

·        Coaching limits.  Consider establishing limits on number of permissible coaches per sport, based on reasonable full-time equivalent ratio of participants to coaches in each sport.  Oversight Group recommends caution  and does not support use of criteria based on full-time or part-time status, or compensation.

 

·        Travel and Squad sizes.  Consider travel and varsity squad size limits, based in part on championships squad size limits and Division III participation statistics and data. 

 

2.                  Membership Structure – Options to Consider

 

·        Retain one division – Status quo.  Respond as necessary to proposals from all subgroups. 

 

·        Subdivision.  Respond as necessary to subdivision proposals from the other subgroups.  Identify possible “division dominant” legislation that would remain applicable to the division as a whole (two-thirds majority to change) and other proposals that could apply only to the members of a subdivision.

 

3.                  Acknowledge that any subdivision discussions must address issues related to institutional self-selection and conference affiliation.

 

 

·                    Playing and Practice Seasons (Connee Zotos, oversight group representative).

 

1.         Length of Playing Season – Options to Consider

 

·        Modify and make more consistent length of playing seasons based on a student’s overall percentage of time engaged in athletics. 

 

·        Specific start and end dates, which may be all-inclusive (i.e., preseason conditioning through end of championship).

 

·        Reasonable contest limits – impact on missed class time. 

 

2.         Nontraditional segment – Options to Consider

 

·        Retain current regulations, consider further limitation (e.g., fewer contests or practice only) or elimination.  

 

·        Haverford Model – All-inclusive start and end dates, with elimination of nontraditional segment.  

 

3.        Athletically Related Activity – Time Limitations – Consider a limit on student-athlete participation in countable athletically related activities of 20 hours per week with the addition of five hours a week to discuss or review game film during the traditional and nontraditional segments.  [Referred by DIII SAAC]