» «

(Wednesday. June 13- 8:00-9:00 a.m.)


Let's open up the session because we want to try to stay on time because of the panels that are following up. My name is Andy Mooradian and I had the pleasure of running the legislative seminar out in Seattle. I think we have had an outstanding job done by the leaders in the different issues. We would like to report to the membership that could not be there what went on, and hopefully in future years we would have more in attendance of the legislative seminars which were very worthwhile. At this time I would like to introduce Karol Kahrs, women's athletic director at the University of Illinois to introduce the speakers.


Thank you, Andy. For those of you who may not be too tuned in to the legislative processes that relate to NACDA, let me give you a brief update. Last year was the first time that NACDA officially convened itself in a preconvention setting to discuss some major legislative issues. There were five that were disc~ssed at that point in time. Out of that was deemed enough interest and success to continue that process so the second discussion of legislative matters took place at the Final Four of the men's basket- ball championship this past year in April. This was done to again pursue those endeavors and to accomplish something worthwhile for the membership. Often times at the NCAA convention you get there and you find out by reading the book what you are going to talk about and what you are going to vote on without a whole lot of open discussion prior to that time. So 1 think that our panel this morning will provide you some insight as to discussions that have occurred to this point, and give you some idea of legislation that will be coming before you for the January convention. Our first speaker this morning, Mr. Cecil Coleman, currently commissioner of the Midwestern City Conference, will talk to you about governance and restructuring issues within the NCAA. Cecil is a long-time member of NACDA. He has pursued his career as an athlete, a coach, an administrator,and most recently a commissioner. Also, 1 might add he has been at the University of Illinois for a number of years and 1 happen to be fortunate enough to have been the first woman athletic director that he hired. So 1 give you at this time, a good personal friend of NACDA and myself, Cecil Coleman.


Thank you Karol. To give you some background, ladies and gentlemen, on what took place at the legislative seminar that Karol referred to in Seattle at the Final Four, I was asked to chair a panel and had Bob James, the commissioner from the ACC, Joe Kearney, commissioner of the Western Athletic Conference, Vic Bubas from the Sun Belt Conference, and Jim Delany from the Ohio Valley Conference; so we had two commissioners from I-A, one from Division I-AAA, as it is now referred to, and one from a Division I-AAA conference. The subject of governance,I think all of you that have been involved in that recognize that it is a very emotional subject. There is a great deal of concern about it, both within Division I-AA and I-AAA. It is a very important issue because it has the I-A people indicate strikes at the very heart of what they're after, autonomy; so they can determine their own destiny. What I would like to do is go over some of the points that were br6ught out by Messrs. James and Kearney at this meeting,indicating that within the higher education structure, institutions with similar institutions and goals have been able to identify like institutions and have been able to align themselves accordingly. They have not been accorded that opportunity within the NCAA structure.

Probably the most often-asked question by the Division I-AA and I-AAA is just what is it that theI-A people want that they don't already have? One of the speakers I believe outlined this quite specifically and very eloquently when he indicated that the answer wasn't very complicated at all. They want autonomy in Division I-A basketball, Division I-A £ootball, including the NCAA basketball tournament and football television. They felt that the solutions to many of the problems now surfacing in basketball television coud be more adequately handled by Division I-A with complete autonomy. They are concerned about the student-athlete and major academic issues. They are concerned about the image and credibility of Division r~A programs, about drugs and agents, about funding and support for a comprehensive program for men and women. The frustration level, and I probably cannot adequately emphasize this strongly enough, is a highly complicated one and one that is extremely frustrating to those friends that I have talked to in Division I-A.The{message tq Division I-A is quite clear as one of the speakers indicated. The Division I-AA and the Division I-AAAare highlyorganized. Those two divisions also have the votes and Division I-A will continue to be frustrated. One of the speakers pointed out that the basic differences that appeared to be evident is the ~cope and size of programs in I-A, in I-AA, and I-AAA. The institutional philosophy and commitment tbtheprograms, the funding level, the source of funds, the overall goals and aspirations are different.

Another concern of the I-A conferences and institutions deals with the Droliferation of instjtutioT1R and conferences that have come into Division I primarily to seek automatic qualifications and to get a piece of the dollars coming from the NCAA basketball tournament. The basic issue that faces the I-A institutions and What they are seeking according to one speaker,was self-determination and association with instututions of like issues. On the other hand, and I will synthesize this for you, there were some basic concerns that were expressed by the commissioners from the I-AA conference and the I-AAA conference. They did not want a carte blanche approach to autonomy if it was going to adversely affect some of their programs.

They felt that having the select committee and the Division I criteria committee come up with recommendations Which was in the form of proposal 37 at the January convention did not adequately reflect. nor were I-AAA or I-AA personnel adequately represented,on the committees that were recommending this type of legislation. They indicated that there was no-concerted effort for the I-AA or the I-AAA people to meddle or try to get involved in any purely football matters.

To come down to the heart of what the I-AA and I-AAA speakers were saying, they would not oppose autonomy to I-A providing that it would not eliminate any of the maximum automatic bids in a 64 team tournament. It would not interfere with the present process of revenue sharing. It would increase the criteria to remain in Division lor retain an automatic bid by attendance requirements at basketball games. It would increase the number of sports requirements for each institution. increasing the number of scholarships in each sport or the total number of scholarships in all sports. It would not increase the cost of an average scholarship in basketball. It would increase the size of the coaching staff in basketball. and would not increase the total number of scholarships in basketball. That basically was what came out of the Seattle meeting.

Now at the recent NCAA Division I meeting that was held in Kansas City, th~ conference commissioners' section was represented by the Collegiate Commissioners Association and by the University Commissioners Association. Primarily out of the University Commissioners Association came a proposal for the Collegiate Commissioners Association to discuss. This basically is where all of the institutions that are involved are in these two associations. The University Commissioners Association has recommended the Collegiate Commissioners Association study autonomy during their meetings coming up this next week.

The University Commissioners Association does not oppose autonomy in Bylaw one, which involves recruiting. They do not oppose autonomy in Bylaw four for eilgibility and in-season practice; Bylaw six, limitation on financial aid awards, except that it would not increase the number of grant-in-aid awards in basketball; Bylaw seven the personnel and squad size except it would not increase the coaching staffs in basketball. In Bylaw eight, football television, it appears to me that Division I-A has that in hand.

A provision could be adopted which would allow I-A institutions to adopt more stringent academic requirements for access to Division I tournaments if they so desired. There was also a contingency understanding that all Division I members would vote on any change that would change the definition of grant-in-aid in the event that it was proposed again to move it from the constitution to the Bylaws. Also, that in addition there must be some kind of agreement that under the present Division I basketball tournament, that the conferences that have automatic qualification would retain that automatic qualification and that at no time would it go above the number 32, which it currently is. Thank you Karol, that is my report.


Thank you Cecil. We will hold for questions until all three presenters are through, so if you co~ld keep those in mind as we move along. The next topic dealt with at the legislative meeting in Seattle was that of length of season. It seems appropriate that the presenter this morning continues his length of season at Rice University, having been there thus far for a total of 24 years. Moving through the ranks of having been in charge of concessions,and assistant coach, head coach, assistant athletic director, associate athletic director, ,!nd currently athletic director. I said to him this morning, "Well Augie, it seems like you have done everything except be president." He said, "Yes, and I don't want that job but they are looking for a new one." So if any of you have that aspiration you can see him after this meeting. Augie Erfurth.


Thank you Karol. In Seattle the length of seasons and number of contests was,I thought, a very good and well participated discussion. The panelists that we had at that time were Bob Hitch of SMU; Vern Smith, University of Toledo; Eddie Crowder of the University of Colorado; and Sam Jankovich, of Miami University. After each panelist presented his views and discussion and questions from the audience, you had a feeling that there was quite a bit of concern about the length of seasons for so-called "nonrevenue" sports. As one panelist stated,"in our two major sports that we have in most of our programs, football and basketball, we do have more restrictions on those than we do on any of the others." I know this issue is one that has been discussed. It is one that is very complex and one yet that there has been no solutions brought forth. The additional cost of these sports that are going now all year- round is a problem. In our part of the country, tennis, golf, baseball, your so-called spring sports, have now become winter and spring sports. Another problem is the number of classes that these studen~thletes are missing.

I think this has become a concern because I do know that on our campus some of our spring sports participants are missing many more classes than those in football and in basketball. So to come up with some type of solution, in which we did not in Seattle, is why I think the NCAA, as you Itnow. formed a suhcommittee. this subcommittee,at our Dallas convention,had something like 22 propositions that addressed it directly or indirectly Which never reached the floor. Even at the convention sight, there were an additional 17 amendments to Proposition 23, so you can see that there is concern by the membership.

But, the areas in which we addressed at Seattle are ones that you need to take into consideration the geographical location of the membership. I think this is very important because there are certain sections of the country such as ours, a southern half of the United States that can participate outdoors all year~ round. Where in other sections ~n the upper part, the midwest, the New England states, thepacific northwest, they do not have that privilege. So to come up with something that is equitable and fair to the total membership is hard.

The question that was presented is,as in Proposition 23, do you count by events, put limitation numbers on events or on dates? Do you count those dates or events by team participation or individual participation? I think that has to be addressed. I know that some will say let's just put a limitation on the number of events. Let's say that track had 20 events. Then three of those eventsaretwo-day meets. As you find in track, in swimming, in golf, you have got multiple date events. If three of those days or events are two-day or more events, then that 20 event goes to 26 days with a possibility of missing class or away from the university. If you go on the day side and say that you have 20 days for competition, then if those three events were multiple days then you are down to 17. So there is concern on both sides. The question came up, do you count it as a team participation or an individual participation? That presents problems because if you take your team and part of the team does not qualify the first part of the day, do you send them home or do you keep them? If it is counted by days, they miss a day of competition.

I spoke to someone here who said that in Division III since I have been here, I understand they are looking at a possibility of blocking out a month. This was not discussed at our session in Seattle. They are saying that they are looking at the possibility of taking a sport and blocking it out for three months or four months or Whatever period of time. I let you play the number of games and practice as long as you want to practice, but you have to participate during that period of time. That,on surface looks pretty good,but then you start looking at certain school calendars. That is Where a school that starts a little later can have unlimited number of contests and have more contests than one whose dates fall within their calendar. So you see it is a very complex problem. I talked to one of the committee members that was on the subcommittee of the NCAA that came up with these proposals for our Dallas convention and I asked him where he got most of the input. He said a lot of the input came from the NCAA sports committees, and maybe some of you in the audience might have been on that particular committee. He said the only thing that we came up with was a unanimous decision that each sports committee when they reported back said, yes I really believe that we do need some type of limitations on length of seasons and on contests, but not in our sport. Our sport is different, but all of the other sports, that's fine. He said that was almost the unanimous response from your various sports committees.

One of the panelists brought up an area that 1 had never thought of and no one else has. He said that What we are not, as administrators, looking at is another area of concern when we are allowing our teams to participate all year, and that is our support groupt our administrators, our business managers, our ticket managers, our facility managers and our maintenance and grounds people. He said what we are asking these people to do is now almost give up all of the weekends, or you have to go out and hire an assistant to help. That was a new text that I had not thought of and no one had thought of, but 1 think that is one of concern in our area. I do not think there was any real concern on limiting practice. 1 think it probably falls in th.e are.a of contests. I know this was addressed by the women in Chicago just recently and action was taKen, out wnat tney are really leaning toward is possibly the limitation of dates. They feel that that might be the answer. As far as our panel and discussion goes, we have nothing really to recommend other than to just to continue to work away at this issue, because 1 think it is one that we are going to have to address sooner or later. So Karol, this is it.


Thank you Augie. It was indicated at the legislative meeting for the women last week in Chicago that in some form,modified or repeat, 'Proposition 23 will be coming back to the convention floor in January, so you might want to give that some thought. Our final speaker for today deals with a topic that has become most complex over time due to the number of dollars involved in professional sports, also due to the lack of knowledge of student-athletes trying to negotiate their careers from the college scene to that of professional sports. Certainly our speaker is well qualified and he has spent some time working with the FBI. Also, he has spent a good portion of his career at Boston College and has been recognized for his wisdom and contribu- tions to this organization over time, through the Hall of Fame, having served as president of this organization and also a Corbett Award winner. So I give you Bill Flynn, who will talk about player/agents.


Thank you Karol. Agents, we have all heard that word and somehow we think of it as a bad word, but actually there are good agents. I do not claim to be an authority on this particular subject but I will try to tell you what I know about it. In Seattle we had an excellent panel. We had Dean Smith. the coach of North Carolina; we had Dick Berthelsen, the general counsel of the National Football Player's Association; we had Larry Fleischer the general counsel for the National Basketball Association; we had Charlie McClendon, the executive director of the football coaches and all of them offered their full cooperation in the future with films or seminars, etc. It was expressed by one coach that perhaps we should have an early draft and allow the player to know where he stands. If he is drafted fifth, he would know what the ?verage bonus and the average salary would be. He would decide to stay in school or not to stay in school. It appears that football and basketball are somewhat different in that they supposedly do not draft players until they have finished their eligibility. Of course, we have hardship in basketball and we have had two cases in football. Where in hockey and baseball and so forth, they are drafted at any time during their career.

I did write toJohn Leavins, who is the assistant director of legislative services of the NCAA and try to bring the subject up to date, since the NCAA committee on agents met on May 30-31. Now an agent does not have to have any qualifications whatsoever. There is no particular educational qualification. He can be anyone whatsoever. If he says he's an agent then he's an agent. There are a lot of press releases that you have received over the years. I have one here from Edward King Management Agency and he says agencies should be banned for life. He also says that the greatest thing to do would be to have a stron~ independent union, controlled by the legitimate agents, and there we have literature. Here is one with drugs part of the bargain and we have Bobby Beathard out of the Washington Redskins, the general manager, and he is telling us that besides money, they are giving drugs. Then you hear of general managers saying tha~ practically every athlete who is in the first round in football and basketball has had an agent. We hope that isn't true. Then you have in the case of Mike Rosier of Nebraska, the agent is saying that the NCAA has no control over him. They have no right to make rules and regulations. He is not part of the NCAA. You have many books out. Here is one, ~ Agent's ~ .It is by Ed Garvey. He was the general counsel for the NFL, and it is rather interesting in one particular paragraph. He says, "Should the agent take a percentage of the minimum wage, or just the amount he alone negotiated above the minimum wage?i" and questions like that that student- athletes should know about.

Now the NCAA special committee for agents met, and the committee has recommended three steps to provide a student-athlete with information concerning the opportunities for a professional athletic career and a selection of an honest and competent agent. Number one was done at the last convention when we established a three person committee on our campus. It's called a career counseling panel and it's interesting to know that we must notify the NCAA of the names of the people on that panel and they must come from within the university and must be outside the athletic department. We also, if there are any changes on that panel, must notify the NCAA. Number two, the agents would register with the NCAA and that registration form is going to have to be approved at the next convention. Surprisingly, the NCAA has received more than 700 requests for registration forms, so you can imagine how many are going to register. There is interest there by agents. Number three, the NCAA is to revise a pamphlet about career and professional sports, guidelines that make sense. The pamphlet will include information on career counseling panel and also agent registration. There are two others besides these three that the committee is recommending that the council bring back,Proposition 119 at the last convention, which permits a student-athlete the right to purchase liability insurance against disabling injuries that would not permit him or her to pursue a professional career.

The NCAA does have on the books the right for a student-athlete to have legal counsel, but they have come out recently with an interpretation, a very important one, that the legal counsel may not be in contact with a professional sports organization, either in person or by telephone or by letter. If he is in contact by any means whatsoever, that individual then becomes the agent and the individual may become ineligible. Now it is rather interesting reading the literature put out by the NCAA that the institution counseling panel may consult with former students, may consult with former student-athletes, with agents and consult with professional teams. In order to get their background, they may consult with these people to be sort of educated, to provide assistance to the athlete. However, at no time may the student-athlet"e, the agent and the professional team be counseled at one and the same time. John Levin sent tome the proposed registration form. He said the agents are going to receive three things, a cover letter, the registration form and copies of the NCAA legislation that concerns agents. They advised that the agent buy an NCAA manual for $8.00 and he can do something else for $6;00. It appears to me that these three actions may help the agent situation. It also tells the agent that the registration will be an annual program. It also tells the agent that the student-athlete will have a book put out to help him with a professional career. It is important that they tell the agent that none of the information they provide will be released to any individual or organization or in response to media inquiries outside the association, except for the listing of the registered agents and .the cities in which those individuals reside. Member institutions will be provided answers to specific questions concerning information reported on the registration form; however, duplicate copies of the completed forms will not be circulated to any institution, organization or individual. It goes on to say that the council encourages the agents to return tbe form as soon as possible and realizing that when they sign the form they agree to contact the member institution's athletic director before contacting theinstitution-enrolled student-athlete.

Failure to abide by the NCAA rules may cause the individual to be taken off the list of registered agents. Up to date lists of those individuals who have completed the form will be made available to NCAA member institutions throughout the academic year. Director of athletics and coaches of those institutions will be asked to encourage student-athletes. The student-athlete really doesn't have to use the people that have registered, but they are going to be encouraged to use only agents who have registered. Now very quickly, the registration form has a good number of pages, the general information, name/address, education, as well as if they have been admitted to the Bar, their experience, number of years as a player agent, those sports that they are currently agents in, other sports that they have represented, the total number of athletes they are currently representing, the athletes they have represented in the past, other qualifications, current membership in professional organization, general services performed for clients. financial planning, legal assistance, type of fees, ~nd financial terms for the services that they perform, their previous employment and it certifies that he will notify the director of intercollegiate athletics of his or her designated representative before contacting the student-athlete who has eli~ibilitv remaining in a sport, and is enrolled in an NCAA institution. I presume when he does that the coach will say you can meet the boy in my office at such and such at 10:00 tomorrow morning. They give the NCAA rules and regulations that apply to an agent, so fundamentally that is it and we certainly hope that we are on the way to solving the agent problem. Thank you very much.


Also at the legislative session out in Seattle, television was discussed. CBS was there and we had good discussions. Of course, there is really nothing to report. Everybody is waiting for the Supreme Court to come out with their decision, which could happen any day. Hopefully, a decision will be made before they adjourn. Everybody is looking forward to that. All I can say is that the NCAA football television committee is prepared to act upon the ruling within 48 hours. Hopefully, the decision will come out, maybe in conjunction with the DivisionI-AMeeting, which is going to be held at Kansas, June 28-29th, so that action can be started. The NCAA is prepared to act as soon as the Supreme Court comes out with it. At this time I'd like to open it up to questions. The panelists have been deeply involved on their issues and they are prepared to answer your questions.

We have not at the present time come up to any proposed legislation that members of NACDA would like to propose. If anybody has any suggestions, we would also be willing to listen to those. If there aren't any questions I would like to thank all of you for coming and this session is adjourned.

For your kind attention this morning we will announce some winners from the Nutmeg Company. You may be fortunate enough to be one of these. You can pick up your shirt at their booth or they will send it to you: Ken Lindsey, Louisville; Phyllis Bailey, Ohio State; Larry Keating, Adelphi; Milt Piepul, American International and Jim Livengood, Washington State.

Remember, 9:15 will be the discussion of Proposition 48 and I think that is a vital concern to all of us. Thank you.