» «

(Monday, June 8, 10:00 -11:45 a.m.)


It came from a special sub-committee that was appointed two years ago to try to work and see if we could curtail the escalating number of events in a lot of our sports and the unusual time demands to which some athletes were subjected. What the committee has suggested to us would be to have the playing season in all sports be a maximum of six months or 26 weeks, and then you would divide those 26 weeks into no more than two seasons. You could have a traditional and non-traditional season and the traditional would get its name from the fact that it is the one in which the NCAA championship is held. It is not a highly restrictive season, obviously, with 26 weeks, although we have had some concern expressed from swimmers and gymnasts that they need to have an ongoing training period. The NCAA championship would not count against that season. You would have to declare in writing at the beginning of your sport's season what the period for your traditional and non-traditional seasons would be. If you had your non-traditional season in the fall you could in no instances, except football, start practicing before August 15th.

Also, in that same motion was a reduction in the number of some events. The number of baseball games would be reduced from 80 to 70, golf would be reduced from 30 to 28, tennis from 35 to 30, indoor and outdoor track combined from 29 to 24 and volleyball from 35 to 32 and in the non-traditional segment from 12 to 6. That is the second motion, which would go into effect on August I, 1987. We were supposed to have the events in contract form by May 15th. If you have more events scheduled than the new numbers would permit, if that motion passed, then you would have to do some cancelling of events for which you had a written contract. Do we have any questions or comments for or against Motion 112?

The Proposal 113 is an amendment to the motion I just talked about. It simply says, "Under no circumstances shall an institution's traditional segment in sports other than football commence prior to September lor the first day of classes whichever occurs first." This makes the restriction a little bit more stringent than the August lSth date. If you had contracts completed by May lSth of this year, you could honor the contract even if it exceeded the number of events. If not, it would have to be cancelled.

Proposal 114 adjusts the playing and practicing seasons motion in just baseball. It goes along with the reduction of 80 to 70 contests but the first proposal allows 60 during the traditional segment and the new proposal allows only 55, so it would allow you to play more games in your traditional segment. I am going to move on unless somebody has something to add.

Now we'll move on to a subject which I know has the interest of people in this room and that is our spring practice in Division I football. We see before us several motions regarding spring football practice. What came out of the Presidents Commission was to eliminate it. That would be the first motion for I-AA to act on. If that passes, then the next motions are moot. If it does not pass, then there are two motions which will permit spring football practice, one stricter than the other. The first one is a motion that would allow 15 sessions in 25 calendar days with no more than 10 practice sessions. The motion that follows. allows Division I-AA to have the same schedule as Division I-A is proposing and that is 30 calendar days with 20 days of practice, 15 of which can be contact. I had a real concern when I first saw the order, and this is one thing we will need to clarify before we get into our own I-AA sessions in Dallas. If Proposal 9 fails, i.e.; we can have spring practice, and then we vote on 1110 and it passes, that is the most restrictive practice time. I am not real sure why that particular order is in the motion booklet. But, we will clarify.that before our I-AA meeting. We would then have the prerogative to change the order. once we vote whether or not to eliminate spring practice then we will see if we might want to take 1111 first and then 1110.

I thought that this subject might be one that we might even want to discuss in roundtables if there was much difference of opinion, so a straw vote is certainly in order. How many will vote to eliminate spring football practice in I-AA? Of the NCAA Council members that were I-AA, no one supported the elimination of spring practice. Well, I guess I can, if we represent I-AA, assume that proposal will fail. Can we take a straw vote on whether or not we want to keep our spring football for the same period of time as I-A? Who would support that tradition? And who would support having spring football practice, but to have a fewer number of days? I'm not sure exactly how to approach this, to amend our motion. It is contingent upon Division I-A. Also, remember we have the decision advantage because once we know what the other division does we can come back for a reconsideration, so we have some protection there.

The next motion involves Proposal 1113 which concerns missed class time. Each institution should have its own policy on students missing class time and on competition during exam week. This Proposal doesn't direct the school as to what to put in their policy, but simply says they should consider it and have a policy. This comes from the Presidents Commission and it will be a roll call vote. The next amendment is Proposal #14 and that is a "housekeeping" motion which states that you cannot assemble teams after the season is over and have athletes with eligibility remain for filming sessions, unless you are doing something for NCAA Communications and Productions or for the national news sports programs. This came from the NCAA Council and simply making the rule the same for all sports and not just football and basketball.

Proposal 1115 is a motion from a group of institutions requesting that we have national championships by seasons. For example, we would have a fall golf championship and a spring golf championship and the school would have to declare whether they would have fall or spring golf. This would involve 12 NCAA championships and the four sports involved are tennis, golf, softball and baseball. It makes a motion that the cost factor be considered, that there will be some adjustments in the number. Let's say that we have 30 teams going to a certain tournament; there would be 18 in the fall and 12 in the spring. I think they are inferring it will not be more cost worthy. The travel cost will be the same.

Do we have support for that motion from members of our group? It would be kind of confusing from a media standpoint wouldn't it? When anyone refers to the NCAA championship in men's tennis, they would have to ask which one, the spring or the fall? I am sure we will hear arguments from the schools that support it. I think a safe report would be that we are not interested in supporting that motion.

Proposal #16 involves women's basketball only. Instead of limiting the number of weeks a team can practice like we do beginning August 15th in basketball now, we would simply divide the year into three seasons, competitive seasons and post seasons, and declare a limited number of days per week that athletes can be involved in practice or playing. It would further restrict out-of-season practices to groups of no more than four athletes at one time. In one way it is expanding the contact that the coach can have with the athlete. I don't know how much interest there is in looking at this a little bit more fully, or if we have anybody that wants to discuss that in greater detail. Quite a few institutions endorsed that amendment. I happen to know it developed in the Womens Basketball Coaches Association meeting in Austin. Quite a few schools, 18, have sent in endorsements. I think that a discussion of the number of hours a day an athlete should be involved is coming in a later resolution, perhaps suggesting more time for study.

The Proposal that follows #17 is a resolution that we will not go into but essentially it resolves legislation be developed limiting the number of days per week an athlete can participate in his or her sport. What really is involved would be an athletic practice versus for example, a career counseling session. The proponents of this motion would like a rationale to be developed for each sport on particular playing and practice sessions. It's a much more generic motion. What would come out of this motion would be an indication that in some sports we don't need limitations. Some people pointed out for instance, in a lot of swimming programs around the country the training sessions over the course of a year might require the students to spend more time in other sports. On the other hand, we know swimmers have some of the highest grade point averages in all sports and there's no adverse effect on the swimmers by training in the morning and training in the afternoon.

The next section of the book is on financial aid and the first Proposal //18, is regarding the maximum awards which would be allowed in Division I. This particular motion is the one which came out of the Corrigansub~ommittee, which worked with the Ad Hoc Presidents Committee. They may have overreacted a little bit, thinking the Presidents Committee was going to do more in June than they really proposed as far as reduction of financial aid. The sub-committee tried to meet with a representative from each sport to look at the status in their respective sport and see what they would suggest, if there would be cuts. We see in Division I men's sports a proposal of cutting, if you offered all NCAA sports, 15 scholarships. Baseball would go from 15 to 12, track from 14 to 13, and so on. I am not going to read them all. In women's sports, if you offered all women's NCAA sports there would be a cut of 14 women's scholarships.

I think it is fair to say that the majority of women have reacted very negatively to this motion and let me explain the basis for that negative response. Presently participants in sports in Division I are about 32 percent to 33 percent women and yet our financial aid is considerably less than that, percentage-wise, compared to male athletes. So proportionately, these cuts affect women to a greater degree than men. When'jou see 14 compared to 15 you think, "Oh, that's the same number of cuts," but we are so low to start with. A good way to explain that is if your salary is $20,000 and somebody else's is $40,000, should you both sustain the same amount of salary reduction if there is a shortfall of money? I think it probably would be better if it were proportioned. Some of the women would rather have had something like a 20 percent cut if everybody is cut the same. I would hope maybe to refer this motion for further study, to really look at it and the impact it is making with respect to sport programs. I don't know if you have all done that in your own departments, and looked to see how many scholarships need to be cut for the male athletes, and how many need to be cut for the female athletes.

Another thing which has evolved from this motion is that the sports that have been cut the most lately have been basketball, two scholarships for men and two for women, and in track, there's one cut for men and three for women. Those are traditionally sports where we have a high minority population so this motion would have a disadvantageous effect on our minortiy population of athletes, with fewer scholarships available. A lot of our programs are not fully funded to start with. I think that is a point to make. I think that it is definitely a philosophical issue too. I don't want to bring anymore of my bias to this discussion. Any more discussion? I would be interested in a straw vote of those people who would support the reduction in the maximum number of awards. I will be supporting the reduction of the maximum amount of awards. Are there people who will be voting against it?

The next proposal is one to reduce the number of football scholarships from 70 to 65 and that the overall awards from 30 to 25 as was done in Division IA in January. This motion has two aspects to it. The initial award from 30 to 25 is the maximum number of athletic scholarships. The maximum number from 70 to 65 still being allowed to be distributed among 95 athletes. The proposed date for this to go into effect is August I, 1988, so you would have one year to make the adjustment. Would you like a straw vote on this one? Those who would support Motion 1120, the reduction to 65 and 25? That might be one we would want to get into and discuss the strategy as far as what is best for Division I-AA. They only have in four motions in Division I-A while we have seven. They'll be voting on just that one spring practice motion while we have three. I know there are some people whose vote will be contingent upon what I-A does. I would say there has been quite a lot of activity resisting the cut.

The next subject is the Division I basketball motion to return the schoalrships for men and women to 15 from the 13 cutback. Some will try to rule it out of order. I understand the people that submitted the motion will have some rationale to convince the assembly that it is in order and that it is not necessarily called a favor by cutting out those two scholarships. So if we do vote on it, how many will support the 15 limit? I counted six that were supporting returning to 15. And those that would not support the return to 15? Ten. It is just a straw vote and not binding, obviously. Is that a topic that some of you might want to discuss?

The next motion is on ice hockey; do we have people interested in ice hockey? Then we will skip it. Motion 1126 is the next one, still on financial aid, and that directs the newly-formed Committee on Financial Matters to discuss the concepts of tuition and fees in combination with aid for all sports. We saw a motion similar to that in January and this directs the committee to study it a little more carefully, especially the impact it will have and whether it should be done with all sports or just selected sports.

The next resolution ties in financial aid with graduation rates and this comes from the Presidents Committee and asks the NCAA Council to conduct a study looking at permissible grants-in-aid tied in with graduation rates of recruited athletes. We haven't discussed that in the Council. We haven't had it come up on any of our committees and this would be the first time that they have directed the council to study that. I think most of us who work day by day in athletics, when we first see that motion, think, "How in the world can that be done and how fair would it be? What about students who fall back just because they want to go to another school, get married all these kind of things, and they suffer?" I would refer you to an article in Athletic Administration, a Point-Counterpoint back in the middle of the year. It ultimately swayed me but it gave me some insight into the issue. It might be a good article to read.

The next section in our book involves personnel, reducing the coaching staff to the head coach and six assistants. We can discuss it first and then we can maybe tie it in with the graduate assistants adjustment. Division I-A will be voting on cutting out one coach and we won't know what they have done. Again, we have a chance to rescind but a proposal is before us to go with the head coach and six assistants. Do you want a straw vote on that one? A yes vote would support the motion to reduce the size of the coaching staff. May I see hands? The vote is 12-2. How many of you have on your coaching staff now seven assistants? Six. The next motion with respect to personnel is on the basketball coaching staff. At the January convention, as everybody is aware, we relieved the part-time coach so you have the head coach, two assistants and then two others, who can be volunteers or GAs or any combination. One of these motions would allow you in that other category to have two volunteers. GAs or part-timers and the other motion would allow you to have one of those two others as a volunteer, GA or part-timer. One of these motions came out of the Womens Basketball Coaches Association, where there were quite a few interested in the other category and concerned that there were people getting stipends of $1,000 or $2,000 for being a part-time coach. They were not just acting as assistants, they were getting paid and were not really volunteers. That is the history of one of the motions.

The other one came out independently from another group of schools. The only argument I have heard against either of those two motions was that some of those part-time coaches are making $40,000 and $50,000, but so are some of these volunteers getting some money. Could we get an indication of support for Proposal 32, where in your "two other coaches" category you will allow at least one part-time coach? Are there any people who would support that "plan?

The next motion is an athletic personnel resolution, with the Presidents Commission directing the Council to conduct a study to look at the number of individuals involved in coaching in each sport in Division I. There is already some survey where we look at how many track coaches there are, how many tennis coaches, etc. I'm certainly not against surveys but I am a little concerned myself about a clause where the commission states it believes that "the accumulative number of coaches in non-revenue sports may be excessive". In the practice of employing a full-time coach in a non-revenue sport, and therefore, his only business is to coach the sport, that represents both a financial problem and questionable circumstances in regard to the demang on a student-athlete's time. I am not sure baseball coaches or tennis coaches or softball coaches or any of the coaches for non-revenue sports would appreciate that clause, so I am addressing your attention to it when you read that particular motion. Additionally, Proposal 33 will be a regulation to study all personnel in Division I programs to see if we are spending too much money on personnel. I am sure they are trying to get out strength coaches and also some of the administrative support.

The next broad area is recruiting and the first proposal on this subject is a very broad one that comes out of an NCAA Committee on recruitment. They are saying that conceptually in any sport we shouldn't spend more than four calendar months recruiting. Also, each of the different sports groups should designate which period of time they want as long as they don't exceed four months. We thought that could probably start back in January. Proposal 35 is from the Presidents Commission and it is looking at permissible visits. It's another resolution asking institutions to look and see if they can't limit the number of annual paid visits on each campus. It's another study kind of motion. Proposal36 is another resolution from the Presidents Commission, looking at reducing recruiting opportunities attendant to high school all-star games, institutional sport camp planning and private school camp planning. Probably they'll refer this to our special Council sub-committee to review the recruitment process and bring back the motion if the study warrants it.

The next motion is from the Mid-American Athletic Conference. It says the total number of paid visits per institution should be limited to 95 in football and 15 for basketball, reduced from the 18 that is now in our rule book. Do we support for that? We are all together on that. Motion #37 C is the one on basketball I just brought to your attention; all Division I will vote on it and then 37 D will be just I-AA. Division I-A will also be ¥oting on it but we always vote separately on the football issues. This would reduce the limit from 95 to 85. Is there support for cutting basketball visits from 18 to 15? How about cutting football to 85 in our group? Nine. Those who would not support reduction? Ten. Proposal 38 is a women's basketball motion which definitely calls for a continuance. It is proposing that off-campus contact per prospect should be limited to three. This year we adopted a one-time per week limit if you are an educational i~stitution, which really can increase the number of off campus visits. We are maintaining that and just saying three off-campus visits.

The next motion is an increase in the women's basketball evaluation, making adjustments for the fact there are states in which college women's basketball is not played during the period of time which is traditional in the rest of the country. Another factor for the proposed change is to observe contests at the NJCAA and AAU women's basketball championships, because coaches thought they could see a lot in a short period of time at a lot less cost. Number 40 concerns the offical visits. It comes from a group of member institutions who want to require the meals provided to a prospective student-athlete during an official visit to take place on campus, except for breakfast and the prospect's initial meal upon arrival at campus. You understand that as much as I do, because that has not been discussed at the council. They are proposing this to contain costs.

The last three motions involve academics. The first one, Number 41, and is again from the Presidents Commission and again concerns a study. It is designed to collect information regarding freshman eligibility and to look at the effects of participation on athletes in Divisions I and II. If it passed, there probably would be some research work by the NCAA to match up incoming freshmen's SAT scores and GPAs in high school and then see how varsity participation enhances or adversely affects adademic performance. Another study called for by the Big East Conference would look at credits attempted versus credits earned in football and also in women's basketball, and that is in resolution form.

The last motion in the program involves five years of eligibility. This is a motion that has been before the convention in 1986 and 1987 and it will be here in Proposal 43 because it is also a cost containment proposal. I think you are all familiar with it. It would allow five rather than four years of eligibility within a five-year period and eliminates the hardship rule. I think some people vote for it and some against it for different reasons. I heard some presidents that it brings the wrong message, that college traditionally is a four-year experience. I have also talked to people who voted against it because they think it reduces the number of competitive slots for athletes. The athletes vote for it and some against it for different reasons. I heard some presidents say that it brings the wrong message, that college traditionally is a four-year experience. I have also talked to people who voted against it because they think it reduces the number of competitive slots for athletes. The athletes compete longer and that is why there are fewer numbers of slots.

I want to thank all of your for your kind attention. We have a table back there if you want to talk about football scholarship, and the center table if you want to talk about the basketball scholarship ideas. If not, we will see you at 12:00 at the report session.