» «

NAIA-ADA SUMMER BUSINESS MEETING
(Tuesday, June 9, 11:30 a.m. -12:30 p.m.)

BARRY BLIZZARD :

We had a Budget Committee report yesterday by Mike Jacobs, and the printed budget was changed in one way, which was under the expenditures for the June meeting, the second item, the officers' committee luncheon. That amount was raised from $25 to $125, raising the total allocation from $7,500 to $7,600 and the total expenditures from $7,500 to $7,600. With that revision, the proposed budget was approved by those in attendance yesterday.

The Awards Committee reported that we had only one applicant for the two ADA scholarships this year, and that applicant, they felt, was not qualified to receive the scholarship, so the scholarship will not be awarded this year.

The Constitution and Bylaws Committee reported that, due to the fact that our separate dues for the ADA and all other NAIA associations have been eliminated and that we now receive an allocation rather than collecting separate dues, the constitution and bylaws of this organization will be amended to reflect that procedure.

The Nominating Committee announced that Jerry Conboy had been elected as the secretary-treasurer for next year. I think a total of 216 votes were cast, and Jerry received a majority of those votes. So he was confirmed as our new secretary-treasurer. Bonnie brought a report to us from the national office. Bonnie, do you want to highlight anything that you said, for the people that weren't here?

BONNIE MORROW:

I would like to just recap for those who are not informed. Dr. Harry Fritz passed away May 27 and we were discussing some kind of contribution by the Athletic Directors Association to the memorial fund that is being set up. Also, I noted that I have received the responsibility for the Athletic Directors Association, and I basically reviewed some of the changes that are taking place in the national office, not only structurally, but also in terms of responsibilities and who is doing what now. Hopefully,- some of the confusion such as the time of the meetings and who's responsible for sending what information out will be taken care of when we all finally get readjusted. I'm very much looking forward to working with the athletic directors and I feel a lot of your frustrations are very justified. Hopefully, we can address those and get you back in charge of athletics.

Everybody has their role to play, and I think we can accomplish what goals we established for the Athletic Directors Association. So I'm looking forward to it.

FROM THE FLOOR:

It sounded like, in your talk for just a little bit yesterday, and maybe it was just my perception, there seems to be somewhat of a power struggle going on within the organization. Is that a fair assumption, as far as the allocation of jobs has come about, that some people have lost some of the power they had?

BONNIE MORROW:

Well, I think all the power has been a perception anyway, so whatever power anybody had was always what they perceived they had. I think that it is not so much a struggle for who has what power as determining who has what responsibilities and who is going to be responsible for what decisions. If there is a power struggle, it is more between, and has become evident with, the Senior Council of Presidents and the Executive Committee, but not internally within the office. I hope that answers some of your question. I don't think that, internally within the office staff, we found we have that struggle going on. But, sometimes I operate on cloud nine and would like to believe a lot of things idealistically, so maybe that accounts for it.

BARRY BLIZZARD :

One other thing. At the conclusion of Bonnie's report, the group has asked the secretary to extend a letter of thanks and appreciation to Charlie Morris for his work with the group in the past and that was approved, so we will be doing that. Secretary White has started the attendance l~st around and he would ask that you sign it if you weren't here yesterday and that you simply check your name off if you were here yesterday, if you are in attendance again today.

BONNIE MORROW:

I would like to just recap for those who are not informed. Dr. Harry Fritz passed away May 27 and we were discussing some kind of contribution by the Athletic Directors Association to the memorial fund that is being set up. Also, I noted that I have received the responsibility for the Athletic Directors Association, and I basically reviewed some of the changes that are taking place in the national office, not only structurally, but also in terms of responsibilities and who is doing what now. Hopefully,- some of the confusion such as the time of the meetings and who's responsible for sending what information out will be taken care of when we all finally get readjusted. I'm very much looking forward to working with the athletic directors and I feel a lot of your frustrations are very justified. Hopefully, we can address those and get you back in charge of athletics.

Everybody has their role to play, and I think we can accomplish what goals we established for the Athletic Directors Association. So I'm looking forward to it.

FROM THE FLOOR:

It sounded like, in your talk for just a little bit yesterday, and maybe it was just my perception, there seems to be somewhat of a power struggle going on within the organization. Is that a fair assumption, as far as the allocation of jobs has come about, that some people have lost some of the power they had?

BONNIE MORROW:


Well, I think all the power has been a perception anyway, so whatever power anybody had was always what they perceived they had. I think that it is not so much a struggle for who has what power as determining who has what responsibilities and who is going to be responsible for what decisions. If there is a power struggle, it is more between, and has become evident with, the Senior Council of Presidents and the Executive Committee, but not internally within the office. I hope that answers some of your question. I don't think that, internally within the office staff, we found we have that struggle going on. But, sometimes I operate on cloud nine and would like to believe a lot of things idealistically, so maybe that accounts for it.

BARRY BLIZZARD :

One other thing. At the conclusion of Bonnie's report, the group has asked the secretary to extend a letter of thanks and appreciation to Charlie Morris for his work with the group in the past and that was approved, so we will be doing that. Secretary White has started the attendance l~st around and he would ask that you sign it if you weren't here yesterday and that you simply check your name off if you were here yesterday, if you are in attendance again today.

We had a number of legislative issues that we discussed. We discussed at length yesterday the concept of divisions of competition. With the limited time we have, we need to move on to something else today to at least touch on some of these things, rather than spend our time all on one issue. I would like to move on to the task force which is being set up on limitations of games and scholarship: I want to just mention a couple of things from a letter that Dr. Farris sent to me in March, right after the convention. He says that the Council of Presidents is very much looking at the implementatiol of limitations on games and scholarships throughout the NAIA. A committee of the Council of Presidents looked at various aspects and made a progress report to the Council of Presidents last January. The Council of Presidents felt all along that the best recommendation on these areas could come from the people most directly involved, and they hope that the athletic directors and/or theNAlAECwould take the leadership in this matter.

He sent this letter, in addition to myself, to Lynn Adams, who is the chairman of theNAIAEC The Council of Presidents feels that the ADA and/or theNAIAEC are the groups that can best do the job. He says that they are not trying to force us to do an unpleasant chore, but they think they would like for us to do it anyway. I responded to Jeff when I got this letter that during the June NAIAE~ADA executive committee meetings in Kansas City, we should take an extra day, as executive committees of both these groups, to discuss this, and at that time make recommendations to the Council of Presidents on scholarship and game limitations. He agreed that that might be a good idea.

As your ADA executive committee, we would like to hear from the membership here any concerns that you would like for us specifically to take to this meeting, which will be next week. I would just like to throw the floor open, as we did yesterday, on this question of game limitations and limitatior on scholarships throughout the NAIA, to give us some type of background on what we should take to that meeting next week. I'd just like to hear from somebody that has a view on these. Do we need them?

All these things tie in together with the divisions of competition. So the floor is open. Who would like to make a statement?

FROM THE FLOOR:

I'd better just get started. I think we'd better take control of this situation. If we sit back and let the presidents do it, then all we'll be doing is what we've done in the past in other situations, and that is just criticize the presidential action. It is our house. We're in charge of it. I know it's not a pleasant situation and I know the letter that Barry read stated that, but I really think that if we don't take the initiative in this situation, then it would just be another example or another message to the presidents that in their judgements are not concerns, or else they' concerned for the wrong reasons. They're concerned for winning and losing and that type of thing, aru they don't have a perspective of what it's all about in terms of the whole program. So I really thin] we have to get involved in it. I do think it's important to look at it.

BARRY BLIZZARD :

The first thing we need to address is: do we as the ADA feel that we need limitations on scholarships and a number of contests?

FROM THE FLOOR:

How many of us are already involved in conferences or leagues where we have limitations which are below whatever the NAIA has ever thought about? I would just like to get some information as to whether most people are involved with that or whether we are all unlimited. Our school is limited in I sport we play.

BARRY BLIZZARD :

I'll just use our conference for an example. We have set limits on number of contests but no limits on scholarships. We felt several years ago, as an economic move, that we had to put a ceiling on the number of contests. We did that across the board in each sport that we sponsor as a conferencl Again, our conference and our district are one and the same, so they're district guidelines as well as conference guidelines.

FROM THE FLOOR:

We were in the Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference. We also were limited in the number of contests. We were limited also in the number of schoalrships and limited not only in number, but as far as tuition and fee waivers in some.

BARRY BLIZZARD :

Has it worked well for you?

FROM THE FLOOR:

It seems to be working quite well.

FROM THE FLOOR:

Barry. I've got a couple of observations. One is that if we're serious about national competition and we're serious about the equitability of that competition. then there has to be some type of ceiling placed on the number of scholarships for our sports. It's kind of fruitless if you're operating on a limited number of scholarships and then you get into national competition and somebody else has twice or three times as many as you have. So if there's going to be any type of equitable competition at the national level, there has to be a ceiling there. On the scheduling limitation and the games limitation. while I know that's of concern to everybody. I think there are so many differences in geography and emphasis of programs and split seasons in certain sports that it becomes a matter that might be better handled at the district level than it is at the national level. We have talked about it in our district. While most of our institutions have some type of institutional control, I think a lot of people would like to have it at a higher level so they can better handle their own coaches. because maybe they don't have enough guts or because they won't take a strong enough stand to do it themselves at their own institutions. But it's hard for me to say, "Hey. I think you ought to be limited to 40 baseball games if you're in the state of Florida or Arizona." Whereas it might work very well for us in North Carolina. it does not work. maybe. for those schools in Arizona or Florida. So my viewpoint has been that it should be more of a district matter as far as scheduling games. And scholarships. I think, ought to be on the national plane.

FROM THE FLOOR:

At what point do we start losing contact, though, with the term, whether it be athlete-student or student-athlete, as raised this morning? There are certain institutions in our district that are playing over 40 basketball games. At what point are we losing that? We're here because of those people.

BARRY BLIZZARD :

That's the concern of the presidents, that we're missing too much class, we're putting too much emphasis on the sports. We had a situation in our conference just this year; we had a very wet spring. One of our conference members made up 12 baseball games during exam week. That's rough. And our presidents noticed that. And I think, from what I'm hearing, they're noticing things like that nationwide. They're upset with it, so they asked us to tell them what we can do to help it. If we don't tell them what we can do, they'll tell us what we're going to do. Again, as has been said already, this is our chance to make some recommendations. I'm sure our executive committee of the ADA will make some recommendations, but we would like to make recommendations that you want us to make.

FROM THE FLOOR:

How do you plan on getting the feedback between now and June and during June? BARRY BLIZZARD :

I know. we haven't had time. This is the only way we can get the feedback and that's why I'm asking for some feedback here today. Bonnie?

BONNIE MORROW:

Part of that will come out of the meeting that you're going to have next week. this is the avenue so that you do get feedback. At some point in time. by December l5. there may be a proposal that would be forwarded to the convention. from the task force.

FROM THE FLOOR:

I'm not trying to usurp what we're trying to do here as an organization, but every district chair has had an opportunity to respond to this and has been instructed to communicate with each member of his district to give some feedback on this. Every chief executive officer, also, has had an opportunity to respond to these matters and pass it on to their athletic directors. So this is not the only avenue that we have for feedback.

FROM THE FLOOR:

We have a problem in our conference in Oklahoma. We have a limitation in our conference in Oklahoma. We have a limitation on basketball games but do not have it on other sports. I think sometimes that's really not fair that we should have limitations across the board. much like your conference does.

BARRY BLIZZARD:

Going into next week. I would like to know the feeling of this group. Do I hear that we actually do need some limitations. or do we not need limitations?

FROM THE FLOOR:


Why don't you take a straw vote?

BARRY BLIZZARD :

I'd like to do that at the end of the discussion. If the discussion is over, we'll take it now. I think that's the first question that we'll look at next week. Do we need them? The presidents have asked us if we think we need them and if we don't, maybe the discussion will end there.

FROM THE FLOOR:


The only logical way to do it, Barry, is we go down by sport. We may see a big difference in sports when you talk about limitations. In some of the sports, I don't think we have much of a problem. In basketball, what are you doing to do? Are you going to limit them to say, 30 games? Baseball, like Al says, could be a real problem because of weather in the East and down in the South and the Midwest, where some teams can get out and start playing baseball games in February, whereas back home, we can't get out until the end of March. So I think what you have to do is maybe just go down by sport and see what the feeling is, and maybe we can get some idea by different sports.

BONNIE MORROW:

A few other issues that might be tied in with this would be adequacies in competition limitations for those sports, as well as season starting dates. Also, we could specify the starting dates to take care of the limiation of setting a magic number. So you don't necessarily have to say you can pI. 40 games, but if you don't, you can't start until a certain time. Maybe that control would be built into that.

FROM THE FLOOR:

Bonnie, our league tried that, with the starting dates. We moved the starting date back, therefore, it cut down the games they'll play.

FROM THE FLOOR:

Geographically that's not good. What may be an efficient starting date for somebody in the northern part of the country is certainly not an efficient starting date for someone in the south.

FROM THE FLOOR:

There are certain sports that we in the northwest or in the northern part of the country may not see as revenue sports that are revenue sports in other institutions. For instance, baseball may be a revenue-producing sport in a southern institution, whereas it's not for us. So I think you've got a whole gamut here.

BARRY BLIZZARD :

So what I think I'm hearing is maybe our position should be that this should be handled on a district levelJ

FROM THE FLOOR:

I think you have to have limitations for three reasons. One was already mentioned, for balance. I think you have to have it for academic reasons. It's ridiculous for someone to play 40 basketball games and somebody else to play 68 or 70 baseball games. We've been allowed to have that flexibility and we probably haven't done a good job in that area.

The third reason is an economic reason. I mean, even that alone is good enough. I think we're kidding ourselves if we sit here and say we don't need it. I'm not saying they should be too restrictive, but I think we need to have some limitations for us nationally.

BARRY BLIZZARD :

A national ceiling maybe, and then each district could operate below that ceiling if they felt it necessary. The district, I think, should probably have the option to be in the middle there somewhere, for consistency in the district.

FROM THE FLOOR:

We do need the scholarship limits and the game limits. This is a very good point: if we don't consider the individual sports carefully. the presidents may jump in and just say this is what it will be. As an example. it's easy in basketball to say the starting date should be so and so. the number of games should be so and so. Everybody is in a controlled environment. etc. But to just make a blanket assumption for a sport like baseball. where the geography might really influence that. as athletic directors. we will consider all that and can make those types of judgments. Whereas if we're not careful and we let the presidents eventually end up doing it. it might be something that is just a cut and dried date or time or number that just doesn't work in certain parts of the country.

FROM THE FLOOR:

A good example of that happened last January. In baseball in Division III the CEOs jumped in and arbitrarily chose a number out of the air, which happened to be 40. 40 baseball games, which they could play. Well, that's fine with us because we can't get 40 in, in our weather. But that wasn't fine with the schools of Texas or Oregon. We hate to compare ourselves with the NCAA, but we do it often. If they can find limits and starting dates and times, there's no reason we can't. I'm not saying we have to be the same, but they're doing it for the same reasons that we're looking at doing it. I would be ludicrous not to limit scholarships and look at game limitations.

FROM THE FLOOR:

I don't mind comparing Oklahoma with Dick's events. I think they have a good model to work off of as far as limitations, especially if you talk about the number of contests and so forth. I think they put some time in to determining what their limitations should be. If we get to talking geography, there's no way it will work. If you set a 60-game baseball limit and I'm in Kansas City and it rains every other day, so I only play 30, that's because of my geography. If somebody plays 60, there's nothing I can do about it. You can't set a 30-game limit in Kansas City and 60-game limit somewhere else.

BARRY BLIZZARD :


We ought to take their model as a beginning and go from there. I think in basketball 28 could do it. We use 26 at our place.

FROM THE FLOQR:

I agree with you

BARRY BLIZZARD:

So, being not familiar at all with what anybody else does, do you agree that would be a good model to start from.

FROM THE FLOOR:

Also, the committee that the Council of Presidents set up to study these limitations issues was looking at the NCAA model and the numbers that they came up with were based on that. There are some differences, but nothing drastic. That was their model of operation in looking at the issues themselves.

BARRY BLIZZARD :

One other thing. scholarship is?

If we would establish scholarship limitations, should we also limit what a

FROM THE FLOOR:

That's more important than a scholarship limitation.

BARRY BLIZZARD :

Say we had established a limit in basketball of 10 full rides; should we decide what a full ride is? Is it room, board and books? Is it tuition, room, board and books? Is it tuition only? For consistency, I think we should agree. Maybe I'm wrong.

DARYL LEONARD:

The way that we limit it, and I think that it's a good policy, and it's based on the NCAA standards also, is if an athlete is receiving athletically-related money, they are then bound by a total dollar amount that is not to exceed tuition, fees, room and board, and books. If they get a co-grant that could be up to $900 more, that money is counted in there is all financial aid grant money and athletic grant money, excluding loans. In terms of counting up your totals toward the limits that are placed by sport, you take the amount of money that the athlete is receiving from the institution. In other words, take the state financial aid grant, the Pell grant or any other grant that is not administered by the institution, take that dollar amount and divide it by what the full grant costs would be, and that's how you calculate it.

BARRY BLIZZARD :

In other words, you don't go over the established budget of your financial aid officer?

DARYL LEONARD :

No. In other words, for an athlete who's receiving a Fell grant or a state financial aid grant, that money is not counted in the equivalency based on athletic ability. In other words, financial aid officers can hold back SEOG money and award that to athletes. If they have a need for that. Some universities do that and others don't, so that's an institutional decision. It's not coming out of the athletic department. That counts in the athletic money that an athlete is receiving, so they're not being penalized and the department is not being penalized. It also benefits the coaches to go after the athletes that have financial need. I don't know. It's a confusing discussion. If you get into limitations I think the NAIA then gets into a major enforcement effort.

BARRY BLIZZARD :

Lots of paper and lots of work for us too, really.

DARYL LEONARD:


Very much so.

FROM THE FLOOR:

The question still is, Daryl, if tuition at your school would be $10,000 and at some other school it's $2,000, what's the difference?

DARYL LEONARD:


If tuition at your school is $2,000 and you give an athlete $2,000 in athletic money, that counts as one full ride. If you give another athlete $1,000 and that athlete doesn't get any financial aid, that counts as a half of a full ride. If you have another athlete that you give $1,000 and another thousand in athletic money, and then he or she gets $1,000 in SEOG money, that's an institutional decision as to who gets the money and how much. That counts as a full ride. In my situation, let's say a full ride is $10,000 and you give an athlete $10,000 athletically; that counts as a full ride. If you give that athlete $5,000 that counts as a half of a ride. It's based on institutional cost. Your decision is, do you go with equivalencies or head counts? But I think we've got to be careful and we've got to get the financial aid money calculated in, especially the money that the institution's financial aid office can decide, SEOG and work study.

FROM THE FLOOR:


We did send some information to Charlie, I think, on the way that you can base it, not on the amount of aid that the student-athlete received, but rather, if you want to be fair, on the amount of money that the student-athlete pays to go to school. For example, at one school it costs $2,700, but at our school our costs next year at $9,000. At the first school if he gets half a ride, that student-athlete is going to pay $1,350. If I give him half a ride, that student-athlete is going to pay $4,500. Where do you get fair? In other words, I think you should be looking at a reverse situation, not what the student-athlete is receiving, but what a person is actually paying to go to school. If they're not paying ~ dime, they get a full ride. I'm talking more about institutional money because we get into problems when you start talking about these entitlement programs like Pell. I don't think we have a whole lot of control over that. I personally feel that if a person qualifies for Pell, they should receive it. I think they needed it.

BARRY BLIZZARD :

And it shouldn't be counted in the formula at all, then.

FROM THE FLOOR:

Right.

FROM THE FLOOR:

Should we look at possibly setting a limit and, excluding Fell and state money, have anything that's institutional, whether it be athletic, academic or whatever, be considered an athletic scholarship?

FROM THE FLOOR:


I think that our most embarrassing situation was brought up yesterday, and that is that, counting Pell and supplemental grants and then athletic grants, there are some students that are getting more than lOO percent need. In other words, we're paying them to be athletes. Let's say at Eastern it costs $10,000 to go to school. If I chose to give a women's volleyball player, counting Pell and other funds I don't have control over, I think it is morally wrong and morally embarrassing. our group needs to come up with a definition of what a full ride means. I think a full ride means tuition, fees, room and board and books. Period. If we do come up with scholarship limitations, then they need to include Pell and everything. And that everything combined, including our athletic grant money, can never exceed lOO percent of tuition, fees, room and board and books.

FROM THE FLOOR:

I don't agree, simply because I think any of us could go to our institutions and find people that aren't doing anything. These aren't just athletes receiving more than 100 percent. There are other individuals on our campuses receiving more than 100 percent because they're entitled to it. I don't think we have any control over that Pell and I don't think we have control over the state funding. I don't like to separate athletic from academic, because there are other people on that campus that are receiving more than 100 percent.

BARRY BLIZZARD :

On our campus, we consider "full need" as 80 percent of the need established by the Financial Aid Form. If we have a regular student who is receiving 75 percent of that need, but we have an athlete who's receiving 110 percent of the need, there's something wrong.

FROM THE FLOOR:

The NCAA definition is whatever your institution's tuition, fees, room and board and then the course-required bopks are. The Pell is designed for individuals that need the incidental money to live. In other words, to buy clothes, entertainment expenses, laundry, transportation money, the whole bit. The NCAA, in Division II and pretty well in Division I-AA, has attempted to keep the $900 limit in there because it saves the athletic departments money. What you do is take that dollar figure and that's the maximum an athlete may receive unless they're a Pell recipient. Say it's $5,000 if they're Pell recipient, the maximum they can receive is $5,900 even though the Pell equals $2,100. So that's saving the athletic department over $1,000 that they can then spend on another athlete.

The whole financial aid limitation package has gone from the constitution to the bylaws. So what's going to happen in DivisionI-A and probablyI-AA is that the Fell will be exempt so that whatever they get in Fell will be above and beyond the financial aid package limit. One of the reasons they use that, and I agree with it, is that those are the kids that need some money. And what happens is they're getting money under the table, and going out and working jobs.

FROM THE FLOOR:

That's what it's all about. If the young man is from Pittsburgh and he goes out to Arizona to play ball, maybe he has nothing so he qualifies for total need. How is he going to get back and forth? It has been through cheating. They have been paying his way back and forth. So now, they're giving him the Pell grant to take care of some of these things. So you say it's immoral. It isn't, if you would deal with some of these young people that have nothing. Is it immoral when somebody has to wash their clothes and they come and ask you for a couple of dollars to wash their clothes? Is that immoral to give them money? It depends on the type of institution you have and the type of individuals that you know and that you have dealt with. We're right in the city of Pittsburgh and I've dealt with some young men that you can't believe. They don't have any clothes. What are you going to do? They have to dress and do things. Sometimes the first time they've ever been to a restaurant is when you've taken them there. It is a touchy subject but you have to understand all the parameters and who you're dealing with and what it's all about.

FROM THE FLOOR:

I don't feel if somebody has a full scholarship and they have a young man that qualifies for a Pell grant and they give it to him. I can't see that as an edge. I think that's just a fair situation for that young man. If we're only giving 80 percent. we can't tell him that he should not be given a full scholarship or that he should not be given a Pell grant. That young man needs that money. I wish that I could help some of my students that qualify for a Pell grant. We take the Pell grant. I think it's an unfair situation. really. but I don't feel that someone else has an advantage over me because he gives this young man a Pell grant. We can't get into that.

FROM THE FLOOR:

I think we've only got two choices, though. We either say that we don't use the Pell grant or we do.

FROM THE FLOOR:

I want to straighten out something here. I do not have a basketball player who receives a Pell grant, except one and he gets half a ride. We're in an economic situation for the type of school we are that we appeal to a certain group. They don't even file money into that.

FROM THE FLOOR:

Let me ask you a question. You've got a kid you're recruiting as a full-ride situation. If he is going to get a Pell grant, it's going to put him over. You're telling me that you're not going to tell that kid, you had an opportunity, "I'm going to give you a full ride. And this is what I'm going to do: I'm going to give you $500 because you have a Pell grant that's up to $900." If that's all you're going to give him, won't you do that? We're all talking real nice about giving the kids spending money, but if we can get by with getting the kid for just the cost, still beat so and so down the road and save us some money, we're going to do it, if it's our money. So we're talking about the same thing. Whether we've said it's Pell money or our money, it all comes out to how much we're going to give the kii That's my concern.

FROM THE FLOOR:

Our school keeps the Fell grant. I've nothing to do with it. My financial aid director is the one that decides what people get, not me. I just have a certain figure in each sport that I try to distribute with the financial aid. I work with my financial aid director. All I'm saying is I am not upset about a school that can do that. You see what I'm saying? I'm saying if that young man goes to school and he qualifies for that Fell grant, I think he should get it. I wish my school would give that young man the Fell grant. But we don't. I'm not in that situation. We only give a little bit of money in athletic aid. You're talking about equity. You'll never have equity in the NAIA, the NCAA, anything. Every school is different, and you're never going to have equity. There's no possible way. Some schools have 12,000 and some schools have 1,000 students.

FROM THE FLOOR:

I don't think we can equalize everything, no matter how we put it in writing. I would like to see what the divisions of competition proposal would be, because that will relate to scholarships and will make some choice. I recruit against people who say they have no athletic scholarships, but they give more money than I can give the kid. So we are not going to equalize coaches. We are not going to equalize gyms, we are not going to equalize fields, and all the facilities and all those things. There's one other thing I want to respond to. I don't think ,it hurts a kid to work. I think we have to talk about the work ethic someplace other than just on the field or court. I'm not interested in handing them money and saying, "Now you can go to school and you don't have to do a thing," because I don't think that's wise. I really believe athletics teaches what life is about. So set the limit. With most of us, it's not even going to be an issue because we can't reach it anyway. Place a limitation, spell it out and we'll continue to go for it. If I don't want to deal with that, I'm going to go to NCAA Division III and let somebody else worry about all that.

FROM THE FLOOR:

The observation from a lot of CEOs is that if you do set limits, then they're concerned all of us are going to bombard them and say, "Hey, here is our limit." We've got to get there. None of us are there anyway. So their mentality is just opposite of what we are.

BARRY BLIZZARD :

When we tell them, they're going to tell us to go out and raise the money.

FROM THE FLOOR:


The CEOs ar~ kind of interesting anyway, because they can place any limitation they want to, but they want an athletic organization to do it for them.

BARRY BLIZZARD :

They lack the fortitude to do it, sometimes. I'm going to end this discussion. As the officers of the association, I think we've got some ideas here to take with us next week, and that's exactly what we were after.

FROM THE FLOOR:


There's another point you should consider. There are quite a few schools that have one sport. Let's say they have basketball. They can have 25 scholarships a year for basketball. Are we going to deal with that?

BARRY BLIZZARD :

Well, then the limit for your entire program would be the limit for that sport. If you only had basketball and the limit for basketball was 10, then all you would have would be 10.

Going back to the NCAA, they also have a limit. There's a minimum number of sports you must have, too, and we don't have it.

BARRY BLIZZARD :

To take that a step further, even though they have a minimum amount of sports, they don't require you to have scholarships in all those sports. So you could still have the minimum amount of sports and still have scholarships in only one. Again, you'd be putting your eggs all in one basket.

Let's move on to item C. This is more or less just an announcement and an update for you. Dr. Farris has also informed me that the Council of Presidents has asked him to form one or more study groups to look at the following things. The first has to do with a clearer and more meaningful commitment to progress toward graduation. I give you this information so that when these groups are formed, you won't be surprised and you can contact the people that are involved with them with your views. A second area would be to review the desirability of a requirement for participation by entering freshmen. He says this is not seen as NATA interest in duplicating Proposition 48, but as the value of having some regulation which speaks to entering freshmen and probably needs study and discussion. We might be the little dog following the big dog, but I think there's a feeling that we do need to do something. The third area is related to a review of requirements with regard to transfers. This is an area that he has listed specifically here. The kind of academic standards we should expect of them, as well as other issues concerning eligibility of transfers, probably must be studied as a total package. He asked me to give him the names of some people that I would recommend from the ADA to serve on these study groups. I did send him a list of people and at this point, Bonnie says he hasn't picked any. Look for this to happen, and respond to those people at the appropriate time with your views.

I'd like to just lump D,E and F together; these are things which came up at the March meeting. I'll just open the room for discussion as far as problems you can see, since you had a chance to think about them a little longer. Does anybody want to talk about any of these three items --the 2.0 GPA for junior status, the reaction to degree courses for eligibility and the probation issue for eligibility?

FROM THE FLOOR:

The first problem I have with the 2.0 thing is it's an unforgiving rule. If a student has a poor semester initially in school, because he is a marginal student, and he is trying to adjust and all that, then he could go above a 2.0 for three straight semesters after that and never recover by the time he reaches his junior status. My faculty rep worked out a scenario where that was the case. He had a boy above a 2.0 for every semester, yet he would be ineligible after that period of time. Given a little bit more time, he may have made it over the hump and graduated. But because he had that real poor semester his first semester in school, then he was unable to do that.

FROM THE FLOOR:

How did we come about a 2.0 guideline?

FROM THE FLOOR:


It initially came from the faculty athletic representatives. Then it went through all of the groups that look at the proposals, then there is a caucus. If there are any changes to be made in the legislation, it's done at that meeting. Then the warning is put on the floor of the convention and you can address the proposal but there are no amendments allowed on the floor.

FROM THE FLOOR:


It was passed rather overwhelmingly. The thing that concerns me is that idea of probation, simply because you can be far above the 2.0 and still be on academic probation in institutions. I don't see that person ought to be limited, unless that institution wants to make that rule, from participation in athletics. That one was tabled and, hopefully, it won't come back up, but it probably will.

BARRY BLIZZARD :


We had a problem. We've been looking in our district at the degree courses for eligibility. That'a a good question. In our district we're looking at the college catalog and stating that any course that stands between the student and a degree, whether it's a credit course or not, is a degree course.

FROM THE FLOOR:

Here's something that I don't think anybody ever thought about. What about your summer school person getting credits? If kids at my school can't get courses that they need because they're not offered right now due to limited funding and that type of thing, even if they go off campus, they may not get them because they won't satisfy the transfer rule. So we're in a heck of a bind right there. It's a very poor rule because we don't want them taking correspondence courses and basket weaving from someplace they don't even go to. That's very important. The credibility is critical. At the same time, how in the world do you warn them of this and how is it fair?

FROM THE FLOOR:

It's just like Proposition 48. They shouldn't be allowed to play until they start getting into actual degree courses. It's just like the NCAA. They can come to school but they can't play their first year until they start getting credits in their degree courses.

FROM THE FLOOR:

It's not the same though, from my point of view. If there's a kid who comes in and has all the credits at the end of school, everything going except the ACTs and grade point average, he's going to take an institutional test and he still might not pass that test. But I recruit him assuming he'll be okay. Now if he's put in that developmental course and I don't know that rule coming in, now I have to tell him after he's there that he's not eligible. In the NCAA, you can tell him beforehand that he won't be able to play.

FROM THE FLOOR:

So instead of taking 12 credits, take lS credits. That's all we're saying. If you have a young man who has to go in English and math and developmental courses, and he's only taking six other credits, he should not be able to play. Why should he be able to play? Is he really going to college? Is he taking college courses? No, he isn't. He's taking remedial or developmental courses. If he's not limited, then you put him in enough credit hours so he can play.

BARRY BLIZZARD

Before you do, let me interrupt. We need one other person to write a point-counterpoint. Dick has agreed to take the pro side of "divisions of competition" for the September Athletic Administration. Can you get with Dick, and I'd like to take you both over to the luncheon and get you with Tim Gleason. He'll tell you exactly when you have to have it in. If you could just remain here for just a minute.

FROM THE FLOOR:

Could we have new business for a second? I was very much impressed with the recommendation that Pete Ueberroth made about baseball players being eligible for the draft and then they can play in the summer. I don't know what the feeling is here, but I think the NAIA should jump on this thing right away before the NCAA does. The NAIA should support the recommendation of Peter Ueberroth, Commissioner of Baseball, to have any high school student that is capable of attending college to be eligible as an amateur baseball player during the college season, although being able to play professional ball during the summer, with the stipulation that his college education will be paid for by the club that drafted him. That's a motion that I make.

FROM THE FLOOR


I'11 second it.

BARRY BLIZZARD:


It's been moved and seconded. Is there discussion on this? I have no problem with the ADA presenting that to the national meeting. Hearing no discussion, all those in favor say aye. Opposed? (Whereupon the motion as stated was passed unanimously). Any other new business? I have one other item here. I would like to thank the people that served with me. This is my last official function as president, and I'd like to thank these people. Sylvia has already left, and I'd like to introduce to you your incoming president, Daryl Leonard from Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

FROM THE FLOOR:


You did a good job. Barry. and we thank you.

DARYL LEONARD :


Let's all give Barry a round of applause. Mike is going off the Executive Committee after July, and Mike has done an outstanding job for all of us, so Mike deserves a round too. Unless there's further business, this meeting is ajourned.