|
|
|
|
NCAA News Release
|
Division III Finalizes Work On Future Of Division III Reform Efforts; Votes Against Redshirting; Refers Membership Cap Proposal To NCAA Working Group
|
For Immediate Release
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
|
Contact(s)
Jennifer Kearns
Associate Director of Public and
Media Relations
317/917-6117
|
INDIANAPOLIS---Division III membership voted to preserve the rule that prevents redshirting, a key element of the Future of Division III reform package of 2004, among other action during the NCAA Convention.
The vote reaffirmed the division�s commitment to the 2004 reform package, as the membership voted -- by a wider margin than in 2004 -- to preserve the rule that does not allow "redshirting," which gives student-athletes an additional year of eligibility.
"If we could not hold on to that change, we probably were not really on the path of reform," said Phillip Stone, chair of the Division III Presidents Council and president of Bridgewater College (Virginia). "But it was defeated by more than 2-to-1, and so the margin of defeat was substantially greater than the margin by which it was abolished two years ago. So we feel really good that the reform package of 2004 is pretty well sealed and locked in."
In addition, the membership voted to refer Proposal 12 -- which sought to cap the division�s membership -- to the working group established in October by the NCAA Executive Committee to address Association-wide membership issues. The proposal sought to establish a maximum number of active, provisional and reclassifying Division III members.
This allows the working group, comprised of presidents and chancellors from all three divisions, time to study the issues and report its findings before the January 2007 convention. The proposed cap prompted concerns last year about the Association-wide implications of such a proposal.
Michael Miranda, chair of the Division III Management Council and faculty athletics representative from Plattsburgh State University of New York, agreed that while many long hours of work by many people paid off, the division must continue to look ahead and consider its future.
"After two years of effort and a broad consultative effort involving hundreds of people I'm quite pleased that all of the Future of DIII Legislative proposals were passed," Miranda said. Of course, that doesn't mean we are done looking ahead. Organizations such as ours constantly need to be planning for the future and the membership, the governance structure, and staff, will always be working to ensure a bright future."
Stone said he was pleased that nine of the 10 proposals sponsored by the Presidents Council in its "presidential grouping" were adopted, while one was referred and none were defeated.
"We felt like the will of the presidents meshed with the will of the delegates in the room," Stone continued. "Our reform package stayed on track and we will continue to work in that direction."
NCAA President Myles Brand commended Stone and all Division III presidents for taking an active role in reform.
"I compliment the engagement and leadership of you, Phil, and your colleague presidents in Division III. First of all, in 2004 you passed a very substantial reform package. Then you were able to sustain it amid some strong pushback," Brand said.
It was Stone�s last meeting as chair of the Division III Presidents Council. Ivory Nelson, president of Lincoln University (Pennsylvania) now begins his tenure in that position.
In the business session, Stone commended the delegation on its hard work and cooperative spirit not only during convention, but since 2004.
"There have been numerous conversations at the institutional level; at the conference level � there have been surveys of the membership. There have been many efforts to find out what the membership thinks is best for student-athletes," Stone said. "It�s not surprising we don�t agree on every piece of legislation -- reasonable people can and do see things differently. Just because someone doesn�t agree with a particular piece of legislation does not mean they�re anti-reform. It is important that we continue working on the shared purpose of providing the best possible academic and athletic experience for our student-athletes.
"Thank you for the good work you�ve done -- not only here today, but over the past several years," Stone continued. "Now we can go out and celebrate the NCAA�s 100th anniversary with enthusiasm because of a job well done."
In other business session action, Division III membership voted by roll call vote in favor of:
Proposal 1, which revises restrictions related to the use of a student-athlete�s name or image in institutional, charitable, educational or nonprofit promotional activities.
Proposal 2, which permits institutional coaches to teach private lessons to a prospect, provided certain criteria are satisfied.
Proposal 6, which revises the minimum contest requirements for sports sponsorship to 70 percent of the division-wide average number of completed contests.
Proposal 8, which increases the required number of sports an institution must sponsor to achieve or maintain Division III membership from five to six per gender for institutions with enrollments greater than 1,000 students.
Proposal 9, which amends the Division III philosophy statement to note that coaches play a significant role as educators, to indicate that academic performance of student-athletes should be, at a minimum, consistent with that of the general student body, that admissions policies and procedures for student-athletes should be consistent with those applicable to the general student body, and that the administration of an institutions� athletics program should be integrated into the campus culture and educational mission.
Proposal 11, which establishes, in team sports other than football, a maximum championships bracket size of 64. It also establishes, in football, a maximum bracket size of 32.
Proposal 13, which requires conferences to conduct a comprehensive self-study and evaluation at least once every five years, using a Conference Self-Study Guide, and permits conferences affected by realignment to retain automatic qualification in championships for a limited time period.
Proposal 15, which establishes additional protection for conference automatic qualification affected by realignment.
Proposal 19, which specifies that a member institution that fails to meet the Institutional Self-Study Guide deadline will be placed on probation, restricted status and corresponding membership on repeated failures of submission.
Proposal 20, which specifies that an institution that fails to submit the annual financial aid electronic report be moved to probation, restricted status and corresponding membership on repeated failures of submission.
The membership also approved, by majority vote:
Proposal 21, which specifies that unethical conduct includes the knowing involvement in providing a student-athlete a banned substance, impermissible supplements or medications contrary to medical licensure.
Proposal 22, which permits member institutions to scout opponents participating in exhibition contests.
Proposal 23, which specifies that meals provided to the prospective student-athlete and the prospective student-athlete�s parents, legal guardians and spouse on an official visit must occur on campus and must be on a scale comparable to normal student life, but may be purchased from on- or off-campus vendors.
Proposal 25, which permits institutions to donate used athletics equipment to all youth groups, including high schools, according to the institutions� regular policy regarding the discarding of equipment.
Proposal 26, which specifies that a student-athlete who must complete and academic year of residence is not eligible to participate in any NCAA championships during his or her academic year of residence or during the vacation period immediately following the academic year of residence.
Proposal 27, which permits a representative of an institution�s athletics interest to provide an occasional meal to a student-athlete(s) at any location in the locale of the institution.
Proposal 28, which, in football, permits an institution to play its first contest (game) on the Thursday prior to Labor Day in years when the first permissible contest date falls during Labor Day weekend. It also permits a maximum of 25 practice opportunities before the Friday prior to Labor Day if the institution�s first contest (game) is scheduled for the Thursday prior to Labor Day.
Proposal 29, which, in lacrosse, amends the maximum contest limitations to include 17 dates of competition in the traditional segment and one date of competition in the nontraditional segment.
|
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy
| |
