Restructuring of the NCAA in 1997 was designed to allow each division to more easily conduct its business and follow its own path. And when it comes to legislative proposals, there has been a path less traveled by, and indeed that has made all the difference.
Here's a graph that illustrates it fairly starkly:
These numbers reflect only proposals that were assigned a number by the NCAA by March 23, 2001. So in Division I, we've got a ways to go before this year's total crashes through the ceiling. The figures don't include proposals that died (say, in committee) without a number. And they do include deregulation proposals that were assigned a number.
Because of all that, we can pick a nit or two about what should or should not be included in this bar graph, but the trend is pretty clear:
• Division I: "Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead!"
• Division II and III: "Hey, wait a minute...."
As you're probably aware, the NCAA is in the midst of a deregulation effort in all three divisions. Things are progressing nicely in Division II and Division III. The latter adopted several dereg proposals at the January 2001 Convention.
But in Division I, things are going much more slowly. There are lots of reasons for this (more rules, more committees, more input, more of a lot of things). We've got a deregulation plan, yet the flow of new legislation has not slowed in Division I since restructuring or during this period of deregulation planning.
Then a smart idea reached critical mass when both the Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet and the Championships/Competition Cabinet bought in: Maybe if we stopped regulating long enough to do some deregulation, it would make everyone's life simpler. So that's what the two cabinets are proposing to ManCo next month&emdash;a moratorium on a bylaw-by-bylaw basis that will allow the committees working on deregulation to work without one hand tied behind their collective backs.
As the rationale statement for the proposal reads: "While the governance structure is trying to focus on a review of existing legislation, the legislative faucet continues to run."
This is a step in the right direction. But while we're fixing one bylaw pipe, leaks might be springing elsewhere.
If ManCo was a bold bunch it would say, "You know, we think this moratorium idea is pretty good. But we'll go you one better. We need to shut the water off so we can fix all the pipes and empty the bucket. Since this tangle of pipes runs throughout our house, we're not going to deal with any more new pipes until we fix what we already got."
A step like this would make the ManCo a hero to us all.
--- Proposed Schedule for a Moratorium on New Legislation During Deregulation Efforts.
Recommendation. Based on a timeline for anticipated deregulation, the cabinet unanimously (in conjunction with the Championships/Competition Cabinet) requests the Management Council and the Board of Directors to adopt the following proposed moratorium schedule on new legislation:
May 1, 2001, through May 1, 2002. (No legislation for these bylaws could be submitted or considered by the Management Council and Board of Directors at the October 2001 and April 2002 meetings.)
• Bylaw 11 (conduct and employment of athletics personnel).
• Bylaw 16 (awards and benefits).
November 1, 2001, through November 1, 2002. (No legislation for these bylaws could be submitted or considered by the Management Council and Board of Directors at the April 2002 and October 2003 meetings.)
• Bylaw 13 (recruiting).
• Bylaw 14.4 (continuing eligibility).
• Bylaw 15 (financial aid).
May 1, 2002, through May 1, 2003. (No legislation for these bylaws could be submitted or considered by the Management Council and Board of Directors at the October 2002 and April 2003 meetings.)
• Bylaw 17 (playing seasons).
• Bylaw 14.3 (initial eligibility).
Note: It is suggested that proposals that are already in progress continue their normal progression through the governance structure during the moratorium (e.g., Bylaw 11 proposals sent out for comment during the April 2001 meeting indeed would be acted on in October 2001).
Rationale. During the April 2000 NCAA Division I Board of Directors meeting, the Board charged the governance structure with reviewing legislation with an eye toward simplification and deregulation. As the NCAA Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet and the NCAA Division I Championships/Competition Cabinet have begun deregulation efforts, a growing conflict has emerged. While the governance structure is trying to focus on a review of existing legislation, the legislative faucet continues to run. For example, during the October 2000 NCAA Division I Management Council/Board of Directors meeting, more than 100 legislative proposals were reviewed. It has proven difficult for the various committees and cabinets to focus clearly on deregulation when the onslaught on new proposals remains steady. In addition, the aforementioned groups are finding it difficult to find the time to devote to both deregulation and their normal workloads.
A moratorium on all new legislation (other than emergency and/or noncontroversial), on a bylaw-by-bylaw basis, would permit each deregulation subcommittee/committee to undergo a yearlong review of the bylaw.
Budget Impact. None.
Legislative Impact Statement regarding Deregulation.
Recommendation. The cabinet unanimously requests the Management Council and Board of Directors to establish a policy requiring sponsors of legislative proposals to include, within the rationale, a statement indicating whether the proposal is consistent with Division I's deregulation efforts.
Rationale. While the governance structure is in the process of deregulating the NCAA Division I Manual, proposals continue to be submitted that change existing legislation or add new legislation. As a result, it has proven difficult for the various subcommittees, committees and cabinets to focus clearly on deregulation when the influx of new proposals remains steady. In addition, the aforementioned groups are finding it difficult to find the appropriate amount of time to devote to both deregulation and their normal workloads. Requiring sponsors of proposals to reconcile their proposals with current deregulation efforts may serve as a "filter" and result in a decrease in submissions. Also, such a statement will assist reviewing entities in determining whether a particular proposal is inconsistent with deregulation. Even if it is determined that a particular proposal is inconsistent with deregulation, the reviewing entities may recommend adoption of the proposal based on other principles (e.g., student-athlete welfare).
- Budget Impact. None.