Override Period (October 2011 meetings)

Override Summary
2011-69 ELIGIBILITY -- TRANSFER REGULATIONS -- 2-4 AND 4-2-4 COLLEGE TRANSFERS
Override Requests Received: 4
Detailed Listing of Overrides:
Colonial Athletic Association - 1 institutions

James Madison University

Indiana State University

Based upon review of our data of 2-4 and 4-2-4 transfers, we see no justifiable reason to increase the transfer GPA from
2.0 to 2.5. If a student can get accepted for admission to our institution with a 2.0 transferable GPA, then is should be up
to us to make sure they progress academically and graduate. That's why we have APR penalties, etc., in case we don't get
it done. We have been very successful at this and do not have that many PSA's that fall below the 2.5 to begin with. If it
is not broke, don't fix it, at least at our school.

Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne

U.S. Military Academy
 Override Period (October 2011 meetings)

Override Summary
2011-93 DIVISION MEMBERSHIP -- MULTIDIVISION CLASSIFICATION/RECLASSIFICATION OF FOOTBALL
SUBDIVISION -- COMPLIANCE REVIEW REQUIREMENT -- FAILURE TO MEET DEADLINE
Override Requests Received: 1
Detailed Listing of Overrides:
Prairie View A&M University
 Override Period (October 2011 meetings)

Override Summary
2011-94 ELIGIBILITY -- FRESHMAN ACADEMIC REQUIREMENTS -- ELIGIBILITY FOR FINANCIAL AID,
PRACTICE AND COMPLETION -- CORE COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND INITIAL-ELIGIBILITY INDEX
Override Requests Received: 6
Detailed Listing of Overrides:
Indiana State University

In researching our data for the last several years, it is a RARE instance where a PSA would be denied eligibility under
this proposal. Therefore, we do not feel that the proposal is necessary. The PSA's that we recruit are not "race to the
finish" type student athletes in respect to their initial eligibility. Our academic success with the current standards has been
outstanding. There is no reason to change them in our opinion. Additionally, the increased standards will only serve to
deprive young people of an opportunity to pursue a higher education in many instances.

Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne

Prairie View A&M University
St. Francis College (New York)

While we agree with the proposal's rationale, as well as the increase in core courses and the requirement for a specific
number to be completed in the first three years, we feel that the enactment of legislation which includes a GPA/test score
scale "to be determined" is not appropriate. The process for enacting legislation should involve the proposal being in its
complete form before a decision is made.

U.S. Military Academy

Youngstown State University
We believe the proposed index increase of .50 is overly corrective and will affect a number of prospects who, based upon
our data, enter and graduate at a similar rate as higher academic achievers do. If we are expected to treat student-athletes
like general students, the index needs to remain as is. We support the other aspects of this legislation but do not support
the change in the index formula. Since we are not permitted to address each issue individually, we request an over-ride of
the entire piece of legislation and allow the appropriate bodies propose legislation that can work its way through the
legislative process so it can be properly reviewed.
 Override Period (October 2011 meetings)

Override Summary
2011-95 ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE PROGRAM -- PENALTIES AND REWARDS -- PENALTIES AND ACCESS
TO POSTSEASON COMPETITION
Override Requests Received: 3
Detailed Listing of Overrides:
Colonial Athletic Association - 1 institutions

Towson University

Prairie View A&M University

I believe that this process should be reviewed further. Although this may be the correct step I beleive that implementation
should be graduated as opposed to immediate. The current approach will not take into account institutions who have
committed to an improvement plan and have met the requirements of that improvement plan.

University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

 Override Period (October 2011 meetings)

Override Summary
2011-96 FINANCIAL AID -- MAXIMUM LIMITS ON FINANCIAL AID -- INDIVIDUAL AND TEAM LIMITS
Override Requests Received: 109
Detailed Listing of Overrides:
American University

This proposal goes against the NCAA mission of our students being amateur athletes, as it would allow paying student-
athletes above a full grant-in-aid for miscellaneous expenses. In addition, our institution does not have the resources to
cover the additional cost, so this proposal would put us at a disadvantage.

However, we do support the second part of the proposal which would specify that nonathletically related institutional
financial aid shall not count toward maximum institutional grant-in-aid limitations. We think this should be a separate
proposal and should be re-submitted to the membership for a separate vote.

Appalachian State University

Appalachian State University requests an override vote on 2011-96, as this proposal contains a number of potential
problems that have not been adequately discussed by the members of Division I. Despite its stated good intentions, this
proposal has the potential to do considerable harm.

Bethune-Cookman University
Binghamton University
Boise State University
Boise State believes the following:
1. 2001-96 creates an unfair playing field between institutions. It expands the divide between the "have's" and "have
not's." It creates a recruiting advantage for those that can afford it and puts those that can't at a disadvantage.
2. 2001-96 creates a divide internally between those student-athletes who receive a full ride and those that do not. We
believe this is unfair and unjustifiable.
3. 2001-96 creates a Title IX issue. Looking at head count sports alone, football and men's basketball have 98 full rides as
compared to 47 on the women's side. That widens the gap allowable to be in compliance with Title IX.
Boston University

The addition of a miscellaneous expense award is not necessary when those expenses can be met through the financial aid
process with the Pell Grant or through the SAOF. It disproportionately affects those student athletes already receiving a
full-grant-in-aid and could further disadvantage student athletes in equivalency sports if an institution is compelled to re-
allocate financial aid in this direction in order to be competitive in recruitment.

Bowling Green State University

Bradley University
California State University, Bakersfield
California State University, Fullerton
California State University, Northridge
California State University, Sacramento
Campbell University
 Override Period (October 2011 meetings)

Override Summary

This is poor legislation and needed to be vetted by all impacted. The NCAA needs to slow down and get more
feedback. Nothing will be lost through thorough evaluation and discussion. In fact this legislation flies in the face of the
fact that student-athletes (if we believe they truly are) are getting a sound degree which will benefit them for the rest of
their lives financially. Why is having need based aid which doesn't count already in addition to a full GIA not enough?

Central Connecticut State University

Charleston Southern University
Cleveland State University
Colgate University
Colonial Athletic Association - 9 institutions

UNC Wilmington, Northeastern University, Drexel University, Old Dominion University, Towson University, College of
William & Mary, James Madison University, Georgia State University, Virginia Commonwealth University

Cornell University
Creighton University
Davidson College
Delaware State University
Drake University
East Carolina University
East Tennessee State University

1. 2011-96 financially disadvantages the majority of Division I institutions.

Most Division I institutions are not able to fund the additional costs associated with increasing scholarship levels. In
addition to the heavy financial burden that the miscellaneous expense allowance (MEA) creates, the legislation creates
significant pressure to fund additional athletics scholarships as a result of the change in equivalency calculation. While
the legislation is permissive as written, it is mandatory in its practical application. Some conferences and institutions have
already mandated the MEA for all or selected sports; those without a conference or institutional mandate must respond in
kind to avoid a substantial recruiting disadvantage. This creates an “arms race” effect at a time of economic hardship
when many institutions are facing budget cuts across campus and unable to bear the burden of additional financial output.

2. 2011-96 creates gender equity/Title IX implications that institutions need time to consider.

More male student-athletes receive the value of a full grant-in-aid than female student-athletes; thus, more male student-
athletes are eligible to receive the MEA than female student-athletes. An effective date of August 1, 2012, that impacts
both signing periods in the 2011-12 academic year, does not give institutions enough time to review and plan for the
specific gender equity implications created on their campuses. Upon a thorough review, it may become clear that
applying the legislation will lead to gender inequality, creating a further divide between institutions that are able to apply
the legislation and institutions that are not able to apply it due to Title IX concerns.
 Override Period (October 2011 meetings)

Override Summary
3. 2011-96 will lead to increased transfer activity, a contributor to lower academic success.
The change in equivalency calculation has great potential to result in the stockpiling of student-athletes for equivalency
sports in programs with larger budgets. In effect, the legislation will eliminate any financial restrictions on squad size as
student-athletes are compelled to seek other avenues of financial assistance in addition to/in place of athletics
scholarships. Thus, those programs able to make up the financial difference between their current athletic equivalency
and their current overall equivalency will be able to award more scholarship dollars to a greater number of student-
athletes. Larger squads will result in lesser playing time for student-athletes, who then will likely seek to transfer to
institutions where their playing time will increase. Data provided by the NCAA indicates that transferring leads to (1) a
lower probability of student-athlete graduation; (2) a longer time to complete a degree among those transfers that
graduate, and (3) a higher likelihood of dropout at the destination institution.

4. 2011-96 is neither emergency nor noncontroversial legislation and should be vetted through the normal
legislative process.
The Board of Directors action to pass this legislation as “emergency” or “noncontroversial” is unwarranted. The
legislation should be overridden, bifurcated, and reconsidered through the normal legislative process with full
involvement of the membership.

Eastern Washington University

Due to unintended consequences to student-athlete welfare and Title IX issues, Eastern Washington University would like
to see this override occur.

Elon University
Furman University
Gardner-Webb University

Cost concerns and Title IX implications.

Harvard University
Hofstra University
Idaho State University

The proposed legislation would be financially challenging at our university. The consequences of not being able to
provide this additional money will put our institution at a recruiting and competitive disadvantage. Prospective student-
athletes and their parents are likely to ask about the $2,000 being included in a financial aid award. When our coaches
state that they can not provide the additional funds, it will be less likely that the prospective student-athlete commits to
our institution if they are offered the money elsewhere. There is also the real possibility that the implementation of such a
program could result in unintended Title IX difficulties. Also, those student-athletes on our campus not receiving the
additional $2,000 could feel slighted and become discontent in the fact that they are not receivng the additional funds
when others are.

Illinois State University

Indiana State University
 Override Period (October 2011 meetings)

Override Summary

The budgetary impact upon FCS schools such as our institution as well as the possible impact it may have upon gender
equity concerns seem to have gone completely unaddressed by the powers that be. I am sure this is a great thing for the
mid to upper-tier BCS schools, but the impact and possible recruiting disadvantage it imposes upon the rest of us is
absolutely unacceptable. Then at the same time there is a proposal to take away $400 scholarships (less than 10%
equivalency)? The use of those scholarships is what helps the smaller institutions attract recruits who would otherwise
walk on to a larger BCS school many times.

All of this seems to be a precursor to a "pay for play" environment and that is NOT what intercollegiate athletics is
supposed to be about. Don't tell a student athlete that they can't have a logo larger than 2 1/4" in area on their uniform
and equipment and then turn around and plaster the arena, floor, field and everywhere else with advertising and then try to
tell them that they shouldn't be promoting anything else they lose their amateur status.

Hopefully, with all this talk of re-vamping the rule book, some real and significant change will occur.

Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne

Jacksonville University

This legislation being adopted outside of the normal legislative process has not provided adequate discussion and input
from all institutions affected.

Kennesaw State University

Lafayette College

While this is interpreted as permissive legislation, this will become a mandatory requirement for providing full
scholarship at any level in Division I. Only few can actually afford the implications of this bylaw to the fullest extent.
Also, this has Title IX implications, as well as moves the NCAA further towards paying student-athletes to pay rather than
remaining an educational enterprise.

Lipscomb University
Long Island University-Brooklyn Campus
Loyola Marymount University
Marquette University
Marshall University

The insitution is not in a position to fund the additional costs associated with the miscellaneous expense. Many
institutions are likely to be in the same position which would create a competitive advantage for those insitutions who had
large budgets. In addition, there seem to be many logistical issues associated with federal financial aid guidelines that
have not been properly researched and addressed prior to the adoption of the proposal.

McNeese State University

Miami University (Ohio)
 Override Period (October 2011 meetings)

Override Summary

The way this legislation was adopted was through channels intended for emergency or non-controversial issues. Neither
applies in this case. While voted down multiple times in the past by the institutions, concepts presented by this legislation
are causing great concern.

Title IX/OCR equity questions, booster-funded scholarships for specific athletes, inter-team conflicts based on who
receives this allowance versus those that do not, in addition to the question of where to find the additional revenue to pay
for this "allowance" after laying off professors in the current economy, are all intertwined to create one huge problem for
all of the institutions outside the Top 10 in BCS football. Since this legislation cannot be separated out, and since very
LARGE concerns loom without answers, we believe an override is warranted to allow institutions and NCAA working
groups to develop solutions and reintroduce the proposals through the established legislative process.

Missouri State University

Monmouth University
Montana State University-Bozeman
Morehead State University
Mount St. Mary's University
Nicholls State University
North Dakota State University
Prairie View A&M University

This will continue extend the divide between the institutions with unlimited resources and those who have limited
resources. Not limited to Low Resources institutions but additionally between what has been called mid-major and major.
I believe that with the challenges that students are facing with APR and graduation rates that funds should be used to
focuse on that as opposed to additional refunds.

Rice University
Rider University
Rutgers, State Univ of New Jersey, New Brunswick
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey believe an Override Vote on proposal 2011-96 is warranted, primarily, due to
the Gender Equity implications the miscellaneous expense allowance (MEA) will impose on Division I NCAA members.
The application of this allowance will be inequitable. The distribution of the MEA will be disproportionate based on the
total number of male and female student-athletes receiving a FGIA via athletic or athletic and nonathletic sources. The
application of the MEA should undergo further analysis also due to the lopsided effect that it will have on certain
institutions without the financial resources to provide this MEA which then cascades into a competitive effect in
recruiting and retention.
Sacred Heart University
Saint Louis University
Samford University
Santa Clara University

The intent of the proposal is admirable, but the strain of appropriating additional funds for full scholarship student-
athletes makes the struggle to fund scholarships across all sports that much more difficult.
 Override Period (October 2011 meetings)

Override Summary
Southeast Missouri State University
Southeastern Louisiana University

We are a "have-not." This rule benefits the Division I "haves" and would widen the chasm between "BCS" schools and
non BCS schools.

Southern Illinois University at Carbondale

Southern Utah University

The potential this legislation has to create further financial inequality between student-athletes may do more harm than
good. An equivalency student-athlete who is not on a full scholarship puts in the same amount of time and effort that a
student-athlete on a full scholarship does. Yet this legislation will only reward a student-athlete that is on a full
scholarship thus creating more inequality in the overall student-athlete experience. At our institution, this new legislation
would olny be available to 30% of our student-athletes on scholaship.

St. Francis College (New York)

There are two distinct issues with this proposal.

The first, the part which allows institutions to award up to the cost of attendance or $2,000 above the grant-in-aid amount,
is potentially the first step toward a "pay for play" environment, and slowly moves athletics away from the collegiate
model toward a professional model. When combined with the proposal to allow multi-year grants-in-aid, this will bring
forth the sort of negotiations (potentially involving third parties) as prospective student-athletes shop themselves around
for the best deal (in terms of length and compensation). I don't believe that the NCAA desires to put forth that
"amateurism" can be seen as a fallacy, but legislation such as this makes a case for just that.

The second part has potential to undermine the entire system of competitive equity. When only athletic financial aid is
counted toward equivalency limits, institutions will be able to stockpile student-athletes with the theory that they don't
want certain student-athletes competing against them. This part of the proposal opens the door for institutions to be
creative in awarding "non-athletic institutional financial aid" which has always been countable. For example, men's
soccer is now allowed 9.9 equivalencies, where all institutional aid counts. Under this legislation, an institution could
theoretically award half-scholarships to every student-athlete on the team as an academic award (and make the
requirement that the student be above a 2.0 GPA to earn it, so everyone on the team receives it). With this aid taken out of
the equation, the institution can award significantly more athletic aid and end up with 18 student-athletes on full
scholarships, or worse, 30-plus student-athletes receiving athletic aid with a number of them on full scholarships.
Therefore, this proposal, particularly absent an accompanying limitation on counters, can open the door for widespread
stockpiling. In addition, when an institution stockpiles student-athletes with athletics aid, the ones who are not receiving
playing time are more likely to seek opportunities elsewhere, and this will have a disastrous impact on the federal
graduation rate, and could severely impact the team's APR as well if the transfers don't meet the 2.6 exception.

St. Peter's College

Stephen F. Austin State University
Stetson University
Tennessee Technological University
 Override Period (October 2011 meetings)

Override Summary

At the very least this legislation should go through normal channels so that Membership would have the opportunity to
discuss and vett the intended issues and the possible unintended consequences that will arise from this fast tracked
legislation. We don't believe such a far reaching issue should have been adopted as emergency legislation, but should go
through the legislative process.

In particular, we believe the unintended consequences of the changes in countable aid legislation will lead to institutional
abuse and pressures that are not equitable in relation to student-athlete and students who are not student-athletes that
compete for aid packages, and further institutional managers may be subjected to undue pressure by interests of athletics.
It also will lead to unlevel playing fields as some institutions will bow to pressure; or in some cases have assets that will
allow student-athletes across the board to receive the other countable aid in order to be more competitive athletically.

We also believe that the additional $2000 in miscellaneous expense might be the first step toward inequity in the same
balance of the student-athlete and the regular student. That part of the adopted legislation also needs to be vetted with a
full discussion of future implications toward the balance referred to as well as equity concerns, and student-athlete equity
among differing sports.

I want to share a very supportive and knowledgeable university professor's view of this change in legislation. He writes
"Perhaps my biggest grievance is the apparent insensitivity and bad timing involved. It seems most dubious to give some
student athletes what amounts to "tattoo money" at a time when far too many others are unable to put food on the table,
and the institutions themselves are almost all facing choices among various undesirable options."

I think that speaks volumes regarding this fiat that was adopted as non-controversial and emergency.

Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi

The Citadel
U.S. Military Academy
University at Albany

Voting to override because of the lack of sufficient time to properly assess the fiscal implications of this proposal. We
would seek some amended form of this proposal.

University of California, Davis

University of Central Arkansas
University of Detroit Mercy
University of Evansville
University of Illinois at Chicago
University of Maine, Orono
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Trying to legislate cost saving in other areas, while adding this potential hugh expense to institutions
University of New Hampshire
University of North Carolina, Asheville
 Override Period (October 2011 meetings)

Override Summary

Increased financial burdens during tough economic times- Many schools have not raised faculty salaries in 2 to 4
years- Increased discrepancies among student-athletes in their financial aid possibly causing resentment among
student-athletes- Will have to reduce aid in sports not giving full scholarships- Will lead to “stockpiling” of
rosters which will likely lead to increased transfers- Higher transfers lead to lower probability of graduation, longer
time to complete degrees and higher likelihood of dropouts at destination institution- This legislation is neither
emergency nor noncontroversial—it needs to go through the legislative process- Though framed as “permissive”
legislation, the $2,000 extra stipend becomes mandatory as institutions recruit to compete with their peers- The
$2,000 stipend is only a beginning and will surely increase over time- This increases the perception of “pay for
play” and together with 2011-97 moves us closer to a professional model as opposed to a collegiate model- There
are Title IX implications especially for those institutions sponsoring football- Such a measure could cause potential
resentment from other students at the universities whose student fees support the athletics programs- For students
who are needy and on full scholarship, the Pell Grant makes up for the incidentals students often recite as unattainable

University of North Carolina, Charlotte

University of North Florida

This legislation was adopted as emergency or noncontroversial legislation. We contend that this legislation is clearly
controversial and was not an emergency matter. Another concern with this process is that it allowed concepts to be passed
before legislation was even written.

In addition to Title IX and competitive equity concerns (which many instituions have already addressed in their override
comments), one of our biggest concerns with this particular proposal is that only institutional athletically related aid will
count towards team limits. A booster could set up outside scholarships that go to an incoming student of his or
her choosing. This scholarship could be based totally on athletic ability but would be considered an outside scholarship so
it would not have to count against team limits. If a booster funds five of those awards for the value of a full scholarship a
team could essentially have their allotted equivalency plus five "outside financial aid scholarships." Schools with large
financial aid funding and the right amount of creativity will find ways in which they no longer have to worry about
scholarship limits.

University of San Diego

University of South Carolina Upstate

Although this legislation has been described as permissive, in order to remain competitive in recruiting this will become
mandatory for any institution desiring to compete with its peers. In addition, there are many institutions where faculty
and staff have not received pay increases over the past number of years, yet the athletic departments will be spending tens
of thousands more each year for students who are already receiving full scholarships. With these and many other
potential issues related to this proposal not fully vetted by the membership, it would seem that such a significant
(financially and otherwise) proposal would need further discussion within the entire Division I membership.

University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

University of Tennessee at Martin

The Board of Directors passed this legislation that will cost 75% of the membership millions of dollars they don’t have.
In addition to the obvious costs there are gender-equity implications of this initiative that make the costs even higher. It's
not realistic to maintain that this legislation is permissive and not acknowledge the costs it will create because of
competitive equity.

As the impact of this legislation progressively grows university administrations will likely pass the cost on to non-student-
athletes by including the costs in their fixed costs they "must" fund. As a result, the non-student-athletes will effectively
“pay” the student-athletes through fee increases that will be required to fund the cost. Many students who borrow large
sums of money to attend college already resent student-athletes who are on scholarships. This will only make that worse.
 Override Period (October 2011 meetings)

Override Summary
There's another aspect of the “cost of attendance” legislation that baffles me. Let us all remember that there’s nothing that
says we “must” give a student-athlete a full scholarship and allow him or her to keep a full Pell Grant (approximately
$5,500 at our institution). But most of us do, at least in our high profile sports, because our competition does. In round
numbers a full scholarship (fees, room, board, and books) for an in-state student at UT Martin is $13,000. The cost of
attendance is $19,000. That’s a difference of $6,000. I have been told repeatedly by people tracking this legislation that
the NCAA staff is saying that a student-athlete receiving a full Pell grant could keep the $5,500 and the full $2,000 cost
of attendance amount. That’s $7,500. The difference in the full scholarship and the cost of attendance is only $6,000. So
a student-athlete would be receiving aid that exceeds the “Cost of Attendance”. Our Financial Aid folks tell me that
violates federal financial aid rules. The NCAA says it’s not a problem, but I have never seen an official Department of
Education opinion on it. Even if it’s deemed legal, it’s wrong (in my opinion). If this is allowed we will have student-
athletes with no out-of-pocket expenses for fees, room, board, and books who would be receiving $7,500 ($5,500 from
Pell and $2,000 from a cost of attendance award) over a 10 month period, or $750 a month, FUNDED IN LARGE PART
FROM TAX DOLLARS AND/OR STUDENT FEES!

Another reason for overriding this legislation should be the need to at least eliminate its application to FCS football. The
football championship division exists because there are about 120 Division I institutions that sponsor football programs
and choose to spend less on scholarships, coaching staffs, etc. than the Division I FBS members. Taking a stand against
the Cost of Attendance, at least for FCS football, would be consistent with this philosophy.

I hope our presidents of institutions with over 25% of their athletic budgets funded by allocated resources will resolve to
do all they can to derail this legislation before the next national signing date in February, especially for FCS football. If
it’s not overturned, then I hope those presidents will band together to disallow the cost of attendance allocation in their
respective conferences, and especially OVC football.

Many of our stakeholders will seriously question the sensibility of allowing athletes to pocket hundreds of dollars a month
over and above fees, room, board and books. Its already happening, and we are about to make it worse.

Most of us struggle to get students to support us, and in my opinion, this will further increase the class systems within our
athletic departments and between our student-athletes and non-athletes.

Instead of worrying about "paying the players" why not start a public relations campaign to highlight the lifetime earning
power of a college degree and the actual cash value of a full scholarship. Unlike coaches salaries, the market does not
demand cost of attendance stipends. The athletes will play their sports without them.

University of Texas, Pan American

With so many budget cuts and the decrease in funding across college campuses this additional $2000 will only hurt those
institutions who are already struggling to fully fund their programs.
University of Vermont
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Utah State University
Valparaiso University

The full impact of this legislation has not been determined.

Wagner College
Wake Forest University

Wake Forest University would like to submit an override vote for Proposal 2011-96. Since the proposal stipulates that
only student-athletes receiving the equivalent of a full grant-in-aid would have access to the additional $2000, the primary
beneficiaries of this legislation would undoubtedly be male student-athletes. As such, we feel that this proposal, if
implemented, would run counter to the membership's efforts to comply with the federal statues under Title IX.
 Override Period (October 2011 meetings)

Override Summary
Western Carolina University
Western Illinois University
Winthrop University

Winthrop University requests an override of Proposal 2011-96 for the following reasons:

1. In an economic time where schools are cutting budgets and some faculty have not received salary increases, we cannot
logically justify providing student-athletes with a $2,000 stipend.

2. This legislation was not vetted through the legislative process, and is neither "non-controversial" nor "emergency"
legislation, which could warrant being considered outside of the normal legislative process.

3. The labeling this legislation as "permissive" is a misnomer, considering all "permissive" legislation leads to required
legislation to compete with peers, particularly in recruiting.

4. This legislation is perceived as "pay-for-play", and moves intercollegiate athletics further from a "collegiate model" of
athletics, and closer to a "professional model." Especially when used in combination with Proposal 2011-97.

5. This legislation will not stop with $2,000/yr, and will likely increase in the future, which would lead to even more
budgetary constraints.

6. Without careful implementation this legislation will likely lead to significant Title IX issues seeing as how there are
more male full scholarship student-athletes than female full scholarship student-athletes.

Wofford College
Wright State University
2011-96 provides an unfair disadvantage to smaller institutions that will struggle to find the funds necessary to provide
the additional $2,000 to student-athletes. Some schools may only be able to provide these funds to their revenue
producing sports by pulling money away from their other sports which could have a negative impact on the student-
athletes involved in those sports.
Youngstown State University
First, the August 1, 2012 effective date is troublesome. There are numerous questions surrounding this legislation that
have yet to be properly answered. An appropriate effective date is August 1, 2013 so that all institutions can properly
evaluate and understand the ramfications from this legislation. Second, the new equivalency calculation definition is far-
reaching and open for abuse of stock-piling student-athletes and should be eliminated from the proposal.

Since this legislation cannot be separated out by individual concerns, we believe an over-ride of this legislation is
warranted and allow the appropriate bodies move aspects of this legislation through the well-conceived legislative process
and can be properly reviewed.
 Override Period (October 2011 meetings)

Override Summary
2011-97 FINANCIAL AID -- ELIGIBILITY FOR INSTITUTIONAL FINANCIAL AID -- FORMER STUDENT-
ATHLETES; PERIOD OF INSTITUTIONAL FINANCIAL AID AWARD -- MULTIYEAR GRANTS-IN-AID
Override Requests Received: 48
Detailed Listing of Overrides:
American University

We like the current process of single grant-in-aid agreements. Multi-year agreements create inconsistency among our
programs and create unwanted work for administration. We award our scholarships based on athletics participation and
ability, and we want to have the flexibility to evaluate and decide if a student-athlete merits a scholarship annually.

Binghamton University
Boise State University
Boise State believes the following:
1. 2001-97 creates a recruiting disaster that affects both the prospective student-athletes and the institutions. Institutions
will be competing for recruits by "making the best deal." One school may only be able to offer a one-year grant while
another offers 2-years and another 4-years. In order to be competitive, institutions may offer multi-year awards so they
can sign higher level recruits. However, there is never a guarantee that the incoming student-athlete will be a good fit for
the program and the institution. If it is a poor fit the program is put in a difficult situation to continue to keep a student-
athlete on scholarship.
2. When you combine 2001-97 with 2001-96 it creates a culture of brokering. For a prospective student-athlete, the
decision as to where to attend college and participate in athletics is most likely the biggest decision they will make at that
point in their lives. That tough decision becomes more complicated when the student and his/her family have to factor in
what school "offers the best deal" versus where they may want to attend if all offers were for one year without the
enticement of 2,000.
Boston University

Boston University offers other financial aid for one year at a time with certain standards that need to be met for
continuation, and we believe it is appropriate to offer athletic aid in the same manner. University policy, NCAA
regulations, and appeal processes that are in place for reduction or cancellation of athletic aid are appropriate and
effective in preventing student athletes from being "run-off" and we do not support multi-year athletic awards.

Campbell University

This too is poor legislation as multi-year awards will promote legal ramifictions when athletes choose to or (for varying
reasons) are asked to vacate the school where they initially signed an offer to attend.

Central Connecticut State University

Cleveland State University
Colonial Athletic Association - 4 institutions

UNC Wilmington, Drexel University, College of William & Mary, James Madison University

Drake University
Eastern Washington University

Eastern Washington University strongly believes that grant in aid should stay at 1 year and not go to multi-year periods.

Georgia Southern University

Illinois State University
 Override Period (October 2011 meetings)

Override Summary
Indiana State University

This proposal, if accepted, is going to create some real nightmares if put into practice. Biggest concern pertains to the
nature of college athletics. Coaches are going to be compelled to give these multi-year scholarships to compete on the
recruiting front with other schools. Problem is, many coaches, especially at the FCS level, in all sports, are usually not
around for five years and when the coach leaves, the new coach and insitutiton may be "stuck" with a student athlete they
no longer want (conduct issues, grades, etc.) or the new coach may have a completely different style of offense/defense
that the student athlete no longer fits into. Yet, the institution is "locked in" to a 5 year contract potentially with someone
that is of no "athletic" usefulness to the program. Obviously, the student athlete can leave school if he/she wants and
there's no harm done; but it doesn't work both ways.

Leaving it up to the discretion of the institutions to decide whether to use multi-year scholarships just creates another
competetive/recruiting disadvantage for many schools whose coaching positions are many times mere "stepping stone"
for a coach/staff to get to the higher paying, more prominent jobs. To get the recruits that will make a program better,
coaches are going to be forced to offer these multi-year scholarships just to make sure they have the recruits to help them
win.

The current system works. We don't need to get into bidding wars where one school offers a $75% for 2 years and the
other school then offers 85% for 3, etc., etc. This puts the kid into a situation where they almost need an agent/advisor
just to determine the best "deal." Again, if it isn't broke, don't fix it.

Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne

Long Island University-Brooklyn Campus
Loyola Marymount University
Marquette University
Marshall University
McNeese State University
Missouri State University
Monmouth University
Mount St. Mary's University
Nicholls State University
Rutgers, State Univ of New Jersey, New Brunswick
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey believe an Override Vote on proposal 2011-97 is warranted due to the
potential abuse of the legislation during the recruiting process as well as the added burden of monitoring multi-year
financial aid awards.
- The rationale behind the legislation will be overshadowed by an abuse of the legislation during the recruiting process. As
outlined in the rationale, the intent of this proposal is to place a commitment on degree completion. By adopting such
legislation, institutions will be leveraged into offering multi-year athletic scholarships to prospective student-athletes in
order to solidify a prospective student-athlete's commitment to the institution. Institutions will essentially engage into
contract negotiations with prospective student-athletes and their family members during the recruiting process. The multi-
year athletic scholarship legislation will encourage third party influences to establish themselves as part of the recruiting
process. This will be problematic for the membership. Overall, there is a level of commitment demonstrated by an
institution who offers a multi-year athletic award, however, there are no safeguards in place to protect an institution
should a student-athlete decide to 'break' the multi-year agreement (e.g. transfer). The motivation behind the legislation
(degree completion) will be lost.
- Athletic department budgets as well as tuition figures are approved year to year. Having the responsibility to advise
coaches on scholarship figures and budgets is burdensome in itself. It will be unrealistic for institutions to project budget
and tuition amounts several years in advance. This will be a significant issue for those sports who are not fully funded as
well as advising coaches on team equivalencies. By allowing institutions to offer multi-year awards, this will lead to
 Override Period (October 2011 meetings)

Override Summary
unintended issues (e.g. over award violations). The responsibility of tracking multi-year awards will fall on the
Compliance Office. This change in legislation could lead to an increase in spending on staffing for monitoring purposes as
well as budget miscalculations.
Santa Clara University

As a matter of practice, Santa Clara University already subscribes to the theory underlying this proposal. However, we do
not believe that the legislation is necessary because of existing NCAA rules that address the reduction or cancellation of
athletic aid.

Southern Illinois University at Carbondale

St. Francis College (New York)

This proposal to permit multi-year grants in aid will alter the college athletics system. Our institution, and a majority of
colleges and universities across the country, award other forms of grants-in-aid to students on a year-to-year basis. These
awards (based upon academic performance, extra-curricular involvement, and/or need) are stipulated as one-year awards
with the potential for renewal for subsequent years provided that specific criteria are met. In the current system, athletic
grants-in-aid work the same way as they are for one year with the potential for renewal provided that specific criteria are
met, and there is an appeals process in place to guard against the at-will non-renewal based strictly on performance,
though non-renewal based upon poor citizenship, disruptive behavior, or other actions contrary to the definition of team is
permitted.

By enacting this proposal, the NCAA is permitting institutions to treat student-athletes differently than they treat the
general student population. This goes against everything the NCAA has stood for over the years; in fact on several
occasions it has been stressed that student-athletes are to be integrated into the student body and given the same treatment
as the general students. In addition, this proposal will likely result in negotiation tactics which are going to more closely
resemble professional contract negotiations as student-athletes strive for the "best deal." The next step of the process will
possibly involve "third parties" (the politically correct term for "agents" which is a bad word in the NCAA world)
representing the student-athletes in these negotiations.

St. Peter's College

Stephen F. Austin State University
Tennessee Technological University

We support an override of this provision, as we believe that it should go through the normal channels of legislation for
comment and study by the Membership and its various committees. We don't believe this should have been adopted as
emergency legislation.

We also believe it might greatly affect the present balance that exists between student-athletes and institutions that
developed through institutional practices over a long period of time, and that had seem to be working. It also leads to
decisions made for competitive recruiting reasons rather than for the overall benefit of the student-athletes and the
institution. We also think there will be unintended consequences that happen as the relationship between the coach, the
player and the institution are changed in such a drastic way so quickly.

I do note that we have only requested Override votes on two of these that were adopted as emergency legislation, but we
also believe that emergency legislation in the future should be reserved for either those isses that are completely non-
controversial, or truly emergency in nature. We believe it is a bad practice to adopt normal legislation in this manner. All
legislation that is not non-controversial or emergency should go through the legislative process so that it can be fully
vetted and discussed.

University at Albany
 Override Period (October 2011 meetings)

Override Summary

Our institution thinks there needs to be further study to determine the impact of multiyear financial aid on all sports. Most
conferences similar in size to ours are targeting men's & women's basketball as the "test sports" for this legislation, which
does not seem in best interest of overall student-athlete well-being. An amended form of this legislation proposed after
further review, with regard to the impact on all sports would be preferred.

University of Central Arkansas

University of New Hampshire
University of North Carolina, Asheville

We would prefer further discussion concerning budget and legal issues.

University of North Carolina, Charlotte

University of North Florida
University of Tennessee at Martin

Multiyear grants-in-aid become problematic when career-ending injuries occur. The current award period is a year, and
student-athlete already receives the benefit of a full year of aid if career-ending or season-ending injury occurs.
Institutions can already assist students in future years even though the amount of aid is decreased. But if all institutions
begin awarding multiyear grants to remain competitive in the market place, the cost of a full grant for injured student-
athlete will increase overall costs.

University of Texas, Pan American

With the variance in coaches' contracts and the progression of recruiting from year to year it is not felt that this is in the
best interest of each institution athletics programs.
University of Utah

Our Student-Athlete Advisory Committee is against the adoption of this proposal. They feel it locks student-athletes in
and eliminates the potential for other athletes to receive aid, particularly if the student-athlete on a multi-year agreement
is a bad fit for the team. We support the opinion of our student-athletes.

University of Vermont
University of Wyoming
Valparaiso University
Western Carolina University
Western Illinois University
Winthrop University

Winthrop University requests an override of NCAA Proposal 2011-97 for the following reasons:

1. In combination with Proposal 2011-96, this legislation moves intercollegiate athetlics further away from a "collegiate
model" of athletics and closer to a "professional model" of athletics.

2. There are no constraints on what conditions institutions can place upon a student-athlete in a multi-year agreement.

3. Student financial aid agreements will begin looking significantly more like coaching contracts, and thus make college
athletics look more professionalized.
 Override Period (October 2011 meetings)

Override Summary
2011-99 RECRUITING -- MEN'S BASKETBALL RECRUITING MODEL
Override Requests Received: 1
Detailed Listing of Overrides:
U.S. Military Academy