» 7/5/13 - 2014 Convention
» 1/20/13 - Social media proposal passes in DIII
» 1/19/13 - DII looks to 2014
» 1/19/13 - DIII approves sickle cell measure
» 1/19/13 - Division I streamlines rulebook
» 12/5/13 - Two for the Price
» 11/26/13 - This doctor has potential student-athletes in mind
» 11/14/13 - DII’s balance let Bartlett showcase multiple skills
Presidents Council chair Pat O’Brien presides over Thursday’s meetings.
By David Pickle
Medical and related expenses and services now may be provided to student-athletes after the Division II Presidents Council on Thursday approved emergency legislation that deregulates Bylaw 16.4.
The legislation, recommended by the Division II Legislation Committee, is designed to provide member institutions and conferences with the flexibility to deal with the implementation of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) in January 2014. Under the terms of the legislation, Division II programs would be able – but not obligated – to provide health insurance for their student-athletes under any conditions.
As it was written, Bylaw 16.4.2 listed four types of nonpermissible medical expenses, including Bylaw 16.4.2-(a), which prohibits the institution from financing student health insurance for student-athletes “if the insurance is provided or offered to the general student body only on an optional basis, except that if such insurance is required for a particular group of students (for example, international students), such expenses may be paid for student-athletes who are members of such a group. Only such required fees may be paid as part of an institutional grant-in-aid for student-athletes.”
The Council may approve emergency legislation to ensure the proper operation of the division. Had the proposal been considered on a normal timeline with a traditional effective date, the matter would have been considered in January 2014 and implemented Aug. 1, 2014 – seven months after the ACA will have taken effect. Even an immediate effective date on the normal timeline (Jan. 18, 2014) would be after the implementation of the ACA – and almost five months after the start of the 2012-13 academic year.
With the change in place, athletics administrators now will be able to spend much of 2013 consulting with legal counsel and risk managers to determine the best course of action for their program and their student-athletes.
Division II Presidential Survey Results
|Responses from Division II chancellors and presidents about issues facing the division. The response rate was 63 percent.|
|The Division II Strategic Positioning Platform, as written, is relevant and provides value to my institution as an NCAA Division II member:|
|Neither agree or disagree||6%|
|The Division II Strategic Positioning Platform accurately describes the student-athlete experience on my campus:|
|Neither agree or disagree||6%|
|On my campus, the director of athletics reports directly to the:|
|Chancellor or president||63%|
|Chief student affairs officer||20%|
|Chief financial officer||6%|
|Chief academic officer||1%|
|On my campus, the athletics compliance officer reports directly to the:|
|Director of athletics||83%|
|VP or equivalent outside athletics||6%|
|Chancellor or president||5%|
|How important are the following issues to Division II athletics as a whole?|
|Reviewing division-wide academic requirements (initial eligibility, two-year transfers, progress toward degree): 76% important or very important.|
|Evaluating the effectiveness of the Life in the Balance initiative: 73% important or very important.|
|Easing the administrative burden on athletics staff: 72% important or very important.|
|Expanding diversity and inclusion in athletics: 70% important or very important.|
|Strategically increasing division membership: 44% important or very important.|