Oct. 24
The NCAA Division I Management Council is making some positive recommendations to the Division I Board of Directors, which will meet Nov. 1 to finalize a few rule changes. I don't think they have gone far enough, but at least it's a move in the right direction.

For example, one area that has concerned many coaches is the "5/8 rule." The rule has limited the number of men's basketball scholarships to eight in a consecutive two-year period, with no more than five in one of those two years.

The current 5/8 rule makes it difficult to get to the limit of 13 scholarships when too many players leave early.

The 5/8 rule hurt a school like Final Four participant Arizona, which lost Michael Wright, Richard Jefferson and Gilbert Arenas to early entry in the NBA draft.

The modification would allow institutions to award up to nine scholarships during this academic year and 2002-03, with no more than five in one year.

For example, those that awarded five this year would be allowed to award four for the 2002-03 year; those that awarded less than five initial grants this year could award up to five for 2002-03.

The 5/8 limit would resume in 2003-04 with one change. Schools would be allowed an extra scholarship when the number of players who graduate in any given year, combined with those who leave school early but are on track to graduate within five years, exceeds the number of scholarships given during that same year. The extra scholarship must be used within the following two years. Overall men's basketball scholarship limits would remain at 13.

The current 5/8 rule makes it difficult to get to the limit of 13 scholarships when too many players leave early. The limit of five was adopted to cut down on the number of transfers. With the rule in place, schools couldn't load up that way.

The bottom line is that this situation was not healthy for the game. It was unfair to a coach such as Arizona's Lute Olson, who was trying to put together the best program possible, helping create excitement for college basketball.

To me, the distribution of the 13 scholarships should be at the discretion of the coach. Coaches who have honest programs won't run players off to abuse the scholarship rules. There are very few shady coaches, and it isn't right to penalize them all because of a few bad ones.

Let the coach make the call. The change will allow nine over a two-year period, which is a bit better. It's wrong to penalize a school because it had talented players good enough to make the move to the next level for the mega-dollars of the NBA.

Proposal regarding professional competition too severe
The council also is sending the board a recommendation regarding players who have competed professionally -- that is, a new reinstatement policy for the Division I Student-Athlete Reinstatement Subcommittee to consider.

The subcommittee's longstanding directive states that players who participated in first-tier-level professional competition in a foreign country would be withheld from one intercollegiate game for each professional game played. Recently, the subcommittee modified the directive to specify that the penalty for players who have participated in second-tier international competition be reduced to one game for every two professional games played.

Now, the council is recommending that players be withheld from no more than eight games in a season for having played with pros or in a professional league in another country.

If a kid didn't receive financial aid, I don't buy the idea that he should be suspended for playing on a team internationally in a professional league. He should be held responsible if he is taking cash and signed a contract. Many times, this starts when players don't know what's right and wrong.

If players are sharpening their skills, why should they be penalized? The new recommendation could cost a kid up to eight games (equivalent to 20 percent of the season); that's too severe if a player didn't take a dime.

Recruiting proposal would help head coaches
Another potential change would allow "restricted coaches" on college basketball staffs to evaluate players during the summer. I think that's a great move, and it would help head coaches, who would be able to spend more time with their athletes on campus instead of worrying about watching potential recruits. It's great to give players the necessary offseason attention.

It would also help restricted coaches learn about a major aspect of the job, developing innovative minds regarding another phase of the game. To me, that's a positive.

Speaking of rules changes ... in college football, a rule change for next season will allow teams that finish 6-6 in a 12-game regular season to be eligible for a bowl. Are we going to reward mediocrity? At 6-6, you should be packing the uniforms away and going home. The season should be over, baby!

It's absurd to reward a program for going .500. All this does is take care of the big guys, schools that may struggle in a big-time power conference. I could buy 7-5, but I don't believe in rewarding teams that are mediocre.