Daily Compliance Item- 11/14/12- 13.2.2- Jersey at Press Conference

Head Coach at Ocean State University loans a game jersey to Stole N. Base, a baseball prospect, for his National Letter of Intent (NLI) press conference.

Is this permissible?

No.  NCAA Bylaw Staff Interpretation- 2/10/89- Prospective student-athlete utilizing member institution’s jersey at press conference– states that NCAA Bylaw 13.2.2 (prohibited offers and inducements) would preclude a member institution from loaning a jersey to a prospective student-athlete to utilize during the individual’s press conference to announce his acceptance of the institution’s letter of intent.

 

This fact pattern is applicable to Division I and II.

Daily Compliance Item- 11/13/13- Figure 16-1- Performance Awards

Ocean State University will be participating in the 20th Annual New England Classic Volleyball Tournament this weekend.    The organization conducting the event wants to provide an all-tournament team award to the designated student-athletes from each team.  Is this permissible?

Yes with conditions.  NCAA Official Interpretation- 11/8/12- Special Event Participation Awards Based on Level of Achievement (I)- states that the committee determined that special event participation awards may include awards that are based on a level of achievement (e.g., all-tournament award, finalist award, place-finish award) in the event, provided the awards are uniform within each level and the combined value of all awards received for participation in the particular type of special event (e.g., conference championship; other established meets, tournaments and featured individual competition) does not exceed the legislated maximum value.

[References: NCAA Division I Bylaws 16.1.2 (uniformity of awards), 16.1.4.1 (participation awards), Figure 16-1 (participation awards) and a staff interpretation (12/13/91, Item No. e)]

This applies to Division I.

Daily Compliance Item- 11/12/12- 13.4.1.1.1, 13.9.2.1- Mailing NLIs

The men’s basketball staff is preparing its National Letter of Intent (NLI) packets to be sent out tomorrow via federal express.  Included in this mailing is the NLI, NLI instructions, institutional financial aid agreement and a sports information questionnaire.

Are all of these items permitted to be in this packet?

 

No.  It is not permissible to send a questionnaire using express mail services.  NCAA Bylaw 13.4.1.1.1 states that an institution is not permitted to use express mail delivery services and may only use first-class mail or a lesser rate of service (e.g., parcel post) with no extra services (e.g., certified mail, delivery confirmation) to provide permissible printed recruiting materials to prospective student-athletes, their parents or legal guardians, their coaches or any other individual responsible for teaching or directing an activity in which a prospective student-athlete is involved, who resides within the 50 United States, other than the National Letter of Intent or other written admissions and/or financial aid commitment to attend the institution and necessary pre-enrollment information per Bylaw 13.4.1.1-(h).  [D] (Adopted: 4/28/05 effective 8/1/05,  Revised:  5/12/05, 1/14/08, 4/15/08)

NCAA Bylaw 13.9.2.1 states that an institutional or conference financial aid form may be included in the normal mailing of the National Letter of Intent, but none of the forms enclosed in the mailing may be signed by the prospective student-athlete prior to the initial signing date in that sport in the National Letter of Intent program. [D] (8/5/04)

 

PLEASE NOTE:  This is an actual fact pattern of a Division I secondary rules violation posted on LSDBi.

Daily Compliance Item- 11/9/12- Bonus Item

Elite prospects take measures to limit coaches’ contact

USA TODAY High School Sports

Andrew and Aaron Harrison figured they could handle it. After all, what were a few more text messages for the 18-year-old twins, even if they are two of the most elite high school hoopers in the country?

That’s why when the NCAA introduced a new rule change on June 15 that, among other things, allowed college basketball coaches to make unlimited phone calls and send unlimited text messages to recruits, Andrew and Aaron didn’t give it a second thought.

“We really didn’t think it would be that serious,” Aaron said. “We were definitely wrong.”

How wrong?

On the first day, Aaron got more than 60 phone calls and 300 texts from college coaches. Same for Andrew.

 After another day of what Aaron referred to as a “ridiculous amount of calls and texts”, the twin senior guards, who eventually committed to Kentucky in early October, changed their numbers and funneled all contact through their father Aaron Sr.

“It’s too stressful,” Aaron Jr. said. “You just get overwhelmed and it shouldn’t be like that. It’s too much. Why coaches just text constantly and call all the time is crazy to me, even if they can. You really have to limit that contact if you want to have some type of a normal life.”

It’s an approach that dozens of elite players around the country had taken even before the rule change, or have adopted since its inception.

Simeon (Chicago) wing Jabari Parker, a consensus top five senior, took the same approach as the Harrison twins, changing his number and letting his father, Sonny, handle all calls and texts.

Tyus Jones took a more proactive approach.

As the top player in the 2014 class, Jones, a point guard at Apple Valley (Apple Valley, Minn.), knew that having more than 30 offers spelled a recipe for disaster.

“Me and my family talked to the coaches before June 15 and told them that they didn’t have to go overboard with calling and texting,” Jones said. “It didn’t really make sense because we knew where they all stood. It wasn’t necessary to hear from them every day.”

Not every college coach gets sore thumbs from sending dozens of texts. Some take the “hands-off” approach.

Back in September when Kentucky coach John Calipari extended an offer to Whitney Young (Chicago) center Jahlil Okafor, Calipari told Okafor not to expect him to call constantly.

“Coach Cal said he didn’t see the point of all that calling and texting,” said Okafor, who is ranked No. 2 in the class of 2014. “I loved that approach because he made a really good point when he said, ‘I’m 53 years old, what would we have to talk about?’ Some schools just get out of hand with crazy texts.”

After one coach began sending Okafor text messages simply repeating the name of his college, Okafor’s dad Chucky stepped in and told all of the coaches to keep texts and calls on topic.

“It was just weird,” Okafor said. “I guess some guys like the attention, but, honestly, most of us don’t need it.”

Some schools think that the head coach has to take the lead on elite prospects and stay in constant contact to have a legitimate chance at landing them.

Not true according to Wesleyan Christian (High Point, N.C.) wing Theo Pinson, a consensus top 10 player in the class of 2014.

“I don’t need to hear from the head coach too often,” Pinson said. “As long as I hear from him from time to time that’s fine with me. It can’t be never. That would be a turnoff. But I know he’s busy; just need to talk to him every now and then.”

Still, in the high-stakes game of recruiting where commitments from elite prospects can affect livelihoods, college coaches feel the pressure to pull out all the stops.

The question is: When does it get to be too much?

For Okafor, that answer is simple.

“It’s common sense; you know when you’re calling and texting too much,” he said. “Coaches just have to remember, we already know you want us. Don’t be so thirsty.”

Daily Compliance Item- 11/9/12- Current Event

Grad transfer exception gains in popularity, scrutiny

USAToday.com

 

In this world of immediate gratification, there’s nothing better for a college basketball transfer than knowing that he’ll be able to play immediately at his new school.

There’s one sure-fire way to do it. Graduate students who have not previously transferred can use the one-time transfer exception to play right away at their new school. If a player has completed his undergraduate coursework and has a year of eligibility remaining, he’s good to go. No waiver is necessary — a change implemented at the start of the 2011-12 season, according to the NCAA — so it’s easier than ever for graduates to play immediately.

Former Xavier guard Mark Lyons used the exception. This season, he’ll play at Arizona for the coach who originally recruited him to the Musketeers, Sean Miller. Former Louisville forward Jared Swopshire will play at Northwestern this season, too. Same exception, same result.

Last season, 15 college basketball players played as graduate student transfers — including Brandon Wood, who graduated from Valparaiso and then played at Michigan State.

“Sometimes, in life you have to make selfish decisions,” Wood told USA TODAY Sports this spring. “If players handle their business and do what they have to do in the classroom and have the opportunity to do this, take advantage of this rule to better themselves, then I think it’s something people should look into doing.”

Daily Compliance Item- 11/8/12- 13.17.6- Lacrosse Evaluations

The women’s lacrosse coaches at Ocean State University are finalizing their recruiting trips for the month of November.  There is a high profile tournament being held in conjunction with the coaches’ convention on November 16-18.  Here is the recruiting calendar breakdown:

16th- contact period (no evaluations permitted)

17th- evaluation period

18th- evaluation period

The coaches would like to evaluate all three days of the tournament.  Is this permissible?

 

No.  NCAA Women’s Lacrosse Recruiting Calendar states that evaluations of prospects participating in lacrosse activities are limited to the three weekends (Saturday and Sunday) prior to Thanksgiving.

This is an actual fact pattern and the NCAA has approved a blanket SLR waiver to allow coaches to evaluate on Friday the 16th.–NCAA Division I Legislative Council Subcommittee for Legislative Relief Approves Blanket Waiver for NCAA Bylaw 13.17.6 (women’s lacrosse). November 2, 2012.  The NCAA Division I Legislative Council Subcommittee for Legislative Relief approved a blanket waiver to permit Division I women’s lacrosse coaches to attend the November 16, 2012, Intercollegiate Women’s Lacrosse Coaches Association (IWLCA) President’s Cup tournament.  The Division I recruiting period legislation specifies that evaluations of prospective student-athletes in women’s lacrosse activities are limited to the three weekends (Saturday and Sunday) prior to Thanksgiving.  In issuing this waiver, the subcommittee noted the IWLCA supports the waiver and the President’s Cup tournament start date was changed to accommodate the unexpected high number of teams registered to participate.  The subcommittee also noted the IWLCA annual meeting and President’s Cup tournament are held in conjunction to maximize efficiency for both women’s lacrosse coaches and prospective student-athletes.  In addition, the subcommittee noted Division II and Division III women’s lacrosse coaches are permitted to evaluate at the tournament Friday, November 16.  Finally, the subcommittee noted this as a one-time request and future similar requests may be denied.  See Case No. 290866 in AMA Online via the search tab.

 

PLEASE NOTE:  The women’s lacrosse recruiting calendar has been updated to reflect these contact periods.  As a reminder, coaches are permitted to make unlimited phone calls during a contact period.

As noted in the waiver, Division II institutions were already permitted to evaluate on Friday the 16th.

Daily Compliance Item- 11/7/12- 13.6.7.1- Complimentary Admissions

The Ocean State University women’s basketball team will be hosting a WNIT game at their on-campus facility in a few weeks.  During that particular weekend, the team will be hosting 3 prospective student-athletes on official visits.  Is it permissible to provide these prospects with complimentary admissions to the WNIT game?

Yes.  NCAA Staff Interpretation- 7/2/03- Complimentary Admissions to Preseason Events (I)- states that a member institution may provide complimentary admissions to a prospect to attend preseason (as distinguished from postseason) home athletics events. [References: NCAA Proposal Nos. 2003-1 and 2003-2, Bylaws 13.7.5.1 (entertainment/tickets on official visit – general restrictions), 13.7.5.2.2 (NCAA championships or other postseason events), 13.8.2.1 (entertainment/tickets on unofficial visit – general restrictions), 13.8.2.2 (home games outside regular facility) and 13.8.2.4 (NCAA championships and other postseason events) and 8/22/90, official interpretation, item 14, which has been archived.].

 

This piece of legislation is applicable to Division I.

Daily Compliance Item- 11/6/12- 13.1.5.5, 13.1.7.10- Evaluations and Contacts

The Head Men’s Basketball Coach at Ocean State University watched High Post, a senior prospect, practice yesterday at his high school.  After practice, the coach met with High at High’s house.

How many recruiting opportunities did the coach use?

 

The coach used 1 recruiting opportunity.  NCAA Bylaw 13.1.5.5 states that evaluations that occur during the academic year count against the permissible number of recruiting opportunities, except for evaluations that occur on the same day as a permissible contact. Outside of the academic year, evaluations do not count against the annual number of recruiting opportunities. Contacts that occur with a prospective student-athlete count against the permissible number of total recruiting opportunities regardless of the time period (e.g., academic year or outside the academic year). All contacts and evaluations are subject to recruiting calendar restrictions.

NCAA Bylaw 13.1.7.10 states that in team sports, an institution shall use an evaluation for each prospective student-athlete participating in a practice or contest observed by the institution’s coach, except an evaluation that occurs on the same day as a permissible contact (see Bylaw 13.1.5.5). An institution’s coach who is attending an event in which prospective student-athletes from multiple educational institutions participate in drills (e.g., combine) shall use an evaluation only for each prospective student-athlete participating in the event that the coach observes engaging in the drills.  In football, an observation that occurs during a permissible contact period shall count only as a contact per Bylaw 13.02.4.1. (Revised: 6/28/04, 5/14/05, 10/30/12)

Please note this legislation changed with the adoption of NCAA Proposal 2012-17.  The effective date of this piece of legislation is immediate and can be applied retroactively to August 1, 2012.

 

This legislation is specific to Division I.

Daily Compliance Item- 11/5/12- 16.9.1- Local Transportation

Several Ocean State University student-athletes are registered to vote in the locale of the institution.  The athletic department administrators and coaches want to encourage the student-athletes to vote, so they would like to coordinate transportation to and from the polling places.

Is this permissible?

If there are not any administrators available to drive the student-athletes, is it permissible for the athletic department to provide them with a vehicle for purposes of getting to and from the voting sites?

It is permissible for the athletic department administrators/coaches to drive the student-athletes to vote.  NCAA Bylaw 16.9.1(f) states that it is permissible for an institution to provide the following travel expenses not related to practice or competition: [R] 

Local Transportation.  Reasonable local transportation to student-athletes on an occasional basis. (Adopted: 1/10/95)

It is not, however, permissible for an institution to provide a vehicle for the student-athletes to use.  NCAA Official Interpretation- 12/12/94-Awards and Benefits — Transportation Expenses- states that the committee reviewed Proposal Nos. 18 and 19, which permit an institution to provide student-athletes with reasonable, local transportation on an occasional basis, and determined that it is not permissible for an institution to provide a vehicle for a student-athlete to use for the purposes outlined in the proposals.

 

This is applicable for Divisions I and II.

Daily Compliance Item- 11/2/12- Current Event

NCAA athletes’ rights in dispute in court filing

USAToday.com

Lawyers representing former and current college football and men’s basketball players in an anti-trust lawsuit said in documents filed Thursday that the NCAA says it does not obtain permission from athletes to use their names, images and likenesses in various ways, including live TV broadcasts.

The lawyers suggested that this “admission,” as the lawyers termed it, means that athletes should get what essentially amounts to back-pay once they complete their college careers.

Thursday’s filing also revealed that the athletes’ lawyers have told conferences across the country that the NCAA’s position potentially makes the conferences’ mega-dollar TV contracts unlawful. If the athletes – rather than the NCAA and its members — own the rights to their names, images and likenesses, the lawyers said, then the conferences do not possess the rights they are selling to broadcasters.

The documents were filed in U.S. District Court in California as part of a bid by the athletes’ lawyers to have the lawsuit certified as a class action.

The suit seeks damages from the NCAA; video-game maker Electronic Arts; and Collegiate Licensing Co., the nation’s leading collegiate trademark licensing and marketing firm. The 15 named plaintiffs, including former basketball stars Ed O’Bannon, Oscar Robertson and Bill Russell, say their names, images and likenesses were used illegally by the NCAA.

They allege that the defendants violated anti-trust law by conspiring to fix at zero the amount of compensation athletes can receive for the use of their names, images and likenesses in products or media while they are in school and by requiring athletes to sign forms under which they relinquish in perpetuity all rights pertaining to the use of the names, images and likenesses in ways including TV contracts, rebroadcasts of games, and video game, jersey and other apparel sales.

The NCAA and the other defendants have contended the case should not be certified as a class action, in part, because the plaintiffs have recently adopted legal approaches to their case that are fundamentally different from those cited in the plaintiffs’ underlying complaint. Among those differences, the defendants said, is the plaintiffs’ assertion that the athletes are entitled to damages based on revenue the NCAA and schools get from live TV broadcasts, not just from rebroadcasts of old games.

NCAA spokesman Bob Williams said in an e-mail Thursday night that the NCAA has “not had a chance to review the (plaintiffs’ latest) pleading, but we stand by our statements in our motion to strike” the motion for class certification. NCAA general counsel Donald Remy, in several statements, has expressed confidence in the association’s position in the case generally.

The plaintiffs’ filing Thursday references a statement made by Gregory L. Curtner, a lawyer for the NCAA, during a court hearing on the case in April 2011. “There is no document, there is no substance that the NCAA ever takes from the student athletes their rights of publicity or their rights of likeness,” Curtner said, according to the court transcript. “They are at all times owned by the student athlete. Now, the student athlete, while they wish to remain an amateur, cannot exercise them, but that’s their choice. They can stop being an amateur at any time they want and they can go become a pro, and they can start selling things. They own their rights at all times.”

Of this, the plaintiffs’ lawyers wrote: “If the student-athlete at all times owns the rights to his (name, image and likeness) and merely holds in abeyance in his college years the exercise of the right to be compensated for use of that (name, image and likeness), then it stands to reason that once he graduates, he should be paid that past compensation due to him.”

Curtner’s statement also was used in a series of letters that plaintiffs’ lawyer Michael D. Hausfeld sent to various conferences in August 2011. One of these letters, which went to the Southeastern Conference, was submitted as part of Thursday’s filing. The SEC is in the early part of 15-year TV contracts with ESPN and CBS that are worth $3 billion, but likely will become even more lucrative after ongoing renegotiations related to the conference’s addition of Texas A&M and Missouri this year.

Hausfeld’s letter says that if the NCAA’s position, as stated by Curtner, is shared by the SEC, “any contractual undertaking that (SEC) may have with ESPN, any other broadcast network and/or internet companies purporting to grant such networks … the right to … use the names, images and likenesses of college athletes would appear to be unlawful.”

The letter adds that the plaintiffs intend to prove that none of the conferences has the right to profit from licensing the names, images and likenesses of athletes “unless the college athletes, in a non-collusive marketplace, consent to such use (which they have not done) … ”

Later in 2011, as part of a proceeding in which the plaintiffs’ lawyers were attempting to force the SEC to turn over TV and licensing contracts as part of their pre-trial fact-finding, several conference officials stated in documents that “it is the practice of SEC member institutions to ask student-athletes to execute” a wide-ranging form that, among other things, grants the school permission to broadcast or rebroadcast events for which the student-athlete is present.

“This form,” the conference officials stated, “is administered by the SEC member institutions directly – the SEC itself is not involved in the execution of these forms and does not receive or maintain copies of them.”