Daily Compliance Item- 12/21/12- Current Event

UNC report: No-show classes go back to 1997

 

An athlete’s grades prompted a series of investigations that has enveloped North Carolina for two years, but a report released Thursday concluded that the prestigious university’s problems were academic, not athletic.

The report compiled by former Gov. Jim Martin and the national consulting firm Baker Tilly found that “anomalous courses” in the Department of Afro- and African-American Studies (AFAM) extend back as far as fall 1997.

Commissioned in August to expand on a previous university review that spanned only 2007-11, the group found 216 courses with “proven or potential anomalies,” and 454 suspected cases of unauthorized grade changes. According to the report, the percentage of athletes in those classes was consistent with the percentage of athletes in all classes in the AFAM department. Academic misconduct was not found in any other departments.

An athlete’s grades prompted a series of investigations that has enveloped North Carolina for two years, but a report released Thursday concluded that the prestigious university’s problems were academic, not athletic.

The report compiled by former Gov. Jim Martin and the national consulting firm Baker Tilly found that “anomalous courses” in the Department of Afro- and African-American Studies (AFAM) extend back as far as fall 1997.

Commissioned in August to expand on a previous university review that spanned only 2007-11, the group found 216 courses with “proven or potential anomalies,” and 454 suspected cases of unauthorized grade changes. According to the report, the percentage of athletes in those classes was consistent with the percentage of athletes in all classes in the AFAM department. Academic misconduct was not found in any other departments.

“This was not an athletic scandal,” Martin wrote in his report, which was released to the university’s trustees Thursday. “Sadly, it was clearly an academic scandal; but an isolated one, within this one department.”

Jay Smith, a professor and associate chair in the UNC Department of History, said in an e-mail Thursday, “I’m quite disappointed by this report. They collected a lot of statistics, but they failed to address the structural strains placed on the university by pressures to succeed in the athletic arena. They never even acknowledged them.”

Richard Southall, an associate professor in UNC’s Department of Exercise and Sport Science, questioned Thursday why the report explicitly made the distinction between athletics and academics. “I didn’t understand why that was said in the report,” Southall said. “This is a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill scandal. End of discussion.”

He also noted that the report’s labeling of the scandal as “isolated” mirrored conclusions found in similar scandals at Minnesota, Auburn and other universities.

The scandal first came to light in a 2011 lawsuit filed by former football player Michael McAdoo to get his eligibility reinstated in the wake of the school’s 2010 NCAA investigation. The lawsuit revealed a paper submitted by McAdoo for AFAM class was largely plagiarized. A series of investigations by the school and continued reporting by The News & Observer in Raleigh found additional problems within the department.

The school’s internal review released in May found 54 aberrant classes in the AFAM department that were largely populated by football and men’s basketball players and received little to no instruction.

The transcript for Julius Peppers, a two-sport star at UNC and now a defensive end with the Chicago Bears, was leaked on the school’s website in August. His grades suggested that AFAM courses helped him remain eligible throughout his career at UNC.

Martin reviewed data going back 18 years and conducted 84 interviews with faculty, staff, students and other stakeholders in compiling the report.

Jay Smith, a professor and associate chair in the UNC Department of History, said in an e-mail Thursday, “I’m quite disappointed by this report. They collected a lot of statistics, but they failed to address the structural strains placed on the university by pressures to succeed in the athletic arena. They never even acknowledged them.”

As the school’s own review had, Martin’s report placed blame for the aberrant classes and grade changes on two people: Julius Nyang’oro, the former chairman of the department, and Deborah Crowder, an administrator in the department.

“Our evidence shows that no other AFRI/AFAM instructor was responsible for this wrongdoing,”‘ he wrote. “While we cannot definitively conclude regarding the degree of Ms. Crowder’s responsibility for the academic anomalies noted in this report, both this review and the Hartlyn-Andrews Report found a dramatic reduction in academic anomalies after Summer 2009, which coincided with the time of Ms. Crowder’s retirement.”

The Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes (ASPSA), which was the subject of study in Sept. 2011, was not found to have colluded with instructors or administrators to steer athletes to no-show classes, according to the report. But ASPSA employees were aware of certain AFAM courses called “term paper courses” in which there was little to no instruction and typically only a requirement of writing a 20-25 page paper at the end of the term.

A faculty executive review released in July stated that multiple interviews suggested that athletes were directed to enroll in the aberrant AFAM courses. “We were told that athletes claimed they had been sent to Julius Nyang’oro by the ASPSA,” the faculty review states.

The findings extend a scandal that has enveloped one of the country’s public oldest universities for more than two years. What began as an NCAA investigation into impermissible benefits and improper relationships with agents expanded to include questions about widespread academic fraud.

“We made mistakes in the past. We were complacent. We didn’t ask the hard questions that we should have asked. And we didn’t live up to our reputation,” Chancellor Holden Thorp told the trustees on Thursday. “We have to acknowledge that we had an environment in which we placed too much trust in people and not enough emphasis on having the systems in place that would have caught these issues.”

We still need a system of trust, but we also need appropriate accountability.”

Martin’s findings come after the school had completed four internal investigations into the academic support program for student-athletes, the independent study program and a review of the AFAM department. A faculty executive committee reviewed all three prior reports and released its findings in July.

“I believe personally that the big money from television contracts does distort values of collegiate sports programs; but we found no evidence that it was a factor in these anomalous courses,” Martin wrote. “Despite what one might imagine, there is no evidence the Counselors, or the students, or the coaches had anything to do with perpetrating this abuse of the AFRI/AFAM curriculum, or any other.”

A criminal investigation into the AFAM department following findings of academic fraud is ongoing. In May, Orange-Chatham County district attorney Jim Woodall asked the State Bureau of Investigation to look into allegations of financial fraud, forgery, computer fraud and attempted conspiracy.

The university’s previous report indicated that Nyang’oro was paid to teach a summer school course that had little to no instruction. The university took back $12,000 he received for that class in his final paycheck.

A lawyer for former football coach Butch Davis, who was fired before the start of the 2011 season because of the NCAA investigation, released a statement on Thursday defending the coach’s time at the school.

“For the past two years, a few loud voices in this community have clamored that Butch Davis has somehow tarnished the reputation of the University of North Carolina,” said Jonathan Sasser. “The Martin Report has confirmed that the opposite is true.

“Governor Martin expressly found that this was ‘not an athletic scandal as originally speculated,’ and no coach had ‘anything to do’ with it. He further found that these practices were set in place a decade before Butch Davis arrived in Chapel Hill.”

Smith said in his e-mail, “We may do better, and I suspect we’ll avoid egregious fraud in the future, but the strains on the system are going to be left in place. In fact, I suspect that the university will now use this report as a clarion call to get back to business as usual.”

 

This article was selected for educational purposes only.

Daily Compliance Item- 12/20/12- 13.1.7.9.4- non-scholastic teams

Head Football Coach at Ocean State University is interested in a few prospects that are home schooled.  The coach would like to go watch their game this weekend that will include two non-scholastic teams that are comprised of home schooled individuals.  Although these teams compete against high schools, they do not operate under the auspices of a scholastic governing body.

Is it permissible for the coach to attend?

 

No.  NCAA Educational Column- 12/19/12-Teams of Prospective Student-Athletes Not Organized Under the Auspices of a Scholastic Governing Body — Basketball and Bowl Subdivision Football (I)– states that NCAA Division I institutions should note that a team made up of prospective student-athletes (e.g., home school or academy team) that is not organized or administered under the auspices of a scholastic governing body is considered a nonscholastic team.

Pursuant to NCAA Division I Bylaw 13.1.7.8, in basketball, evaluations of live athletics activities are limited to regularly scheduled high school, preparatory-school and two-year college contests/tournaments and practices, and regular scholastic activities involving prospective student-athletes enrolled only at the institution where the regular scholastic activities occur. Additionally, at specified times (e.g., April), evaluations may also occur at certified events that may include nonscholastic teams.

Pursuant to Bylaw 13.1.7.9.4, in bowl subdivision football, all live athletics evaluations are limited to regularly scheduled high school, preparatory-school and two-year college contests and practices, regular scholastic activities involving prospective student-athletes enrolled only at the institution at which the regular scholastic activities occur and events that are organized and conducted solely by the applicable state high school athletics association, state preparatory school association or state or national junior college athletics association.

The following questions and answers are designed to assist the Division I membership with the application of legislation related to nonscholastic teams.

Question No. 1: What does “under the auspices of a scholastic governing body” mean?

Answer: A team that is organized and administered under the auspices of a scholastic governing body is one that is conducted subject to the rules and regulations of the governing body, including any disciplinary action for violations of such rules. In addition, such a team is eligible for events, including championship events, that are conducted by the governing body (e.g., state high school championships). Institutions should note that a team that is affiliated with a scholastic institution but not subject to the rules and regulations of a scholastic governing body would be considered nonscholastic for purposes of applying the evaluation legislation.

Question No. 2: If a team is not organized and administered under the auspices of a scholastic governing body, is it permissible to evaluate a prospective student-athlete at a practice activity?

Answer: Generally, no, in basketball and bowl subdivision football, it is not permissible to evaluate prospective student-athletes who are members of nonscholastic teams while they are engaged in practice for their nonscholastic teams.

Question No. 3: Is it permissible for a men’s basketball coach to attend a nonscholastic team’s practice at a certified event?

Answer: Yes, as long as the event, and nonscholastic team, meet the stipulation set forth in Bylaw 13.18, and the practice has been scheduled by the event organizer as a regular part of the event.

Question No. 4: Is it permissible to observe competition between teams of home-schooled prospective student-athletes that are competing in state or national tournaments?

Answer: Yes, as long as the tournaments are conducted and administered under the auspice of a governing body that establishes eligibility requirements for such competition (e.g., Texas Home School State Basketball Championships, National Christian Home School Championships).

Question No. 5: Is it permissible to evaluate at an event that includes a nonscholastic team competing against a scholastic team?

Answer: Yes, however, it would not be permissible to evaluate a prospective student-athlete that is on a nonscholastic team during a competition with another nonscholastic team, unless such competition occurs during a certified event.

 

[References: Bylaws 13.1.7.8 (basketball evaluations), 13.1.7.8.1 (men’s basketball), 13.1.7.8.2 (women’s basketball), 13.1.7.8.3 (coaches’ attendance at basketball events), 13.1.7.9.4 (scholastic and nonscholastic activities — bowl subdivision football) and 13.18 (basketball even certification — men’s basketball); and official interpretation (09/20/2012, Item No. 1)]

 

Notice about Educational Columns: Educational columns and hot topics are intended to assist the membership with the correct application of legislation and/or interpretations by providing clarifications, reminders and examples. They are based on legislation and official and staff interpretations applicable at the time of publication. Therefore, educational columns and hot topics are binding to the extent that the legislation and interpretations on which they are based remain applicable. Educational columns are posted on a regular basis to address a variety of issues and hot topics are posted as necessary in order to address timely issues.

Daily Compliance Item- 12/19/12- 16.12.1.1- Expenses During Vacation Period

Happy Holidays!!

Orn A. Ment is an international soccer student-athlete at Ocean State University (OSU).  Unfortunately Orn is not able to travel home to her see her family during the upcoming vacation period.  Is OSU permitted to provide expenses for Orn to remain in the locale of the institution during the vacation period?

Yes.  A previously approved incidental expense waiver states that it is permissible to provide meals and lodging for an international student-athlete to stay in a hotel or at a staff member’s home during a holiday break. (11/21/00)

Daily Compliance Item- 12/18/12- 14.4.3.1- Baseball Student-Athlete

Squeeze Play is a baseball prospect who be initially enrolling at Ocean State University in January.  Squeeze has been certified as a qualifier, meets all institutional requirements for admission and has registered for 14 hours.  Is Squeeze permitted to compete this semester or does he have to wait until the fall?

Squeeze is permitted to compete during the spring semester.  NCAA Educational Column- 12/12/12-Baseball Academic Enhancements Frequently Asked Questions (I)- states that In 2007 and 2008, several proposals were adopted with the intent of enhancing the academic success of baseball student-athletes. These included:

  • A requirement that baseball student-athletes be eligible for all competition at the time of enrollment in each fall term and cannot “get well” academically through performance in the fall term;
  • A requirement that four-year college baseball transfer student-athletes complete one academic year in residence at the certifying institution before becoming eligible to compete, absent meeting an exception other than the one-time transfer exception;
  • Limiting the baseball roster to 35 student-athletes, the awarding of equivalencies to 27 counters annually and requiring each counter to receive at least a 25-percent equivalency; and
  • Requiring teams that historically under perform academically to reduce their contests and their playing season.

Since 2008, several additional proposals have been adopted that affect the application of several of these provisions. These include:

  • In all sports,
  • Clarifying that the 18-semester/27-quarter hour requirement results in a midyear certification only after a midyear enrollee’s first year in residence and that certification for later years occurs at the start of each fall;
  • Creating a nonrecruited student exception to the one-time transfer exception for those sports where the one-time transfer exception is generally not applicable; and
  • An NCAA Division I Academic Progress Rate penalty structure that eliminated sport-specific penalties.
  • In baseball, an exception to the 25-percent minimum equivalency value for a student-athlete in the final year of eligibility, provided the student-athlete has not previously received athletically related aid in baseball.

The following questions are intended to assist the membership relative to the current application of the baseball enhancement legislation.

Question No. 1: May an institution that obtains grades from coursework completed over the summer term certify the student-athlete eligible if the grades for the courses are not available until after the beginning of the fall term?

Answer: Yes, NCAA rules related to the timing of certification apply to baseball in the same way they do for other sports (e.g., incomplete grades, late arriving grades).

Question No. 2: May a student-athlete who initially enrolls full time at a Division I institution midyear be immediately eligible?

Answer: A freshman who graduates from high school early and enrolls midyear (or an individual who delays initial collegiate enrollment) may compete in his first spring, provided he satisfies the initial-eligibility standards (i.e., academic and amateur status). Institutions that have continuing student-athletes who initially enroll midyear will be required to certify the appropriate NCAA progress-toward-degree rules at the appropriate time, even if this occurs midyear.

Question No. 3: Does the grade-point average requirement have to be certified at midyear?

Answer: Yes, progress-toward-degree requirements specify that each student-athlete’s grade-point average shall be certified after each term, beginning with the second year of enrollment.

Question No. 4: May a baseball two-year college transfer or 4-2-4 transfer student-athlete transfer midyear and be immediately eligible at the new institution?

Answer: No, a midyear transfer is specifically excluded from being eligible for competition immediately. Such transfers may practice and be provided athletics financial aid, provided they meet applicable transfer requirements. However, the student-athlete will count in the overall counter limit, the financial aid will apply toward the 11.7 team limit and the student-athlete will count toward the 35-person varsity-squad size limit.

Question No. 5: May a 4-2-4 transfer student-athlete be eligible for the spring season if he was not meeting the applicable transfer requirements at the time of transfer?

Answer: Yes, if the one-year time-lapse requirement is the only requirement that the student-athlete was not meeting.

Question No. 6: May a baseball student-athlete who has not previously received athletics aid transfer and use the one-time transfer exception?

Answer: No. All transfer student-athletes who wish to compete in baseball must satisfy the year in residence at the new institution unless they are eligible to use another exception to the transfer residence requirement (e.g., nonrecruited student exception, two-year nonparticipation, minimal participation exception). However, a baseball student-athlete who was not recruited by the original four-year institution and has never received athletics aid from any four-year institution may use the one-time transfer exception, provided all of the conditions are met. (See NCAA Bylaw 14.5.5.2.10.2.)

Question No. 7: Does a baseball student-athlete who is a counter continue to count against the institution’s limit on the number of counters if that student-athlete quits the team?

Answer: Yes, unless an exception is satisfied, once a student-athlete becomes a counter, he will remain a counter for the entire academic year.

Question No. 8: If a baseball student-athlete on athletics aid enrolls midyear, does he have to receive 25-percent equivalency for the spring term or must he receive an amount that would have equated to 25-percent equivalency for the entire year?

Answer: An institution must provide a baseball student-athlete who enrolls midyear and receives athletics aid with a minimum 25-percent equivalency for that spring term, which would result in a minimum 12.5-percent equivalency for the academic year.

Question No. 9: If athletically related financial aid is awarded to a student-athlete for the first time after the beginning of the fall term (e.g., six weeks after classes begin), must the student-athlete receive athletically related and other countable aid that is equal to or greater than 25 percent of an equivalency or may the aid be prorated to meet the minimum requirement?

Answer: The financial aid may be prorated to meet the minimum requirement. At the point the aid is awarded, a combination of athletically related and other countable aid must cover at least 25 percent of the student-athlete’s costs of tuition and fees, room, board and books for the remainder of the academic year.

Question No. 10: May the minimum financial aid percentage consist of both athletics and nonathletics countable aid?

Answer: Yes. All financial aid that counts toward the sport’s maximum institutional grant-in-aid limitation is included when determining whether a counter’s financial aid satisfies the minimum equivalency value legislation.

Question No. 11: May an institutional scholarship that could otherwise be exempted from a student-athlete’s equivalency computation as an academic honor award count toward the minimum 25 percent of an equivalency?

Answer: Institutional financial aid that could otherwise be exempted from an institution’s equivalency computation (e.g., academic honor awards) may be used to meet an individual student-athlete’s minimum equivalency value, provided the aid is also counted toward the maximum institutional grant-in-aid limitation. In such cases, the full amount of the award must count toward the individual student-athlete’s equivalency and the institutional grant-in-aid limitation.

Question No. 12: An institution that awards aid based solely on demonstrated financial need awards need-based aid to a student-athlete, but athletics intercedes in the financial aid and admissions process. Is the financial aid provided to the student-athlete required to be awarded at a level of 25-percent equivalency?

Answer: No. There is an exception to the minimum 25 percent equivalency for an institution that awards aid based solely on demonstrated financial need, even if athletics intercedes on behalf of the student-athlete to assist in obtaining the aid.

Question No. 13: May the exception to the 25-percent minimum equivalency value for student-athletes who are in their final year of eligibility and have not previously received athletically related financial aid in baseball be applied to a student-athlete who has previously received athletics aid in baseball at another institution?

Answer: No. The student-athlete must have never received baseball athletics aid at any institution in order to qualify for the exception.

Question No. 14: May the exception to the 25-percent minimum equivalency value for a student-athlete who is in his final year of eligibility and has not previously received athletically related financial aid in baseball be applied to a student-athlete who has previously received athletics aid in a sport other than baseball, either at another institution or at the certifying institution?

Answer: Yes. A student-athlete who has never received baseball athletics aid at any institution qualifies for the exception.

Question No. 15: When must the baseball varsity squad be finalized?

Answer: The varsity squad must be finalized by the day prior to the institution’s first scheduled baseball contest in the championship segment.

Question No. 16: Are there exceptions or replacements to the varsity-squad size limit for injured student-athletes or student-athletes who quit after the varsity-roster limit is established?

Answer: No.

Question No. 17: Does the varsity-squad size limit eliminate subvarsity teams?

Answer: No; however, once the varsity squad is set, a student-athlete on that roster shall not compete with a subvarsity team and a student-athlete on the subvarsity roster shall not compete with the varsity team.

Question No. 18: If a student-athlete is a counter, must he be included in the 35-person varsity-squad limit?

Answer: Yes.

Question No. 19: A student-athlete enrolls in the fall and receives athletically related financial aid. In December, the student-athlete decides to transfer. Must this student-athlete count toward the varsity-squad size limit?

Answer: Yes. A student-athlete who is counter must be included in the varsity-squad limit. In addition, a student-athlete who becomes a counter at any point in the academic year remains a counter for the entire academic year, even if he transfers or withdraws from the institution.

Question No. 20: A student-athlete enrolls in the fall, participates in baseball and receives athletically related financial aid. In January, the student-athlete is injured to an extent that he will not participate for the remainder of the year. Must this student-athlete count toward the varsity-squad size limit?

Answer: Yes. A student-athlete who is counter must be included in the varsity-squad limit. In addition, a student-athlete who becomes a counter at any point in the academic year remains a counter for the entire academic year, even if he will not participate in the spring season.

Question No. 21: May an institution declare fewer than 35 student-athletes toward the varsity-squad size limitation as of the day prior to its first scheduled contest in the championship segment of the playing and practice season and add additional student-athletes later?

Answer: Yes. Note, however, that any student-athlete who is a counter for financial aid purposes must count toward the varsity-squad size limit. In addition, any student-athlete who participates in countable athletically activities with a subvarsity team after the initial declaration may not be added to the varsity squad for that academic year.

Question No. 22: If a student-athlete is not included in the 35-person varsity-squad size limit, must he be listed as “cut” on the baseball squad-list form?

Answer: No. The varsity-squad size limit is separate from the squad-list form. A student-athlete who is not part of the 35-person varsity-squad size limit may continue to be listed on the squad-list form as a current student-athlete. This will be the case for institutions that have subvarsity squads.

[References: Bylaws 14.4.3.1 (credit-hour requirements), 14.4.3.1.3.1 (regaining eligibility exception — baseball), 14.4.3.1.4.1 (application of 18/27 hour requirement to midyear enrollee), 14.4.3.1.4.2 (additional application — baseball), 14.4.3.1.5 (additional application of six-hour and transfer rules — baseball), 14.4.3.2.3.1 (percentage of degree timing of certification exception — baseball), 14.4.3.3.2.1 (grade-point average timing of certification exception — baseball), 14.5.4.1.1 (qualifier two-year transfer baseball and basketball — midyear enrollee), 14.5.4.2.5 (not a qualifier two-year transfer baseball and basketball — midyear enrollee), 14.5.5.2.10 (one-time transfer exception), 14.5.5.2.10.2 (nonrecruited student), 14.5.5.5 (four year transfer baseball and basketball — midyear enrollee), 14.5.6 (4-2-4 college transfers), 14.5.6.4 (4-2-4 transfer baseball and basketball midyear enrollee), 14.5.6.5 (calendar-year time lapse), 15.5.4 (baseball limitations), 15.5.4.1 (minimum equivalency value), 15.5.4.1.1 (exception — need based athletics aid only) and 15.5.4.1.2 (exception — final year of eligibility and not previously aided)]

 

Notice about Educational Columns: Educational columns and hot topics are intended to assist the membership with the correct application of legislation and/or interpretations by providing clarifications, reminders and examples. They are based on legislation and official and staff interpretations applicable at the time of publication. Therefore, educational columns and hot topics are binding to the extent that the legislation and interpretations on which they are based remain applicable. Educational columns are posted on a regular basis to address a variety of issues and hot topics are posted as necessary in order to address timely issues.

Daily Compliance Item- 12/17/12- 15.3.3.1.1

Strike Zone is a softball student-athlete at Ocean State University.  Strike is a senior and will graduate at the end of the spring 2013 semester.  Strike has worked hard both on and off the field, so the coaches would like to reward her by providing an athletic scholarship for the spring 2013 semester.  Since Strike has never received athletic aid before, is this permissible?

 

Yes.  NCAA Bylaw 15.3.3.1.1 states that an institution may award athletically related financial aid to a student-athlete for a period of less than one academic year only under the following circumstances:  (Adopted:  4/27/06 effective 8/1/06)

(a) Midyear Enrollment.  A student-athlete whose first full-time attendance at the certifying institution during a particular academic year occurs at midyear (e.g., the beginning of the second semester or second or third quarter of an academic year) may receive a financial aid award for the remainder of that academic year. (Revised:  5/9/06)

(b) Final Semester/Quarter.  A student-athlete may receive athletically related financial aid for less than one academic year, provided the student is in the final semester or final two quarters of his or her degree program and the institution certifies that the student is carrying (for credit) the courses necessary to complete the degree requirements.

(c) Graduated During Previous Academic Year and Will Exhaust Eligibility During the Following Fall Term.  A student-athlete who graduated during the previous academic year (including summer) and will exhaust his or her athletics eligibility during the following fall term may be awarded athletically related financial aid for less than one academic year.  (Adopted:  1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)

(d) One-Time Exception.  One time during a student-athlete’s enrollment at the certifying institution he or she may be awarded athletics aid for less than a full academic year, provided the student-athlete has been enrolled full time at the certifying institution for at least one regular academic term and has not previously received athletically related financial aid from the certifying institution.  (Revised: 5/19/09)

 

(e) Eligibility Exhausted/Medical Noncounter.  A student-athlete who has exhausted eligibility and is exempt from counting (per Bylaw 15.5.1.6) in the institution’s financial aid limit, or a student-athlete who is exempt from counting (per Bylaw 15.5.1.3) due to an injury or illness may receive athletically related financial aid for less than one academic year.  If an institution awards aid under this provision, the institutional financial aid agreement shall include specific nonathletically related conditions (e.g., academic requirements) the student-athlete must satisfy in order for the aid to be renewed for the next academic term or terms.  If the student-athlete satisfies the specified conditions, the institution shall award financial aid at the same amount for the next term or terms of the academic year.  If the student-athlete does not satisfy the specified conditions, he or she must be provided a hearing opportunity per Bylaw 15.3.2.4.  (Adopted:  4/24/08 effective 8/1/08)

Daily Compliance Item- 12/14/12- Current Event

Rules Working Group to make final recommendations

NCAA.org

 

Members have just a few more days to provide feedback to the Rules Working Group in advance of the group’s final recommendations to the Division I Board of Directors at the 2013 NCAA Convention in Grapevine, Texas.

During its December 17-18 meeting in Indianapolis, the working group is expected to fine-tune the 27 proposals it developed with feedback from the membership on. The proposals represent the first phase of the working group’s efforts toward making Division I rules more meaningful, enforceable and supportive of student-athlete success.

The first phase includes proposed legislative changes in athletics personnel (Bylaw 11); amateurism (Bylaw 12); recruiting (Bylaw 13); eligibility (Bylaw 14); and awards, benefits and expenses (Bylaw 16). Also included in the first phase is a change to the NCAA constitution outlining the Division I commitments, the standards by which Division I legislation will be judged in the future.

The second phase will include financial aid (Bylaw 15) and playing and practice seasons (Bylaw 17), as well as other concepts that were examined in the first phase but require additional time for development and membership feedback (meals, recruiting calendars, etc.).  Broad membership feedback for the second phase concepts will begin in February.

The Board will vote on the proposals on January 19, and those that are adopted will be effective August 1, 2013 or earlier. Since the proposals were first sponsored last summer, the membership has taken advantage of multiple opportunities to provide feedback to the Rules Working Group.

The NCAA objects to the claims put forward in the suit. A jury trial is currently scheduled for February 2014.

CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 2

Proposal Points to Consider
Prop. No. 2-1 would establish a set of commitments for Division I, including a commitment to fair competition. The shift to a fair competition model acknowledges that natural advantages exist between campuses that cannot – and should not – be regulated. The changes are intended to better define what fairness means in terms of eligible student-athletes, scholarships, the length of the playing and recruiting seasons and the number of coaches. The shift to a fair competition model acknowledges that natural advantages exist between campuses that cannot – and should not – be regulated. The changes are intended to better define what fairness means in terms of eligible student-athletes, scholarships, the length of the playing and recruiting seasons and the number of coaches. Ultimately, retaining the current rules will not impede the competitive shift.

BYLAW 11 Athletics Personnel

Proposal Points to Consider
Prop. No. 11-2 would eliminate legislation related to recruiting coordination functions that must be performed by a head or assistant coach. This change would allow schools and, if desired, conferences, to make decisions about who should be responsible for recruiting prospects. This proposal will allow schools to decide which athletics personnel will be responsible for evaluating and communicating with prospects. The proposal maintains the requirement that all off-campus recruiting be done by countable coaches, which protects the integrity of the recruiting rules.
Prop. No. 11-3-B would prohibit in-person scouting, except when a school is participating in the same tournament or doubleheader event at the same site as a future opponent. This change acknowledges that video of future opponents is easily available from a variety of sources and that most in the membership believe that live scouting could have a direct impact on the fairness of competition.
Prop. No. 11-4 would eliminate the “baton rule” that limited the number of coaches who could be off campus recruiting at any one time. According to feedback from the membership, the baton rule has been difficult to monitor. This proposal would maintain the requirement that only authorized countable coaches can engage in off-campus recruiting, while providing schools the opportunity to develop and implement their own policies and procedures for determining when coaches should be on and off campus.

BYLAW 12 Amateurism

Proposal Points to Consider
Prop. 12-1 would create a uniform definition of actual and necessary competition-related expenses and clarify that actual and necessary expenses are only those related to the individual athlete’s participation on a team or in an event, not expenses for others, such as parents or coaches. This change would provide the same flexibility to prospective student-athletes on amateur teams that currently exists for prospective student-athletes competing on professional teams
Prop. No. 12-2 would allow an individual to receive prize money up to the amount of his or her actual and necessary expenses incurred during the calendar year. Currently, prize money for an event may only be accepted up to the amount of the individual’s actual and necessary expenses for that event. However, if an individual violates the current rule and the institution seeks reinstatement of his or her eligibility, calendar year expenses are considered as mitigation. The change would prevent individuals whose annual expenses exceed their annual prize money from breaking NCAA amateurism rules, even if the prize money for a single event exceeds their actual and necessary expenses for that event.
Prop. No. 12-3 would allow prospects to receive expenses that exceed actual and necessary expenses by up to $300 without impacting the prospect’s eligibility, as long as the expenses were provided by a permissible source like a club team or the nonprofessional sponsor of an event. The legislation would also eliminate the requirement that institutions self-report such a violation. The student-athlete reinstatement staff typically reinstates the eligibility of prospects in such cases, so the proposal would reduce the administrative burden on institutions and the NCAA staff.
Prop. No. 12-4 would allow individuals to receive actual and necessary expenses from an outside sponsor other than an agent, booster or a professional sports organization. Current legislation only permits expenses to be provided by parents or legal guardians, nonprofessional sponsors of an event or by a team the individual represents. The proposal would simplify the legislation and grant all prospective and enrolled student-athletes the same flexibility the current legislation provides to prospective student-athletes who participate in individual sports. During the academic year, student-athletes would continue to be prohibited from participating as a member of an outside, non collegiate, amateur team.
Prop. No. 12-5 would allow prospects and student-athletes in sports other than tennis to receive payment based on performance or as an incentive up to actual and necessary expenses from an amateur team or event sponsor. In tennis, the rule permitting an individual, prior to full-time collegiate enrollment, to accept up to $10,000 in prize money per calendar year, plus additional prize money on a per event basis, provided the prize money does not exceed actual and necessary expenses for the event, remains in effect. This proposal would permit student-athletes in sports other than tennis, after full-time collegiate enrollment, to have the same opportunities to receive prize money based on performance or place finish that the proposal provides individuals in all other sports. The rule change provides greater consistency across all sports and between prospective and enrolled student-athletes. Outside competition during the academic year (with limited exceptions) and accepting more than actual and necessary expenses would remain prohibited.
Prop. No. 12-6 would allow governmental entities to provide actual and necessary expenses for developmental training, coaching, facility usage, equipment, apparel, supplies, comprehensive health insurance, travel and room and board to prospects and student-athletes. Right now, only the United States Olympic Committee (USOC), international equivalent or the appropriate national governing bodies (NGBs) in specific sports can provide those expenses. This proposal would provide opportunities for individuals to accept these expenses from governmental entities without jeopardizing their NCAA eligibility.

BYLAW 13 Recruiting

Proposal Points to Consider
Prop. No. 13-1 would allow earlier access to recruits who have committed to a school in writing. The rule would allow schools to treat prospects who have signed the National Letter of Intent (NLI) as student-athletes for the purposes of Bylaw 13. If a school does not use the NLI in a sport, signing the school’s written offer of admission or financial aid would allow those prospects to be treated like student-athletes for the purposes of Bylaw 13. Activities or actions that would have been impermissible recruiting inducements for the prospect under current rules would be considered extra benefits under this proposal. The proposal also allows individuals who report to an institutional orientation session that is open to all incoming students within 14 calendar days prior to the opening of classes for a regular term during the academic year to be treated as student-athletes. This change would provide schools more flexibility when contacting committed recruits, which could lead to an increase in team retention rates and Academic Progress Rates because of the additional opportunities to strengthening the relationship between the coach and the student-athlete.
Prop. No. 13-2 would provide all sports a uniform date for off-campus contacts and for telephoning or sending recruiting materials to prospects. Off-campus contacts would be permitted beginning the prospect’s first day of classes for the junior year in high school. July 1 after the completion of the sophomore year in high school (or the first day of classes of junior year, whichever is earlier) would be the first permissible date for phone calls or electronic communication. This proposal supports the development of better relationships between prospects and coaches, which may lead to more-informed recruiting decisions. The Leadership Council opposed this proposal because of a lack of consensus among all constituents about the date.
Prop. No. 13-3 would eliminate restrictions on modes and numerical limitations on recruiting communication. Current rules in this area are seen as cumbersome and difficult to enforce. Removing the restrictions would permit institutions to exchange information with prospects in more efficient, less intrusive ways. Schools and conferences would have the discretion to establish policies and procedures governing the recruitment of prospects by athletics department staff. Although Proposal Nos. 13-2 and 13-3 will be examined and voted on separately, if both are adopted, then Division I will have a uniform date for initial recruiting and no limits on modes or numbers of communication.
Prop. No. 13-4 would eliminate the legislation that requires schools to provide admissions, graduation rates, APR data, banned drug lists and initial-eligibility standards to prospects. The Eligibility Center already provides this information to all prospects, and the current legislation only codifies policies and procedures the NCAA Eligibility Center will continue to follow.
Prop. No 13-5-B would prohibit schools from sending or providing prospects printed recruiting materials other than general correspondence. Schools would be permitted to post recruiting materials to their websites and would be permitted to attach educational material published by the NCAA; nonathletics institutional publications; questionnaires and camp or clinic brochures to electronically transmitted correspondence or as a hyperlink to an institution’s website at any time. Based on feedback received, the membership considers the current rules difficult to apply and monitor, and technology has created less costly means of providing information to prospects. Additionally, student-athletes have said they do not make recruiting decisions based on the types and amount of recruiting materials they receive. This proposal would require schools to decide what recruiting materials will be placed on the school’s web site. An alternate proposal, No. 13-5-A, would eliminate all restrictions on recruiting materials and permit institutions to decide what recruiting materials are appropriate to provide to prospects. The RWG will discuss both proposals during its December meeting, before making its final recommendation to the Board of Directors.
Prop. No. 13-6 would eliminate restrictions related to general advertising or promotional materials designed to solicit enrollment of prospects. Personalized promotions would continue to be prohibited. This proposal would allow institutions to decide whether to fund general recruiting advertisements, and to decide the nature of such advertisements (billboards, high school game programs). The Leadership Council opposed this proposal.
Prop. No. 13-7 would eliminate the publicity restrictions related to prospects who have formally committed to an institution by signing an NLI or a written offer of admission and/or financial aid or by placing a financial deposit with a school in response to its offer of admission. The current legislation governing publicity is regarded as inconsequential once a prospect has made this type of commitment. The membership feedback received points to a belief that once such a commitment has been made, a school or conference should have discretion regarding publicity related to the prospect.
Prop. No. 13-8 would eliminate many of the camp and clinic employment rules related to the employment of prospects and student-athletes. It would also allow senior football prospects to participate in a school’s camps and clinics. Employment of prospective and enrolled student-athletes would still be required to be for work actually performed and at a rate commensurate with the going rate in the area for similar services. Compensation for only lecturing or demonstrating would remain prohibited.

BYLAW 14 Eligibility

Proposal Points to Consider
Prop. No. 14-1 would eliminate the inconsequential legislation within the bylaw and other rules that are directly supported by school policies. This includes legislation regulating participation in high school all-star games, the manner in which a student-athlete designates his or her degree program and early admission waivers addressed elsewhere in the legislation. The proposal also establishes a uniform period for temporary certification of freshmen and two-year college transfers (45 days), making it easier for schools to monitor those situations. This proposal is in keeping with the RWG charge to eliminate inconsequential rules.

BYLAW 16 Awards, Benefits and Expenses

Proposal Points to Consider
Prop. No. 16-1 would allow a school, conference or the NCAA to provide an award to a student-athlete anytime after initial full-time enrollment, provided the student is eligible to receive the award. The proposal would not change the value limitations for awards, nor would it permit a student-athlete to contribute toward the purchase of an award.
Prop. No. 16-2 would allow a school, conference, the USOC, an NGB or the awarding agency to provide actual and necessary expenses for a student-athlete (as well as the student-athlete’s parents, legal guardians, spouse or other relatives) to receive a non-institutional award or recognition for athletics or academic accomplishments. The rule change would enhance the student-athlete experience and provide greater flexibility for entities to provide expenses.
Prop. No. 16-3 would allow schools, conferences or the NCAA to provide academic support, career counseling or personal development services that support the success of student-athletes. This would allow schools to provide things like non-required course supplies and permit additional support for student-athletes’ academic and personal success.
Prop. No. 16-4 would allow schools, conferences and the NCAA to provide medical and other related expenses and services to student-athletes. Schools overwhelmingly support this proposal, believing they are in the best position to determine what is needed for the health, safety and physical and mental well-being of their student-athletes. Already, schools can pay for most medical expenses through the Student Assistance Fund. Examples of expenses this proposal would allow schools to pay for include glasses, contact lenses and protective eyewear not required for athletics participation.
Prop. No. 16-5 would revise all references to a student-athlete’s “spouse,” “parents,” “family member,” or “children” in Bylaw 16 to “relative or individual of a comparable relationship, ” enabling a student-athlete’s relative or individual of comparable relationship to receive certain benefits, such as transportation, housing and meal expenses associated with the student-athlete’s injury or illness; actual and necessary expenses to a postseason football game or a round of an NCAA championship in which the student-athlete is a participant or actual and necessary expenses to attend national team competition in which the student-athlete participates. This proposal would update the definition of family to include nontraditional families and allow schools additional discretion to make decisions about what benefits they will provide. These changes could potentially reduce a school’s need for waivers and interpretations related to these benefits. Agents and individuals who meet the definition of “individual associated with a prospect” are not included in the definition of an “individual of a comparable relationship.”
Prop. No. 16-7 would allow schools to provide actual and necessary expenses to student-athletes representing their school in practice or competition, and in other events like goodwill tours, media appearances and Student-Athlete Advisory Committee events. This rule would eliminate the departure/return expense restrictions rules and allow schools to provide apparel and equipment as they deem necessary. This would provide schools greater flexibility when scheduling travel. Schools’ missed class policies will help ensure that the Academic Progress Rate is not negatively impacted by the increased flexibility.
Prop. No. 16-8 would allow student-athletes to receive actual and necessary expenses and reasonable benefits associated with national team practice and competition. It also would permit institutions to provide actual and necessary expenses for an unlimited number of national team tryouts and championship events. These changes would provide additional opportunities for student-athletes who otherwise might not be able to participate in these events.

Daily Compliance Item- 12/13/12- 12.3.1.1, 12.3.1.2- Agents

Post Route and Out Route are football student-athletes at Ocean State University.  Based on the below scenarios which, if either, would have eligibility issues regarding their interaction with an agent?

Post Route met with an agent on campus while preparing for a bowl game.  The agent indicated he would like to represent Post once his eligibility has exhausted.  Post liked what the agent had to say and was impressed with his client list.  Consequently, Post verbally agreed to have this agent represent him once he returned to campus after the bowl game.

Out Route met with an agent on campus while preparing for a bowl game.  The agent indicated that although he was very impressed with Out’s athletic ability, he only represents professional basketball players.  He gave Out 2 concert tickets and wished him luck with the football career.

  1. Both Post and Out would be ineligible
  2. Neither student-athlete would lose eligibility
  3. Post would be ineligible
  4. Out would be ineligible

 

The answer is 1.  NCAA Bylaw 12.3.1.1 states that  an individual shall be ineligible per Bylaw 12.3.1 if he or she enters into a verbal or written agreement with an agent for representation in future professional sports negotiations that are to take place after the individual has completed his or her eligibility in that sport.   

NCAA Bylaw 12.3.1.2 states that an individual shall be ineligible per Bylaw 12.3.1 if he or she (or his or her relatives or friends) accepts transportation or other benefits from: (Revised: 1/14/97)

(a) Any person who represents any individual in the marketing of his or her athletics ability. The receipt of such expenses constitutes compensation based on athletics skill and is an extra benefit not available to the student body in general; or

(b) An agent, even if the agent has indicated that he or she has no interest in representing the student-athlete in the marketing of his or her athletics ability or reputation and does not represent individuals in the student-athlete’s sport. (Adopted: 1/14/97)