Daily Compliance Item- 1/31/13- NLI Signing- Coaching Change

Wide Out is a football prospective student-athlete who is going to sign a National Letter of Intent (NLI) next week with Ocean State University (OSU).  There are rumors that the head coach at OSU is going to take a coaching job in the NFL.  If the coach leaves OSU after Wide signs his NLI, is he still bound by the provisions of the NLI?

Yes.  Per the National Letter of Intent Provisions, a studentathlete signs an NLI with an institution, not with a coach. If the coach leaves, the prospect is still bound by the provisions of the NLI.

Coaching Changes

I understand I have signed this NLI with the institution and not for a particular sport or coach. If a coach leaves the institution or the sports program (e.g., not retained, resigns), I remain bound by the provisions of this NLI. I understand it is not uncommon for a coach to leave his or her coaching position.

Daily Compliance Item- 1/30/13- 12.5.2.1- Use of Picture in Promotional Activity

Four men’s basketball student-athletes at Ocean State University created a club card/flyer to promote an after-game party at a night club following the Superbowl this weekend.  Student-Athletes are working with an entertainment company and have distributed the flyers on campus during the the past two weeks.  All four student-athletes provided photos of themselves for use on the flyer to assist with promotions. The student-athletes did not think there actions were in violation of any NCAA Bylaws because one of the student-athletes paid for the creation of the flyer.  Additionally, the student-athletes will not receive any compensation for event.

Is this a violation?

Yes.  NCAA Bylaw 12.5.2.1 states that after becoming a student-athlete, an individual shall not be eligible for participation in intercollegiate athletics if the individual:

(a) Accepts any remuneration for or permits the use of his or her name or picture to advertise, recommend or promote directly the sale or use of a commercial product or service of any kind; or

(b) Receives remuneration for endorsing a commercial product or service through the individual’s use of such product or service.

 

This is an actual fact pattern of a secondary rules violation posted on LSDBi.

Daily Compliance Item- 1/29/13- Current Event

Mark Helfrich’s deal with Oregon includes NCAA rules mandates

The contract between the University of Oregon and its new head football coach, Mark Helfrich, contains an unusual set of specific provisions related to NCAA rules compliance, including a requirement that Helfrich “actively look for red flags of potential violations.”

The five-year agreement, signed Sunday and distributed to members of the media in Eugene, explicitly acknowledges the NCAA’s ongoing investigation into the football program, although it does not mention specifics of the probe. The deal also has a lengthy exhibit laying out a 10-point set of responsibilities that Helfrich has in monitoring rules compliance and the terms of annual communication required to occur between Helfrich, the university president, the athletics director and the compliance director.

Such an exhibit did not exist in any of the three iterations of previous Oregon coach Chip Kelly’s agreement. While provisions requiring compliance with NCAA rules are standard in college athletics contracts, the requirements of Helfrich’s deal are extraordinary in scope and detail.

Oregon athletics director Rob Mullens did not respond to requests for comment that were made through a school spokesman.

Multiple media outlets have reported on a financial relationship Oregon had with Texas-based high school football recruiting scout and adviser Willie Lyles, who is alleged to have steered players to Oregon in violation of NCAA rules. Yahoo! Sports reported in December that Oregon’s attempt to get summary disposition of its case fell through, and the school has been summoned for a hearing the NCAA’s Committee on Infractions.

In addition, this past October, the NCAA Division I Board of Directors adopted rule changes that, beginning Aug. 1, will allow head coaches to be penalized individually for violations committed by their assistants, unless they can prove they took preventive steps to acknowledge potential violations and educate their staff about how to deal with issues.

In the main body of his new contract, Helfrich “acknowledges and represents that he has been given the opportunity to report to the University any conduct that would give rise to an allegation that he has violated any rules, regulations policies, bylaws, interpretations or decisions established or issued” by the school, its athletics department, the Pacific-12 Conference and the NCAA and Helfrich “has reported any such conduct to the school.” When hiring a coach from another school, some schools require the coach to stipulate that he has not been involved with rules violations at his previous school.

In addition, in Helfrich’s deal, athletics director Rob Mullens “acknowledges and represents as follows: (1) Coach has been advised of the nature and scope of all ongoing NCAA investigation of violations of NCAA rules, regulations, bylaws, interpretations or decisions by any current and former University employees in the University’s football program; and (2) Coach has been advised of the material facts constituting the violations alleged by the NCAA.”

There also is an exhibit that is part of the agreement and covers communication about, and monitoring of, NCAA rules compliance.

Under the heading of “Communication,” the exhibit states that the president and the athletics director will meet with Helfrich annually to discuss their “expectations for NCAA rules compliance.”

The meeting with the athletic director is to address:

— The AD’s philosophy and expectations on rules compliance.

— Compliance resources for the football program.

— The football program’s shared responsibility with the compliance staff.

— Continued dialogue with the AD to “discuss the institution and football program’s compliance environment and expectations.”

In addition, the president, AD, compliance director and coach “will meet annually to discuss the institution and program’s compliance environment and expectations.”

Under the heading of “Monitoring,” the exhibit states that Helfrich will “actively look for red flags of potential violations.”

In consultation with the compliance director, Helfrich agrees to:

— Create written procedures “to ensure that the football staff, including assistant coaches, is monitoring the football program’s rules compliance.”

— Assign a football staff liaison to the university’s compliance staff.

— Assign football staff members to “monitor specific areas of compliance (e.g. recruiting contacts, initial eligibility, amateurism, telephone contacts).”

— Regularly evaluate football staff members “to ensure their areas of compliance are monitored and that all responsibilities are executed in a timely manner.”

— Ensure that the football program has adequate and ongoing compliance training and that there is “a plan in place for discussion of important information.”

— Determine reporting lines for resolving actual and potential NCAA rules issues.

— Determine reporting lines to alert compliance staff of “issues involving prospective student-athletes and current student-athletes”.

— “Regularly solicit feedback” from the football staff concerning their areas of compliance and the program’s overall compliance environment in order to “ensure that the monitoring systems are functioning properly.”

— Ensure that the football staff “immediately notifies the compliance staff when concerns or red flags occur related to potential NCAA rules violations.”

 

This article was selected for educational purposes only.

Daily Compliance Item- 1/28/13- 13.02.8- Men’s Basketball Recruiting Model

The men’s basketball coaches at Ocean State University are planning their spring recruiting trips to make sure they stay within the 130-person day limit.  There are several events taking place during the April Evaluation Period that they would like to attend.

Do evaluations during the April evaluation periods count toward the 130-person day limit?

 

Yes.  NCAA Educational Column- 1/23/13-NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Recruiting Model (I)– states that the following questions and answers are intended to assist the membership in applying NCAA Division I legislation as it relates to the men’s basketball recruiting model.

Question No. 1: Do evaluation activities during the April evaluation periods count toward the 130 recruiting-person days restriction and the limit of seven recruiting opportunities per prospective student-athlete?

Answer: Yes. Evaluations during April must be included in the 130 recruiting-person days and count toward the limit of seven recruiting opportunities per prospective student-athlete. Note that if an event is conducted on consecutive days in a tournament format, an institution would only be charged with a single recruiting opportunity per prospective student-athlete.

 

Question No. 2: During recruiting periods, is it permissible for an institution’s coach to sit with a prospective student-athlete’s parents during the prospective student-athlete’s contest or to have in-person contact with the prospective student-athlete after the contest once he has been released?

Answer: No. It is not permissible to have in-person contact with a prospective student-athlete or the prospective student-athlete’s relatives or legal guardians during the day of the prospective student-athlete’s competition, including time before and after the competition.

 

Question No. 3: Is it permissible for an institution to make a telephone call to a prospective student-athlete who has reported on call for competition or competition-related activities?

Answer: No. It is not permissible to make a telephone call to a prospective student-athlete who has reported on call for competition or competition-related activities until he has been released by the appropriate institutional authority in accordance with the parameters of NCAA Bylaw 13.1.6.2.

 

Question No. 4: Is it permissible for an institution to send an email or other form of electronic correspondence (e.g., text message) to a prospective student-athlete who has reported on call for competition or competition-related activities?

Answer: It is not permissible to send electronic correspondence to a prospective student-athlete while he is on call for competition at the competition site (e.g., arena, stadium). However, it is permissible to send general correspondence (including electronic correspondence) to a prospective student-athlete while he is on call and not at the competition site, or while he is at any location, once released by the appropriate authority.

 

Question No. 5: Is it permissible for an institution to make a telephone call, send an email, or send another form of electronic correspondence (e.g., text message) to a prospective student-athlete’s parents or legal guardians while the prospective student-athlete is on call for competition or competition-related activities? What if the prospective student-athlete is participating in a certified event?

Answer: It is permissible to make a telephone call, send an email, or send another form of electronic correspondence (e.g., text message) to a prospective student-athlete’s parents or legal guardians while the prospective student-athlete is on call for competition or competition-related activities. Such communication may also occur with a prospective student-athlete’s parents or legal guardians while the prospective student-athlete is participating in a certified event. However, all communication with a prospective student-athlete’s coach or any individual associated with the prospective student-athlete as a result of the prospective student-athlete’s participation in basketball, directly or indirectly, is prohibited during the time period in which the prospective student-athlete is participating in a certified event.

 

Question No. 6: During the April evaluation periods, is it permissible for coaches to attend events other than certified events (e.g., noninstitutional organized events that are approved, sponsored or conducted by an applicable state, national or international governing body and are not organized and conducted primarily for a recruiting purpose)? Is it permissible for a coach to visit a high school to talk to a high school coach or pick up a transcript?

Answer: No. Evaluations of live athletics activities during the April evaluation periods are specifically limited to events that are certified pursuant to Bylaw 13.18. No other off-campus evaluation activities may occur during the April evaluation periods.

 

Question No. 7: During the academic year recruiting period, is it permissible for coaches to evaluate at an “open gym”?

Answer: It would be permissible for coaches to evaluate if the “open gym” (or pick-up game or similar activity) has been approved by the appropriate authority at the scholastic institution as a regular scholastic activity; it involves only students enrolled at the institution where the activity is occurring; and it is not organized for the purpose of permitting institutional coaches to observe the prospective student-athletes participating in the activity.

 

Question No. 8: During the July dead periods, may an institution conduct institutional camps and clinics?

Answer: As specified in Bylaw 13.12.1.5, institutions may not conduct institutional camps and clinics (those that include prospective student-athletes) during dead periods.

 

Question No. 9: If a prospective student-athlete making an official visit is a member of a nontraditional family (e.g., divorce, separation), is it permissible to provide travel expenses to more than two individuals?

Answer: No. It is only permissible to provide travel expenses in conjunction with an official visit to two individuals who are the prospective student-athlete’s parents or legal guardians.

 

Question No. 10: May an institution pay the costs for a prospective student-athlete’s parents or legal guardians to receive meals and lodging while in transit to an official visit without starting the 48-hour official visit period?

Answer: Yes.

 

Question No. 11: May a coaching staff member have in-person contact with a prospective student-athlete or the prospective student-athlete’s relatives or legal guardians during a day of the prospective student-athlete’s competition, provided the prospective student-athlete has signed a National Letter of Intent or has submitted a financial deposit in response to the institution’s offer of admission?

Answer: If a prospective student-athlete has signed a National Letter of Intent or the institution’s written offer of admission and/or financial aid or the institution has received the prospective student-athlete’s financial deposit in response to the institution’s offer of admission, in-person contact with the prospective student-athlete and/or his relatives or legal guardians is permissible in the following situations:

(a) During a recruiting period, in-person contact is permissible, subject to the provisions of Bylaw 13.1.6.2.

(b) For competition that occurs during an evaluation period, in-person contact is permissible after the prospective student-athlete’s final contest of an event is completed and the prospective student-athlete is released by the appropriate authority and he leaves the dressing and meeting facility.

Therefore, a coaching staff member may sit with a prospective-student-athlete’s relatives or legal guardians during such a prospective student-athlete’s competition that occurs during a recruiting period, but may not sit with the relatives or legal guardians during an evaluation period.

 

Question No. 12: Does the exception that applies during the July evaluation period (a replaced coach is not required to return to the institution’s campus before engaging in additional recruiting activities, provided not more than three coaches engage in off-campus recruiting activities each day) also apply to the April evaluation periods?

Answer: No.

 

[References: NCAA Division I Bylaws 11.7.4.3.1 (exception — basketball — July evaluation periods), 13.02.5.3 (recruiting period — men’s basketball), 13.1.5.3 (contacts — men’s basketball), 13.1.6.2 (contact restrictions — competition site), 13.1.6.2.1 (additional restriction — men’s and women’s basketball), 13.1.6.2.1.1 (exceptions — men’s basketball), 13.1.7.8 (basketball evaluations), 13.4.1 (recruiting materials), 13.4.1.2.1 (electronic transmission — exception — men’s basketball), 13.5.2.6.1 (exception — transportation expenses for a prospective student-athletes parents or legal guardians — men’s basketball), 13.6.7.1.1 (meals and lodging while in transit) and 13.17.2 (recruiting calendar — men’s basketball)]

Daily Compliance Item- 1/25/13- Current Event

NCAA to launch external review of enforcement program

USAToday.com

 

With its case against the University of Miami compromised by “a very severe issue of improper conduct,” the NCAA has retained a New York-based law firm to investigate its investigators – and beyond that, to explore whether there are other “trust and credibility” issues, according to president Mark Emmert, in the organization’s regulatory and enforcement structure.

Emmert said members of the organization’s enforcement staff had hired an attorney representing Nevin Shapiro, the booster at the center of the probe into Miami, in order to improperly obtain information through depositions in a bankruptcy proceeding. He called their actions “grossly inappropriate.”

“This is obviously a shocking affair,” Emmert said Wednesday in a teleconference with reporters, an event unusual in itself because the NCAA normally does not comment on investigations.

The investigation by Kenneth L. Wainstein of the firm of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft could have implications far beyond the Miami case. But the immediate issue is the probe into allegations of multiple rules violations by Shapiro involving Miami athletes and several coaches.

Until Emmert’s revelation, it appeared the investigation into the Miami athletic department – which began almost two years ago – was winding toward a conclusion. Emmert said he hoped Wainstein’s investigation would be completed within two weeks, delaying the NCAA’s case against Miami by “weeks, not months.”

“We will not be issuing notices of allegation until after this investigation is completed,” Emmert added. “We want to make sure that any evidence that is brought forward is properly collected.”

Emmert said it was “premature” to suggest the improper conduct would result in the equivalent of a mistrial. He said he expects the investigation to be completed within two weeks and that only a small portion of the case evidence was compromised by improper collection. Improperly compiled evidence “will be thrown out,” he said.

“The intention is to get through this process, look at what the appropriately acquired evidence indicates and (to determine) allegations from that,” Emmert said.

Miami president Donna Shalala said in a statement that the school had cooperated with the NCAA since the investigation started. Along with providing what Shalala called “thousands of documents,” the school preemptively self-imposed bowl bans in the 2011 and 2012 seasons.

“I am frustrated, disappointed and concerned by President Emmert’s announcement today that the integrity of the investigation may have been compromised by the NCAA staff,” her statement read. “As we have done since the beginning, we will continue to work with the NCAA and now with their outside investigator hoping for a swift resolution of the investigation and our case.”

The delay – and whatever damage was done to the strength of the NCAA’s case by improperly acquired evidence – impacts several former Miami coaches, as well. CBSSports.com reported former Hurricanes head basketball coach Frank Haith, now the head coach at Missouri, was expected to be charged with “unethical conduct and failure to promote an atmosphere of compliance,” and that three of Haith’s former assistants would likewise be charged with unethical conduct. The web site separately reported that former football assistant Clint Hurtt, now the associate head coach at Louisville, and Aubrey Hill, who resigned at Florida last August, also would be charged with unethical conduct.

Emmert said the misconduct was discovered when an invoice was submitted to the NCAA last fall by an attorney representing Shapiro, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence for running a $930 million Ponzi scheme. (Shapiro alleged extensive rule violations in a Yahoo Sports report in August 2011.) Emmert said the NCAA’s general counsel had not approved hiring the attorney. He didn’t name the attorney, but Shapiro has been represented by Maria Elena Perez, a graduate of Miami.

Emmert, who expressed anger and frustration several times during the teleconference, said at least one member of the enforcement staff has been dismissed, though he would not discuss specifics. “There are people no longer at the NCAA,” he said.

Emmert said when Wainstein has completed the investigation into the enforcement staff’s handling of the Miami case, the outside counsel would begin a broader review of the NCAA’s enforcement and regulatory structure, which has come under frequent and increasing criticism, “to see if there are similar problems of any kind.”

In recent months, enforcement agent Abigail Grantstein was fired, according to the Los Angeles Times, after her boyfriend was overheard providing information related to the eligibility case of freshman UCLA basketball player Shabazz Muhammad.

Meanwhile, former USC assistant football coach Todd McNair’s lawsuit against the NCAA threatens to force the organization to release documents related to its investigation of former Trojans star Reggie Bush. And Pennsylvania Gov. Thomas Corbett filed a lawsuit earlier this month against the NCAA related to its punishment last summer of Penn State for the Jerry Sandusky scandal.

Last week during an NCAA Convention session on enforcement entitled “Tougher Rules, Smarter Enforcement,” the organization cited a “public and membership distrust of the NCAA’s ability to police itself” as one of the reasons for the existence of its temporary Enforcement Working Group.

The organization has recently revamped its rules and penalties structure. Among the changes to take effect Aug. 1 is an effort at increased accountability of head coaches for violations that occur on their watch. Emmert said Wednesday’s announcement was an indication the NCAA plans to hold itself accountable, as well.

Chuck Smrt, a former NCAA investigator who now assists universities with compliance and investigations as president of The Compliance Group, said past complaints of enforcement misconduct by enforcement staff had been handled in-house.

“What is different it seems here, is that Dr. Emmert believes the severity of whatever alleged impropriety occurred reached that level where he decided to go outside with the review,” Smrt said.

Smrt said announcing the improper conduct, as well as the external review, “would help the integrity of the enforcement process.”

David Ridpath, an assistant professor of sports administration at Ohio University and a frequent critic of the NCAA’s enforcement arm, said, “The revelation is the most shocking thing of all. That the NCAA brought it up and that they’re hiring an outside law firm to look at the case is the most surprising thing about this.”

Ridpath added: “That makes me think this (misconduct) is pretty big.”

Said Emmert: “My hope and intention is that the membership will see that we’re going to hold ourselves to the same standards that we expect to hold others to. Otherwise we’re in the wrong business.”

The following is Shalala’s full statement:

“Since the University first alerted the NCAA to the possibility of violations more than two years ago, we have been cooperative and compliant with the NCAA and, I believe, a model for how institutions should partner with NCAA staff during investigations. In addition to encouraging current and former staff members and student-athletes to cooperate with investigators, we have provided thousands of documents to the enforcement staff.

I am frustrated, disappointed and concerned by President Emmert’s announcement today that the integrity of the investigation may have been compromised by the NCAA staff.

As we have done since the beginning, we will continue to work with the NCAA and now with their outside investigator hoping for a swift resolution of the investigation and our case.

I want to thank our community for their continued support and patience.

Stand with the U.”

This article was selected for educational purposes only.

Daily Compliance Item- 1/24/13- 17.1.6.2.1.1.4- Summer Activities- Men’s Basketball

The men’s basketball coaches at Ocean State University will soon begin working on summer workout schedules.  With regard to the 8 weeks of required activities, can the coaches create individual student-athlete schedules or do all student-athletes have to be on the same schedule?

You can create individual schedules.  NCAA Educational Column- 1/23/13-NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Summer Athletics Activities (I)– states that the following questions and answers are intended to assist the membership in applying NCAA Division I legislation as it relates to summer athletics activities in men’s basketball.

Question No. 1: Is there a limit on the number of student-athletes who may participate in skill-related instruction as part of the required summer athletics activities?

Answer: No.

Question No. 2: May an institution declare a new definition of its “week,” or is it required to use the week it used during the academic year?

Answer: The institution may declare a new definition of its “week” for the summer.

Question No. 3: May the eight weeks of required summer athletics activities be determined on an individual basis?

Answer: Yes.

Question No. 4: Is it permissible to conduct required summer athletics activities during the week before finals and the final exam period of the summer term(s)?

Answer: Yes.

Question No. 5: May coaches be present during and/or conduct weight training and conditioning activities that are part of the eight hours per week of required summer athletics activities?

Answer: Yes.

Question No. 6: If an institution has multiple summer sessions, do the eight weeks of required summer athletics activities have to be continuous?

Answer: No. The eight weeks do not have to be consecutive or continuous. However, unless a student-athlete meets the exception to the summer-school requirement, workouts are only permissible during the time period (term or terms) in which the student-athlete is enrolled, which includes only the time from the opening day of classes through the last day of final exams for each applicable term.

Question No. 7: Are there exceptions for the service academies for situations when their student-athletes are assigned to summer work at a location (e.g., military base) that is separate from the service academy? May the coaching staff conduct workouts with those student-athletes assigned to another area of the country?

Answer: If a student-athlete is enrolled in a summer-school session, or meeting an exception to the enrollment requirement, it is permissible for the coaching staff to conduct workouts at the assigned location.

Question No. 8: When may an institution begin to conduct summer athletics activities with its men’s basketball student-athletes? When must summer athletics activities end?

Answer: Summer athletics activities may begin the day following the institution’s spring commencement exercises. Summer athletics activities must end by the day before the first day of classes for the fall term. Note that unless a student-athlete meets the exception to the summer-school requirement, workouts are only permissible during the time period (term or terms) in which the student-athlete is enrolled, which includes only the time from the opening day of classes through the last day of final exams for each applicable term.

Question No. 9: Must incoming student-athletes (freshmen and transfers) sign the drug-testing consent form before participating in required summer athletics activities?

Answer: No. Summer drug testing is part of the previous academic year testing.

Question No. 10: Must an incoming student-athlete be certified as eligible to practice in order to participate in required summer athletics activities?

Answer: No.

Question No. 11: Are institutions required to provide student-athletes any days off during the eight weeks in which they are participating in required summer athletics activities?

Answer: No. There is no requirement to provide a day (or days) off during the eight weeks of required activities. However, student-athletes are limited to a maximum of eight hours per week, with not more than two hours per week spent on skill-related instruction.

Question No. 12: May an institution conduct required summer athletics activities on a vacation day during the summer?

Answer: Yes. However, the activities must count toward the eight hours per week limitation and any skill instruction must also count toward the week’s permissible two hours of skill instruction.

Question No. 13: May student-athletes participate in unlimited hours of countable activities with their coaches during an institutional vacation period (e.g., Memorial Day, Independence Day) while engaging in required summer athletics activities?

Answer: No, a student-athlete engaging in required summer athletics activities is limited to a maximum of eight hours per week with not more than two hours per week spent on skill-related instruction

Question No. 14: May an institution publicize its skill-related instruction sessions or conduct them in view of a general public audience?

Answer: No. The general prohibition on publicizing and conducting skill-related instruction in view of a general public audience applies to the skill-related instruction that is conducted as part of summer athletics activities.

Question No. 15: May an institution conduct a skill-related instruction session during an institutional camp or clinic with the campers as an audience?

Answer: No. The campers would constitute a general public audience.

Question No. 16: May a student-athlete who has been certified as a nonqualifier participate in required summer athletics activities during the summer prior to initial full-time enrollment at the certifying institution?

Answer: Yes, provided he is enrolled in summer school and the activities are conducted during the time period (term or terms) in which the student-athlete is enrolled, which includes only the time from the opening day of classes through the last day of final exams for each applicable term.

Question No. 17: If a student-athlete was certified as a nonqualifier during the academic year, when may he begin to engage in required summer athletics activities after the year in residence?

Answer: Such a student-athlete may begin to participate in required summer athletics activities the day following the institution’s spring commencement exercises, provided the student-athlete is enrolled in summer school or meets the exception to summer school enrollment.

Question No. 18: Does a student-athlete’s temporary certification period begin when he starts participating in required summer athletics activities?

Answer: No.

Question No. 19: May a student-athlete who is enrolled in consecutive summer school sessions during the same summer (e.g., the first and second summer school sessions) engage in required summer athletics activities during the time in between sessions?

Answer: Only student-athletes who met the exception to summer-school enrollment at the end of the preceding regular academic term (e.g., spring semester, spring quarter) may engage in required summer athletics activities between terms.

Question No. 20: How does the required summer athletics activities legislation apply to an institution that offers only one summer session, and the session lasts less than eight weeks?

Answer: Prospective student-athletes (freshmen or transfers) are only permitted to participate in required athletics activities during the time period (term) in which the student-athlete is enrolled, which includes only the time from the opening day of classes through the last day of final exams for the term. Continuing student-athletes would be subject to the same application as prospective student-athletes unless they meet the appropriate provisions of the exception to summer-school enrollment. A continuing student who meets the exception may continue to engage in any remaining portion of the eight weeks of required summer activities until the day before the first day of classes for the fall term.

Question No. 21: May coursework from an early summer school session (e.g., first four-week session) from that same summer be considered when determining whether a student-athlete is meeting the exception to the summer-school requirement for the remaining weeks of the required summer athletics activities?

Answer: No. In order to meet the exception to summer-school enrollment, the student-athlete must have successfully completed the applicable academic requirements by the end of the preceding regular academic term (e.g., spring semester, spring quarter).

Question No. 22: May remedial, tutorial or noncredit courses be used to satisfy the requirements of the exception to summer-school enrollment?

Answer: Yes, provided such courses meet the requirements of NCAA Bylaw 14.4.3.4.4.

Question No. 23: Must a student-athlete who has just completed four semesters or six quarters have declared a degree program (and have completed 50 percent of the program) in order to meet the exception to summer-school enrollment?

Answer: No. Pursuant to Bylaw 14.4.3.1.7, a student-athlete must designate a degree program prior to participation in competition that occurs during or immediately before the third year of enrollment. Further, pursuant to Bylaw 14.4.3.1.7, during the first two years of enrollment, a student-athlete may use credits acceptable toward any of the institution’s degree programs. Therefore, a student-athlete may fulfill the 50 percent requirement based on credits acceptable toward any of the institution’s degree programs.

Question No. 24: May an institution provide room and board to returning student-athletes to participate in required summer athletics activities if the individuals are not enrolled in summer school?

Answer: No. It is not permissible to provide room and board to student-athletes who are not enrolled in summer school. Room and board may be provided, pursuant to Bylaw 15.2.8, to student-athletes who are enrolled in summer school.

Question No. 25: May an institution provide training table meals to student-athletes who are participating in required summer athletics activities?

Answer: No.

Question No. 26: Is it permissible to provide entertainment to student-athletes who are participating in required summer athletics activities?

Answer: No. Bylaw 16.7.1 does not apply to summer athletics activities.

 

[References: Bylaws 13.11.3.9 (required summer athletic activities — men’s basketball), 13.11.3.9.1 (exception — national service academies — incoming freshmen — men’s basketball), 14.02.13.1 (academic year of residence), 14.1.4.1 (content and purpose), 14.3.4 (residence requirement — nonqualifier), 14.3.5.1.1 (temporary certification, recruited student-athlete), 14.3.5.1.2 (temporary certification, nonrecruited student-athlete), 14.4.3.1.7 (designation of degree), 14.4.3.4.4 (remedial, tutorial and noncredit courses), 15.2.8 (summer financial aid), 16.5.2 (permissible housing and meals), 16.7.1 (away from home contests and vacation periods), 17.1.6.2.1.1.4 (summer athletic activities — men’s basketball), 17.1.6.2.1.1.4.1 (exception to summer school enrollment — academic requirements — men’s basketball), 17.1.6.2.1.1.4.1.1 (application to transfer student-athletes), 17.1.6.2.2 (skill instruction — sports other than baseball and football) 17.1.6.3.3 (definition of week) and 17.6.1.6.3.6 (vacation periods and between terms)]

Daily Compliance Item- 1/23/13- 13.11.2.1- On-Campus Evaluations in Men’s Basketball

The men’s basketball coaches at Ocean State University (OSU) will be conducting on-campus evaluations with several prospects later this spring. Because of the head coach’s busy schedule, he will not be able to watch all of the evaluations. Is it permissible for OSU to videotape the evaluations so the head coach can review at a later time?

Yes. NCAA Educational Column- 1/23/13- NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball On-Campus Evaluations (I)- includes the following questions and answers that are intended to assist the membership in applying NCAA Division I legislation as it relates to on-campus evaluations in men’s basketball.

Question No. 1: May an institution publicize the on-campus evaluation of a prospective student-athlete?
Answer: No. NCAA Bylaw 13.10.5 specifies that an institution shall not publicize (or arrange for publicity of) a prospective student-athlete’s visit to the institution’s campus.

Question No. 2: May an institution conduct an on-campus evaluation with a prospective student-athlete who has graduated from high school and is enrolled in a preparatory school?
Answer: Yes, provided the institution has not previously conducted an on-campus evaluation with the prospective student-athlete (e.g., during senior year of high school); the evaluation is conducted at the end of the prospective student-athlete’s season; and, after he has exhausted preparatory school eligibility in basketball.

Question No. 3: May an institution conduct an on-campus evaluation with a prospective student-athlete during his senior year in high school and another while he is enrolled in a preparatory school during the following year?
Answer: No. An institution may conduct one on-campus evaluation with a prospective student-athlete while he is enrolled in high school or preparatory school and one after the prospective student-athlete enrolls full time in a collegiate institution.

Question No. 4: What activities are counted toward the permissible two hours of on-campus evaluation activities?
Answer: Any activities that are considered countable athletically related activities would count toward the permissible two hours.

Question No. 5: May an institution provide a prospective student-athlete access to locker and shower facilities during an on-campus evaluation?
Answer: Yes.

Question No. 6: May an institution conduct an on-campus evaluation with a two-year college transfer prospective student-athlete who has withdrawn from the two-year institution?
Answer: An on-campus evaluation may not be conducted with a two-year college transfer prospective student-athlete until he has exhausted two-year college eligibility in basketball. Once such a prospective student-athlete is considered to have exhausted his two-year college eligibility, he may participate in an on-campus evaluation.

Question No. 7: May an institution conduct an on-campus evaluation with a high school prospective student-athlete or two-year college transfer prospective student-athlete who is not a participant on his institution’s basketball team?
Answer: An on-campus evaluation may not be conducted with a high school prospective student-athlete or a two-year college transfer prospective student-athlete until he has exhausted his high school or two-year college eligibility in basketball, respectively. Once such a prospective student-athlete is considered to have exhausted his eligibility, he may participate in an on-campus evaluation.

Question No. 8: How does the exhausted eligibility standard apply to an international or home-schooled student who is not a participant on his institution’s basketball team?
Answer: For purposes of conducting an on-campus evaluation, an international or home-schooled student who is not a participant on his institution’s basketball team is deemed to have exhausted eligibility at the time of graduation from high school (or the international equivalent).

Question No. 9: May an institution conduct an on-campus evaluation with a four-year college transfer prospective student-athlete who has withdrawn from the four-year institution or who is not a participant on his institution’s basketball team?
Answer: An on-campus evaluation may not be conducted with a four-year college transfer prospective student-athlete until the conclusion of the prospective student-athlete’s basketball season. If the prospective student-athlete has withdrawn from the institution or is not a participant, then his season is considered to be concluded. Therefore, he may participate in an on-campus evaluation (permission to contact must be granted by the previous institution if the individual met the definition of a student-athlete at that institution).

Question No. 10: May an institution’s coach observe a prospective student-athlete participating in a pick-up game that includes the institution’s current student-athletes and count the observation as an on-campus evaluation?
Answer: If the evaluation occurs during the academic year (e.g., skill-related workouts), it is permissible if the student-athletes are eligible for practice. If the evaluation occurs in the summer, it is permissible if the student-athletes are eligible to participate in summer athletics activities (e.g., enrolled in summer school or meet the exception to summer school enrollment). Such participation counts toward each student-athlete’s limitation of eight hours of required athletics activities per week with not more than two hours of skill-related instruction (academic year or summer).

Question No. 11: May an institution’s coach observe a prospective student-athlete participating in a pick-up game that includes the institution’s current student-athletes and current student-athletes from another collegiate institution and count the observation as an on-campus evaluation?
Answer: No. If student-athletes from other institutions participate, the activity would not meet the requirements of the required summer athletics activities legislation.

Question No. 12: If an on-campus evaluation occurs during a period in which there is a limit of four on the number of student-athletes who may be involved with a coach in skill-related instruction at the same time, may four student-athletes and the prospective student-athlete participate in the activity?
Answer: Yes. The prospective student-athlete is not included in the limit of four student-athletes who may be involved at any one time in skill instruction.

Question No. 13: If an on-campus evaluation occurs during the summer, may student-athletes participate?
Answer: Yes, provided the student-athletes are eligible to participate in summer athletics activities (e.g., enrolled in summer school or meet the exception to summer school enrollment) and such participation counts toward the limitations of eight hours of required athletics activities per week and two hours of skill-related instruction.

Question No. 14: If an institution is conducting an on-campus evaluation with a prospective student-athlete during the prospective student-athlete’s unofficial visit, may it provide the prospective student-athlete with food and/or beverages?
Answer: The institution may provide water and/or electrolyte replacement drinks (e.g., Gatorade, PowerAde) to the prospective student-athlete; however, it is not permissible to provide food to the prospective student-athlete during an unofficial visit.

Question No. 15: May an institution record video of an on-campus evaluation for further review after the actual evaluation?
Answer: Yes.

Question No. 16: May more than one prospective-student-athlete participate in an on-campus evaluation at the same time?
Answer: Yes. There is no limit on the number of prospective student-athletes who may participate at the same time.

Question No. 17: May the two hours of an on-campus evaluation be divided and conducted on two different days of the prospective student-athlete’s visit?
Answer: No. Conducting evaluations (or portions of an evaluation) on different days would constitute different, separate on-campus evaluations.

Question No. 18: What constitutes the “conclusion of a prospective student-athlete’s season” for purposes of conducting an on-campus evaluation?
Answer: The “conclusion of a prospective student-athlete’s season” refers to the conclusion of the prospective student-athlete’s scholastic season. A prospective student-athlete’s season is considered concluded when his scholastic season ends, even if he will be participating in an all-star contest at a later date.

Question No. 19: Pursuant to Bylaw 17.1.6.7, a student-athlete who has exhausted his eligibility, but is eligible for practice under the five-year rule, is not subject to the time limits of Bylaw 17.1.6. Is it permissible for such a student-athlete to participate in more than one on-campus evaluation in a week?
Answer: Yes. The two-hour limitation on skill-related instruction does not apply to such student-athletes.

Question No. 20: Is a student-athlete who has exhausted his eligibility but is eligible for practice under the five-year rule subject to the prohibition on conditioning and skill-related instruction from one week prior to the institution’s final exam period through the conclusion of the student-athlete’s final exams?
Answer: Yes.

[References: Bylaws 13.10.5 (prospective student-athlete visit), 13.11.2.1 (on-campus evaluations — men’s basketball), 13.11.2.6.1.2 (exception — on-campus evaluation — men’s basketball), 17.02.1 (countable athletically related activity), 17.1.6 (time limits for athletically related activity), 17.1.6.2.1.1.4 (summer athletic activities — men’s basketball), 17.1.6.2.1.1.4.1 (exception to summer school enrollment — academic requirements — men’s basketball), 17.1.6.2.1.1.4.1.1 (application to transfer student-athletes), 17.1.6.2.2 (skill instruction — sports other than baseball and football) and 17.1.6.7 (exception — eligibility exhausted)]

Daily Compliance Item- 1/22/13- 16.6.1.6.1- Institutional Awards Banquet

Touch Down is a football student-athlete at Ocean State University (OSU).  Touch exhausted his eligibility in the fall and will graduate with an environmental studies degree in May.  The coaches will be honoring Touch this weekend at their annual team awards banquet.  The coaches would like to provide Touch’s parents with free admission to the banquet.  Is this permissible?

Yes.  NCAA Bylaw 16.6.1.6.1 states that on one occasion during the final academic year of a student-athlete’s athletics eligibility, an institution may provide complimentary admissions for the student-athlete’s parents or legal guardians to attend an institutional awards banquet at which the student-athlete is being honored.  (Adopted:  1/15/11 effective 8/1/11)

Daily Compliance Item- 1/21/13- 14.2.3.1.4

Strike Zone is a softball student-athlete at Ocean State University (OSU).  During the 2011-12 academic year, Strike only participated in an alumni game for OSU.  The alumni game met the parameters for the game to be exempted from counting against the maximum of 56 contests allowed.

Because Strike only participated in one contest that was exempted from counting against the 56 game limit, did Base utilize a season of competition during the 2011-12 academic year?

No.  NCAA Bylaw 14.2.3.1.4 states that a student-athlete may engage in outside competition in either one alumni game, one fundraising activity or one celebrity sports activity during a season without counting such competition as a season of competition, provided the event is exempted from the institution’s maximum number of contests or dates of competition as permitted in the particular sport per Bylaw 17. (Adopted:  1/16/10 effective 8/1/10)

NCAA president Mark Emmert keeps focus on rulebook

GRAPEVINE, Texas — Calling some NCAA rules “scofflaws,” NCAA President Mark Emmert on Thursday laid out plans to rewrite and simplify its often criticized, dense rule book while continuing to hold its membership accountable to core principles.

“Some of the rules are more ignored and laughed at than followed,” Emmert said during his state of the association speech at the NCAA Convention in suburban Dallas.

Among the 27 proposals that the board of directors will vote on Saturday will be plans for sweeping rule changes that would slim down the NCAA rule book. At the same time, the NCAA plans to hold rulebreakers accountable with penalties harsh enough to dissuade cheating.

Regarding the organization’s plan to hold coaches specifically responsible for violations that occur in their programs if the NCAA or the infractions committee concludes that they should have had knowledge of the misconduct, Emmert said during a news conference that there needs to be more clarity on what exactly coaches will be responsible for knowing.

“We’re going to have to work harder on coming up with definitions on what that really means,” Emmert said. “We’ve already been asked, does that mean just the people who work under your purview, your staff that works for you? Or does that means everybody in the university? At some point you have to put realistic boundaries on what you can and can’t be expected to have knowledge of.”

The new rules would take effect Aug. 1.

During his third state of the association address as NCAA president, Emmert did not discuss the Penn State child sex-abuse case, which was unprecedented in its scope and nature. This July, the NCAA made the controversial move in circumventing traditional investigative protocol in denying Penn State an infractions hearing and handing down some of the harshest penalties ever imposed by the association.

As part of those sanctions, Penn State owes the NCAA $60 million. Emmert said Thursday the NCAA has no immediate plans for the $12 million already paid to it under a consent agreement with Penn State.

“The NCAA will never see that money,” Emmert said. “It will never decide where that money goes. It will have nothing to do with the distribution of the money. But a group of presidents and others are setting up the framework by which all that will happen. As they set that up and get it all in place, then indeed that group can make a decision to dispense money.”

Emmert also has been a proponent of student-athletes receiving stipends of up to $2,000 for the full cost of attendance. The board of directors approved the proposal in October 2011, but it was put on hold after enough schools signed an override petition.

When the proposal is revisited in April, Emmert said, there will be some consideration of a need-based model for the stipend so “students who have need of those resources will be receiving them, and those that don’t don’t.”

Emmert also said the model needs to address issues of Title IX compliance and equity, that it needs to be used relatively flexibly for partial scholarship, and that it needs to be administered in a way that is “relatively straightforward, transparent and easy.”

Also of note, the NCAA is losing one of its most venerable employees in vice president Wally Renfro, who plans to retire after working for the association for 40 years. Emmert said Donald Remy, the NCAA’s executive vice president and general counsel, will move into Renfro’s office to shore up the executive staff.

“He’s lived it,” Emmert said of Renfro. “He brings to it experiences virtually nobody else alive has. So I can put somebody else in that box, but they don’t bring the skill, that knowledge and those experiences … He’s irreplaceable.”