Report: More possible NCAA transgressions arise in Miami case
It looks like the NCAA just can’t keep its nose clean in the ongoing Miami sanctions investigation.
A couple of months after we learned that its primary investigator was fired from the case last May for hiring Nevin Shapiro’s attorney to help build a case against the school, new information suggests that the investigator’s replacement has been doing the exact same thing, according to a report Wednesday from the Miami Herald:
Among the new details in the case: Stephanie Hannah, an NCAA director of enforcement who took over the UM case late last May from fired Ameen Najjar, continued Najjar’s policy of working with Shapiro’s attorney, Maria Elena Perez, to try to build a case against UM.
This juicy detail just happened to be omitted from the NCAA’s report on its improper handling of the case.
But that’s not the only new issue to pop up regarding the matter. Miami is now alleging that the NCAA investigators…
…lied to interview subjects by claiming that other people interviewed made comments they never made, in order to trick the subjects into revealing incriminating information they otherwise might not, according to multiple officials familiar with the NCAA’s case against UM and former coaches.
Miami will include both new revelations in its motion to dismiss the case that will be submitted to the NCAA on Friday.
The Herald report goes into more detail on the case, but it’s pretty clear at this point that the NCAA may be an organization that is either unable, or unwilling, to police itself.
This article was selected for educational purposes only.
Bounce Pass is a basketball student-athlete at Ocean State University. Bounce was having trouble with his math class, so he decided to drop the course at the end of March. After dropping the math course, Bounce is now only enrolled in 8 hours. He wants to enroll in an online course to get back to full-time enrollment status. Ocean State University’s spring semester doesn’t end until the second week in May, but institutional policy does not allow students to enroll in traditional courses taught on campus after March 15th.
Is it permissible for Bounce to use this online course to meet NCAA progress toward degree requirements?
No. NCAA Educational Column- General Eligibility Requirements — Full-Time Enrollment — Requirement for Competition — Use of Nontraditional Courses — (I)- states that pursuant to the nontraditional courses legislation, a student-athlete may use nontraditional courses to meet the full-time enrollment requirement to be eligible for competition. The following questions and answers are intended to assist the membership in applying the legislation:
Question No. 1: What is “term time?”
Answer: “Term time” refers to the divisions of the academic year (e.g., semesters, quarters, trimesters) and is also referred to as a regular academic term.
Question No. 2: Does the nontraditional courses legislation limit the number of nontraditional courses in which a student-athlete may enroll during a regular academic term?
Answer: No. Such a determination is to be made by institutional policies applicable to all students and any applicable conference rules.
Question No. 3: If a student-athlete is enrolled in a nontraditional course that is being used to meet the full-time enrollment requirement and the student-athlete completes the nontraditional course within the first month of the regular academic term, would the student-athlete be considered full time for the remainder of the term?
Answer: Yes, provided the nontraditional course was completed in accordance with institutional policy.
Question No. 4: Does “regular enrollment periods” refer to periods in which students at the offering institution enroll in traditional (e.g., taught in a typical, face-to-face classroom environment) courses?
Answer: Yes. In order to use nontraditional courses to meet the full-time enrollment requirement, the student-athlete must enroll in the nontraditional courses at the same time he or she enrolls in traditional courses. Therefore, if a student-athlete drops or withdraws from a traditional course in the middle of a term and enrolls in a nontraditional course, he or she can use the nontraditional course for full-time enrollment only if any student is permitted to enroll in a traditional course at that point in the term.
Question No. 5: May a nontraditional course that is completed over the course of an entire academic year be used to meet the minimum full-time enrollment requirement?
Answer: The legislation requires the course to be conducted during the institution’s regular academic term in accordance with the institution’s academic calendar and applicable policies and procedures. Therefore, such a course could be used to meet the minimum full-time enrollment requirement only if the institution offers similar traditional courses that span the entire academic year and all other criteria of the legislation are met.
[References: NCAA Division I Bylaws 184.108.40.206 (requirement for competition) and 220.127.116.11.6 (nontraditional courses)]
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.
Ocean State University (OSU) baseball coaches will be conducting instructional camps at the conclusion of the season. There will be a few prospective student-athletes attending that have verbally committed to OSU. Since these prospects will not be enrolling in summer school at OSU, the coaches would like for them to participate in academic interviews with advisors in their intended majors during the camp.
Is this permissible?
No. NCAA Staff Interpretation 3/25/13- Recruiting Conversations at Camps and Clinics (I)- states that a camp or clinic is considered an athletics competition or athletics event. Therefore, a host institution’s coaching staff member may not engage in recruiting activities other than recruiting conversations with prospective student-athletes participating in the institution’s camp or clinic until after the completion of the camp or clinic. Any recruiting activities that occur after completion of the camp or clinic are subject to applicable recruiting calendar restrictions.
[References: NCAA Bylaws 18.104.22.168 (practice or competition site); 22.214.171.124 (recruiting calendar exceptions); and (10/02/92) staff interpretation which has been archived]
The men’s soccer coaches at Ocean State University (OSU) are hosting a few recruits next weekend. One of the current student-athletes that would like to serve as a student host is a senior who is enrolled part-time and will graduate in May. Is it permissible for OSU to provide expenses to this student-athlete to serve as a student host?
Yes. NCAA Staff Interpretation- 3/25/13- Part-Time Student Serving as Student Host (I)- states that a student must be enrolled in a minimum full-time program of studies at the institution at the time he or she participates as a student host unless the student meets an exception to or is granted a waiver of the full-time enrollment requirements for competition.
[References: NCAA Bylaws 126.96.36.199 (student host); 188.8.131.52.3 (exception – final semester/quarter); 184.108.40.206.1 (exceptions); 220.127.116.11 (waivers), and staff interpretation (12/20/89, Item No. f), which has been archived]
PLEASE NOTE THIS SCENARIO WAS USED IN THE JANUARY 10, 2013 DCI. THE ABOVE INTERPRETATION HAS BEEN UPDATED BY NCAA STAFF TO REFLECT FULL-TIME ENROLLMENT EXCEPTIONS AND WAIVERS.
Dub Ell is a baseball student-athlete at Ocean State University (OSU). Dub is not on athletic aid, but he is receiving an institutional scholarship based on his academic success. As part of the application for this scholarship, Dub was asked to list his achievements and extracurricular activities. Dub included both athletic and academic accomplishments. Since the application did not specifically request information related to Dub’s athletic participation and the selection committee will not use such information when determining scholarship recipients, can OSU certify that this scholarship is unrelated to athletics ability and therefore not consider Dub to be a counter for the baseball team?
Yes. NCAA Official Interpretation- 3/12/12- Certification of Institutional Aid Unrelated to Athletics Ability (I)- states that an institution is not permitted to certify that a student-athlete’s institutional financial aid is unrelated in any degree to athletics ability if the student-athlete’s athletics participation or achievements are criteria specifically requested as part of the application process for such aid. An institution may certify that the student-athlete’s aid is unrelated in any degree to athletics ability (even if the student-athlete lists athletics participation or achievements as part of his or her extracurricular activities), provided such factors were not specifically requested as part of the application process and were not taken into consideration in awarding the institutional aid to the student-athlete.
[References: NCAA Division I Bylaws 15.5.1 (counters), 18.104.22.168 (no athletics aid — certification required), 22.214.171.124 (football or basketball, varsity competition); and a staff interpretation (09/12/11, Item No. a), which has been archived]
PLEASE NOTE: There are several secondary violations posted on LSDBi involving certification of non-countable financial aid. Institutions need to make sure that the official certification of a student-athlete’s noncounter status is completed by the institution prior to the first competition…this includes obtaining signatures on the designated forms.
College football and men’s basketball players at the NCAA FBS level have an average annual fair market value of $137,000 and $289,000
The study was was conducted jointly by the National College Players Association and the Drexel University Sport Management Department
College football and men’s basketball players at the NCAA FBS level have an average annual fair market value of $137,000 and $289,000, according to a report released Wednesday.
The study, titled “The $6 Billion Heist: Robbing College Athletes Under the Guise of Amateurism,” was conducted jointly by the National College Players Association and the Drexel University Sport Management Department. It determined value using the current revenue-sharing percentages for players in the NFL’s and NBA’s collective bargaining agreements, as well as the revenues in football and men’s basketball reported by schools to the U.S. Government.
The study also found athletic scholarships, with an average annual value of $23,000, did not cover full cost of attendance, falling $3,285 short during 2011-12. A recent proposal to pay stipends to cover full cost of attendance failed to pass at the Division I level.
Though a true pay-for-play system is highly unlikely, the study figures to be of interest in an ongoing anti-trust suit over the use of athletes’ likenesses. The lawsuit filed by former UCLA basketball player Ed O’Bannon does “not seek compensation to be paid to current student athletes while they maintain their eligibility.”
With this week commencing NCAA postseason basketball tournaments, all institutional/conference staff members (including full-time, part-time, and student workers) are reminded that it is not permissible to engage in any gambling activity that involves intercollegiate athletics or professional athletics, through the internet, a bookmaker, a parlay card, or any other method employed by organized gambling.
This prohibition also includes participation in all (e.g., NCAA, NIT) Tournament Bracket sheets in which an entry fee is required and money or any item of tangible value may be won. Previous NCAA major infractions cases involving staff members’ participation in organized gambling activities have resulted in a number of institutional corrective actions, including termination of employment.
For more information concerning sports wagering, please visit the NCAA’s interactive sports wagering website at www.dontbetonit.org.
NCAA Bylaw 10.02.1 Sports Wagering
Sports wagering includes placing, accepting or soliciting a wager (on a staff member’s or student-athlete’s own behalf or on the behalf of others) of any type with any individual or organization on any intercollegiate, amateur or professional team or contest. Examples of sports wagering include, but are not limited to, the use of a bookmaker or parlay card; Internet sports wagering; auctions in which bids are placed on teams, individuals or contests; and pools or fantasy leagues in which an entry fee is required and there is an opportunity to win a prize. (Adopted: 4/26/07 effective 8/1/07)
NCAA Bylaw 10.02.2 Wager
A wager is any agreement in which an individual or entity agrees to give up an item of value (e.g., cash, shirt, dinner) in exchange for the possibility of gaining another item of value. (Adopted: 4/26/07 effective 8/1/07)
NCAA Bylaw 10.3 SPORTS WAGERING ACTIVITIES
The following individuals shall not knowingly participate in sports wagering activities or provide information to individuals involved in or associated with any type of sports wagering activities concerning intercollegiate, amateur or professional athletics competition: (Adopted: 4/26/07 effective 8/1/07)
(a) Staff members of an institution’s athletics department;
(b) Non-athletics department staff members who have responsibilities within or over the athletics department (e.g., chancellor or president, faculty athletics representative, individual to whom athletics reports);
(c) Staff members of a conference office; and
Board suspends two recruiting proposals
The Division I Board of Directors Monday suspended two of the 25 pieces of legislation it adopted in January, responding to extensive membership feedback that despite the benefits of the proposals, the new rules could have a negative impact on prospects and their families, college coaches and administrators.
Override process continues
The override process for Prop. No. RWG-13-3 continues, with a deadline of 5 p.m. March 20. As of Monday afternoon, 48 schools had requested an override of that proposal, which deregulated communication with recruits.
If 75 schools request an override, the Board must review the proposal in question. If 125 schools request an override the proposals are suspended until the Board review. If the Board declines to change its position on the proposals, the full membership votes on them through an online process.
Monday’s Board action initiates another 60-day override period of the two rules that were suspended . As of Monday afternoon, 66 schools had requested an override of the proposal that eliminated the definition of recruiting coordination functions that must be performed only by a head or assistant coach, and 70 schools had requested an override of the proposal that eliminated restrictions on printed materials sent to prospects.
Schools have until May 17 to request an override of the Board’s March 18 action.
The Board postponed new rules deregulating who can perform recruiting tasks and what printed materials can be sent to prospects. Board members also considered suspending a third proposal that eliminated restrictions on modes and numerical limitations of recruiting contacts, but they ultimately agreed to let the membership decide that rule’s future through the override process.
Suspending the rules means they will not become effective unless and until appropriate modifications are made. The Rules Working Group, which proposed the changes as part of a package of legislation the Board adopted in January, will continue to study the concepts.
The Board’s action came about 10 days after the Rules Working Group recommended the presidents suspend the printed materials deregulation and the removal of restrictions on who can perform recruiting tasks. The working group considered the deregulation of recruiting communication as well, but it wanted to let the membership decide the rule’s future through the override process.
Board chair Nathan Hatch, president at Wake Forest, convened the presidents to respond to the Rules Working Group and membership feedback as quickly as possible.
“We are listening to our member schools and hope that continued discussion of these issues will enable us to reach a decision that helps our student-athletes and their institutions. We look forward to reviewing the result of further collaboration between coaches, administrators and student-athletes and members of the Rules Working Group,” Hatch said. “The other presidents on the Board and I had a strong desire to be responsive to the concerns expressed by our colleagues.”
Of the 25 proposals adopted by the Board in January, the three reviewed by the Board Monday generated immediate discussion among the membership. However, the majority of measures proposed by the Rules Working Group and adopted by the Board were supported.
“We are committed to the reform effort. We will move forward with these concepts with collaboration from all interested parties,” said NCAA President Mark Emmert. “Suspending these proposals for continued review will provide our coaches, administrators and student-athletes the additional opportunity to have their voices heard.”
Some coaches and administrators expressed concern that deregulation in this area might lead to a recruiting arms race that could overwhelm prospects, college coaches and athletics department budgets. Much of the tension is specific to football, though the concerns could translate to any sport.
The Board suspended the rules to give the Rules Working Group and the membership more time to determine the best course of action on the concepts presented in the proposals. For example, the working group will determine if there is middle ground between banning schools from sending any printed materials to prospects and allowing schools to send whatever they want to prospects.
Board keeps texting rule
The Board decided to leave in place the rule that eliminated restrictions governing modes and numerical limitations on recruiting communication because it felt that many concerns were addressed through the suspension of Prop. No. RWG-11-2.
Suspending RWG-11-2 eliminated the fears about having an unlimited number of staff members contacting prospects an unlimited number of times. When it initially proposed the rule change, the Rules Working Group believed the measure acknowledged both the increased use of text-messaging by prospects over the last several years and the growing difficulty of distinguishing between text messages, email and messages sent through social media. The rule also is expected to relieve a significant monitoring burden from the shoulders of compliance administrators.
Before making its decision, the Board discussed that football coaches are currently permitted to make an unlimited number of telephone calls to prospects during the fall contact period, which runs from late November until the Saturday prior to the National Letter of Intent signing day in February. Given this, the practical impact of RWG-13-3 will be to permit unlimited calls for only a few additional months.
The Board members also noted that coaches are already permitted to send an unlimited number of emails or other direct messages on various social media platforms (e.g., Twitter, Facebook), so deregulation in this area provides consistency and simplifies the legislation.
Men’s basketball has operated without numerical or mode restrictions on recruiting contacts for nearly a year, and feedback has been positive.
As with all proposals adopted as part of the reform effort, RWG-13-3 will undergo a review after two years.
Ocean State University (OSU) baseball team is competing in away from home contests Friday and Saturday. The games will be played in the sport administrator’s home town, so he would like for his two nephews to come watch. If the nephews have reached prospect age, is it permissible for OSU to provide complimentary admissions?
Yes. NCAA Staff Interpretation- 3/15/13-Complimentary Admissions to an Away-From-Home Contest for an Athletic Department Staff Member’s Relative who is a Prospective Student-Athlete (I)- states that an institution may provide complimentary admissions to an away-from-home contest to an athletic department staff member’s relative who is a prospective student-athlete.
[References: NCAA Division I Bylaws 13.02.12 (prospective student-athlete); 13.2 (offers and inducements); 126.96.36.199 (general restrictions) and 188.8.131.52 (general restrictions), and a staff interpretation (9/14/90, Item No. a), which has been archived]
Ocean State University (OSU) would like to honor an alumnus this weekend at a home athletic contest. This individual was an all-american basketball player at OSU and just earned his 1000 win as a local HS coach. As part of the celebration, OSU will conduct a ceremony at halftime and provide a plaque. Is this arrangement permissible?
Yes. NCAA Staff Interpretation- 3/15/13- Institution Providing Recognition to High School Coach who is an Alumna or Alumnus (I)- states that an institution may publicly recognize a special achievement (e.g., retirement, coaching accomplishment) of a high school coach who is an alumna or alumnus of the institution and may provide benefits incidental to recognition of that award (e.g., award, certificate, meal) to the recipient and his or her relatives.
[References: NCAA Division I Bylaws 13.2.1 (general regulations); 184.108.40.206 (recruiting advertisements); 13.8.1 (entertainment restrictions) and 13.8.2 (material benefits), and a staff interpretation (12/21/05, Item No. a), which has been archived]