Daily Compliance Item- 12/23/13- 13.15.2.1- Sending Transcripts to the Eligibility Center

Ocean State University (OSU) has a few NLI signees that need to send transcripts to the NCAA Eligibility Center for evaluation.  Can OSU help the signees’ high schools pay for this expense?

Yes.  NCAA Staff Interpretation- 12/20/13- Institution Providing Expenses for a High School to Send Transcripts to the NCAA Eligibility Center (I) – states that  it is permissible for an institution to provide expenses (e.g., Federal Express charges) for a high school to send a prospective student-athlete’s academic transcript to the NCAA Eligibility Center, provided the 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 his or her financial deposit in response to its offer of admission.

[References: NCAA Division I Bylaw 13.15.2.1 (ACT and SAT scores) and a staff interpretation (08/24/94, Item No. a), which has been archived]

Daily Compliance Item- 12/20/13- Current Event

UW, USC Investigating Allegations Against Washington FB Assistant

athleticscholarships.net

 

Gary Klein of the Los Angeles Times:

Mike Davis, a throwing coach who helped Basham win a state shotput title, told The Times that Tosh Lupoi, Washington’s defensive line coach, gave him $3,000 to cover private tutoring for [Andrew] Basham through a test preparation company. Davis said he also received $1,500 from Lupoi to reimburse Basham’s father for online classes Andrew could use to raise his grade-point average.

If proven, this would be in violation of NCAA Bylaw 13.15.1:

An institution or a representative of its athletics interests shall not offer, provide or arrange financial assistance, directly or indirectly, to pay (in whole or in part) the costs of the prospective student-athlete’s educational or other expenses for any period prior to his or her enrollment or so the prospective student-athlete can obtain a postgraduate education.

That raises three questions: can the NCAA prove the violations and what does it mean for Steve Sarkisian, who was the Washington football head coach at the time and was recently hired by the University of Southern California. Also, what happens with Washington and the new enforcement program. As for the first question, this helps the NCAA a lot:

[Davis] also said he contacted the NCAA and then phoned Lupoi to inform him of The Times’ inquiry.

For Sarkisian, these violations would fall under the new head coach responsibility bylaws. Proposal 2012–15 was adopted with immediate effect by the Board of Directors on October 30, 2012. The payments are alleged to have occurred on or about February 25 and May 18, 2013. That means Sarkisian’s responsibility will be judged under the new bylaw which presumes he is responsible for any violation committed by his assistants. He can rebut that presumption by showing that he adequately monitored the activities of his assistants and promoted an atmosphere of compliance. While the NCAA had issued best practice documents about what that entails, no case has established what the Committee on Infractions says is enough to rebut the presumption of responsibility.

For Washington, the allegations will be processed under the new enforcement program. Any violations will be classified under the new four-tier violation structure. Any sanctions would also be based on the new penalty structure since the alleged conduct all occurred after October 30, 2012, when Proposal 2012–16 (which established the new enforcement program) was adopted.

 

This article was selected for educational purposes only.

Daily Compliance Item- 12/19/13- 13.2- Prospect Who is Unable to Participate in Athletics

Ocean State University (OSU) has been in contact recently with a local family that has been basketball season ticket holders for many years.  Unfortunately the family’s oldest son, a junior in high school, has developed a physical disability that will preclude him from ever being able to participate in sports again.  Because the family has been loyal supporters, OSU would like to honor the son by presenting him with a basketball jersey at the next home game.  Is this permissible?

Yes with conditions.  NCAA Official Interpretation- 11/1/10- Application of NCAA Bylaw 13 to a Prospective Student-Athlete with no Reasonable Expectation of Participation in Intercollegiate Athletics (I) – states that the restrictions of Bylaw 13 do not apply to a prospective student-athlete who has no reasonable expectation of participating in intercollegiate athletics as a result of a disability or terminal illness, provided he or she is not a relative of a prospective student-athlete who is being recruited by the institution.

[References: Bylaws 13.02.11 (prospective student-athlete), 13.2.1 (general regulation), 13.2.2 (specific prohibitions) 13.10.5 (prospective student-athlete’s visit), 13.10.6 (introduction of prospective student-athlete) and 13.15.1 (precollege expenses — prohibited expenses); official interpretation (10/22/01, Item No. a) and staff interpretation (2/25/10, item a), which have been archived]

Daily Compliance Item- 12/18/13- 15.3.3.1.1- Final Semester Aid

Fair Way is a golf student-athlete at Ocean State University.  Fair is a senior and will graduate at the end of the spring 2014 semester.  Fair has worked hard both on and off the course, so the coaches would like to reward her by providing an athletic scholarship for the spring 2014 semester.  Since Fair 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- 12/17/13- 13.4.1.1- Holiday Cards

Bah Humbug, Head Women’s Tennis Coach at Ocean State University, wants to buy and send Christmas cards to her 4 NLI signees.  Is this permissible?

No.  NCAA Bylaw 13.4.1.1 does not include greeting cards.  The coach could, however, send an institutional note card to the prospects with a hand written note wishing them Happy Holidays.

As specified below, an institution may provide the following printed materials [hard copy or electronically (see Bylaw 13.4.1.2)] to prospective student-athletes, their parents or legal guardians, their coaches or any other individual responsible for teaching or directing an activity in which a prospective student-athlete is involved:  [D](Adopted:  4/28/05 effective 8/1/05, Revised:  4/15/08, 4/29/10 effective 8/1/10, 5/27/11)

(a) General Correspondence. General correspondence may be sent only by mail, subject to the following provisions:  (Revised:  3/8/06, 5/25/06, 12/12/06, 1/8/07 effective 8/1/07, 4/15/08, 4/24/08 effective 8/1/08, 4/29/10 effective 8/1/10)

(1)  The correspondence shall include a single sheet of institutional letterhead, which shall not exceed 8 1/2 by 11 inches in size;  (Adopted:  4/29/10 effective 8/1/10)

(2)  There are no restrictions on the design or content of one side of the single sheet of institutional letterhead.  The opposite side shall be blank, except for text (typed or handwritten) used to communicate a message to the recipient and any other handwritten information;  (Adopted:  4/29/10 effective 8/1/10)

(3)  Additional pages of the correspondence shall be limited to plain white paper (not to exceed 8 1/2 by 11 inches in size) and black ink.  The additional pages shall be blank, except for text (typed or handwritten) used to communicate a message to the recipient and any other handwritten information;  (Adopted:  4/29/10 effective 8/1/10)

(4)  Attachments to general correspondence may only include materials printed on plain white paper (not to exceed 8 1/2 by 11 inches in size) with black ink that are not created for recruiting purposes, except for other permissible printed materials (e.g., camp brochures, questionnaires);  (Revised:  4/29/10 effective 8/1/10)

(5)  An envelope used to send the correspondence may only include the institution’s name and logo or an athletics logo (in addition to the postage, return address and addressee information) on the outside, must be blank on the inside when produced and may not exceed 9 by 12 inches; and  (Adopted:  4/29/10 effective 8/1/10)

(6)  All institutional staff members (e.g., faculty members, athletics department staff members and administrators) may prepare general correspondence.  (Revised:   4/29/10 effective 8/1/10)

(b) Business Cards.

(c) Camp or Clinic Brochures.  Brochures are not restricted by content or design, except that they must indicate that the camp or clinic is open to any and all entrants (limited only by number, age, grade level and/or gender).  Brochures are restricted to a single two-sided sheet, not to exceed 17 by 22 inches in size when opened in full.  Camp or clinic brochures may be provided to a prospective student-athlete at any time. (See Bylaw 12.5.1.6.)  (Revised:  4/15/08, 9/24/09)

(d) Questionnaires.  An institution may provide questionnaires to a prospective student-athlete at any time.  (Revised:  4/14/08)

(e) Nonathletics Institutional Publications.  An institution may provide nonathletics institutional publications available to all students at any time (e.g., official academic, admissions and student-services publications published by the institution and available to all students).

(f) NCAA Educational Material Published by the NCAA (e.g., NCAA Guide for the College-Bound Student-Athlete).  Such material may be provided to a prospective student-athlete at any time. (Revised:  4/15/08)

(g) Game Programs.  Game programs (which may not include posters) may be provided to prospective student-athletes only during official and unofficial recruiting visits and may not be mailed.

(h) Pre-enrollment Information.  Necessary pre-enrollment information regarding orientation, conditioning, academics and practice activities, may be provided to a prospective student-athlete, provided he or she has signed a National Letter of Intent or institutional financial aid agreement or has been officially accepted for enrollment.  (See Bylaw 13.4.1.5.4.)  (Adopted:  12/12/06)

(i) Institutional Note Cards.  Institutional note cards may not exceed 8 1/2 by 11 inches when opened in full.  In addition, such cards may only contain the institution’s name and logo or an athletics logo on the outside, must be blank on the inside (one side of the card when opened in full) when produced and may include only handwritten information (e.g., words, illustrations) on the inside when provided to the recipients.  (Adopted:  1/8/07 effective 8/1/07, Revised:  4/15/08, 4/13/09)

(j) Postcards.  An institution may send an institutional postcard, provided its dimensions do not exceed 4 1/4 by 6 inches, it includes only the institution’s name and logo or an athletics logo on one side when produced and it includes only handwritten information, (e.g., words, illustrations) on the opposite side when provided to the recipients. Blank postcards issued by the U.S. postal service also may be sent.  (Adopted:  1/14/09 effective 8/1/09, Revised:  4/29/10 effective 8/1/10)

Daily Compliance Item- 12/16/13- 14.4.3.4.7- Interim Term Credits

Jing L. Bells is a student-athlete at Ocean State University.       Jing  will be spending her winter break at home and has decided to take a course during a mini-term at a local college to get ahead in her major.  Which of the following is true with regard to certification of eligibility?

For purposes of this example, this course would be accepted with a passing grade at Ocean State University.

A. This course can be used to fulfill the 18/27 hour requirement

B.  This course can be used to fulfill the 6 hour requirement

C.  This course cannot be used to fulfill either requirement

D.  This course can be used to fulfill both requirements

The answer is ANCAA Staff Interpretation- 12/20/06- Credits Earned From Another Institution During an Interim Term (I)-  states that credits taken at another institution during the regular academic year in an interim term (e.g., J-term, mini-term) may be used to satisfy the 18/27-hour requirement, provided the credits are acceptable for degree-credit at the certifying institution. Please note, however, these credits cannot be used to satisfy the six-hour requirement.

[References:  NCAA Division I Bylaws 14.4.3.1 (fulfillment of credit-hour requirements), 14.4.3.4.7 (credit from other institutions), and an official interpretation (reference:  12/13/05, Item No. 6), which has been archived.]

Daily Compliance Item- 12/13/13- Current Event

N.C.A.A. Change Is Coming, Maybe

NYTimes.com

Throughout Wednesday morning, some of the most important people in college sports settled into ballrooms on the seventh floor of the Marriott Marquis in Manhattan. There was talk and talk and more talk, forums and discussions and presentations. There were athletic directors and administrators and N.C.A.A. officials.

Everyone seemed to agree on a basic premise: N.C.A.A. change is coming, perhaps as soon as next summer.

The more everyone talked, though, the less grand potential reforms seemed. One commissioner, Karl Benson of the Sun Belt Conference, said during a panel discussion that he expected changes would look more like “tweaks.” He was not alone in that sentiment. But it seemed like a step back from the supposed impending “historic moment” detailed by officials in recent months.

The discussions took place at the IMG Intercollegiate Athletics Forum, which featured a question-and-answer session with Mark Emmert, the N.C.A.A. president; a panel of commissioners from the five major conferences; and a separate panel of five other conference commissioners.

If the N.C.A.A. collected $1 for every time the term “student-athlete” was used, it could have afforded to pay all players in all sports a significant stipend. At least enough for pizza.

There was plenty of the usual: calls for a more streamlined process of governance, for more direct involvement by athletic directors, for a thinning of the thickest rule book known to sports. Some of that will happen. The N.C.A.A. will change. But seismic, or even systemic, change seemed less likely than a day before.

Instead, three takeaways emerged.

■ The N.C.A.A. will not pay players, will not consider paying players and will not entertain the notion of paying players — never, ever, no matter how much revenue is generated. This notion came up a few hundred times, until it became clear that “student-athletes” would be paid only when, if, the N.C.A.A. is forced to do so by legislators or the courts.

■ Reform would probably not include a new N.C.A.A. division, but instead would grant more autonomy in making decisions to the universities in the five major conferences. This came up a few dozen times and tied directly into athletic directors’ being more involved. (The right idea, opposed by few.)

■ The N.C.A.A., the conference commissioners and officials from member universities feel unfairly picked on, or inaccurately characterized. They kept saying they had done a poor job of communicating what they do well, that they allowed the negative aspects of the narrative to overwhelm a greater body of work. This came up a few times.

On the last point, it was hard to sympathize. The reason the N.C.A.A. has come under more criticism than normal in recent years has little to do with a lack of attention to women’s golf, as one panelist suggested. The N.C.A.A. earned its critics, one botched investigation or unnecessary rule complication at a time.

It was hard, then, to tell whether the power brokers considered the system broken. They said it needed reform. And they said they would defend it and its honor and what worked.

We also heard a lot about student-athletes and how happy they were and how much they benefited from their scholarships. We heard about this from men in tailored suits who profit handsomely off college sports and whose universities and conferences cull revenue from the same.

“The countervailing voices of this notion that student-athletes are being taken advantage of has been the dominant theme and had played out pretty loudly,” Emmert said. “The reality is schools are spending in between $100,000 and $250,000 on each student-athlete.”

The forum lacked one important voice on this subject: the voice of the student-athlete, like those who wrote “All Players United” on their gear this season. Or the football team at Grambling that boycotted a game.

Contradiction dominated. There was much talk about how football teams would continue to build palaces for facilities, with rugs from Nepal and waterfalls in locker rooms; how that arms race could be explained by market forces, even as the markets for players continue to be suppressed.

“It was a lot of more of the same,” David Ridpath, an assistant professor in sports administration at Ohio University and a member of the Drake Group, a network of professors who lobby for academic integrity in college sports, wrote in an email from his office. “Still too much rhetoric and not enough action.”

There is a subcommittee of university presidents looking at changes, and there will be meetings next month, including two days set aside at the annual N.C.A.A. convention to discuss change.

What kind of change is what’s important for the future of college sports. At the heart of that is the notion of amateurism, of student-athletes. Jim Delany, the Big Ten commissioner, said asking colleges to pay players was tantamount to asking professional teams to require their players to enter into full-time study.

The N.C.A.A. does appear willing to budge here. Their argument trends toward the idea that amateurism should be upheld because if it’s not, so much else would need to change. That’s circumspect, not about right or wrong, but about logistics.

To go to an Olympic model, in which players endorse products relative to their value on the open market, would affect recruiting. To pay players beyond an increased stipend for the cost of tuition would strike at the heart of the idea that they’re students first. It would reinforce that the billions generated by college football and men’s basketball, in particular, demonstrate that they might be something else.

Those are the arguments, anyway.

“If college athletics establishes an employer-employee relationship, we will truly have lost our way,” said Bob Bowlsby, the Big 12 commissioner.

Perhaps, with another round of grand reform either impendent or oversold, they already have.

This article was selected for educational purposes only.