Ocean State University is going to have a career fair for its entire student body the first Wednesday in October. Because the majority of student-athletes will be unable to attend this fair due to class, practice and/or competition schedules, the Athletic Department is going to host a separate career fair just for student-athletes the following Friday. Is it permissible for an institution to host a career fair exclusively for student-athletes?
Yes. NCAA Bylaw 188.8.131.52 states that a student-athlete may use career counseling and internship/job placement services available exclusively to student-athletes, provided the student-athlete is not placed in a position in which the student-athlete uses his or her athletics ability. (Adopted: 4/28/11)
It’s relative; a bunch of middle-aged coaches falling short of teenage standards when it comes to hammering away on a 5-inch screen 24/7; sounds about right.
Newman’s specific grievance?
Slow response time.
“Ya know I’m young so I’m expecting it to be like boom-boom; back-to-back,” Newman said with a laugh. “But they wait about 10 or 15 minutes between their responses and I’m like ‘Man come oooon!”
Still, not every coach courting Newman is slow on the draw.
The fastest responder?
Kansas assistant Jerrance Howard.
“He’s on point now,” Newman said. “Sometimes he’s faster than me.”
The slowest texter?
Connecticut head coach Kevin Ollie.
“Coach is my man, but it takes him a while to respond,” Newman said with a laugh.
Perhaps he’s adjusting to the weight of the blingage in his brand new national championship ring?
“That’s what I’m saying; that could be it!” Newman joked. “I’ve got three state title rings so I know how that can be. You eventually adjust to all that ice.”
This article was selected for educational purposes only.
Which of the following sports is not permitted to send all forms of electronic correspondence to prospects prior to the prospect signing an NLI, written offer of admission/aid or providing a financial deposit to the institution?
The answer is B. NCAA Bylaw 184.108.40.206.1 states that in cross country/track and field, football and swimming and diving, electronically transmitted correspondence that may be sent to a prospective student-athlete (or the prospective student-athlete’s parents or legal guardians) is limited to electronic mail and facsimiles. All other forms of electronically transmitted correspondence (e.g., Instant Messenger, text messaging) are prohibited. [D] (Adopted: 4/28/05 effective 8/1/05, Revised: 12/12/06, 4/26/07 effective 8/1/07, 4/15/08, 4/29/10 effective 8/1/10, 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11, 1/18/14 effective 8/1/14)
NCAA Bylaw 220.127.116.11.1.1 states that in cross country/track and field, football and swimming and diving, there shall be no limit on the forms of electronically transmitted correspondence sent to a prospective student-athlete (or the prospective student-athlete’s relatives or legal guardians) after one of the following events occurs: (Adopted: 1/15/11 effective 8/1/11, Revised: 7/31/13, 1/18/14 effective 8/1/14)
(a) The prospective student-athlete signs a National Letter of Intent (NLI) or the institution’s written offer of admission and/or financial aid; or
(b) The institution receives a financial deposit in response to the institution’s offer of admission.
Which of the following is true regarding an unofficial visit?
A. Prospect can have contact with coaches and student-athletes at an off-campus practice/competition site without it counting as an off-campus contact.
B. Prospect can have a meal at an off-campus practice site as long as the prospect pays for his/her own meal.
C. Prospect can receive transportation to an off-campus practice/competition site.
D. All of the above.
The answer is D. NCAA Staff Interpretation- 5/26/10- Activities at an Off-Campus Practice or Competition Facility during an Unofficial Visit (I)- states that the following activities at an off-campus practice or competition facility are permissible during an unofficial visit, provided the prospective student-athlete visits the institution’s campus during the unofficial visit:
a. The unofficial visit may begin or end at an off-campus practice or competition facility (e.g., golf course, boathouse);
b. The prospective student-athlete is permitted to eat a meal at an off-campus practice or competition facility, provided he or she pays the actual cost of the meal; and
c. Contact during the unofficial visit between institutional staff members or student-athletes and the prospective student-athlete at an off-campus practice or competition facility is not considered an off-campus contact.
[References: NCAA Bylaws 13.02.15.2 (unofficial visit), 13.1.6 (contacts), 13.5.3 (transportation on unofficial visit) and 18.104.22.168.1 (meals); staff interpretation (6/9/89, Item No. i); and official interpretation (4/28/94, Item No. 4)]
NCAA Bylaw 13.5.3 states that during any unofficial recruiting visit, the institution may provide the prospective student-athlete with transportation to view practice and competition sites in the prospective student-athlete’s sport and other institutional facilities and to attend a home athletics contest at any local facility. An institutional staff member must accompany the prospective student-athlete during such a trip. Payment of any other transportation expenses, shall be considered a violation. [R] (Revised: 1/11/89, 4/27/00, 3/10/04, 4/28/05, 1/9/06 effective 8/1/06, 4/27/06)
Ocean State University baseball coaches are finalizing their roster and determining if there are any deficiencies in meeting the minimum requirement for scholarships.
Curve Ball, a student-athlete on the team is receiving a 15% athletic scholarship and $5000 in academic aid. The combination of the two aid sources equates to a 25% scholarship. The academic aid qualifies for an exemption, but if the coaches choose to count it against team limits can they also use it to meet the 25% requirement?
Yes. NCAA Staff Interpretation- 8/18/08- Financial Aid Used to Calculate Minimum Equivalency Value in Baseball (I)- states that in baseball, institutional financial aid that could otherwise be exempted from an institution’s equivalency computation (e.g., academic honor awards) may be used to meet an individual student-athlete’s minimum equivalency value, provided the aid is also counted toward the maximum institutional grant-in-aid limitation. In such cases, the full amount of the award must count toward the individual student-athlete’s equivalency and the institutional grant-in-aid limitation.
[References: NCAA Division I Bylaws 15.02.4 (financial aid), 15.1.2 (types of aid included in limit) and 22.214.171.124 (minimum equivalency value)]
NCAA Bylaw 126.96.36.199 states that an institution shall provide each counter athletically related and other countable financial aid that is equal to or greater than 25 percent of an equivalency. (Adopted: 4/26/07 effective 8/1/08 for student-athletes who initially enroll full time at any four-year collegiate institution on or after 8/1/08, Revised: 8/9/07)
NCAA, conferences, seek dismissal of scholarship suits
The NCAA is appealing a federal district judge’s ruling in the bitterly fought EdO’Bannon antitrust case, which could increase what athletes receive while playing college sports.
However, on Thursday night, the association and a group of 11 major conferences cited that ruling as a primary reason the same judge should dismiss two other antitrust lawsuits, either of which could eliminate compensation limits in some sports and one of which seeks hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.
Both suits, which began in March, are seeking to become class actions. One of the cases originated in Northern California, the other in New Jersey. In June, a panel of judges that deals with similar federal lawsuits filed in different parts of the country assigned coordinated or consolidated pretrial matters in both cases to U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken — the Oakland-based jurist who handled theO’Bannon case.
With the NCAA and the five power conferences named as defendants in both suits, Wilken then ordered the association and all of the conferences to file a single response to both cases.
On Thursday night, in that response, the NCAA and the conferences argued thatWilken’s ruling and injunction in the O’Bannon case provides the basis for dismissal of these two cases because she allowed compensation limits to stand.
In the O‘Bannon case, Wilken ruled that the NCAA’s limits on what Bowl Subdivision football players and Division I men’s basketball players can receive while playing their sports in college “unreasonably restrain trade” in violation of antitrust laws. She also imposed a complex injunction that, beginning in the 2016-17 school year will allow athletes in those two sports to receive not only scholarships covering their full cost of attending school but also what amounts to deferred compensation — all as a form of compensation for the schools’ use of their names, images and likenesses.
But she also wrote that the injunction “will not preclude the NCAA from implementing rules capping the amount of compensation that may be paid to student-athletes while they are enrolled in school.”
In Thursday night’s filing, the NCAA and the conferences wrote that a decision in either of these suits to eliminate the limits “would directly conflict with thisCourt’s decision and injunction” in the O’Bannon case — although the NCAA and the conferences noted that they “respectfully disagree” with Wilken’s ruling inO’Bannon, which the NCAA had appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The NCAA last week gave a possible preview of what that appeal may look like when it filed a mediation questionnaire the 9th Circuit requires. It added to that look ahead Thursday night when it wrote that in addition to disagreeing withWilken’s finding of an antitrust violation, it also questioned her determinations of the appropriate cap on athlete compensation and “who — as between the Court and the NCAA — should be permitted to set that cap.”
Wilken is scheduled to hold a hearing on the motion for dismissal of the Alston and Jenkins cases on Oct. 9.
Following Thursday’s filing, the NCAA said in a statement: “While the NCAA and its co-defendants acknowledge Judge Wilken’s legal reasoning on the legitimacy of limiting the amount and nature of financial benefits to student-athletes, the NCAAwill continue to appeal the O’Bannon decision because it does not agree with thecourt’s finding in that case that the NCAA violated antitrust laws.”
Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the two cases will have until Sept. 18 to file papers opposing the request for dismissal. But late Thursday night, one of those lawyers said a more aggressive approach is forthcoming.
The bid for dismissal of the cases are “just more efforts to delay justice and fairness,” Jon King, a lawyer for one set of plaintiffs, said via text message. “We will seek an expedited trial.”
Although the NCAA is attempting to use Wilken’s ruling in the O’Bannon case to persuade her in these cases, it is important to note that while she has control of both cases now — and likely would oversee a potential trial in one of them – if the other case goes to trial, that proceeding would be held in New Jersey. That not only means a different federal court district from Wilken’s, but also a different appellate circuit.
The first of the new cases began on behalf of former West Virginia football player Shawne Alston and sought action for Football Bowl Subdivision players. It has since been consolidated with five other suits that were filed subsequently. The combined complaint now covers football, men’s basketball and men’s basketball players in the 10 FBS conferences and the Western Athletic Conference. It seeks an injunction and class-wide monetary damages. It is being led, in part, by lawyers from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, the same firm that is involved in an array of cases against the NCAA and represented former Arizona State and Nebraska football player Sam Keller in a suit before Wilken that also involved video game manufacturer Electronic Arts and eventually settled.
The second case is being pursued on behalf of four named plaintiffs headed byClemson football player Martin Jenkins. It covers football and men’s basketball players in the power conferences, and it is being directed by Jeffrey Kessler, who gained renown for his representation of professional sports players’ unions and involvement in a case that set the stage for NFL free agency.
The Jenkins case does not seek a class-wide monetary damages award. But it seeks a more broadly drawn judgment and injunction than the Alston case does, actions that would:
— Void NCAA and conference rules that “prohibit, cap or otherwise limit remuneration and benefits” to the covered athletes.
— Prevent the NCAA and the five conferences from having rules that prevent schools from “negotiating, offering, or providing remuneration” to the covered athletes “in compensation for their services as athletes.” The Alston case seeks:
— A judgment that would void NCAA rules “that operate to impose a cap on grants-in-aid” that schools can provide.
— An injunction that would prevent the NCAA and the 11 conferences from being able to “cap the amount of financial aid available” to the athletes.
— Monetary damages based on the difference between the value of an athletic scholarship as currently defined by the NCAA
– basically tuition, mandatory fees, room, board and books
– and the actual cost of attending college, a figure that includes out-of-pocket costs such as transportation to and from school.
Federal antitrust law allows class action suits to reach back and cover plaintiffs and alleged damages starting four years prior to a case’s filing date and running through the date of judgment. The law also provides for the tripling of such damages.
So, the Alston case seeks damages that would be applicable to every football,men’s basketball and men’s basketball player who was on scholarship at a school in any of the 11 conferences in any year since March 5, 2010 — more than 100 athletes per school each year.
In 2009-10, the difference between the value of a scholarship and the cost of attendance ranged from about $1,200 to more than $8,000 at schools in the conferences covered by the lawsuit, a 2011 USA TODAY Sports survey found. In 2012-13, the difference ranged from about $1,350 to nearly $6,300, according to data schools listed on annual athletic financial reports to the NCAA that USATODAY Sports obtained through open-records requests.
The combined membership of the 11 defendant conferences has varied during the period covered by the suit, but using $3,000 as the average difference between the value of a scholarship and the cost of attendance, the potential damages total at present could be more than $600 million.
There could be additional financial consequences for the Pacific-12 Conference and its four member schools in California because the suit alleges that the NCAA’scurrent rules violate “the policy and spirit of the California’s Student Athlete Bill of Rights, as well as the policy and spirit of federal and California antitrust law.”
The suits seeks, only from the Pac-12 and the NCAA, “all their profits obtained from” allegedly limiting athletes‘ economic rights.
But the NCAA and the conferences say the California-based claims also should be dismissed.
This article was selected for educational purposes only.
Sand Wedge is a freshman golf student-athlete at Ocean State University. Sand’s initial eligibility is still being processed by the NCAA Eligibility Center as there are a few concerns regarding the math courses he took during his junior and senior years in high school. Two of these math courses have been deemed duplicative by Sand’s high school. Can Sand use both of them to fulfill core course requirements to earn qualifier status?
No. NCAA Staff Interpretation- 9/3/14- Core-Course Requirements — Duplicative Course Work (I)– states that duplicative courses shall not be used to meet NCAA initial-eligibility requirements.
[References: NCAA Bylaws 188.8.131.52 (core-curriculum requirements) and 184.108.40.206.8 (repeat courses); and a staff interpretation (12/13/2000, item a), which has been archived]
The Ocean State University (OSU) volleyball team is hosting two teams this weekend.
Here is the schedule:
OSU will play team A friday night.
Team A will play team B Saturday afternoon
OSU will play team B Sunday afternoon
The OSU coaches would like to scout during saturday’s game. Is this permissible?
Yes. NCAA Staff Interpretation- 9/9/13- On-Campus, In-Person Scouting of Opponents (I)- states that the prohibition against off-campus, in-person scouting of opponents is not applicable to an institution’s coaching staff in a situation in which a competition involving a future opponent occurs on the coaching staff’s campus.
[References: NCAA Bylaw 11.6.1 (off-campus, in-person scouting prohibition; staff interpretation (09/15/10), which is archived; and official interpretation (12/12/94, Item No. 18), which is archived]