Daily Compliance Item- 3.31.15- 14.6.1- Graduate Transfers

Allie Oop is a women’s basketball student-athlete at Ocean State University.  Here is Allie’s academic record:
 
2011-12- Enrolled at Bay State College and competed
2012-13- Transferred to Ocean State University- served a year in residence
2013-14- Enrolled at Ocean State University and competed
2014-15- Enrolled at Ocean State University and competed
May 2015- Will graduate from Ocean State University
 
Allie would like to transfer to another 4-year institution for the 2015-16 academic year to utilize her final season of competition.  Can she use the one-time transfer exception for graduate students?
No because Allie previously transferred from a 4-year institution.  Allie would have to receive a waiver to allow her to avoid serving a residence requirement.  NCAA Bylaw 14.6.1 states that a graduate student who is enrolled in a graduate or professional school of an institution other than the institution from which he or she previously received a baccalaureate degree may participate in intercollegiate athletics if the student fulfills the conditions of the one-time transfer exception set forth in Bylaw 14.5.5.2.10 and has eligibility remaining per Bylaw 12.8. A graduate student who does not meet the one-time transfer exception due to the restrictions of Bylaw 14.5.5.2.10-(a) shall qualify for this exception, provided:  (Adopted: 1/9/96 effective 8/1/96, Revised: 4/27/06, 1/6/07 effective 8/1/07, 4/28/11 effective 8/1/11, 7/31/14)
(a) The student fulfills the remaining conditions of Bylaw 14.5.5.2.10;
(b) The student has at least one season of competition remaining; and
(c) The student’s previous institution did not renew his or her athletically related financial aid for the following academic year.
Jennifer M. Condaras 
Associate Commissioner
BIG EAST Conference

Daily Compliance Item- 3.30.15- 16.02.3, 16.11.2.1- Donations to Student-Athletes’ Outside Teams

Bank Shot and Dunk are two basketball student-athletes at Ocean State University (OSU).  Both of these student-athletes are going to be playing on an outside team this summer and have to raise money for participation and travel.  Which of the following is true?
 
A.  OSU can provide the names of boosters to Bank and Dunk’s outside team administrators.
B.  OSU can provide the names of boosters to Bank and Dunk.
C.  OSU boosters can make donations and earmark them for Bank and Dunk’s expenses
D.  None of the above.
   
The answer is DNCAA Educational Column- 3/1/12- Donations to Outside Sports Clubs or Training Centers (I)- states that NCAA Division I institutions should note that it is not permissible for a member institution or a member institution’s booster club to sponsor or make a donation, directly or indirectly, to an outside sports club or training center (e.g., amateur club team, Olympic training center) that involves a student-athlete from that institution or any prospective student-athletes. Further, it is not permissible to provide the names of representatives of the institution’s athletics interests to an outside sports club or training center participants for the purpose of soliciting donations. However, it is permissible for a representative of the institution’s athletics interests to donate to an outside sports club or training center, provided the representative acts independently of the institution, the funds are distributed through channels established by the organization conducting the fundraising activity and the funds are not earmarked directly for a specific student-athlete or prospective student-athlete.
[References: NCAA Division I Bylaws 13.11.2.3.3 (institutional sponsorship of local sports clubs), 13.15.1.2 (fundraising for high school athletics program), 13.15.1.2.1 (involvement by local representatives of institution’s athletics interests), 16.02.3 (extra benefit) and 16.11.2.1 (general rule); and official interpretations (12/13/90, Item No. 4), (8/7/92, Item No. 9-a-(5)) and (5/8/95, Item No. 4)]
NCAA Official Interpretation- 5.8.95- Institution Providing List of Athletics Representatives to Student-Athletes– states that it is not permissible for an institution to provide to a student-athlete a list of its athletics representatives (i.e., boosters) for the purpose of contacting such individuals to participate in fund-raising activities related to the student-athlete’s participation on an outside organization’s competitive tour.
  [References: 16.02.3 (extra benefit), 16.12.2.1 (extra-benefit — general rule) and 16.8.1.3 (expenses for other competition) and IC 06/03/92, Item No. 3
Jennifer M. Condaras 
Associate Commissioner
BIG EAST Conference

Daily Compliance Item- 3.27.15- Current Event

As Final Four nears, NCAA opposes Indiana religious freedom law

USAToday.com
SYRACUSE, N.Y. — The NCAA is “especially concerned” by a recently enacted law in Indiana, which hosts this year’s Final Four, that grants businesses the right to refuse service to gay and lesbian couples, NCAA President Mark Emmert said in a statement released on Thursday.
 

“The NCAA national office and our members are deeply committed to providing an inclusive environment for all our events,” the statement read. “We are especially concerned about how this legislation could affect our student-athletes and employees.

“We will work diligently to assure student-athletes competing in, and visitors attending, next week’s Men’s Final Four in Indianapolis are not impacted negatively by this bill. Moving forward, we intend to closely examine the implications of this bill and how it might affect future events as well as our workforce.”

The measure, which was signed into law by Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana on Thursday, gives state businesses the right to not provide service to gay and lesbian couples based on “religious freedom.”
 

The NCAA is headquartered in Indianapolis.

Whether the NCAA should host the biggest event of the college basketball season in a state that is potentially unaccommodating to fans and tourists of a particular sexual orientation is a “bigger decision” for the governing body to make, North Carolina State forward Abdul-Malik Abu told USA TODAY Sports on Thursday.

“I know that decision probably won’t be based on moral views but probably more currency-based,” said Abu.

“I definitely feel like that law is really backwards. You shouldn’t be able to reject anybody based on what they believe in, definitely. That’s the NCAA’s choice.”

Gonzaga forward Kyle Wiltjer said, “I’m not concerned. I’m sure we’ll find some good food no matter what. We are so focused on this game right now. I can’t even think about that city yet.”

Dakarai Tucker, a guard/forward for Utah, said of the law, “I don’t think that’s right. That’s something that was dealt with a long time ago. I just don’t think that’s right at all. It’s a free country. Anybody has any right to go anywhere they want to. This is in Indianapolis? Yeah, I think it’s a concern.”​

The Final Four will be held at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis on April 4.

This article was selected for educational purposes only.

Jennifer M. Condaras 
Associate Commissioner
BIG EAST Conference

Daily Compliance Item- 3.26.15- 15.2.8.1.2.3- Summer School Aid

Clay Court is a full athletic scholarship men’s tennis student-athlete at Ocean State University (OSU).  Clay was also awarded an academic scholarship, so his athletic aid was reduced pursuant to NCAA financial aid limits.  His equivalency against team limits is now 75%. 
Clay is going to attend summer school and OSU would like to provide athletic aid to help with expenses.  Which of the following is a true statement?
A. Clay  may receive a 75% scholarship to attend summer school
B. Clay  may receive a full scholarship to attend summer school
C. Clay  may not receive any athletic aid to attend summer school
D.  None of the above
The answer is BNCAA Bylaw 15.2.8.1.2.3 states that if an institution provides a student-athlete with a full athletics grant during the academic year but is required to reduce the grant in accordance with Bylaw 15.1.4 (reduction when excess aid is awarded), the institution may provide the student-athlete full athletically related financial aid to attend the institution’s summer term.

Daily Compliance Item- 3.25.15- 14.4.3.4- Certification of Eligibility at the End of the Academic Year

Pop Fly is a softball student-athlete at Ocean State University (OSU).  Pop was eligible for competition for the fall 2014 semester but became ineligible for competition for the spring 2015 for not meeting the NCAA minimal GPA requirement.  The softball season extends beyond the last day of classes for OSU’s spring 2015 semester.  If at the conclusion of the spring semester Pop is meeting all NCAA progress toward degree requirements, can she be re-certified and compete for the remainder of the season?
Yes.  NCAA Official Interpretation- 5/14/04- Certification of Eligibility at the End of the Academic Year- states that a student-athlete who was eligible for competition at the beginning of the academic year, but became ineligible at midyear, (e.g., due to failure to meet the six-hour requirement) could be certified as eligible at the end of the academic year for competition in a season already in progress (e.g., outdoor track and field, baseball) provided the student-athlete meets all applicable progress-toward-degree requirements to be eligible for competition during the subsequent fall term.  [References:  NCAA Bylaws 14.1.10 (change in eligibility status) and 14.4 (progress-toward-degree requirements); and a 4/27/89 official interpretation, Item No. 10]

Daily Compliance Item- 3.20.15- Current Event

Teams that spend on recruiting make tourney, except Auburn

USAToday.com

Kansas spends more money recruiting men’s basketball players than any other public school in Division I, about $2.1 million over a recent five-year span. Louisville, at $2 million, and Kentucky, at just under $2 million, are right behind. That makes sense. Each is a name-brand powerhouse with national championships of recent vintage.

Auburn, the next biggest spender at about $1.6 million, is a bit of a surprise. The Tigers doubled their spending over five years without so much as making the NCAA tournament field.

“It was a bad return on investment,” Auburn athletics director Jay Jacobs told USA TODAY Sports. He said he authorized the increased spending — from $203,000 in 2008-09 to $465,000 in 2012-13, the most recent school year for which full numbers are available — at the behest of then-coach Tony Barbee, hired in 2010.

“It didn’t work out,” Jacobs said. “So I fired him.”

Recruiting is the lifeblood of college sports and a USA TODAY Sports analysis of 214 public schools found a correlation between schools that spend big on recruiting and schools that had success making the NCAA tournament from 2010 to 2014. (The one-year lag accounts for the time it takes for recruiting classes to enter school.)

Among the eight schools that made the tournament all five years, the average five-year spending was $1.2 million and the average annual spending was $231,000. Among the 33 schools that made the tournament three or more times, the average five-year spending was $912,000 and the average annual spending was $182,000. Among the 181 schools that made the tournament two times or fewer, the average five-year spending was $384,000 and the average annual spending was $77,000. And among the 144 schools that did not make the tournament in any of the five years, the average five-year spending was $325,000 and the annual average spending was $65,000.

But don’t use recruiting dollars as a guide to fill out your bracket. Once a team is in the tournament, recruiting expenses are a much less reliable predictor of how deep teams will advance. The spending of programs that reached the round of 16, the round of 8 and the Final Four over the five years shows little connection to spending, with as many thrifty programs as big spenders among the teams in those elite rounds year after year.

Certainly, many of the biggest spenders didn’t get far in the tournament at all. Among the top-25 recruiting spenders, seven didn’t win even one tournament game in the five seasons, 10 never reached the round of 16, 15 never reached the round of 8, and 19 didn’t reach the Final Four.

Two programs that reached Final Fours — Kansas and Louisville — spent more than $400,000 a year on average while two others —Wisconsin and Virginia Commonwealth — spent well below $100,000 a year on average. Everyone else is fairly evenly distributed in between.

Wisconsin gets a big bang for its recruiting buck. The Badgers, who enter this tournament as a No. 1 seed, spent $299,000 over the five-year span, with average annual spending at a bit under $60,000. Likewise San Diego State averaged below $55,000 — less than the five-year and annual averages of the 144 schools that did not make the tournament in any of the five years. The Badgers and Aztecs made it in all of them.

“I see a lot of other people’s money,” Wisconsin associate head coach Greg Gard said, “and I think it would be hard to spend that much money. You really have to try.”

Recruiting costs, by the NCAA’s definition, include transportation, lodging and meals for prospective student-athletes and institutional personnel on official and unofficial visits, as well as telephone call charges, postage and such. The costs also include the value of use of an institution’s own vehicles or airplanes as well as the in-kind value of loaned or contributed transportation.

Kansas’ recruiting spending is driven in part by the program’s use of private aircraft, mostly university-owned. For example, according to data published earlier this month by the Lawrence Journal-World, KU’s basketball program spent nearly $275,000 on private aircraft for recruiting during the 2013 fiscal year. That accounts for just more than half of the nearly $515,000 the school reported spending on men’s basketball recruiting that year.

“We trust Bill Self to know what he and his staff need to keep our men’s basketball program among the very elite programs in the nation,” Kansas athletics director Sheahon Zenger said Tuesday in a statement to USA TODAY Sports. “It would be difficult to overstate what Kansas basketball has meant to this athletics department, our university, the City of Lawrence and the state of Kansas.”

Jacobs said Auburn increased use of a university jet when Barbee was hired “so that our coaches could go wherever they felt they needed to go to sign the best players in the nation. … I wanted to take away every possible excuse. I wanted to give (Barbee) and his staff whatever it was they thought they needed to be successful here.

“It did not pay off for us, but it took the excuse off the table.”

The average five-year spending for all of the 214 public schools in the analysis was $465,000 with average annual spending of $93,000. Of the 49 public schools in the five power conferences, the average five-year spending total was $954,000, with annual average spending of $191,000.

Taken together, men’s basketball recruiting costs at Division I public schools were $22.7 million in 2012-13, up $5 million in five years. Some of the increased spending is due to higher costs of travel and some of it is likely due to an NCAA rule change that took effect in 2012 allowing schools to pay actual round-trip transportation costs for up to two of a prospective recruits’ parents or guardians on their official visits. That rule applies only to basketball recruiting.

Just 13 schools accounted for about half of the $5 million spending increase, including four that went up about $250,000 each. Kansas’ spending increased by 35% over five years, Louisville’s by 91% and Kentucky’s by 60%. Somehow Wisconsin gets by spending only 15% of what the top spenders do.

Schools in power conferences spending more on recruiting

Gard pointed out that Wisconsin concentrates its recruiting in the Midwest, which cuts down on national travel, or the need for university jets.

“I don’t think we have any secret potion,” Gard said. “We don’t go overboard when we travel and when we stay places.”

Auburn hopes its spending will bear fruit under the tenure of Bruce Pearl, who just finished his first season as coach with a surprising three-win run in the SEC tournament before falling to Kentucky. Jacobs said Pearl did not ask for any increase in the recruiting budget. Jacobs believes Pearl’s name and oversize personality mean he is a known quantity to recruits and their parents.

“From a recruiting standpoint,” Jacobs says, “that just pays dividends you can’t put a price tag on.”

Contributing: Nicole Auerbach, Christopher Schnaars and Kevin Trahan

This article was selected for educational purposes only.
Jennifer M. Condaras 
Associate Commissioner
BIG EAST Conference

Daily Compliance Item- 3.19.15- 11.6.1, 16.47- Student-Athletes Attending NCAA Tournament Games

The Ocean State Men’s Basketball team will be participating in the NCAA tournament on Friday.  They do not play until the evening session, so a few of the student-athletes would like to go watch some of the earlier games to see the teams they could play later on in the tournament.  Is this permissible?
 
Yes.  NCAA Staff Interpretation- 3/17/14-  Institution’s Team Observing Opponent’s Competition (I) – states that  it is not permissible for an institution to pay expenses for the institution’s team to scout a future opponent as entertainment in conjunction with practice or competition. However, it is permissible for an institution’s team to observe future opponents participating in the same event at the same site, even if there are expenses associated with the observation.
  [References: NCAA Bylaws 11.6.1 (off-campus, in-person scouting prohibition); 16.7 (entertainment in conjunction with practice or competition); and staff interpretation (09/27/13, Item No. e, which has been archived)]