|The Ocean State University (OSU) men’s soccer student-athletes reported to campus to begin their preseason on the evening of August 1st and started practice activities on August 2nd. On August 4th, the compliance director discovered a miscalculation with the preseason start date. The team should not have conducted its first practice until August 5th. Because the student-athletes received expenses prior to the first permissible date, does OSU have to request reinstatement from the NCAA.
No. NCAA Bylaw 220.127.116.11 states that a violation of Bylaw 16.5.2-(b) due to a miscalculation of the permissible start date for preseason practice shall be considered an institutional violation per Constitution 2.8.1; however, the student-athlete’s eligibility shall not be affected.
|Included below is a recent statement from the NCAA regarding the application of Division I Proposal 2013-31-B.
Now is the time to establish and share best practices for applying this permissive legislation on your campus!
Application of NCAA Division I Proposal No. 2013-31-B
|PLEASE NOTE: This week begins the summer DCI schedule, so over the next couple of months there will only be one or two items a week or when timely information presents itself. Daily service will resume in August.
Ocean State University has two incoming basketball student-athletes that will be enrolling in summer school on June 1st.
Yes with the approval of the blanket waiver by the Division I Legislative Counciul Subcommittee for Legislative Relief.
The NCAA Division I Legislative Council Subcommittee for Legislative Relief approved a blanket waiver to allow incoming student-athletes whom, per NCAA Bylaw 13.02.12, are no longer considered prospective student-athletes as a result of attending classes during the summer term to participate in a high school or two-year college all-star contest. In issuing this waiver, the subcommittee noted the celebratory nature of all-star contests as a culmination of a high school or two-year college athletics career. Additionally, the subcommittee noted the minimal competitive advantage gained as a result of participation in a high school or two-year college all-star contest. Given the timing of these all-star events, incoming student-athletes would potentially be otherwise required to forego the opportunity to participate in an all-star contest or delay summer school enrollment in order to participate in the event.
See Case No. 675651 in Requests/Self-Reports Online (RSRO) via the search tab.
NCAA asks that O’Bannon trial be moved to February 2015
The NCAA on Tuesday asked that the impending trial of an anti-trust case relating to the use of college athletes’ names and likenesses and the association’s limits on what major-college football and men’s basketball players can receive for playing sports be delayed until February 2015, when it can be tried at same time as a related case concerning use of college sports themed video games.
However, its request to U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken is largely based on a legal argument that Wilken seemed to reject during a hearing last Thursday.
It is unclear whether the NCAA’s latest argument will be enough to persuade Wilken to change her mind and delay the anti-trust trial from in its scheduled start date of June 9. Indeed, earlier Tuesday, lawyers for the anti-trust plaintiffs filed a proposed pre-trial schedule built around a June 9 trial date. In doing so, they wrote that they had discussed the proposed schedule with the NCAA’s attorneys and: “The NCAA does not object to the schedule proposed … while reserving all rights and objections to the scheduled June 9 trial.”
The NCAA’s expression of those objections revolves around what the association argues are overlapping issues between the anti-trust case, in which the lead plaintiff is former UCLA basketball player Ed O’Bannon, and the video-game case, in which the lead plaintiff is former Arizona State and Nebraska football player Sam Keller.
Although currently joined with the O’Bannon case, the Keller case – as a practical matter – is a separate proceeding. The Keller case involves a different legal theory: personalities’ right to control the use of their names, images and likenesses, also known as the right of publicity. It also is focused almost entirely on video games, while the O’Bannon case involves video games and an array of other ways in which athletes’ names and likenesses are used in college sports marketing, merchandising and broadcasting.
Most critically for the purpose of Tuesday’s filing, the Keller case involves a monetary damages claim and would involve a jury while the O’Bannon case has been narrowed to a bid for an injunction that will be decided Wilken. The NCAA is arguing that elements of the O’Bannon case related to video games will have to be heard by the jury in the Keller case, so a ruling that Wilken makes in the O’Bannon case could affect how a jury rules in Keller case. That, claims the NCAA, would result in a violation of its Seventh Amendment right to an un-encumbered jury hearing of its case.
The NCAA is pursuing this line of argument so vigorously that its Tuesday filing did not even address its prior request that Wilken either sever all evidence and claims related to video games from the O’Bannon case or delay it.
Tuesday, the NCAA wrote, in part, “even severance of the videogame claims will be insufficient to avoid Seventh Amendment violations.”
But, according to a transcript of last Thursday’s hearing – which occurred without arguments as detailed as those in the NCAA’s filing Tuesday – Wilken said in response to NCAA lawyer Glenn Pomerantz: “Well, here’s the thing. I just don’t see a Seventh Amendment issue here. … In terms of a separate case, just because there happens to be some overlap in issues, that just doesn’t raise the Seventh Amendment in any way.”
This article was selected for educational purposes only.
|Some of the coaches at Ocean State University would like their student-athletes to work with a sports psychologist during their out-of-season segment. Is this permissible?
Yes with conditions. NCAA Staff Interpretation- 5/15/14- Meeting with a Sports Psychologist Outside the Playing Season (I) – states that an institution may require a student-athlete to meet with a sports psychologist as a permissible out-of-season conditioning activity, provided the time engaged in the sessions are included in the maximum limit of eight hours per week for countable athletically related activities outside the playing season.
In addition, in bowl subdivision football, the sports psychologist would not have to count as one of the five strength and conditioning coaches permitted to work with the football program in any capacity.
[References: NCAA Division I Bylaws 18.104.22.168.1 (countable coach); 22.214.171.124.1.1 (noncoaching activities); 126.96.36.199.1.4 (use of outside consultants); 188.8.131.52.1 (weight or strength coach); 17.02.1 (countable related activities); 184.108.40.206 (weekly hour limitations — outside the playing season); and a staff interpretation (7/2/03, Item No. 1a)]
|Ree Bound is a basketball student-athlete at Ocean State University (OSU). Ree competed for OSU during the fall 2013 semester but became academically ineligible for the spring 2014 semester. OSU is participating in a foreign tour this summer. Even though Ree was not eligible during the spring semester, could he be eligible to compete in the summer foreign tour?
Yes. NCAA Staff Interpretation- 5/15/14- Eligibility for Foreign Tour If Ineligible During a Term of the Previous Academic Year (I) – states that a student-athlete who is eligible for any term during the previous academic year at the certifying institution would be eligible to compete in the institution’s foreign tour taken during the summer immediately following that same academic year. For example, if a student-athlete is eligible in the fall term at the certifying institution, but not eligible in the spring term of the same academic year, the student-athlete would be eligible to compete in the institution’s summer foreign tour taken during the summer after the conclusion of the preceding academic year.
[References: NCAA Division I Bylaws 14.5.1 (residence requirement — general principle); 220.127.116.11 (eligibility of student-athletes) and a staff interpretation (4/2/08 Item No. a) that has been archived]