Daily Compliance Item 5/12/14- 17.02.1.2, 17.02.12- Voluntary Meeting with Coach in the Summer

Bo Gee is a golf student-athlete at Ocean State University.  Bo had a bit of a rough season this spring and wants to make sure he is doing the right things over the summer to improve his game.  Bo asks the coach if he can set up a meeting with him one day this summer to discuss ways he can get better.

 

Is this permissible?

 

Yes with conditions.  NCAA Official Interpretation- 11/7/91-  Individual consultation with a coach initiated voluntarily by a student-athlete – states that  individual consultation with a coaching staff member initiated voluntarily by a student-athlete is not a countable athletically related activity, provided any discussion between the coach and the student-athlete is limited to general counseling activities and does not involve activities set forth in 17.02.12.1 (e.g., chalk talk; use of equipment relating to the sport; field, floor or on-court activity).

 

[References: 17.02.1.2-(j) (noncountable athletically related activities); 17.02.12.1 (activities considered as practice)]

Daily Compliance Item 5/2/14- Current Event

NCAA makes new bids to redefine or delay O’Bannon trial

USATODAY.com

 

Lawyers for the NCAA on Monday night made two more filings designed to redefine and/or delay the prospective trial in a lawsuit relating to the use of college athletes’ names and likenesses, as well as the association’s limits on what major-college football and men’s basketball players can receive for playing sports.

 

The NCAA seeks to ask U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken to reconsider part of her ruling April 11 on the sides’ respective requests for summary judgment – or, rulings in their favor without trial.

 

The association also is requesting that Wilken allow it to ask the 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals to review another aspect of her summary judgment decision. Because Wilken did not issue a ruling that ended the case, the ruling cannot be appealed without her permission.

 

Monday night’s moves mean the NCAA now has four pending motions that could alter the complexion or timing of the case brought on behalf of a group of former college athletes headed by UCLA basketball player Ed O’Bannon. At present, a trial is scheduled to begin June 9 in Wilken’s court in Oakland.

 

This past Friday, though, the NCAA filed two other motions in the case. It made an appeal with the 9th Circuit that seeks to dismantle the case’s status as a class action. It also asked Wilken to either separate claims relating to video games from the rest of the case or delay the trial until a proposed settlement of those claims is finalized or the Supreme Court decides whether to take up and resolve issues related to video games that presumably were going to be rendered moot by the settlement.

 

In addition to the prospect of Wilken delaying the case, if the 9th Circuit allows the NCAA to pursue either of its potential appeals, there is little chance that the trial will open as scheduled.

“If you were at the point (the NCAA is) in this kind of case, it’s automatic” that these types of motions get filed, said Steve Williams, an attorney who handles anti-trust and complex civil litigation for the Bay Area-based firm Cotchett, Pitre and McCarthy and has appeared before Wilken but is not involved in this case. “You do anything you can to slow it down.”

 

With regard to Monday night’s filing that asks for Wilken permission to approach the 9th Circuit, Williams said, “The NCAA is saying to the judge, ‘With all respect, reasonable minds can differ, reasonable judges can differ. Shouldn’t we let the appeals court take a look at it?”.”

 

However, Williams said he believes Wilken “will not be inclined to grant” the NCAA the permission it needs and that “the odds of (the 9th Circuit allowing the NCAA to bring forward its appeals at this point) are very slim as well.”

 

Wilken has determined that the plaintiffs can seek, on a class basis, an injunction that would prohibit the NCAA from limiting Bowl Subdivision football players and Division I men’s basketball players to scholarships under which they basically can receive only tuition, mandatory fees, room, board and books. An injunction could allow football and men’s basketball players to be compensated for the use of their names, images and likenesses in ways such as merchandising and live television broadcasts.

 

In Monday’s filing, the NCAA reiterated its position that athletes cannot claim a right to market the use of their names, images and likenesses in live TV broadcasts because some state laws expressly say that athletes have no such rights and because the First Amendment bars such claims, since major-college football and men’s basketball games are matters of great public interest and not commercial speech.

 

In her summary judgment ruling, Wilken, citing her interpretation of two previous cases, wrote that the First Amendment “does not guarantee media organizations an unlimited right to broadcast entire college football and basketball games.”

 

She added that question of whether college athletes “hold any ownership rights in their athletic performances does not depend on the scope of broadcasters’ First Amendment rights but, rather, on whether the student-athletes themselves validly transferred their rights of publicity to another party. Because the current record does not demonstrate that all Division I student-athletes validly transferred all of these rights, the First Amendment does not preclude student-athletes from asserting rights of publicity in live broadcasts or re-broadcasts of entire games.”

 

Under federal court rules, this type of decision normally cannot be appealed because it is not bringing a case to an end. But a district judge can give permission for such an effort if the judge decides the issue involves a legal question for “which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion and … an immediate appeal … may materially advance” the case’s resolution.

 

The NCAA argued Monday that is precisely the case here “because (Wilken’s ruling on this question) determines whether the bulk of plaintiffs’ claims are viable at all” and because Wilken’s ruling on the First Amendment issue “is unprecedented, and it departs from decades of First Amendment jurisprudence.”

Even if Wilken gives the NCAA permission for the appeal, the 9th Circuit will not be required to take up the matter.

 

As for the issue that the NCAA would like Wilken to reconsider, it involves one of the justifications the NCAA has offered for its limits on what athletes can receive for playing sports. In this instance, the NCAA can have such limits unless the limits’ harm to football and men’s basketball players who might otherwise enjoy greater benefits from schools’ competition for them is found to outweigh the positive effect that the limits have on college sports.

The NCAA had offered five justifications for its compensation limits, but in her summary judgment ruling, Wilken wrote that the NCAA cannot say during the trial that the limits enable schools to provide increased financial support for women’s sports and less prominent men’s sports. She said the NCAA cannot limit competition in the markets for football and men’s basketball players in order to promote competition the markets for women’s sports of less prominent men’s sports.

 

She also said “the NCAA could mandate that Division I schools and conferences redirect a greater portion of the … revenue generated by football and basketball to these other sports” and the NCAA “has not explained why it could not adopt more stringent revenue-sharing rules” regarding money generated by the Division I men’s basketball tournament.

 

In seeking Wilken’s reconsideration of this, the NCAA argues that Wilken “wrong under controlling law” to hold the NCAA responsible for showing that alternatives exist; that obligation, it argues, was the plaintiffs’ — and they didn’t meet it. The NCAA also argues that the markets for football and men’s basketball players cannot be considered as distinct from the markets for women’s sports and other men’s sports because federal laws requiring gender equity in college athletics programs bar schools from viewing football and men’s basketball “as categorically distinct from other intercollegiate athletic opportunities.”

 

The NCAA’s chief legal officer, Donald Remy, said in a statement Monday night: “This issue is critical to fostering equity and opportunity in college sports. We support all student-athletes, regardless of whether their sport brings in revenue, and we believe that the current model provides opportunities for many young women and men to access higher education and earn a college degree.”

 

This article was selected for educational purposes only.

Daily Compliance Item 5/1/14- 11.7.1.1.1- Temporary Replacement

A men’s basketball assistant coach at Ocean State University (OSU) left last week to become a head coach at another institution.  OSU does not want to fall behind in recruiting, so the head coach would like to elevate the Director of Basketball Operations to a countable coach until they hire a replacement.  The Director of Basketball Operations has taken and passed the coaches’ exam.  Is this permissible?

 

Yes.  NCAA Staff Interpretation- Staff Interpretation- 4/26/13-  Noncountable Coaches and Noncoaching Staff Members Serving as Countable Coaches (I) – states that an institution may temporarily employ and compensate a noncountable coach (e.g., volunteer coach) or noncoaching staff member as a countable coach if the regular countable coach has left the program, provided the institution does not exceed the total number of countable coaches for the sport. Further, the noncountable coach or noncoaching staff member may return to his or her original position once a permanent countable coach is employed by the institution.

 

[References: NCAA Division I Bylaws 11.01.3 (coach, graduate assistant — bowl subdivision football and women’s rowing); 11.01.5 (coach, volunteer); 11.5.1 (annual certification requirement); 11.7.1.1.1.1 (noncoaching activities); 11.7.1.1.1.1.1 (exception — noncoaching staff member with sport specific responsibilities) and official interpretation (02/19/87, Item No. 17) which has been archived]

Daily Compliance Item 4/30/14- 13.1.6.2- Tour During Camp

Corner Blitz is a junior football prospect that is interested in enrolling at Ocean State University (OSU) for the fall 2015 term.  Corner has not yet had an opportunity to visit campus and has only had limited conversations with the coaching staff.  Corner is going to attend one of OSU’s football camps this summer and would really like to spend some time during the camp speaking with the coaching staff and getting a tour of the whole campus. Is this permissible?

 

No.  NCAA Official Interpretation- 12/5/13- Contact Restrictions Prior to Camps or Clinics (I) – states that  for purposes of contact restrictions on the day or days of a prospective student-athlete’s competition, a noninstitutional, private camp or clinic is considered an athletics competition or athletics event and an institutional camp or clinic is not considered an athletics competition or event. Therefore, in sports other than basketball, a coaching staff member may make recruiting contacts during a permissible contact period with a prospective student-athlete participating in a noninstitutional, private camp or clinic only after the completion of activities on the final day of the camp or clinic. Conversely, official or unofficial visits may occur on an institution’s campus on the day of an institutional camp or clinic before the camp or clinic begins.

 

[References: NCAA Division I Bylaws 13.1.6.2 (practice or competition site) and 13.1.6.2.1 (additional restrictions- basketball); official interpretation (4/19/13, Item No. 1); and staff interpretation (03/25/13, Item No. a), which have been archived]

Daily Compliance Item 4/29/14- 15.5.1.9.1- Initial Summer Aid- Football

Grid Iron is a football student-athlete who will be initially enrolling full-time at Ocean State University (OSU) this fall.  He wants to get a few general requirements out of the way, so Grid has enrolled in a few summer courses at OSU.  Grid will receive an athletic scholarship this summer to cover all of  Grid’s expenses.  Since Grid is receiving athletic aid to attend a summer session, will he be an initial and/or overall counter during the 2014-15 academic year?

 

Yes for both limits.  NCAA Bylaw 15.5.1.9.1 states that in football, a prospective student-athlete who receives athletically related financial aid during a summer term prior to initial full-time enrollment at the certifying institution shall be an initial and overall counter for the ensuing academic year.  (See Bylaws 15.02.3 and 15.5.6.) (Adopted: 1/14/12)

 

If Grid is deemed a non-qualifier or decides not to enroll at OSU after the summer session, will he still be an initial and/or overall counter for the 2014-15 academic year?

 

Yes. Prospective student-athlete who receives athletically related financial aid during a summer term is an initial and overall counter for the next academic year.  This parameter applies even if the prospective student-athlete is a non-qualifier or does not enroll.

 

Daily Compliance Item 4/28/14-11.01.3- Summer Access

The football coaches at Ocean State University are finalizing the student-athletes’ schedules for summer activities.  The coaches would like to have the graduate assistant coaches help out with this summer schedule.  Is this permissible?

 

Yes with conditions.  NCAA Staff Interpretation- 4/25/14- Undergraduate Student Assistant Coach, Manager or Football Graduate Assistant Serving During Required Summer Athletic Activities (I) – states that , in basketball and football, an undergraduate student assistant coach or manager may fulfill coaching or managerial duties, respectively, during required summer athletic activities, provided he or she was enrolled full-time at the conclusion of the regular academic term (e.g., spring semester or quarter) immediately preceding the institution’s summer term or terms or has been accepted for enrollment as a regular full-time student for the regular academic term immediately following the summer term or terms.

 

In addition, in football, a graduate assistant coach may fulfill coaching duties during required summer athletic activities, provided he or she was enrolled in at least 50 percent of the institution’s minimum regular graduate program of studies at the conclusion of the regular academic term (e.g., spring semester or quarter) immediately preceding the institution’s summer term or terms or has been accepted for enrollment in a graduate program for the regular academic term immediately following the summer term or terms. If the football graduate assistant coach is in his or her final semester or quarter of the degree program during the regular academic term (e.g., spring semester or quarter) immediately preceding the institution’s summer term or terms, he or she may be enrolled in less than 50 percent of the institution’s minimum regular program at the conclusion of the regular academic term, provided he or she is carrying for credit the courses necessary to complete the degree requirements.

 

[References: NCAA Division I Bylaws 11.01.3 (coach, graduate assistant — bowl subdivision football and women’s rowing), 11.01.4 (coach, undergraduate student assistant), 11.01.6 (manager), 13.2.3.3 (after completion of senior year), 13.2.3.3.1 (two-year college prospective student-athletes), 17.1.6.2.1.5.1 (basketball), 17.1.6.2.1.5.2 (football), 17.1.6.2.1.5.3 (exception to summer school enrollment — academic requirements – basketball and football) and a staff determination (6/27/13, Item No. a) which has been archived]

Daily Compliance Item 4/25/14- 17.1.6.2- Final Exams

The Field Hockey coaches at Ocean State University are finalizing their conditioning and skill instruction  schedules for the remainder of the spring semester.  If none of the student-athletes have final exams on tuesday of exam week, is it permissible to conduct skill instruction sessions on that day?

 

No.  NCAA Bylaw 17.1.6.2 states that in

(a) Sports Other Than Football. Outside of the playing season, from the institution’s first day of classes of the academic year or September 15, whichever occurs earlier, to one week prior to the beginning of the institution’s final examination period at the conclusion of the academic year, only a student-athlete’s participation in required weight training, conditioning and skill-related instruction shall be permitted.  A student-athlete’s participation in such activities per Bylaw 17.02.1 shall be limited to a maximum of eight hours per week with not more than two hours per week spent on skill-related workouts.  All countable related activities outside the playing season are prohibited one week prior to the beginning of the final examination period for the applicable academic term through the conclusion of each student-athlete’s final exams.  (Revised:  4/27/06 effective 8/1/06, 9/22/06)

 

(b) Bowl Subdivision Football.  [FBS]  Activities between the institution’s last contest and January 1 are limited to required weight training, conditioning and the review of game film.  A student-athlete’s participation in such activities shall be limited to a maximum of eight hours per week, of which not more than two hours per week may be spent on the viewing of film.  All activities beginning January 1 and outside the playing season shall be conducted pursuant to Bylaw 17.9.6.  (Revised:  12/15/06)

 

(c) Championship Subdivision Football.  [FCS]  Activities between the institution’s last contest and the start of summer conditioning are limited to required weight training, conditioning and the review of game film.  A student-athlete’s participation in such activities shall be limited to a maximum of eight hours per week, of which not more than two hours per week may be spent on the viewing of film.  All activities beginning with the start of summer conditioning and outside the playing season shall be conducted pursuant to Bylaws 17.9.6.2 and 17.9.6.4.  (Revised:  12/15/06)

Daily Compliance Item- 4/24/14- Current Event

Autonomy defined! NCAA board’s agenda for change this week

CBSSports.com

 

The agenda for the NCAA board of directors meeting has surfaced with a bit more detail on autonomy.

 

Gleaned from the 82-page document is a snapshot of what power the Big Five conferences will have and how they conceivably can use it. Restructuring, now, has become sort of a race to beat multiple lawsuits against the NCAA to court and also to defuse the unionization movement.

 

While all these principles, proposals and ideas were in place before Kain Colter spoke up, it is interesting to note: Thursday’s board meeting in Indianapolis comes a day before the Northwestern players will vote on whether to unionize.

 

I’ve tried to edit this down. Wow, can these people run off at the keyboard! Example: The term “student-athlete” appears in the document 131 times. Best news: Most or all of these changes should be ready to implement by August.

 

We start with a definition of autonomy from the document itself. At intervals, I will add follow-up comments …

 

The 65 member institutions of five conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, SEC), along with all other Division I members, envision an effective intercollegiate athletics system that fully meets the needs and expectations of student-athletes in the 21st century.

The 65 member institutions are committed to meeting the needs of student-athletes based on increased resources, and they desire to provide student-athletes with enhanced benefits such as full cost of attendance, lifelong learning and additional health and nutritional benefits. In addition, they desire to support student-athletes who are considering careers as professional athletes by providing more opportunities for that decision-making process to occur in a fair and fully informed manner.

 

These institutions are further challenged in addressing these needs by an increasingly litigious environment and confused public sentiment. They face the most public comment and criticism of all Division I institutions and conferences, often from advocates for pay-for-play or a professional athletics system for colleges and universities.

 

Comment: It’s significant that the NCAA in this document admits to an “increasingly litigious environment” and says there is “confused public sentiment.”

Guiding principles for autonomy

1. Engage and empower institutions and practitioners in a fully transparent decision-making process.

 

2. Engage and empower student-athletes by giving them both a voice and vote within a transparent decision-making process.

 

3. Ensure that regulatory change in these areas enjoys broad support among the 65-member institutions of these conferences.

The Steering Committee (made up of parts of the board) believes that the proposed autonomy system effectively addresses these principles, and is well-aligned with the student-athlete centered spirit reflected in the NCAA core ideology and revised Division I governance model.

Areas of autonomy for the Big Five conferences

The Steering Committee recommends that autonomous decision-making be granted to the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12 and the SEC, and their 65 member institutions.

• Permissive legislation — Designed to allow permissive use of resources by any member to advance the legitimate educational or athletics-related needs of student-athletes. Under this proposed governance model, permissive legislation that is developed and adopted among these institutions and conferences may also be adopted by the rest of Division I at each institution’s respective discretion, or as determined by its conference.

 

Comment: “Permissive” is a key code word here. NCAA officials have chosen it instead of “optional.” If Idaho can’t afford the full cost of attendance, then that’s fine. A lot of this legislation will be optional. The thinking being, that if Idaho (just an example) can’t afford a $6,000 cost of attendance bump like Ohio State, that’s OK. That doesn’t affect how they compete on the field.

• Actionable legislation — Adopted and applied to the 65-member institutions to modify specified rules in a manner that enhances the student-athlete experience, or decreases athletics time demands or other burdens of student-athletes. These legislative changes that address student-athlete interests or experience will apply only to the five conferences and their 65-member institutions, although Division I members generally would be free to address the same or similar issues through legislation considered by the new Council …

Comment: One of key issues the Big Five commissioners want addressed is time spent by athletes on their sport. The NCAA limits 20 hours per week. However, that regional National Labor Relations Board official used as his foundation for granting a union vote the conclusion that athletes spend 40-50 hours per week on their sport.

Amazingly, few have disputed that fact. Be assured those hours are going to be cut. The commissioners will see to it. No specifics yet but I’m thinking that some of those voluntary offseason workouts will pretty much be eliminated.

Financial Aid

Under the proposed system, the five conferences and their 65 member institutions will have the flexibility to revise the financial aid rules to increase the aid available to student-athletes in a way that is consistent with basic principles of amateurism and the collegiate model. The conferences will be granted flexibility to increase the maximum grant-in-aid (up to an amount commensurate with the full cost of attendance), as well as the ability to provide scholarships that will allow former student-athletes to complete their undergraduate education in appropriate circumstances.

Comment: This is the biggie. Referenced above, the cost of attendance is the difference between the financial aid package (room, books, board, tuition) and what it actually costs to live in a given college town. Southern California athletes will get more than those in Troy, Ala., because of the cost of living. That’s OK because, once again, it doesn’t affect them on the field.

Expenses and Benefits

The Steering Committee believes that the five conferences and their 65-member institutions are committed, in a manner consistent with the basic principles of amateurism and the collegiate model, to enhancing the support provided to student-athletes to meet legitimate needs. The proposed model grants autonomy to these institutions over rules such as awards and benefits, and those that have a direct impact on expenses incurred by a student-athlete and his/her family and friends that are associated with the competitive experience. Examples include, but are not limited to, expenses for receipt of awards, complimentary admissions, postseason travel for friends and family, expenses incidental to practice (e.g., parking), and other expenses in conjunction with practice and competition.

 

Comment: This one’s real easy. A player’s family (the scope of which is to be defined later) will be able to attend the NCAA Tournament, Final Four and bowl games. The Big Five will develop legislation to foot the bill. Seems like a no-brainer.

Expenses and Benefits (Pre-Enrollment Support)

 

In the proposed model, the five conferences and their 65 member institutions also would be granted autonomy over regulations addressing expenses and benefits provided prior to enrollment. These rules directly impact student-athlete welfare by permitting assistance to families who would like to visit universities, and who incur other legitimate expenses in connection with the recruiting process. Benefits in this area have the potential to ease a student-athlete’s transition to college (e.g., medical expenses and academic support the summer prior to enrollment, transportation to enroll). Funding such pre-enrollment expenses would provide important support for student-athletes as they evaluate colleges and transition to the college environment.

 

Comment: In other words, schools will be able to pay for two parents (at least) to accompany a recruit on an official visit.

Insurance and Career Transition

The potential future professional athletics opportunities available to some student-athletes, who are disproportionately enrolled at the five conference’s 65 member institutions, provide the basis for granting autonomy in rules permitting student-athletes flexibility in securing loans to purchase career-related insurance products (e.g., loss-of-value insurance), or to permit institutions to provide these insurance-related expenses for student-athletes …

In the area of career transition, the five conferences and their 65 member institutions would be granted autonomy to redefine rules governing agents and advisors so that more assistance could be provided to student-athletes with career planning and decision-making.

Comment: Yep, you read that right. The Big Five will have the power to “redefine” what it means to interact with an agent. I talked to SEC commissioner Mike Slive about this earlier this month. He was the one who first put the idea out there. Slive is still not sure about the details but, to me, everything is on the table.

• Players could sign with agents and — as long as no money changed hands while in school — said agent could begin negotiating shoe and apparel deals for the future.

• At the very least, agents will be able to offer their professional expertise for those considering a professional draft. Currently, football players can receive a draft “evaluation” from a group of experts. That draft range sometimes isn’t very precise.

• The language here at least gives hope to wiping the scourge of agent runners on campus.

Career Pursuits

In order to fully support student-athletes and their aspirations, the five conferences and their 65 member institutions would be granted autonomy to make changes to rules that hinder a student-athlete’s career pursuits unrelated to athletics (e.g., restrictions on a student-athlete promoting his or her musical career). Again, it is believed that these modifications can be made without violating basic principles of amateurism and the collegiate model.

 

Comment: This is common sense. A couple of years ago, a Minnesota wrestler gave up his eligibility because he refused to change his given name on tunes he had posted on YouTube.

Really. He would have been eligible if he called himself “MC Funky Gopher” instead of the name on his scholarship. That’s silly. Let a kid develop his skills or interests outside of his sport.

Time Demands

Given the visibility and demands associated with meeting expectations existing for highly-competitive intercollegiate athletics programs, the five conferences and their 65 member institutions would be granted autonomy to update rules and policies governing time demands in order to permit a more appropriate balance between athletics and other student-athlete activities. This updated approach is intended to reconstruct the time boundaries associated with student-athletes’ commitment to intercollegiate athletics. In addition, design and implementation of “athletic dead periods” for student-athletes would be intended to foster their participation in educational opportunities outside of intercollegiate athletics.

Comment: Wait, you mean players could go to the local art museum instead of get together for “voluntary” 7-on-7? Get outta here.

Eligibility

The five conferences and their 65 member institutions have not specifically requested academic eligibility requirements as an area for autonomous decision making, and are committed to the Division I shared governance rules in this area. However, attention associated with transfers falls disproportionately to the five conferences and their 65 member institutions, which under the new system would be granted autonomy to modify transfer policies that would provide appropriate flexibility for unique circumstances to address the best interests of student-athletes. Any changes to transfer policy will only be within the five conferences and their 65 member institutions and will not affect other schools and conferences without their approval.

 

Comment: Anything that takes away the byzantine NCAA rules makes sense. Mark Emmert admitted Friday on ESPN that some athletes choose their school based on what kind of offense a coach runs. That kind of admission is a start. If a coach leaves for another job, why can’t an athlete have more freedom to transfer?

Recruiting

The five conferences and their 65 member institutions would be granted autonomy to revise and establish rules as necessary to address concerns related to the infringement of recruiting activities on prospective student-athletes’ academic preparation.

Personnel

Numerous issues, including proliferation of non-coaching personnel, varying titles associated with certain coaching positions, and the breadth of approach to personnel issues present in Division I, combine to establish the need for the five conferences and their 65 member institutions to be granted autonomy to both revise existing personnel definitions and limits, and to establish policies intended to meet the support needs of teams while properly structuring the number of personnel directly or indirectly associated with each sport in a manner consistent with the need for competitive balance.

 

Comment: One coach last season called them “polo shirts,” the seemingly endless number of support staff on the Alabama sideline. This language seeks to address that issue.

Football is allowed only nine assistants and various support staff. We know in this modern world that some high-end programs employ what they call “analysts” who do nothing but break down film of recruits, then pass it up the chain to an assistant for further evaluation.

 

Too much? We’ll see.

Autonomy Voting Process

Autonomy Defined: Autonomy allocated to the five conferences … shall mean [they] are afforded independent decision-making authority through a process intended to ensure institutional participation, which results in final decisions on specified matters …

Vision: Inherent in the autonomy system is a vision and commitment to define the full grant-in-aid as meeting a student-athlete’s full cost of attendance, and the provision of a lifetime opportunity to fund the undergraduate education of current and former student-athletes. The ability to provide these student-athlete benefits shall be identified within an initial Agenda for Change and shall be addressed during the first business session of the five conferences and their 65 member institutions in 2015.

 

Enfranchised Decision-Making: The five conferences’ decision-making process is intended to improve relationships between and among their 65 member institutions and student-athletes who have spoken clearly about their feelings of disenfranchisement within the current regulatory model. In that regard, student-athletes will participate with an independent vote and voice at all levels …

There shall be 80 total votes (65 institutional and 15 student-athlete) … Two/thirds of the group of 80 and four-out-of-five conference approval by simple majority within conferences.

Business Session: A Five-Conference Business Session shall be conducted at least annually. Each of the 65-member institutions shall appoint representatives to attend and participate in the business session.

Division I Board and Council

Five-Conference Forum: A Five-Conference Forum shall be conducted annually prior to the business session. The Five-Conference Forum shall be a town hall meeting open to each member institution’s president or chancellor, faculty athletics representative, athletics director, senior woman administrator and student-athlete representatives. Commissioners and staff from five conference offices also shall participate in the forum, along with other invited participants, which shall include coaches.

The forum agenda shall include:

• Autonomous issues, including proposed changes;

• Shared governance issues;

• Current topics in intercollegiate athletics; and

• Other items deemed appropriate.

Override: Decisions made through the autonomy system shall be final and not subject to override

Comment: Will the media be invited to this town hall meeting?

…. The Steering Committee agreed that the process to expand the autonomy categories must be transparent and robust.

Comment: Sounds like a yes.

 

This article was selected for educational purposes only.

Daily Compliance Item 4/23/14- 14.1.10- Regaining Eligibility

Curve Ball is a softball student-athlete at Ocean State University (OSU).  Curve was eligible at the start of the 2013-14 academic year but became ineligible for the spring 2014 semester because her GPA fell below the minimum requirement.  The softball team will still be competing after the conclusion of the spring semester.  Can Curve begin participating in competition once the spring semester is over if she meets all NCAA progress toward degree requirements?

 

Yes with conditions.  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 4/23/14- 14.1.10- Regaining Eligibility

Curve Ball is a softball student-athlete at Ocean State University (OSU).  Curve was eligible at the start of the 2013-14 academic year but became ineligible for the spring 2014 semester because her GPA fell below the minimum requirement.  The softball team will still be competing after the conclusion of the spring semester.  Can Curve begin participating in competition once the spring semester is over if she meets all NCAA progress toward degree requirements?

 

Yes with conditions.  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]