ARS

The subcommittee adopted the following amended information standards regarding requests to replace a graduate assistant coach in the sport of football: (1) the institution must include objective documentation from the admissions office or dean of the graduate program that the prospective graduate assistant coach has been admitted or will be admitted at the next earliest admission date; and (2) documentation should be included outlining the circumstances that caused the previous graduate assistant coach to leave prior to the conclusion of his or her natural term. (October 2002)

The subcommittee approved information standards for institutions requesting to waive the local sports-club legislation. If an institution is seeking a waiver on behalf of a prospective student-athlete to allow participation in local sports clubs beyond the permissible 50-mile limitation, the following information must be submitted: (1) documentation of other opportunities (if any) for clubs that exist within the 50-mile radius, or (2) other opportunities outside the 50-mile radius without institutional involvement. If there are other club opportunities available to the prospective student-athlete within the 50-mile radius, the request will be denied unless extenuating circumstances are presented. If an institution is seeking a waiver on behalf of one of its coaches to participate in a local sports club that does not meet the legislation, the following information must be submitted: (1) documentation of the extenuating circumstances that caused the waiver to be submitted and (2) an indication of the time frame of the coach's continued involvement with the club team. If the institution is seeking a waiver to permit the coach to continue with a club indefinitely or for a substantial amount of time, the request will be denied. Lastly, in all local sports-club requests, the subcommittee will require documentation from the institution indicating whether the institution is recruiting the involved prospect and whether it is willing to abstain from recruiting the prospective student-athlete if the waiver is granted. (October 2002)

Division I Waivers of the Start of the Five-Year/10-Semester Period of Eligibility and Use of a Semester.

The staff provided the Division I subcommittee with an overview of cases processed involving the start of the five-year period of eligibility and indicated several instances when institutions have gone to student-athlete reinstatement requesting an extension and then to the Administrative Review Subcommittee to waive the start of the five-year clock. The Division I subcommittee determined that it would no longer review waivers of Bylaw 14.2.1, five-year rule. (October 2000)

In October and December 2000, the Divisions II and III Administrative Review Subcommittees and the Divisions II and III Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committees (SAR) reviewed cases involving institutions seeking to waive the utilization of a semester/quarter of enrollment. Specifically, the Administrative Review Subcommittees and Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committees determined that if a student-athlete had not been credited with the use of a semester by the institution, then ARS would be the appropriate avenue for an appeal. The subcommittees adopted the following guidelines to be used to determine if the request should be processed by ARS or as an extension per Bylaw 30.6.1. If the student-athlete's situation falls within both of the criteria, then ARS is the appropriate avenue of relief.

The subcommittee recommends that the director or ARS coordinator determine whether ARS or an extension request is the appropriate avenue for relief. Further, for cases where ARS is determined to be the appropriate authority, the subcommittees recommend the following information standards.

Minimum Amount of Competition/Season of Competition Waivers for Eligible Competition

a. Division I. Requests that involve competition occurring prior to August 1, 2002 forward to ARS (on or after August 1, 2002 forward request to SAR).

The subcommittee supported and referred to the Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee that the seasons-of-competition legislation be amended to indicate that the first three circumstances outlined in the seasons-of-competition waiver (injury/illness to an immediate family member, financial hardship and dropped sport) not require the competition to occur at an NCAA institution. This legislative recommendation would be consistent with the policy recommendation approved by the subcommittee this past August. (January 2004)

Please see Bylaw 14.2.6 regarding the legislative requirements for these waiver requests.

b. Divisions II and III. Requests that involve competition occurring prior to August 1, 2003 may be submitted to ARS (on or after August 1, 2003 forward request to SAR).

The subcommittee supported and referred to the Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee that the seasons-of-competition-while-eligible waiver be amended to indicate that the first three circumstances outlined in the waiver (injury/illness to an immediate family member, financial hardship and dropped sport) not require the competition to occur at an NCAA institution. This legislative recommendation would be consistent with the policy recommendation approved by the subcommittee this past August. (January 2004)

Please see Bylaw 14.2.7 regarding the legislative requirements for these waiver requests.

a. Bylaws 14.2.3.2 (tennis rule) and 14.2.3.5 (participation after 21st birthday). At the October 2000 meeting, the Division I subcommittee issued a directive to deny requests to waive Bylaws 14.2.3.2 and 14.2.3.5 in light of historical intent of the legislation and a defeated legislative proposal to exempt competition associated with foreign military service from the 21st birthday rule (even if the foreign military service was mandatory). The staff published an article in the November 20, 2000, edition of The NCAA News regarding the subcommittee's policy. A few member institutions have questioned whether the subcommittee intended that all waivers of these two bylaws should be included under the directive. The subcommittee reaffirmed its October 2000 directive regarding military service and noted that it applies to all situations under both Bylaws 14.2.3.2 and 14.2.3.5. (July 2001)

b. Participation after 21st Birthday Rule (NCAA Bylaw 14.2.3.5) and the Tennis Rule (Bylaw 14.2.3.2). The subcommittee noted that the issue of foreign military service was recently addressed and defeated by the Division I membership. The Division I subcommittee directed the staff to begin denying cases involving foreign military service requesting a waiver of Bylaw 14.2.3.5, the 21st birthday rule, or Bylaw 14.2.3.2, the Division I tennis rule. Further, the subcommittee indicated that after the membership has been notified of this change in The NCAA News the staff and subcommittee should no longer consider previous precedent. (October 2000)

c. British-Patterned Education System and Tennis Rule Directive. Based on a recommendation from the NCAA Foreign Students Records Committee (FSRC), the subcommittee directed the staff that the following types of cases be treated in the following manner:

The subcommittee noted that the FSRC recommended this relief be provided to prospective students-athletes who enroll in the Business and Technology Educational Council (BTEC) program within the British system as well as the College d'Enseignement Generale et Professionnel (CEGEP) program in

Canada

. The subcommittee agreed to examine this issue and obtain more information on these programs. With regard to the General National Vocation Qualification (GNVQ) program within the British-based educational system, the FSRC did not recommend relief be extended to this program.

For situations when a prospective student-athlete has participated during a year when he or she should have been serving an academic year in residence under the tennis rule, the Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee issued a policy indicating that in situations where an Administrative Review Subcommittee (ARS) waiver is granted, relief should be provided from any reinstatement condition. In both situations, the institution would need to file an ARS waiver request and forward a request for reinstatement to the national office. (July 2003)

Division III Bylaw 14.2.4.3 (participation in organized competition prior to initial collegiate enrollment).

The subcommittee noted that the intent of the organized-competition legislation was to focus on the period between high-school graduation and initial collegiate enrollment, and recognize that participation in a high level of competition during this time may result in a competitive advantage. Thus, the loss of season(s) of competition, as a consequence for choosing to engage in such activity, would lessen the competitive advantage and foster a level playing field among member institutions. The subcommittee noted that this bylaw is the cornerstone of the recent amateurism deregulation and it was intended by the membership to result in a student-athlete being charged with a season of competition. Therefore, the subcommittee noted that granting requests to waive this legislation would compromise its intent and purpose. (October 2002)

The subcommittees reviewed situations where ARS had reviewed initial-eligibility issues where institutions were seeking an additional season of competition or attempting to change a student-athlete's certification as a partial qualifier or a nonqualifier. The subcommittee determined that since another body exists to address initial-eligibility violations, ARS should not review these cases. The subcommittees determined that it would no longer review requests to waive Bylaw 14.3 with the exception of Bylaw 14.3.4, inasmuch as there is no body in place to review the transfer aspect of the initial-eligibility legislation. (October 2000)

a. Division I. The subcommittee reviewed case precedent and affirmed the continued application of the October 1999 information standards in cases involving assertions of misinformation. The subcommittee also affirmed that the staff should continue to include consideration of other factors including, student-athlete welfare, competitive advantage, fairness, academic record, the intent of the rule and a lack of extraordinary circumstances presented by the request. The subcommittee reviewed whether relief is appropriate for circumstances when the sources of academic misadvisement are coaching staff members from a two-year institution, an NCAA institution or an NAIA institution. The subcommittee determined that it would review these circumstances on a case-by-case basis but were inclined to deny. The subcommittee also reviewed whether a student-athlete's initial-eligibility status should be taken into consideration for 2-4 transfers and determined that it would review requests on a case-by-case basis, but did acknowledge the difference between nonqualifiers and qualifiers 4-2-4 transfer to a Division II institution.

c. The first four-year institution certifies in writing that it has no objection to the student-athlete being granted an exception to the transfer residence requirement.

d. The student-athlete was in good academic standing and meeting progress-toward-degree requirements at the first four-year institution which would have made the student-athlete eligible to use the one-time transfer exception had he or she transferred from the first four-year institution directly to the certifying Division II institution without enrolling at the two-year institution.

In January 2006, the Division II Presidents and Management Council referred the subcommittee recommendation to the NCAA Division II Academic Requirements Committee for review and further consideration. In February 2006, the Academic Requirements Committee reviewed the recommendation and did not support the legislative proposal. The committee believed that adding a new 4-2-4 rule would cause more confusion to the membership since it would be very different from the 4-2-4 rule that was eliminated two years ago. In addition, the number of student-athletes affected by this would be minimal; thus the committee believed it was better handled through the waiver process.

During its April 20 conference call, the subcommittee determined that it would be appropriate to apply the requirements set forth in the legislative proposal as base guidelines when the staff and the subcommittee review waiver requests that involve student-athletes who are 4-2-4 transfers and meet all the requirements of the current 2-4 legislation (Bylaw 14.5.4.1) but for not being in residence at the two-year institution for two semesters or three quarters. The subcommittee will continue to monitor this issue and will provide a report to the Management Council in the future.

For waivers of Bylaw 14.1.9 for those student-athletes transferring for the 2006-07 academic year or thereafter, member institutions will need to demonstrate, at a minimum, a student-athlete's compelling and exemplary academic success by:

(a) Providing supporting documentation that the student-athlete graduated ahead of schedule and continued/maintained his or her education as a full-time student rather than having "breaks" (e.g., part time) in enrollment for no reason/circumstances beyond his or her control; and

(b) The student-athlete's excellent collegiate academic record.

The staff and subcommittee will review these waiver requests on a case-by-case basis and also will consider extenuating or extraordinary circumstances (e.g., circumstances outside of the student-athlete's control such as injury or illness). Based on the NCAA Division III President Council's direction, the subcommittee has determined that waiver requests solely based on the unavailability of the student-athlete's graduate-degree program at the previous institution will not result in waiver relief. Further, the subcommittee has determined that waiver requests solely based on the student's nonparticipation in athletics prior to transferring to an NCAA Division III graduate school will not result in waiver relief. (April 2006)

Divisions I and II Requests to Waive the Transfer-Residency Requirement Due to Institutional Denial of Transfer Release.

The subcommittee reaffirmed its 1996 directive regarding waiver requests of the one-time transfer legislation when an NCAA institution has denied a one-time transfer release to a student-athlete. The panel did not believe it should overturn these types of decisions and that the staff should deny these cases during the staff's first review of the case on behalf of the subcommittee. The subcommittee directed the staff to continue to monitor situations where student-athletes transfer from a NAIA institution to an NCAA institution without a release and report back to the subcommittee regarding whether a legislative change is warranted. (October 2002)

Learning Disability Issues. The staff provided the subcommittees with an overview of cases processed where a learning disability was included in the request. The staff informed the subcommittees that it has reviewed two main types of cases, one where the learning disability resulted in the need for relief and another where the learning disability is not a direct factor in the request for relief. The subcommittees adopted the following information standards for cases in which a learning disability necessitates the need for a waiver:

The institution must submit a copy of the student-athlete?s professional diagnosis.
A statement from the student-athlete regarding his or her disability and its relation to the desired request for relief.
In a transfer situation, the applicant institution must demonstrate whether the student-athlete needed accommodations that were unavailable at the previous institution and whether they are available at the applicant institution. (October 2000)

Bylaw 15

Division I Retroactive Financial Aid.

The subcommittee approved the following information guidelines for the staff to consider in evaluating retroactive financial aid cases: (1) prior to the student-athlete commencing the academic work, it was agreed on by the student-athlete and the coaching staff, financial aid officer or other involved institutional administrator that the student-athlete would receive financial aid for the credit hours; and (2) except for an administrative error or lack of communication, the student-athlete would have received the aid. (October 2002)

Bylaw 16

Division I Bylaw 16 Administrative Review Subcommittee and Management Council Administrative Committee Overlap Issues.

The subcommittee reviewed two areas where the NCAA Division I Management Council Administrative Committee (AdCom) and the ARS are designated to review requests that may be extremely similar within Bylaws 14.8.1.2 (other Management Council waivers) and 16.13.1 (incidental to participation). The subcommittee noted the differences in the requests and the process of determining the appropriate authority for each type of request. The subcommittee encouraged the staff to continue to consult with the AdCom staff liaisons to ensure that future requests are submitted to the appropriate authority so that similar requests are treated consistently and under similar review guidelines. (January 2003)

Bylaw 30

Division I Bylaw 30.16

At the January 2003 Management Council meeting, the legislation was amended to require that participants on nonscholastic teams be legal residents of the state in which the team is located or a geographically adjoining state and not more than a total of three prospects from adjoining states may participate on any one nonscholastic team.

In preparation for the possibility of future ARS requests seeking to waive this legislation, the subcommittee has consulted with the chair of the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Issues Committee and approved the following guideline: relief from the strict application of the legislation should be granted only in situations in which no permissible team exists that will allow a prospect the opportunity to participate in any NCAA-certified event. (April 2003)

The Division I Management Council approved the subcommittee's recommendation affording the subcommittee authority to waive application of a rule when the circumstances of the case do not fit the intended consequences of the rule, even when the result could be a temporary rule change. The subcommittee received endorsement from the Management Council for a shift in the philosophy of the ARS process affording the subcommittee with the authority to waive legislation, prior to Management Council input, when circumstances arise that do not seem to be an intended consequence of legislation (i.e., the strict application of the rule based on its intent seems "overreaching" given the fact situation) even if granting such a waiver will essentially result in a temporary rule change in these limited instances.

Some potential guidelines for the subcommittee when considering such an issue are below:

The subcommittee believes that implementing any widespread long-term changes should ultimately be accomplished through the legislative process. However, with the alteration of the timeline of the current legislative process and the less bureaucratic, more responsive philosophy, the subcommittee believes that short-term relief may be provided to student-athletes when circumstances meet the proposed guidelines. Further, the subcommittee would continue to review any adopted guidelines with the Management Council and, if the Management Council were not supportive, those ARS cases decided in accordance with the guidelines would be archived. (October 2003)