MEMORANDUM
TO: NCAA Executive Committee.
FROM: Kevin C. Lennon
Vice-President for Membership Services.
SUBJECT: Executive Summary: Implementation of the Student-Athletes First Philosophy – Creating a More Responsive, Less Bureaucratic NCAA.
Approximately one year ago, the NCAA Executive Committee received an update on the initial stages of the implementation of the student-athletes first philosophy – creating a more responsive, less bureaucratic NCAA that places student-athletes at the heart of decision making. This memorandum is intended to update you on activities of the last year.
Since our initial report, the Executive Committee approved the NCAA strategic plan which challenges the NCAA to increase the application of fair, safe and more flexible regulations that favor student-athletes and to operate in an accountable, effective and efficient manner. The membership services staff has worked aggressively to implement the directive.
I have attempted to highlight key areas in which implementation has been most significant.
1. Academics. As academic reform (increased academic standards, development of new measurements, establishment of incentives/disincentives program) has moved from the adoption to implementation stage, requests for academic waivers continue to increase.
It is important to note that all initial-eligibility waiver and progress-toward-degree waiver cases are now reviewed and analyzed using the students-first philosophy. This does not mean, however, that all cases are approved; rather, the review relies less on precedent and more on factors specific to each individual case. For example, the staff considers compelling mitigation as to why the deficiency occurred, as well as academic data regarding the likelihood of success of students graduating with similar deficiencies. In addition, this review emphasizes the academic recovery plans developed by institutions (i.e., the academic plan agreed to by the student and institution to move the student toward graduation within five years).
Because the staff is making all initial decisions on academic waivers, the response time for waiver decisions has been reduced from approximately two to three weeks to seven days. In addition, the staff has identified a number of areas of obvious waivers for which additional paperwork need not be submitted by the institution or the student to receive relief, thus expediting the eligibility decisions.
Finally, while the various academic committees continue to serve in an oversight and appellate capacity for staff decisions, to date only one such staff decision has been archived by a committee.
2. Student-Athlete Reinstatement. Staff has continued to experience an increase in volume for requests for student-athlete reinstatement. It is anticipated that over 2000 such requests will be received during the 2004-05 academic year, the vast majority in Division I. Similar to the academic waivers, all cases are reviewed using the student-athletes first philosophy.
I have enclosed a chart for your review outlining the impact of flexible outcomes. As you will note, issues involving ethical conduct, amateurism and extra benefits (e.g., contact with agents, academic fraud) are less likely to receive a flexible decision, while other issues related to general eligibility and financial aid (five-year clock extensions and financial aid) are more likely to receive a flexible decision.
It is important to note that less than one percent of the cases in the past year have resulted in permanent ineligibility.
The student-athlete reinstatement staff, which has been empowered to make all initial decisions, uses the following principles in considering its analysis of reinstatement requests.
a. The student-athlete's responsibility for the violation.
b. The institution's responsibility for the violation.
c. The seriousness of the violation.
d. All other existing mitigation.
3. Administrative Review Subcommittee (ARS). The NCAA Divisions I, II and III Management Council Administrative Review Subcommittees in each division have been empowered to waive the application of specific NCAA rules. In this area, as one might
expect, we have seen an increase in the number of ARS requests during the past year. We anticipate over 700 cases for ARS consideration, in addition to blanket waivers which are approved for all sports teams depending on the circumstances. Approximately 40 percent of the decisions reached in 2004 can be directly attributable to the student-athlete first philosophy. Similar to other areas, the staff has been empowered to make 100 percent of the decisions. This has resulted in a significant amount of time saved in the process for institutions, conferences, subcommittees and student-athletes.
4. Interpretations. The decision by President Myles Brand to reassign and integrate the student-athlete reinstatement and the ARS functions to membership services (thus combining these functions with the interpretive functions traditionally carried out by membership services) has resulted in improved efficiencies and has worked to support the implementation of the student-athletes first philosophy.
The staff reviews each interpretive request with an eye towards approval if the decision supports the students-first philosophy. Finally the staff has successfully lobbied the interpretive committees, as well as the respective management councils, to overturn several official interpretations that were inconsistent with the student-athletes first philosophy.
The modified interpretations model continues to operate effectively providing greater opportunity for the staff to contemplate the student-athlete first perspective as issues are discussed and decisions rendered.
5. Core-Course Review. A number of years back, the authority for determining whether a high-school course should be considered a core course was vested with the high-school principal, with appropriate guidelines provided by the NCAA. This effort has been well received by the secondary-school community and has assisted with a more efficient administration of the core-course review process. Core-course review team members at both the NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse and the NCAA staff have been instructed to use the more flexible student responsive approach when reviewing courses. In instances when courses are "on the fence," the staff has been instructed to give the benefit of the doubt to the course and approve it.
In addition, the NCAA continues to use an intercept program to identify unique situations involving student-athletes initial eligibility and create an expedited review at the NCAA and clearinghouse levels to review and make more timely decisions. The intercept program has resulted in many unique situations being flagged and decisions being reached in a more timely manner often without any additional paperwork needing to be filed by the student, high school or institution.
6. Athletics Certification Program. As you may be aware, in January 2004 the NCAA Division I Board of Directors adopted noncontroversial legislation that reduced the scope and bureaucracy of the athletics certification program. Changes resulted in a reduction of operating principles, a decrease in the scope of the program and the elimination of the interim-report process.
Specific changes to policies and practices include increased staff and committee involvement prior to campus-evaluation visits, which has resulted in streamlined visits with a more specific focus for visiting peer-review team members. The timeline for the certification process has been reduced from 24 months to 14-16 months and the use of videoconferences for campus orientations has saved approximately 94 travel days for NCAA staff. In addition, the streamlined evaluation-visit schedule has reduced the length of peer-review team visits from four days to three days, which has saved approximately 50 out of the office days for the staff.
7. Student-Athlete Well-Being Task Force. In response to the directive of President Brand and the Executive Committee to create a more responsive, less bureaucratic NCAA, an internal task force was charged with developing legislative recommendations that focus on student-athlete well-being. As you may recall from your October meeting, specific legislative proposals were identified by the internal task force and introduced to you through the President's Report. The majority of the legislative proposals contained in phase one of this review are now being considered by the three divisional governance structures. Additional recommendations to advance the student first philosophy will be forwarded to you at a later time.
KCL:jsl