MINUTES OF THE
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION
DIVISION I LEGISLATIVE REVIEW AND INTERPRETATIONS COMMITTEE
Conference Call No. 17 November 7, 2007
Participants:
Brad Bertani,
Ellen Ferris, University of Southern California
James Klein, University of Toledo
Janet Lucas, University of California, Riverside
Don Oberhelman, San Diego State University;
Amy Huchthausen, NCAA
Kris Richardson, NCAA
Geoff Silver, NCAA
Leeland Zeller, NCAA
Jacqueline Campbell, Atlantic-10
Conference; Shane Lyons, Atlantic Coast Conference;
Frank Harrell, Tennessee Technological University; and Ray Shackelford,
Bethune-Cookman College were unable to participate.
[Note: These minutes contain only actions taken (formal votes or stated ?sense of the telephone conference?) in accordance with NCAA policy regarding minutes of all Association entities. While certain items on the committee?s agenda were acted on at various times throughout the meeting, all final actions within a given topic are combined in these minutes for convenience of reference.]
The NCAA Division I Legislative Review and Interpretations Committee telephone conference was called to order at 3 p.m. All members were present as noted above.
Recruiting/Precollege Expenses
1.
Purchase of Video from a Prospective
Student-Athlete's Educational Institution.
(I)
The committee confirmed that it is not permissible for an institution to
purchase film or video (e.g., game film that includes prospective
student-athletes) from a prospective student-athlete's educational institution
at a cost that exceeds the value of a blank videotape or DVD (or other medium) and
the cost of postage to receive the video. [References:
Division I Bylaws 13.14.3.1 (published recruiting services), 13.14.3.2 (video
services) and 13.15.1 (prohibited expenses)]
2. The meeting adjourned at 4 p.m.
# # # # #
MEMORANDUM
November 6, 2007
TO: NCAA Division I Legislative Review and Interpretations Committee.
FROM: Amy Huchthausen
Director of Membership Services
Leeland Zeller
Associate Director of Membership Services.
SUBJECT: Agenda Items for November call (Conference Call No. 17).
The following interpretation request will be considered during the telephone conference scheduled for 3 p.m. Eastern time Wednesday, November 7, by the NCAA Division I Legislative Review and Interpretations Committee (LRIC).
1. Issue.
Whether an institution may
purchase contest footage from a prospective student-athlete's institution,
including two-year colleges, at a cost greater than the cost of postage and a
blank tape/DVD.
2. Facts.
See Attachment.
3. Institution's Position.
See Attachment.
4. Staff Position.
NCAA Division I Bylaw 13.15.1 generally precludes an institution from providing direct or indirect benefits to prospective student-athletes. Over 100 interpretations and educational columns have been issued to address questions and issues related to this bylaw. The rule is designed to preclude one institution from gaining a recruiting advantage over another. If institutions were able to provide donations and other forms of benefits and expenses to high schools, preparatory schools or two-year colleges or their athletics programs, bidding wars could result for the influence on certain prospective student-athletes to attend member institutions. In addition, if it were permissible for prospective student-athletes' educational institutions to receive donations and other sources of funding, their participation in such bidding wars would effectively be exploitation of the involved prospective student-athletes. The staff reviewed the issue at hand and agreed that Bylaw 13.15.1 precludes an institution from providing more than the cost of postage and a blank videotape or DVD in order to receive footage of a prospective student-athlete from the prospective student-athlete's educational institution.
In addition, the staff concluded that Bylaw 13.14.3.2 does not apply to prospective student-athletes' educational institutions. The legislation was not intended to apply such institutions. Moreover, as noted above, Bylaw 13.15.1 is the controlling legislation in this situation. Regardless of whether prospective student-athletes' educational institutions could be considered video services, Bylaw 13.15.1 precludes institutions from providing more than the cost of postage and a blank videotape or DVD. To allow such, even at a consistent rate for all institutions, would constitute exploitation of the involved prospective student-athletes.
5. NCAA Bylaws and Interpretations.
13.14.3.1 Published Recruiting Services. An institution may subscribe to a regularly published scouting service involving prospective student-athletes, provided this service is made available to all institutions desiring to subscribe and at the same fee rate for all subscribers.
13.14.3.2 Video Services. Member institutions are permitted to use
video services so long as only regularly scheduled (regular season) high school
or two-year college contests are involved. The institution may not contract
with the service in advance to have a particular contest videotaped, and the
service must be available to all institutions at the same cost. Off-campus observation of a prospective
student-athlete on a videotape made available by a scouting service is
considered an evaluation activity and is subject to applicable evaluation
regulations.
13.15.1 Prohibited Expenses. An
institution or a representative of its athletics interests shall not offer,
provide or arrange financial assistance, directly or indirectly, to pay (in
whole or in part) the costs of the prospective student-athlete's educational or
other expenses for any period prior to his or her enrollment or so the prospective
student-athlete can obtain a postgraduate education.
Donations to Prospects' Educational
Institution (I)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Issued: Oct 25, 1999
Type: Official
Item Ref: 2
Interpretation:
Donations to Prospects' Educational Institutions: (I) An institution may not participate in a competition during which a donation (e.g., funds provided as part of a scholarship recognition program) will be provided to a high school, prep school or two-year college in conjunction with the participation of the institution or its student-athletes in the competition. The subcommittee expressed concern that such activity could result in an improper recruiting advantage for any institution that regularly participates in competitions during which donations will be provided to prospects' educational institutions. The subcommittee noted that it is permissible for such a donation to be provided to a national federation or association that benefits prospects (e.g., National Federation of State High School Associations), provided the donation is not related to the participation or performance of a particular student-athlete in the competition. [References: Bylaws 12.1.1.1.4.1 (cash or equivalent award), 13.16.1 (precollege expenses - prohibited expenses) and 16.1.3.4 (transfer of nonpermissible award)]
LZ:ce
FACTS:
Many two-year colleges offer to sell copies of their game tape at a cost greater than the cost of postage and a blank tape. Attached are three examples. This has gone on for several years, and yet a review of the secondary violations database reveals no reported violations. The institution recently confronted this issue during a review of various video and recruiting services, and Membership Services confirmed that it was not permissible for an institution to pay a prospects? educational institution more than the cost of materials and shipping and handling. The institution asked for the staff interpretation to be published or for educational efforts to be undertaken, but Membership Services stated that the issue was not of national significance because only the institution had asked the question; however, one of the junior colleges from which the institution purchased video indicated that at least 40 other Division I schools, roughly 1/3 of the Division I football membership, have purchased its service in the past year.
INSTITUTION'S POSITION:
When initially faced with the question of whether an institution would be allowed to pay a junior college more than the cost of materials and shipping and handling for game tapes, the institution took the position that it would not be permissible because junior colleges were not video services, but the institution also thought that the Membership Services staff would recognize the national significance of the issue, educate the membership, and provide a pragmatic resolution to the situation. It did not and the issue remains significant and deserving of attention and education. Often, the most significant issues are the least popular subjects of discussion; nevertheless, to fail to address the issue is to penalize those institutions which aggressively educate and monitor, and to reward those which do not.
Alternatively, LRIC could hold that prospects? institutions, including junior colleges, may, in fact, function as video services if they follow Bylaw 13.14.3.2. Apart from the staff advice, the institution has received no published interpretations that would prohibit a junior college from operating as a video service. Citing 13.15, the Membership Services staff took the position that the purchase of such tapes from the two-year colleges would be considered the arrangement for indirect financial assistance to pay the costs of the prospective student-athletes? educational or other expenses. The institution initially agreed with that stance as well, but concedes that it is arguably an overly broad application of the Bylaw that ignores other common practices which indirectly pay the costs of the prospects? educational or other expenses (e.g., the purchase from a two-year college of a game ticket, a game program, a hotdog at the concession stand, or the payment for an official transcript from the registrar?s office). NCAA rules should allow an institution to purchase video tapes from prospects? educational institutions provided the service is made available to all institutions at the same cost as set forth in 13.14.3. Such a reasoned interpretation would not compromise any NCAA core values and would solve a thorny issue facing much of the Membership even if only the institution has noticed this so far.
If the concern is that junior colleges or other prospect organizations could charge exorbitant amounts for subscriptions to the video services, the likelihood of that fear being realized is low in that all institution must pay the same price which would require the two-year colleges to maintain a rate that was affordable for all institutions. Additionally, the reason that fear isn?t applied to other aspects of prospects? athletics participation is that those organizations, like NCAA Division I institutions, aren?t trying to get away with something; they?re trying to defray their operating expenses while also making information available about their student-athletes that may otherwise not be made available.
As for the guidance that Membership Services has provided, it has little utility. In it, Membership Services indicated that it would be permissible for a two-year college coach (as a private individual) to personally sell videotapes of his or her athletes for more than the cost of expenses. However, the institution doubts that any public institution would allow a coach to do this because of the likelihood of violating institutional ethics rules by personally profiting from the use of institutional equipment (e.g., filming equipment or videotape dubbing equipment).
The Association needs to immediately address this issue on a national level. Either inform member institutions that they may not pay more than the cost of materials and postage, or explain that the same cost must be charged to all institutions. As evidenced in the attached letters, it is clear that both provisions would be violated by any institution purchasing the videotapes. Additionally, if LRIC determines that NCAA Division I institutions may not subscribe to these junior college?s de facto video services, it would greatly benefit the membership for an NCAA national office staff member to contact the National Junior College Athletic Association and request assistance in educating their membership on the proper application of NCAA rules.
Finally, the NCAA has been trying for a number of years to get the recruiting back into the hands of the scholastic units and this is one way to potentially do that by allowing the educational institutions (two-year colleges, preparatory schools) to market/sell their game tapes in the proper fashion (at the same cost for all institutions) without jeopardizing the intent of 13.14.3 (i.e., all schools having the same access to the same information at the same cost) and by avoiding inconsistent pricing and third parties which may actively involve themselves in the recruiting process.
Therefore, we are asking the LRIC to review the issue in order for an official interpretation to be published on whether a Division I member institution may purchase videotapes from a two-year college at a cost that is greater than a blank tape and the postage to mail so long as all conditions of the recruiting service and video services bylaws are followed.