(1) Recommendation. Sponsor legislation to permit prospective and enrolled student-athletes to accept funds that are administered by the United States Olympic Committee pursuant to its Operation Gold program to be disbursed annually at one designated event.

(2) Rationale. The task force reviewed this proposal based on a recommendation from the Olympic Sports Liaison Committee. In that regard, the task force believes that Olympic competition is unique and that athletes involved in this competition should be permitted to accept the monies associated with it. Further, several exceptions already exist in the Manual for Olympic level events. Finally, the task force notes that Divisions I and II have already adopted legislation to make Operation Gold Grants permissible.

(3) Budget Impact. None.

(1) Recommendation. Sponsor legislation to permit prospective student-athletes to accept prize money or other forms of compensation based on place finish from the sponsor of an open athletics event, the United States Olympic Committee or the appropriate national governing body in the sport based on one’s place finish without losing one’s eligibility in that sport.

(2) Rationale. After a thorough examination of this issue, which was governed by the task force's commitment to prospective student-athlete welfare, competitive fairness, clarity, common sense and consistency of amateurism rules, and a consistency with the Division III philosophy, the task force concluded that the acceptance of prize money or other forms of compensation based on a prospective student-athlete’s place finish should be permissible. The task force concluded that it is not the money that provides a prospect with a competitive advantage. To the contrary, the task force concluded that the acceptance of money alone is a poor indicator when evaluating a prospective student-athlete’s appropriateness for intercollegiate athletics. As to the issue of what is in the best interest of prospective student-athletes, the task force found it grossly unfair to require prospective student-athletes (sometimes at the very young ages of 14 and 15) to decline prize money because of the possibility of participating in intercollegiate athletics in the future. Current NCAA legislation allows for competition against professionals where prize money could be accepted and therefore, allowing a prospect to accept prize money in no way changes the current pool of recruitable Division III prospects. Further, the task force believes that current amateurism rules are confusing and intrusive, and by allowing prospects to accept prize money, prospects can make decisions that are in their individual best interests.

The task force believes that the mere acceptance of prize money does not render a prospective student-athlete inappropriate for our intercollegiate programs and maintains the Association’s commitment to prospective student-athlete welfare.

(3) Budget Impact. None.

(1) Recommendation. Sponsor legislation to charge a prospective student-athlete with the loss of a season of competition for every year of participation in organized-competition from the date of the prospective student-athlete’s next opportunity for collegiate enrollment after high-school graduation. Also, that a prospective student-athlete would be required to fulfill an academic year-in-residence upon initial, full-time collegiate enrollment if the student-athlete engaged in such athletics participation after high-school graduation. Additionally, the bylaw should indicate that this legislation is triggered by the graduation of the prospective student-athlete’s expected class. Finally, the organized-competition rule would be triggered if a student-athlete discontinues full-time high school enrollment at any time and engages in organized competition.

(2) Rationale. This proposal focuses on the period between high-school graduation and initial collegiate enrollment and recognizes that participation in a high level of competition during this time may result in a competitive advantage. Thus, the loss of seasons of competition as a consequence for choosing to engage in this activity would lessen the competitive advantage and fosters a level playing field among student-athletes and, in turn, among our member institutions. Further, requiring the individual to fulfill an academic year-in-residence upon enrollment indicates a commitment to academics. Also, to minimize the possibility of a prospective student-athlete avoiding the application of the legislation by intentionally delaying high-school graduation, the project team proposes that the legislation become effective with the graduation of the prospective student-athlete’s expected class. Similarly, to prevent a student-athlete from intentionally discontinuing high school graduation to compete in organized competition, the task force believes that the organized competition rule should be triggered if a prospect discontinues full-time high school enrollment to participate in his/her sport. Finally, while the task force strongly believes in deregulating rules, it recognizes that increased opportunity could lead to competitive advantages, which will more equitably be addressed with this rule.

(3) Budget Impact. None.

(1) Recommendation. Approve the following exceptions to the application of the proposed organized-competition rule:

(2) Rationale. The task force recognized that some student-athletes choose to enroll in a postgraduate, college preparatory school prior to initial collegiate enrollment. The task force believes that this activity should be exempted from the application of the proposed seasons of competition rule inasmuch as this activity is connected to an academic pursuit that the task force does not want to discourage.

The task force determined that participation in certain events such as the Olympics and Pan American Games also should be exempted. The task force

does not want to discourage such participation. The exception would be administered by the institution with the required documentation kept on file in the athletics department.

(3) Budget Impact. None.

(1) Recommendation. Sponsor legislation to articulate a specific definition of organized competition for the application of the organized competition rule. Under this definition, a prospect would trigger the rule if any one of the following occur:

(2) Rationale. The organized-competition proposal addresses an individual’s participation in organized competition after the summer following high-school graduation. Under the current definition of organized competition, athletics competition is considered organized if the competition involves conditions such as an official score being kept, the use of an official timer or game official, the utilization of team uniforms, or if a team is privately or commercially sponsored. Under these conditions, very low levels of competition (such as church, recreational, or YMCA leagues) would be subject to the organized competition rule. The task force believes that this type of activity does not provide for a significant competitive advantage and should not result in the loss of seasons of competition. Therefore, the task force proposes the definition for organized competition to be used under the organized competition rule in order to avoid this result. The current definition of organized competition would remain in place for all other purposes.

(3) Budget Impact. None.

(1) Recommendation. Sponsor legislation to permit prospective student-athletes to sign a contract or commitment of any kind to play professional athletics.

(2) Rationale. The task force concluded that the act of signing a contract does not yield any competitive advantage for prospective student-athletes and therefore should not jeopardize an individual’s NCAA eligibility. The task force has reviewed Division III reinstatement case precedent where prospective student-athletes made a poor decision by signing a professional contract and thus jeopardizing their collegiate eligibility. The task force believes that the condition of permanent ineligibility is too harsh for an action that creates no competitive advantage. Further, the task force believes that this activity should be permissible.

(3) Budget Impact. None.

(1) Recommendation. Sponsor legislation to permit a prospective student-athlete to enter a professional league’s draft and be drafted without compromising an individual’s NCAA eligibility.

(2) Rationale. The task force concluded that the act of placing a name on a draft list or being drafted, similar to the act of signing a professional contract, does not yield any competitive advantage for prospective student-athletes and therefore should not jeopardize an individual’s NCAA eligibility.

(3) Budget Impact. None.

(1) Recommendation. Sponsor legislation to permit prospective student-athletes to participate on a professional team.

(2) Rationale. Currently, competition against professionals is permissible while competition with professionals is impermissible. This allows individual sport participants to participate at a professional level while maintaining amateur status; however, team sport participants do not have this opportunity inasmuch as they cannot participate with professionals and maintain amateur status. The task force believes that this disadvantages team sport participants and therefore believes that competition with professionals should be permissible. Further, the task force makes a distinction between acts that do not impact competitive equity (e.g., accepting prize money, being drafted, signing a contract) and participation in activities that results in a competitive advantage. The deregulation of portions of Bylaw 12, as put forth by the task force, may lead some prospects to participate on a professional team for a period of time. The task force’s organized competition proposal [as discussed in section 3] mitigates the competitive advantage and preserves competitive equity. In this instance, the prospect must choose between participation on a professional team and enrollment in a collegiate institution with the legislation clearly delineating the eligibility consequences. The task force firmly believes that prospects who are successful in competing at the professional level will not subsequently enroll at a collegiate institution if they must fulfill a year-in-residence and be subject to a reduced period of eligibility. Also, most prospects who compete on professional teams and then choose to enroll at a collegiate institution will be those prospects who were not or would never be successful at the professional level and, therefore, should be given an opportunity to pursue intercollegiate athletics. Finally, the task force notes that it has not recommended any changes to the current rules concerning agents. In that regard, the task force believes that any individual who has competed at a high level of competition will have likely violated NCAA agent legislation, thus making him/her ineligible for Division III athletics.

(3) Budget Impact. None.

(1) Recommendation. Sponsor legislation to permit prospective student-athletes to accept pay or other forms of compensation (e.g., stipend, educational expenses) for athletics participation without losing eligibility in that sport.

(2) Rationale. The task force struggled with this initially, however, in the end concluded that it is not the money that provides a competitive advantage but rather the competition. The task force concluded that the acceptance of money alone is a poor indicator when evaluating a prospective student-athlete’s appropriateness for intercollegiate athletics. The task force understands that the receipt of pay may lead some prospects to engage in a high level of competition for such a period of time as to gain a competitive advantage through participation in the competition, not the act of accepting pay. In these instances, the task force's organized competition proposal [as discussed in section 3] mitigates any competitive advantage and preserves competitive equity. Finally, a majority of Division III student-athletes who accept pay for play and choose to attend a Division III institution will have accepted a minimal amount of money.

Please note that this proposal does not include compensation received for promotional or commercial activities. Finally, the task force notes that it has not recommended any changes to the current rules concerning agents. In that regard, the task force believes that any individual who has accept a significant salary will have likely violated NCAA agent legislation, thus making him/her ineligible for Division III athletics.

(3) Budget Impact. None.