REPORT OF THE
NCAA DIVISION III AMATEURISM TASK FORCE
1.
ACTION ITEMS.
a. Operation
Gold Grants.
(1) Recommendation. Clarify proposal No. NC-7 Amateurism –
Operation Gold Grants so that funds received by a student-athlete pursuant to
the Operation Gold program shall not be included when determining the
permissible amount of a full grant-in-aid or the cost of attendance for a
student-athlete.
(2) Rationale. The task force notes that the original
intent of the legislation was to enable prospective and enrolled
student-athletes to accept Operation Gold funds without any restrictions;
however, the task force mistakenly did not include the necessary bylaws within
Bylaw 15 to allow the full acceptance of the funds. The task force notes that Olympic competition is unique and
student-athletes involved in this competition should be permitted to accept the
monies associated with it.
Further, several exceptions already exist in the NCAA 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.
b. Convention
Vote.
(1) Recommendation. The task force recommends that if the
seasons-of- competition rule (proposal 40) is defeated, then Proposal Nos.
41-44 should be withdrawn.
Rationale. The task force notes that the seasons-of-competition proposal is the cornerstone of all the proposals before the Division III membership. Therefore, the task force believes that if the seasons-of-competition rule is defeated, Proposals Nos. 41-44 should be withdrawn inasmuch as without the adoption of the seasons-of-competition rule, the other deregulatory proposals would create competitive inequities within Division III athletics.
(3) Budget Impact. None.
(3) Budget Impact. None.
2. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS.
a. Amateurism Reform
Talking Points.
Philosophical Notion of
Amateurism.
·
Principle
of amateurism applies only to student-athletes and intercollegiate sport being
an avocation. We have expanded
this principle.
·
Proposals
are not an abandonment of amateurism but, rather, bring us back to our
principle and create a more objective analysis of pre-enrollment
activities.
·
Definition
of amateur; no universal definition that all groups agree to. The world has changed, and we now
operate globally.
·
Salary
has been removed; individuals who have truly professionalized themselves will
still be ineligible. (Prospect who
plays minor league baseball in the summer would accept salary and, thus, be ineligible.)
·
Cannot
legislate through reinstatement process.
Seasons-of-Competition
Rule.
·
Catches
competition, which would generally rule a prospect ineligible under current
NCAA legislation.
·
Year
in residence is needed. Opening
the door with other proposals; need to have commitment to education.
·
Year
in residence does not create competitive advantage inasmuch as prospect would
be paying for four years of tuition at institution regardless of application of
rule.
·
Seasons-of-competition
rule does not begin until the summer following prospect’s high-school
graduation; competition during the summer would not trigger the
seasons-of-competition rule.
·
Definition
of organized competition will only be triggered if prospect accepts above
actual and necessary expenses; American Legion prospect will not trigger rule.
Impact Changes
Division II.
·
Adoption
of seasons-of-competition rule in Division II could result in older elite
impact athletes at Division III level.
·
Division
II saw effects of Division I 21st birthday rule.
High-School
Concerns.
·
Salary
has been removed.
·
Prize
money; competition is already permissible. Prospects are already engaging in competition.
·
NCAA
not enforcement arm for high schools; need to create legislation that makes
sense for NCAA
Ice Hockey.
·
Only
trigger the rule if accept above actual and necessary expenses.
·
Generally,
would be ineligible under current rules.
·
Continuing
status quo.
Prize Money
Versus Salary.
·
Prize
money is awarded based on actual competition and as a result of an individual’s
actions, whereas pay to play is a promise entered into based on one’s
reputation and is much closer to the concept of an athletics scholarship.
·
Inconsistent
with the Division III philosophy.
·
Under
current NCAA rules, the competition in which prize money can be accepted is
permissible, whereas the competition in which salary is received is not.
·
Allowing the acceptance of prize money does not alter
the pool of recruitable Division III student-athletes.
Task force
chair: Tom Weingartner, University
of Chicago, University Athletic Association
Staff
liaisons: Julie Roe, Jennifer
Strawley
The
National Collegiate Athletic Association
January
7, 2002
JFS:tlc