REPORT OF THE
NCAA DIVISION III STUDENT-ATHLETE REINSTATEMENT COMMITTEE
1. ACTION ITEMS.
a. NCAA
Bylaw 12.2.4.2.2 (Exception–Professional Basketball Draft–Two-Year
College Prospective Student-Athlete).
(a) Recommendation. Sponsor noncontroversial legislation for a draft exception for two-year college enrolled student-athletes who enter a professional basketball league’s draft one time during his or her collegiate career and who subsequently enroll at a Division III institution.
(b) Rationale. The committee determined that the
draft exception should mirror the recently adopted Division I legislation, in
the process eliminating the restriction that currently prevents two-year
college student-athletes from using an exception available to high school and
four-year college student-athletes.
(c) Budget
Impact. None.
2. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS.
a. Student-Athlete Reinstatement Philosophy. The committee conducted a workshop with the student-athlete reinstatement staff to thoroughly explore a more flexible approach to cases as encouraged by President Myles Brand and the Executive Committee in the June 2 memorandum sent to committee chairs. The memorandum seemed to suggest three themes:
· Flexible judgment
· Responsiveness
· Simplification
The committee determined that a shift in approach is appropriate. Previously, the committee provided directives to the staff prescribing specific outcomes for various categories of cases. The committee will continue to provide oversight to the staff, still serving as the appellate body for all decisions and working in collaboration in setting policy. The shift in philosophy will allow the staff to make flexible decisions aligned with guidelines set forth by the committee. Guidelines will assist both the staff and committee in considering what factors are important when deciding cases. The committee will regularly review all decisions made by the staff. The committee will have regular conference calls to review staff decisions that deviated from case precedent in light of the shift in approach. The committee will either approve the precedent or archive it. Until the committee’s review, the staff’s decisions are not binding on the committee.
In deciding cases, the staff and committee should consider many factors, including, but not limited to:
· Student-athlete (SA) culpability;
· Student-athlete responsibility; and
· The advantage gained from the violation and the appropriate way to address that advantage (in light of any mitigation; through a withholding condition imposed on the SA or through an institutional sanction).
The effective date for this shift in approach will be applied to the 2003-04 academic year (meaning if a reinstatement condition would be served during the 2003-04 academic year, then the shift in approach will apply). If an institution received a decision previously and the condition is to be imposed during the 2003-04 academic year, the institution can contact the reinstatement staff and ask the case to be reconsidered.
Regarding the two remaining themes, the committee discussed the student-athlete reinstatement process, including documentation requirements for various types of requests. The committee will continue to examine this area.
b. National
Baseball Congress. The staff and committee reviewed
cases this involving student-athletes competing on summer league teams that
promote/market themselves as semiprofessional. Under the previous definition of a professional
team, competing on teams that promote/market themselves as semiprofessional was
a violation. Thus, if the violation
occurred prior to the effective date of the new definition of a professional
team, the committee noted that if the only basis for a violation is due to the
team or league marketing itself as semiprofessional, noting that this would not
trigger the new definition, relief should be provided and the student-athletes
should be reinstated without conditions.
A case-by-case review should ensure that institutions address possible
violations of agent legislation as well as the acceptance of prize money by
teams. If agent or prize money
violations are present, a penalty may be imposed.
c. International
Basketball Draft Exception. The committee requested the staff draft
legislation for discussion at its December 2003 meeting allowing a
student-athlete in his or her final year of eligibility to not lose his/her
eligibility if drafted during the basketball season by an international organization
provided the student-athlete has not engaged in impermissible activities with
an agent, received no benefits from the organization and not undertaken any
activities with the team until exhausting his/her collegiate eligibility.
d. Institutional
Errors Resulting in Student-Athlete Ineligibility.
The committee discussed the importance of institutional sanctions when
an institutional error results in a student-athlete’s ineligibility. The committee expressed an interest in
hearing from the secondary enforcement staff at its December 2003 meetings regarding
this issue and requesting the secondary enforcement committee explore
implementing a fine system at the Division III level.
e. Staggering
Reinstatement Without Penalties. The committee endorsed this concept and
directed the reinstatement staff to consider on a case-by-case basis requests
from Division III institutions to stagger reinstatement withholding penalties. The committee reviewed and accepted the
guidelines currently available in Division I.
f. Transfer Directive as Applied to Nontransfer
Situations. The committee determined
that the analysis should be the same for transfers and nontransfers when
reviewing circumstances involving student-athletes who compete and are subsequently
discovered to be ineligible, but the institution is waiting on specific information
from an outside source and/or the student-athlete was misadvised by a person
within and/or outside the athletics department. The December 2002 directive addressed
withholding conditions for transfer student-athletes involved in impermissible
competition during a transfer year in residence. The committee affirmed that the same
directive be applied to nontransfer student-athletes involved in impermissible
competition. [Please note that the
applicability of the December 2002 directive should be considered in light of
the recently adopted flexible approach for particular violations at the June
2003 meetings.]
g. Cross
Divisional Issues.
(1) Violations. The committee determined that for
violations of NCAA rules occurring once a student-athlete is enrolled at an
institution should be processed through the division where the violation
occurred, including any appeal.
Thus if a student-athlete competes in violation of NCAA legislation
while attending a Division II institution and then transfers to a Division III
institution, the violation will be processed in accordance with the guidelines
issued by Division II and any appeal would be heard by the Division II
committee. The committee noted that
the Division III institution would be permitted to be part of the reinstatement
process and the appeal process.
(2) Season-of-Competition
Waiver while Eligible. The
committee determined that the season-of-competition waiver while eligible, the
waiver should be processed by the division where the competition occurred. Thus, if a student-athlete competed in
limited competition while attending a Division II institution and subsequently
transferred to a Division III institution, the season of competition waiver
would be processed under the criteria established by Division II and any appeal
would be handled by the Division II committee.
h. Provision
of False and Misleading Information. In its discussion of cases involving
ethical conduct the committee noted that culpability and responsibility are
inherently present. In that regard,
the committee noted that although the guidelines established for ethical
conduct are 20 to 50 percent, due to the seriousness of the
student-athlete’s action, the staff may impose a withholding condition
greater then 50 percent if it deems appropriate.
i. Extensions
of 10-Semester/15-Quarter Period of Eligibility (Season-of-Competition Waiver
for student-athletes called to active duty). The Division
III Management Council approved a provision to grant relief should be afforded
for a student-athlete who started but failed to complete the 2002-03 season due
to being called to active duty in the armed services. In light of this, the committee
determined that in situations where student-athletes meet the criteria for a
waiver, for the purposes of an extension, the year should be considered a
denied participation opportunity.
j. Weighing
of Championship Contests when Fulfilling a Withholding Condition.
The committee advised the staff that all contests eligible to be used to
fulfill a withholding condition shall remain weighted equally and that no
special consideration shall be given to championship-designated contests when
fulfilling a withholding condition.