SUPPLEMENT NO. 14

REPORT OF THE

NCAA DIVISION III STUDENT-ATHLETE REINSTATEMENT COMMITTEE

1. ACTION ITEMS.

a. Legislative.

(1) NCAA Bylaw 14.11.4.2 (Penalty for Ineligible Participation in NCAA Champion-ship).

(a) Recommendation. The committee recommends that Management Council support a proposal to delete Bylaw 14.11.4.2 from the manual.

(b) Rationale. Bylaw 14.11.4.2 indicates that if a student-athlete participates in an NCAA championship while ineligible, the student-athlete forfeits eligibility for all NCAA championships for one season. In the case of any violation requiring that a student-athlete be withheld from competition as a condition for reinstate-ment, the reinstatement committee applies the condition to the next contest(s). If the student-athlete?s ineligible competition occurred during an NCAA championship, the condition is still applied to the next contest; or if the ineligible competition occurs during the regular season and the next contest is the NCAA championship, the student-athlete is required to be withheld from the NCAA championship. The committee does not distinguish between various types of competition. The staff and committee have interp-reted Bylaw 14.11.4.2 as a possible condition, which the committee can and does deviate from, through the student-athlete reinstatement process. Given the fact that the bylaw is not followed in practice due to the committee?s authority in assessing appropriate reinstatement conditions, this bylaw should be deleted to avoid any potential confusion.

b. Nonlegislative.

(1) Policies and Procedures.

(a) Recommendation. The committee recommends that Management Council support proposed amendments to the committee?s policies and procedures. [Attachment]

(b) Rationale. The committee included a change in its policies to reflect the codification in policy not to enter into repayment plans with institutions for a four-year period if the institution has a student-athlete default on an established payment plan. The com-mittee also clarified its reconsideration policy to indicate that if a case has not been appealed and new information becomes available, the institution shall submit the information to the staff and the case will be re-opened. Subsequent to the committee issuing a decision, an institution may ask the staff and committee to reconsider only if it obtains newly discovered, nonrepetitive information that existed at the time of the decision but was not available to the institution and the student-athlete. The committee also adopted use of an appeal form by the membership when appealing a decision by the staff. The committee included a 30-day window from the date of the staff?s initial decision letter for an institution to submit a request to the director of student-athlete reinstatement for an appeal using the appeal form.

(2) Strategic Plan.

(a) Recommendation. The committee recommends that Management Council support development of and resources to fund a poster educating student-athletes about common Division III violations and reinstatement scenarios. The poster would be made available to the membership during 2004-05 academic year.

(b) Rationale. The committee wants to assist Division III institutions with educational efforts for student-athletes regarding common legislative violations that require reinstatement of eligibility. The committee recognizes that increased knowledge and awareness of student-athletes regarding NCAA legislation is incorporated within the principles of student-athlete welfare. It is the committee?s position that enhancement of student-athlete knowledge can be accomplished through the creation and distribution of an educa-tional poster addressing common violations that result in a loss of eligibility and requirement of reinstatement.

2. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS.

a. Directive Document. The committee created a document incorporating all directives issued by the committee that will be made available to the membership on the student-athlete reinstatement Web site.

b. Transfer Violations. The committee discussed the withholding conditions applied to student-athletes involved in impermissible competition during a transfer year in residence. There are three different types of these violations processed in reinstatement:

(1) Situations where there is no way the student-athlete could have been eligible. In these situations, the committee determined that the reinstatement condition should continue to withhold the student-athlete on a one-for-one basis.

(2) Situations where the student-athlete is ineligible due to a paperwork issue at the certifying institution. In these situations, relief has been provided from the one-for-one condition since all necessary documentation was received prior to the competition.

(3) Situations where the institution allowed a student-athlete to compete while waiting on information from an outside source (e.g., the institution subsequently is granted a waiver allowing the student-athlete to become eligible, is waiting on a transcript or receives approval from his/her previous institution subsequent to the competition). The committee discussed that if the institution allows an ineligible student-athlete to participate while waiting on information needed to certify the student-athlete?s eligibility from an outside entity, the staff should withhold the student-athlete on a one-for-one basis; and if relief is appropriate in a specific set of facts, the committee is the body that should provide such relief.

c. Fifty Percent Threshold in Withholding Conditions. Currently, the reinstatement staff and committee do not withhold student-athletes from competition on a one-for-one basis in situations where a student-athlete competes in less then 50 percent of the institution?s season?s contests. Student-athletes have not been withheld in these situations since their limited competition results in them using one of their four seasons of competition. The committee determined that this relief should continue to be provided in situations where a meaningful participation opportunity was not available. Therefore, relief should continue to be applied regard-less of when a student-athlete?s ineligible competition occurs during the season. This is a continuation of current staff application of withholding conditions as to the 50 percent threshold.

d. Outside Competition Violations. The committee discussed recent issues regarding outside competition violations. The committee discussed the possibility of proposing legislation that would enable a student-athlete to participate in an on-campus event that is facilitated by a recognized student organization, where benefits are provided to an established charity, and that is open to all students and occurs during the academic year but not during the playing and practice season. As a result of the committee discussion, the staff will do a comprehensive analysis of all outside competition violations for the committee?s review at its June meeting.

e. Repayment Plan Information. The committee noted that the staff will no longer require institutions to submit proof of individual repayments that are pursuant to an established repayment plan. The committee noted that the institution must keep documentation of all repayments, which can be requested by the staff. Further, at the completion of the repayment plan, documentation of each payment must be forwarded to the staff.

f. Involvement of Administrative Review Subcommittee (ARS) and Season-of-Competition Waivers in the Extension Analysis. The committee discussed the criteria of the newly adopted season-of-competition waiver (Proposal 48) and determined that the first two criteria of the waiver should be considered to be denied participation opportunities under the extension analysis (withdrawing from school as a result of an incapacitating injury or illness to an immediate family member, or withdrawing from school as a result of extreme financial difficulty). The committee noted that both of these criteria are consistent with Bylaw 30.6.1.1 and considered beyond the control of the student-athlete and the institution. The committee also determined that for the purpose of an extension analysis, the second two criteria of the season-of-competition waiver should not be considered denied participation opportunities (coach?s misunderstanding resulting in the student-athlete competing in exhibition or scrimmages or discontinuation of a sports program). The committee noted that for the purpose of an extension, these two occurrences are within the control of the institution. The committee noted that the distinction between ARS/season-of-competition waivers and the extension analysis is that ARS/season-of-competition waivers are determining whether a student can regain one of his/her four seasons of eligibility, and an extension is determining whether he/she should be granted an additional year of his/her 10-semester period of eligibility. To be granted an extension, an institution must demonstrate that the student-athlete did not have four participation opportunities (meaning the student-athlete was denied at least two participation opportunities). Thus, a hardship waiver, an ARS waiver or a season-of-competition waiver does not automatically result in the criteria for an extension being met. Finally, the committee determined that in the case of an extension, if one of the student-athlete?s participation opportunities was ultimately denied because the season meets one of the first two criteria of the season-of-competition waiver but the student-athlete does not need the additional season, the committee, under its extraordinary clause, can consider this a denied participation opportunity without an institution filing for a season-of-competition waiver (since a granted season-of-competition waiver requires that the student-athlete be withheld from competition on a one-for-one basis).

g. Extension Analysis Applied to Situations Satisfying Both Bylaws 30.6.1.1 and 30.6.1.2. The committee discussed situations where a student-athlete?s participation opportunity meets both the criteria established in Bylaws 30.6.1.1 and 30.6.1.2. The current analysis is that at the staff level, this should be considered a denied participation opportunity. Based on cases processed, the committee noted that there are exceptions to the general rule:

(1) In instances where a circumstance such as a perceived permanent injury occurs prior to a student-athlete?s decision to attend an institution that does not sponsor his/her sport, the student-athlete?s injury should cause Bylaw 30.6.1.1 to apply to the situation, resulting in a denied participation opportunity.

(2) In instances where a student-athlete sustains an injury that is not career ending, if the student-athlete transfers prior to obtaining the injury, this should be considered a participation opportunity per Bylaw 30.6.1.2. If the student-athlete suffers the injury prior to transferring, the motivation of attendance at the second institution should be considered since the student-athlete may transfer for rehabilitation purposes.

Committee Chair: Mary Jo Gunning, Marywood University

Staff Liaison(s): Julie Roe and Kelly J. Groddy, Student-Athlete Reinstatement