REPORT OF THE

NCAA DIVISION III STUDENT-ATHLETE REINSTATEMENT COMMITTEE

 

 

1.                  ACTION ITEMS.

 

a.         Outside Competition – Effects on Eligibility (NCAA Bylaw 14.7.1).

 

(1)        Recommendation.  Adopt noncontroversial language to amend NCAA Bylaw 14.7.1 and replace the language, becomes ineligible for intercollegiate competition for the remainder of the season in his or her sport, with becomes ineligible for intercollegiate competition in that sport until eligibility is restored by the NCAA Division III Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee.

 

(2)        Rationale.  Although Bylaw 14.7.1 states that the student-athlete becomes ineligible for the remainder of that season, the student-athlete reinstatement penalties have not been consistent with this language.  Therefore, the committee wishes to amend the legislation to reflect what occurs in practice.  In addition, the language is misleading to institutions and may result in an institution withholding a student-athlete from more contests than would have been required by the committee.  In that regard, the committee believes that the language should be amended to indicate ineligibility until restored by the committee.  The committee will then determine the appropriate condition for reinstatement. 

 

(3)        Budget Impact.  None.

 

b.         Amateurism – Amateur Status and Competition with Professionals (Bylaw 12.1.1-(e) and 12.2.3.2).

 

(1)        Recommendation.  Adopt noncontroversial legislation to amend Bylaws 12.1.1-(e) (amateur status) and 12.2.3.2 (competition with professionals) to eliminate the requirement that when competing on a professional team, subsequent to initial full-time collegiate enrollment, the student-athlete knew (or had reason to know) that the team was professional.  In addition, the committee recommends that “participated” be substituted with “competed,” given the focus of legislation is on competition with professionals.

 

(2)        Rationale.  The committee believes that the language “knew or had reason to know” should be eliminated from the bylaws given the purpose of the rule is to ensure that individuals do not gain a competitive advantage by


            competing with professionals at a professional level.  An individual’s knowledge of NCAA rules or lack there of does not impact competitive equity. 

 

            Regarding the substitution of “participated” with “competed,” this clarification focuses on the bylaw on competition since practice, which could be construed from “participation,” is already addressed in Bylaw 12.2.2.

 

(3)        Budget Impact.  None.

     

c.         Season of Competition Waivers – Competition while Eligible (Bylaw 14.2.7).

                 

(1)        Recommendations. 

 

(a)        Adopt noncontroversial legislation to amend Bylaws 14.2.7.1.2-(a) and (b) and modify the current season of competition waiver for eligible participation to a) remove requirement that the circumstances must occur at an NCAA institution (effective immediately), b) remove the official withdrawal from the institution requirement when the student-athlete is unable to compete due to extenuating circumstances related to life-threatening injury or illness or extreme financial difficulties of withholding a student-athlete, who meets all of the conditions and administrative criteria of the waiver.  

 

(b)        Sponsor legislation for the 2005 NCAA Convention to amend Bylaw 14.2.7.1.3 to remove the penalty of withholding a student-athlete, who meets all of the conditions and administrative criteria of the waiver.

 

(2)        Rationale.  The committee noted that the circumstances of a family member’s injury or illness or financial hardship are circumstances considered outside the control of the student-athlete and the institution and are not circumstances linked to attendance specifically at an NCAA institution.  As for the requirement that the student-athlete officially withdraw from the institution for consideration of a season-of-competition waiver, the committee determined that the analysis should be whether objective documentation clearly demonstrates that the student-athlete was unable to participate in intercollegiate athletics due to the injury or illness or financial hardship suffered by an immediate family member.  The committee noted that in regard to the hardship waiver legislation (Bylaw 14.2.5), the circumstances of the student-athlete’s injury or illness are considered outside the control of the student-athlete and the institution and provide the student-athlete with an opportunity to regain a season of competition without a withholding penalty.  The committee determined that it seemed fair and consistent to not impose a withholding condition on a student-athlete when he or she satisfies the parameters of the waiver.  (The committee noted that circumstances involving an institution dropping a sport shall be decided on a case-by-case basis.)

 

(3)        Budget Impact.  None.

 

d.         Scheduled or Completed Contests/Dates of Competition (Bylaws 14.2.6 and 14.2.7).

 

(1)        Recommendation.  Sponsor legislation for the 2005 Convention to amend the language in the season-of-competition waivers (Bylaws 14.2.6 and 14.2.7) and the hardship legislation (Bylaw 14.2.5) to permit scheduled or completed contests or dates of competition (whichever is most beneficial to the student-athlete) to be used in the calculations of the three waivers.

 

(2)        Rationale.  The committee noted that there is inconsistency in whether scheduled or completed contests best serve student-athlete welfare concerns.

 

Hardship waiver

(Bylaw 14.2.5) – “completed”

 

Season-of-competition waiver/competition while ineligible

(Bylaw 14.2.6) – “completed”

 

Season-of-competition waiver/competition while eligible

(Bylaw 14.2.7) – “completed”

 

The committee recommends that the language in all three waivers be amended to include “scheduled or completed,” whichever is most beneficial to the student-athlete.”  By way of example, consider the case of an NCAA Division III softball student-athlete, who is requesting a season-of-competition waiver/competition while eligible (Bylaw 14.2.7), due to her need to withdraw from school as a result of a life-threatening illness suffered by her mother.  In this example (and assuming all other criteria for the waiver have been met), the softball team had 45 contests scheduled that season.  Due to weather issues, the softball team only ends up completing 36 contests.  If the student-athlete had competed in 13 contests prior to withdrawing from school, she would not qualify for the waiver because of the adverse distinction between “scheduled” and “completed.”  Specifically, under the current “completed” legislation, the student-athlete would have been allowed a maximum of 12 contests to qualify for the waiver (and, therefore, would not qualify).  Under “scheduled” legislation, the student-athlete would have been allowed a maximum of 15 contests to qualify for the waiver (and, therefore, would qualify).

 

An additional benefit to student-athletes by use of either “scheduled or completed” legislation is the ability to file for the waiver prior to the conclusion of the season in question.  Under “completed” legislation, the waiver cannot be processed until it is actually known how many contests were completed during the season in question.

 

(3)        Budget Impact.  None.

 

e.         Policies and Procedures. 

 

(1)        Recommendation.  Approve proposed amendments to the committee’s policies and procedures.  [Attachment]

 

(2)        Rationale.  None.

 

(3)        Budget Impact.  None.

 

f.          Educational Efforts at NCAA Convention.

 

(1)        Recommendation.  Recommend that the Division III Convention-Planning Subcommittee consider including a “best practices” session at the 2005 NCAA Convention, regarding successful compliance procedures used to make student-athlete eligibility paperwork more student-athlete friendly.  

 

(2)        Rationale.  The committee believes that educational efforts directed toward rules compliance should continue regarding student-athlete reinstatement issues.  Further, the NCAA Convention can provide a forum for providing and sharing successful compliance practices among the membership.

 

(3)        Budget Impact.  None.

 

 

g.         Educational Efforts at Regional Compliance Seminars.

 

(1)        Recommendation.  Recommend that the Membership Committee consider inclusion of a Division III session addressing post-enrollment prize money and amateurism issues, as well as the reinstatement process at the regional compliance seminars.  Finally, the committee requests that the Membership Committee encourage Management Council members to attend conference meetings to serve as a resource regarding national issues.

 

(2)        Rationale.  The committee believes that given the frequency of questions and possible confusion regarding the receipt of prize money among the membership and student-athletes, consideration should be given to a Division III educational session at regional compliance seminars.

 

(3)        Budget Impact.  None.

 

 

2.      INFORMATIONAL ITEMS.

 

a.a.      Amateurism Issues Post-Enrollment.  The committee reviewed and discussed reinstatement conditions for enrolled student-athletes who (a) participate on professional teams, (b) accept expenses from a professional team and (c) accept prize money subsequent to enrollment.  The committee determined that when a student-athlete competes on a professional team, the first step will be to review the circumstances as to whether the student-athlete should be reinstated.  If the circumstances warrant the student-athlete being reinstated, the minimum withholding condition would be to charge the student-athlete with a season of competition for each season he or she competed with the professional team to address the competitive advantage gained by participation on a professional team.  The committee did not want to mandate an additional one-for-one withholding penalty, given the possible lack of knowledge when the participation occurred while enrolled at a non NCAA institution.

 

The committee determined that the reinstatement condition for a student-athlete who accepts expenses from a professional team, subsequent to enrollment at an NCAA institution, include not only repayment but also an assessment of the student-athlete’s culpability.  By examining the student-athlete’s culpability, there will be a possibility of withholding conditions applying based on the dollar amount of the impermissible expenses. 

 

The committee determined that the reinstatement condition for a student-athlete who accepts prize money, subsequent to collegiate enrollment at an NCAA institution, include not only repayment but also application of the dollar-figure guidelines established for the receipt of impermissible benefits given the student-athlete’s responsibility for the action and opportunity for rules education.

 

The committee determined the appropriate effective date for the above reinstatement conditions to apply to enrolled student-athletes, who compete on professional teams or accept expenses or prize money subsequent to enrollment, shall be August 1, 2004.

 

         b.      Review of Appealed Cases.  The committee heard a total of four appeals from April 24 through October 1, 2003.

 

                  Legislation                                                              Total                Decision

                  Bylaw 30.6.1 (extension-waiver criteria)                 4                      Affirmed (3)

                                                                                                                        Granted (1)

 

c.      Assessing Student-Athlete Culpability.  The committee confirmed that the responsibility or culpability of the student-athlete should be assessed regardless of the bylaw involved in the violation.

 

d.      Extensions of the 10-Semester/15-Quarter Period of Eligibility.  As indicated by the legislation, the institution must provide contemporaneous documentation (documentation from the time of the injury) to support that the student-athlete is incapacitated.  This documentation can be supported by a noncontemporaneous letter from a doctor indicating that the student-athlete could not compete; however, contemporaneous documentation must be submitted to supplement the noncontemporaneous letter.  The committee asked the NCAA student-athlete reinstatement staff to work with the Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports Committee in an attempt to develop general guidelines of expectations of medical documentation for specific injuries.  The committee developed the following guidelines of expectations of medical documentation for specific injuries. 

 

·              While valid that a student-athlete does not seek medical attention as a direct result of his or her mental illness, information standards still supersede this consideration absent any objective documentation of the mental illness (Case No. 19691).

 

·              Extended periods of incapacitation due to mental illness, may be inferred through documentation and prolonged periods of not being enrolled in school, despite “gaps” in the documentation that may not specifically address individual academic years (Case No. 22424).

 

·              For assertions of mental illness stemming from documented criminal acts committed against a student-athlete, noncontemporaneous documentation that addresses the period of treatment may be sufficient to demonstrate incapacity despite a lack of detailed, contemporaneous medical documentation (Case No. 23040).

 

·              In cases where the actual mental illness of the student-athlete may have been misdiagnosed, incapacitation may result when the misdiagnosis and subsequent proper diagnosis are sufficiently documented and the staff may infer the length of incapacitation to have begun from the point of the original misdiagnosis (Case No. 23956).

 

·              In cases where the student-athlete asserts circumstances that are both beyond and within the control of the student-athlete or institution (Bylaws 30.6.1.1 and 30.6.1.2), the staff shall consider these instances as participation opportunities, absent documentation sufficient to demonstrate that the issues that related to Bylaw 30.6.1.1 necessitated the transfer to an institution that does not sponsor the student-athlete’s sport (Case No. 22433).

 

The committee approved the following guidelines for assertions involving the length of incapacitation related to an injury:

 

·              The length of incapacitation (when determining “denied participation opportunity”) cannot be inferred merely by the type of injury suffered (Case No. 21448).

 

·              For multisport athletes, each sport must be evaluated separately regarding participation opportunity.  Incapacitation for more than one sport is possible for the same injury, but the burden remains on the institution to demonstrate that the length of incapacitation caused the student-athlete to be denied a participation opportunity in each sport (Case No. 22171).

 

·              For injuries in which the length of incapacitation is variable (or originally given as an indefinite period of incapacitation), the staff may infer that an injury’s length of incapacitation denies a participation opportunity when the documentation sufficiently demonstrates (such as through the trainer’s notes that clarify the student-athlete’s condition during the indefinite period of incapacitation) that the incapacitation possibly exists within a particular time frame (Case No. 23161).

 

·              When an injury precedes a season and the student-athlete is cleared to resume activities while a meaningful participation opportunity still exists, the season in question cannot be considered a denied participation opportunity despite an institutional decision not to permit the student-athlete to compete (Case No. 23227).

 

·              Absent extraordinary circumstances outside the control of the student-athlete that bar the ability to obtain contemporaneous medical documentation, the burden to meet the information and documentation standards regarding incapacitation still falls on the student-athlete and institution (Case No. 23063).

 

e.      Implementation of Less Bureaucratic, More Responsive Philosophy with Student-Athlete Reinstatement.  The staff reviewed cases with the committee where the change in philosophy resulted in a different outcome in a reinstatement decision.  

 

The shift in reinstatement analysis changed from an outcome-based philosophy to a focus on approach and analysis of cases.  With this new approach, the staff considers mitigation presented by the institution, student-athlete responsibility for the violation and whether the institution could have corrected the situation to avoid the violation.  Although the approach to each case has changed significantly, this may or may not result in a different outcome.

 

In addition, the committee met with the NCAA enforcement staff.  Noting that the reinstatement and enforcement processes are distinct and separate, relief in reinstatement does not necessarily mean a more significant penalty will be imposed in the enforcement process.  Enforcement did note that the reinstatement staff and committee can note within the rationale that relief from a more stringent reinstatement condition for the student-athlete was provided because of heightened institutional responsibility.  This communication and the sharing of information between reinstatement and enforcement will assist in preventing institutions from arguing complete institutional responsibility to reinstatement and then mitigating institutional responsibility to enforcement. 

 

f.       Strategic Plan.  The committee supported the staff’s continued efforts to enhance educational efforts directed at campus personnel and student-athletes regarding NCAA legislation through strategic plan initiatives.  The committee requested members be encouraged to incorporate NCAA national staff members into conference office annual meetings.

Committee Chair:  Mary Jo Gunning, Marywood University

Staff Liaisons:  Kelly Groddy, Student-Athlete Reinstatement

                        Julie Roe, Student-Athlete Reinstatement

 

 

NCAA STUDENT-ATHLETE REINSTATEMENT COMMITTEE

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

 

(Including Reinstatement Requests, Waivers and Extension Requests)

 

The student-athlete reinstatement process provides for the evaluation of institutional self- reports submit­ted on behalf of student-athletes/prospective student-athletes who have been involved in a violation of NCAA regulations that affect their eligibility in order to assess the student-athlete(s)’/prospective student-athlete(s)' responsibility and to determine appropriate conditions for reinstatement of eligibility.  This proc­ess also provides for a review of institutional requests for various waivers for which the Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committees have the authority to act.  Decisions for both reinstatement requests and other waiver requests are based upon national standards established by the membership, the Management Councils and the Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committees, and are applied by the student-athlete reinstatement staff.

 

 

Initial Staff Decision - Reinstatement Requests

 

1.      When a member institution determines that a prospective or enrolled student-athlete has been in­volved in a violation of NCAA rules, it is obligated under NCAA Bylaw 14.11.1 to declare the individual ineligible and withhold the student-athlete from all intercollegiate competition.  The Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committees process reinstatement requests for violations of Bylaw 10 (Ethical Conduct), Bylaw 12 (Ama­teurism, Bylaw 13 (Recruiting), Bylaw 14 (Eligibility), Bylaw 15 (Financial Aid), Bylaw 16 (Extra Benefits) and Bylaw 18 (Drug Testing).  If nec­essary, an institution should contact the NCAA membership services staff to obtain an interpretation concerning the ap­propriate ap­plication of the legislation.

 

2.      If an individual is ineligible under NCAA legislation and the institution believes the circumstances warrant re­questing reinstatement of eligibil­ity, it may submit a request for reinstatement to the NCAA direc­tor of student-athlete reinstatement.  If the institution requires an immediate decision (e.g., because of pending competi­tion), it should be noted in its request.  The request for rein­statement shall include a statement that a violation has taken place; a statement indicating that the institution has declared the involved prospective student-athlete or student-athlete ineligible and is requesting reinstatement of eligibility; a description of the violation, including the rule citation and amount or value of any benefit received; the identity of all coaches, prospective student-athletes or student-athletes and other individuals involved in the violation; the means by which the institution became aware of the viola­tion; the reason(s) the violation occurred; the involved prospective student-athletes or student-athletes’ knowledge of the rule in question; a list of corrective or disciplinary actions taken by the institution or conference; a statement describing factors, if any, that might mitigate the violation; and support­ing documentation.  The institution is responsible for developing complete, accurate


and thorough information prior to submitting an appeal to the Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee. 

 

3.      After a request for reinstatement is received by the national office, it is assigned to a student-athlete reinstatement staff member, who reviews the re­quest and may obtain additional information prior to reaching a decision.  While the student-athlete reinstatement staff may gather additional informa­tion relevant to the reinstatement request, its primary purpose is to ensure that the facts are developed.  Its primary function is not to act as a fact-finding body.  The institution primarily is responsible for gathering the facts necessary to process a reinstatement request. 

 

 If the reinstatement request involves an agent or gambling violation, the reinstatement staff will provide a copy of the institution’s report to the agents, gambling and amateurism (AGA) staff of enforcement services.  If the AGA staff agrees that the report appears complete, the reinstatement staff will continue with its process.  If the AGA staff determines that the report appears incomplete, the AGA staff may conduct additional follow up with the institution to ensure that all relevant facts are included in the request before the reinstatement staff issues a decision.

 

If the reinstatement request involves an amateurism violation self-reported by the institution, the reinstatement staff may provide a copy of the institution’s report to the AGA staff to ensure accuracy and a complete representation of the facts.  Also, if the staff determines that in-depth follow up is warranted, the reinstatement staff will notify the institution of the concerns related to the facts as reported and indicate that additional follow up appears to be needed.  The AGA staff and the reinstatement staff will work jointly to conduct the needed follow up to develop the set of facts.

 

If the reinstatement request involves an amateurism case that was initiated by the AGA staff through investigative efforts, the reinstatement staff will provide a copy of the institution’s report to the AGA staff to ensure accuracy and a complete representation of the relevant facts.  If the AGA staff determines that relevant facts need to be added to the institution’s report, the AGA staff will contact the institution to discuss the report and establish a set of agreed-upon facts upon which the reinstatement staff will base its decision.

 

If the reinstatement staff notifies the institution that the report appears to be incomplete, but the institution determines that the facts are complete as reported, then the reinstatement staff will make a decision based on the reported facts.  If the concerns are substantiated with facts, then the institution could be subject to the enforcement process, and the reinstatement decision could be voided.

If the reinstatement request involves a violation connected to a major infractions case, the reinstatement staff will provide a copy of the report to the major enforcement staff members involved in the case.  If the enforcement staff determines that the report appears complete, then the reinstatement staff will process the case.  If the enforcement staff determines that the report appears incomplete, the reinstatement staff and major enforcement staff may conduct a follow up with the institution specific to the concerns related to the facts.  If the institution agrees that the report needs to be developed, the major enforcement and/or reinstatement staff will assist with that investigative process.  However, if the institution determines that the report is complete, then the reinstatement staff will make a decision based on the institution’s set of facts. If the staff’s concerns are substantiated, then the institution could be subject to the enforcement process, and the reinstatement decision could be voided.

 

4.            Bylaws 21.6.6.2.3.3.3.1-(a) (Division I), 21.6.6.4.2.2 (Division II), and 21.8.6.3.4 (Division III) authorizes the NCAA director of student-athlete reinstatement to act on behalf of the three Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committees to apply the eligibility rules of the Association.  The director of student-athlete reinstatement has dele­gated the authority to process reinstatement requests and make de­cisions to the student-athlete reinstatement staff after consultation with the di­rector, when necessary. 

 

5.      After the student-athlete reinstatement staff has reviewed the institution's request and has com­pleted its research, the staff may reinstate eligibility immediately, may impose appropriate conditions for reinstatement of eligi­bility or may conclude that eligibility should not be reinstated.  If the reinstatement condition requires repayment and the institution and student-athlete choose to enter into a repayment plan, failure to satisfy that repayment plan by the student-athlete after competing under the plan may result in the staff not entering into repayment plans with that institution for a four-year period.  Repayment of an impermissible benefit must be made to the source (if it is the institution) or a charity of the student-athlete’s choice.  The institution may be notified verbally of the result, if necessary, and all decisions shall be con­firmed in writing.  The following individuals will re­ceive copies of the decision:  the director of athletics, the faculty athletics representative, the senior woman administra­tor, the conference commissioner, if applicable, and the institutional staff member who submitted the request, if not one of the aforementioned persons.  The division committees also shall be apprised in writing of all staff decisions that deviate from case precedent within its divi­sion regardless of whether the deci­sion is appealed to the division committee. 

 

6.      An institution may ask the staff to reconsider its decision if the institution obtains new information related to the original case (e.g., same transaction, occurrence or


         series of events). The institution shall submit the information to the NCAA staff who will re-open the case and make a decision based on the new set of facts.   

 

7.      For decisions that involve withholding from competition as a condition, the student-athlete must fulfill the reinstatement condition when he or she is otherwise eligible and during one of his or her four seasons of competition. 

 

The competitions used to fulfill a reinstatement condition must be applied as follows:

 

v                 Team sports – the contests must be among those considered for team selection to the NCAA championship;

 

v                 Individual sports with separate team championship – the dates of competition must be among those considered for team selection to the NCAA championship;

 

v                 Individual sports without a separate team championship – the date of competition must be among those used to qualify for the NCAA championship. 

 

v                 Sports without an NCAA championship – the date must be regularly scheduled. 

 

(Please note scrimmage or exhibition contests may not be used to fulfill a reinstatement condition.  In addition, if the next contest in the institution’s schedule is part of the NCAA championship or other postseason competition, then the student-athlete must be withheld from those contests.)  Also, a student-athlete must fulfill a reinstatement condition when he or she is medically cleared to play by the institution.

 

8.      The director of student-athlete reinstatement and the vice-president for enforcement membership services have the authority to stay a decision if the following conditions are met:  (1) the institution and student-athlete first become aware of the violation within 48 hours of the competition, (2) and case precedent is unclear whether withholding from competition as a condition for reinstatement is warranted.  If the staff does grant a stay, the student-athlete will be eligible for competition until the committee’s first available opportunity for an appeal call.

 

Initial Staff Decision - Other Waivers/Extension Requests

 

1.      The Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committees have the authority to process six types of waivers: Bylaws 14.2.1, 14.2.2 and 30.6.1 (Five-year/10-semester waiver), Bylaw 14.2.1.5 (Athletics Activity Waiver); Bylaw 14.2.4 – Division I, Bylaw 14.2.5 - Division II and III, (Hardship Waiver) (independent institutions only); Bylaws 14.2.5 14.2.6 – Division I and Bylaw 14.2.6 – Divisions II and III (Season-of Competition Waiver).  [The committees will not review an extension request if the Administrative Review Subcommittee has already reviewed a request to waive an exception under Bylaw 14.2.1.1 (Determining the Start of the Five-Year Period - Division I) or Bylaw 14.2.2.1 (Utilization of Semester or Quarter - Divisions II and III) for the involved student-athlete.]

 

2.      For an institution submitting an extension request, a checklist and table have been created to assist the institution in submitting all appropriate and necessary information.  These materials can be found on the NCAA Web site or can be sent to the institution via fac­simile by the student-athlete reinstatement staff.  For waivers other than extension requests, the institution should submit a cover letter explaining its request, a detailed description of the student-athlete's circumstances, an indication of the specific bylaw the institution believes is applicable and appropriate supporting documentation.  Only written materials will be reviewed by the staff and committee.  X-rays, photographs, etc. will not be considered. 

 

3.      After an institution submits its request, it is assigned to a staff member for review.  The staff may request that the institution gather and submit additional information in an effort to meet the standards set by the legislative criteria.  Once all materials relevant to the institution's request have been submitted, the staff will make a decision on behalf of the division Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee.

 

4.      An institution may ask the staff to reconsider its decision if the institution obtains new information related to the original case (e.g., same transaction, occurrence or series of events).  The institution shall submit the information to the NCAA staff who will re-open the case and make a decision based on the new set of facts. 


         Appealing Staff Decisions to the Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee

 

1.      Once an institution has received written notice of the staff's deci­sion, it may appeal this decision to the Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee for the division in which the institution holds member­ship.  The division committee's consideration of an appeal is the committee's first review of the institution's re­quest, and its decision is final, binding and shall not be subject to review by the NCAA Management Council or any other authority.

 

2.      An institution's full written appeal including the required form shall be submitted to the director of student-athlete reinstatement within 30 calendar days from the date on the initial staff decision letter.  An appeal request submitted after the 30-day appeal period will not be processed.  Exceptions to this policy may be granted by the division chair when an institution is able to demonstrate in writing that exceptional circum­stances caused the institution's appeal to be submitted beyond the 30-day appeal period. The insti­tution's written appeal of the staff's decision shall be sub­mit­ted by the chief ex­ecutive officer (or individual designated by the chief ex­ecutive officer), faculty athletics representative, senior woman administra­tor or director of athletics.  The institution is required to state in its written ap­peal the reasons it believes the initial staff decision was incorrect and should be modified or overturned.  The committee requires a minimum of 48 hours to review documentation prior to a teleconference or prior to rendering a decision for a paper review.  Exceptions to this policy can be made if the director of student-athlete reinstatement and the committee chair determine that the urgency of the case warrants immediate consideration, and the committee is able to thoroughly review the documentation prior to the call, or in the case of a paper review, prior to issuing a decision.

 

3.      For all appeals handled by the Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee, all factual disputes must be resolved prior to the division committee reviewing the matter.   Prior to consideration of the matter, the staff will send copies of the institution's request and the information upon which the staff based its decision to the members of the division committee.  The institution will receive a copy of the same information.  The staff shall provide the institution and division committee with a copy of ap­plicable case precedent prior to the division committee's consideration of the mat­ter. 

 

4.      There are two different types of appeals processed by the Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee.

 

a.     Reinstatement of Eligibility Appeals.  After receiving the institution's appeal, the staff will schedule a tele­conference with the appropriate division committee


       and will advise the institution of the date and time of the hearing.  Appeals for reinstatement of eligibility to the division committee are conducted by teleconference call, unless the staff and institution agree that a paper review would be effective.  If any member of the committee determines that a teleconference is essential in order to make a deci­sion, that member may contact the chair with the request, and a teleconference shall be con­ducted.

 

b.    Waivers and Extension Request Appeals.  The institution's written appeal should include all ma­terials the institution wishes to be considered by the division ­committee during its review.  The prospective or enrolled student-athlete shall submit a statement and/or information with the institution's request as part of the appeal.  Information submitted subsequent to this request for appeal shall not be considered by the committee in its review of the matter, unless the information is newly available to both the student-athlete and the institution or newly existent to both the student-athlete and the institution.  This request for appeal shall include a statement indicating whether the institution prefers the committee to conduct the appeal through either a review of the written documentation and correspondence or through a teleconference call.  If a teleconference is re