Title: AMATEURISM -- PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES (NCAA
Division III Management Council [Endorsements/Promotions Task Force]).
Official Notice No. 1
Intent: To revise the restrictions related to
the use of a student-athlete’s name or image in institutional,
charitable, educational or nonprofit promotional activities, as specified.
Effective Date: Immediate.
Question: How is the 25 percent limit to be
measured? If there is a combination
of voiceover, graphics and onscreen text, can more than 25 percent of the
voiceover be related to the product as long as less than 25 percent of the
graphics/onscreen text image is related to the product?
Answer: The purpose of the 25 percent limit is to ensure that the primary focus
of the promotional activity is related to the permissible entity (e.g.,
institutional, noninstitutional charitable, educational or nonprofit
entity). The promotional activity
must be reviewed in its entirety or totality. Thus, in a 30 second promotional spot,
only seven and one-half seconds may be related to the commercial entity. For example, if a voiceover related to
the commercial product is heard while the logo of the commercial appears on the
screen for four seconds, this would be counted as four seconds towards the 25
percent limit. It does not count as
eight seconds (e.g., four seconds of voiceover and four seconds of logo). Alternatively, if four seconds of
voiceover appear separately from a four second visual of the commercial entity’s
logo in a 30 second promotional spot, this would be counted as eight seconds
and would meet the 25 percent limitations.
Question: Are any of
the proposed promotional rules more limiting than the current regulations?
Answer: The proposal
requires a chancellor or president’s (or designee’s) approval of
student-athlete participation in the promotional activities where the current
regulations require athletics director approval. Also, the proposal limits the promotion
from featuring alcoholic beverages, tobacco products or performance enhancing
drugs and also specifies that the commercial entity shall not be one that
promotes gambling. Further, the
current rule has no restriction on the number or size of commercial entity
logos or trademarks. While the
proposal does expand what may be included in the promotion (e.g., picture of
commercial product), it limits the reference to the commercial entity(s) to 25
percent of the entire activity.
Question: May the
director of athletics serve as the institution’s chancellor or president’s
designee in approving student-athlete participation in the promotional
activities?
Answer: Yes, the chancellor
or president has the discretion to designate any institutional staff as their
designee.
Question: May the
student-athlete be shown using the commercial product?
Answer: No. Use of the product in the promotion is
considered an implied endorsement and it is not permissible to show the
student-athlete using the commercial product.
Title: RECRUITING -- TRYOUTS -- EXCEPTION (NCAA
Division III Presidents Council [Management Council - Interpretations and
Legislation Committee]).
Official Notice No. 2
Intent: To permit institutional coaches to teach private lessons to a prospect
provided specified criteria are satisfied. [NOTE: THE PRESIDENTS COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER AN
AMENDMENT-TO-AMENDMENT AT ITS PRE-CONVENTION MEETING TO LIMIT THIS PROPOSAL TO
GOLF AND TENNIS.]
Effective Date:
Question: Are there
any restrictions on what activities may occur during the private lesson? Would
playing lessons be permitted?
Answer: Private lessons
may include any instructive guidance to a prospect about a sport, including
playing lessons. A private lesson
should not be used to test a prospective student-athlete’s playing
abilities or for other tryout purposes.
Question: How is
this proposal different from what is allowed when golf or tennis professionals
give lessons under the local sports-club exception?
Answer: The local
sports club exception (See NCAA Bylaw 13.11.2.3) allows a coach in any sport to
give lessons to prospects so long as the lesson is conducted through a local
sports club’s normal individual lesson schedule and operations. This proposal is distinct from the local
sports club exception in that it would allow a coach to provide private lessons
directly to a prospect without requiring it to be conducted through local
sports club operations.
Question: Who is
considered a prospect for this proposal? Can an institutional coach provide
private lessons to students or student-athletes of other four-year collegiate
institutions?
Answer: Per Bylaw 13.11.1.1, a prospect is
defined as any individual who has started classes for the ninth grade and is
not enrolled in the member institution at the time of the practice or test
therein described. An institution’s
coach may provide private lessons to a four-year college prospect from another institution
so long as the coach giving the private lesson has received permission in
writing from the student-athlete’s current institution to communicate
with the four-year college prospect, regardless of who makes the initial
contact. It should also be noted
that
while Division III
student-athletes may grant their own permission to contact other institutions, [LMN1]that
permission is only valid for 30 days and then must be renewed and notice of the
permission must be given to the student-athlete's institution at the time of
renewal.
Question: May
current student-athletes take private lessons from coaches from another
institution during the student-athlete’s playing season?
Answer: Yes, according
to the provisions noted in the answer above.
Question: May the
coach promote or advertise the private lessons?
Answer: Yes. These promotions should indicate that the
lessons are available to the general public and should not be targeted toward
any one prospect or towards prospects generally.
Question: May institutional
facilities be used for the private lessons?
Answer: Yes, if the
coach pays the standard rate to use the facility and follows institutional
policy.
Question: What if the coach has access to facilities at no
cost as part of his or her employment, do they have pay for those institutional
facilities to be used for the private lessons?
Answer: No. The coach would not have to pay for facilities he or
she could normally access for no cost provided the prospects receiving lessons
are charged the going rate in the locale of the institution.
Question: How are
private lessons distinguished from camps or clinics?
Answer: Private lessons
are geared primarily toward one-on-one and small group instruction, whereas
camps or clinics include more broad-based instruction and programming for large
groups.
Title: ELIGIBILITY -- SEASONS OF COMPETITION
(
Official Notice No. 3
Intent: To specify that a student-athlete
shall use a season of eligibility when he or she participates in any
regular-season competition (including scrimmages occurring after the first
contest or date of competition and competition in the nontraditional segment)
or postseason intercollegiate competition.
Effective Date:
Question: Does this proposal reinstate the seasons of eligibility rules that
existed before
Answer: Yes. This proposal returns to
the competition standard for use of a
season of eligibility. This
proposal essentially reinstitutes the ability to "redshirt.”
Question: Does the NCAA define "redshirt?”
Answer: No. "Redshirt" is
not an official NCAA term. It is
used in this question and answer document as well as the rationale of this
proposal because the term is commonly understood to describe a season of
athletics participation where a student-athlete does not represent the
institution in competition against an outside team.
Question: If a student-athlete redshirted during the 2004-05 or 2005-06 academic
years, does that have to count as one of the four seasons of eligibility for a
continuing student-athlete if this proposal passes?
Answer: This proposal does not apply retroactively. Therefore, a student-athlete would use a
season of eligibility for redshirting at a Division III institution during the 2004-05
or 2005-06 academic years.
Answer: No. In determining use of a season of
eligibility, the rules of the certifying institution shall be applied. Therefore, if a student-athlete used a
season for preseason competition at a non-Division III institution, that season
does not count when the individual comes to the Division III institution. [LMN2]
Title: ELIGIBILITY -- SEASONS OF
PARTICIPATION -- PARTICIPATION AT ANY COLLEGIATE INSTITUTION (
Official Notice No. 4
Intent: To specify that participation at any
collegiate institution shall constitute the use of a season of eligibility.
Effective Date:
Question: How should an institution determine if
an incoming transfer student-athlete used a season at a non-Division III
institution?
Answer: Similar to the way that institutions must
currently verify information regarding seasons-of-competition for
student-athletes coming from a non-Division III institution, the institution
must ask the previous school about the transfer’s attendance at practice
and/or competition. The institution
should ask, for example, about dates the transfer student attended practice and
also about the team’s competition schedule so the use of season(s) of
participation may be assessed.
Question: If an incoming transfer redshirted at a non-Division III institution
prior to
Answer: No. The rule applies to participation
occurring on or after
Question: Is
participation at the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA),
Answer: Yes.
The season-of-participation
standard would apply to any collegiate institution.
Title: ELIGIBILITY -- GRADUATE
STUDENT/POSTBACCALAUREATE PARTICIPATION -- EXCEPTION (NCAA Division III
Presidents Council [Management Council - Administrative Review Subcommittee]).
Official Notice No. 5
Intent: To permit a student-athlete who has
earned a baccalaureate degree at a four-year institution be immediately
eligible on transfer to the certifying institution, provided the
student-athlete has at least one season of participation remaining, meets an
exception to the transfer-residence requirement and has more than two semesters
or three quarters of eligibility remaining pursuant to the
10-semester/15-quarter rule. [NOTE:
THE PRESIDENTS COUNCIL WITHDREW
THIS PROPOSAL AT ITS OCTOBER MEETING.]
Effective Date:
Question: Does this
proposal allow all graduate students to be immediately eligible?
Answer: No. If the graduate student is attending a
Division III institution not previously attended as an undergraduate, he or she
must have more than two semesters or three quarters of eligibility remaining
(meaning that he or she must have completed a bachelor’s degree in less
than four years of full-time enrollment) and must also meet one of the Division
III transfer exceptions. The
primary Division III transfer exception requires the transferring
student-athlete to be academically and athletically eligible had he or she
remained at the previous institution.
Question: What about
students who alternate between part-time and full-time status for more than
four calendar years? Can those
students use this exception?
Answer: Per Bylaw
14.2.2.1, the 10-semester/15-quarter rule specifies that only full-time terms
are counted towards the limit. Note
that a student uses a semester or quarter when that student enrolls full time
and attends a class, even if that student later drops to part-time status.
Question: If this
proposal is withdrawn or defeated, may an institution file a waiver of Bylaw
14.1.9 (the graduate student/postbaccalaureate participation rule)?
Answer: Yes.
The Administrative Review Subcommittee (ARS) waiver is the mechanism by
which an institution could seek to waive Bylaw 14.1.9 to permit a student-athlete
to participate as a graduate or postbaccalaureate student-athlete at a Division
III institution where he or she did not attend as an undergraduate. The subcommittee will continue to review
waiver requests of Bylaw 14.1.9 on a case-by-case basis; however the
subcommittee will also continue to consider the following guidelines within its
analysis: 1) the student-athlete must satisfy the general transfer exception
per Bylaw 14.5.1.1 and 2) the student-athlete must have more than two
semesters/three quarters remaining on his or her 10 semester/15 quarter clock.
Title: DIVISION III MEMBERSHIP -- SPORTS
SPONSORSHIP -- MINIMUM CONTEST REQUIREMENTS (NCAA Division III Presidents
Council [Management Council - Membership Committee]).
Official Notice No. 6
Intent: To revise the minimum contest
requirements for sports sponsorship to 70 percent of the division-wide average
number of completed contests, as specified.
Effective Date:
Question: Which contests count toward the
minimum contest requirements?
Answer: All completed contests against varsity
programs of four-year, degree-granting institutions count towards minimum
contest requirements. This includes
all regular season, postseason and preseason competition where the contest is
conducted in accordance with the playing rules of the sport in question including
those an institution may exempt per maximum contest regulations.
Question: Were post-season contests used to
determine the average number of completed contests per sport?
Answer: Yes.
(In doing so, the required minimum was set at 70 percent of the average
completed contests as opposed to a higher percentage.)
Question: The
proposal's rationale statement indicates that the NCAA Division III Membership
Committee will review the average contest requirements every three years and
update the requirements based on that review. Does that mean the committee will seek
to reset the contest minimums at 70 percent of the average every three years?
Answer: While the committee plans to engage in a regular review of
minimum contest requirements by examining the number of completed contests
across the division, it will not continually reset the minimums at 70 percent
of the average. This is becuase
adoption of this proposal is likely to increase the average number of completed
contests for the division and continually resetting at 70 percent would likely force
the number to creep up over time.
The committee will examine general trends in completed contests per
sport to determine if any changes are appropriate.
Question: Why does the proposal appear to remove
women’s fencing?
Answer: This proposal sets a consistent standard for men’s and women’s
fencing; thus it only lists the sport one time.
Question: What is
the penalty for failure to meet the minimum contest requirement?
Answer: If an
institution does not meet the minimum contest requirement in a certain sport,
it cannot count that sport towards the minimum number of sports required per
Bylaw 20.11.3. If the institution
does not sponsor the required minimum number of sports, it shall be placed on
probation, restricted and then corresponding membership for repeated failures
of meeting sports-sponsorship requirements within a 10-year window. The
status of probation serves as a warning that certain conditions and obligations
of membership have not been satisfied and failure to correct such deficiencies
shall result in the institution's reclassification to the category of
restricted membership. An
institution placed on restricted membership is subject to loss of eligibility for a number of membership
privileges including championships
eligibility, voting privileges, Division III grant and initiative funding and
catastrophic injury insurance
Question: May an
institution request a waiver or appeal of its probation or restricted
membership status?
Answer: The current Bylaw
20.11.3.3.9 permits an institution to request a waiver of sports-sponsorship
requirements from the Management Council on recommendation from the Membership Committee.
Typically, the committee looks for
situations beyond the control of the institution that prevented the institution
from participating in the required number of contests.
Question: If an
institution does not meet the minimum contest requirements in a certain sport,
does it affect an institution’s eligibility for championships selection?
Answer: Yes. Bylaw 18.4.2 requires that an institution
shall be in good standing in the appropriate division in order to enter NCAA championship
competition. As part of good
standing, the sport shall meet minimum contest requirements. This bylaw requires an institution to
meet membership requirements for the sport in question to enter a team into the
championship. Individual sports are
not necessarily bound by this requirement but those sports must meet certain
championships selection criteria by sport, which may include a minimum number
of completed contests (separate from minimum contest requirements).
Question: Does this
proposal affect a conference’s automatic qualification?
Answer: For automatic
qualification purposes, a conference will lose its automatic qualification if
it does not satisfy the requirements set forth in Executive Regulation 31.3.4,
including the requirement that at least seven active institutions sponsor the
sport on the varsity level and are eligible for the NCAA Division III
championship. Because an
institution must meet membership requirements to be eligible for championships,
seven institutions in the conference would need to meet sports-sponsorship
minimums to maintain automatic qualification.
Title: DIVISION III MEMBERSHIP -- ACTIVE
MEMBERSHIP -- SPORTS SPONSORSHIP REQUIREMENT (
Official Notice No. 7
Intent: To increase the required number of
sports sponsored to achieve or maintain active Division III membership from 10
to 14 based on institutional enrollment, as specified.
Effective Date:
Question: How will
institutional enrollment be counted?
Answer: Institutional
enrollment for sports-sponsorship requirements shall be based on a rolling
four-year average using the full-time undergraduate enrollment figure submitted
for the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA). The EADA
requires
co-educational institutions of postsecondary education that participate in a
Title IV, federal student financial assistance program and have an
intercollegiate athletics program to prepare an annual report to the Department
of Education on athletics participation, staffing and revenues and expenses by
men's and women's teams. The institution shall sponsor the
required number of sports the academic year following its October EADA
submission.
Question: Which
students are included in the EADA number?
Answer: The EADA number
includes undergraduate fall enrollment figures for full-time, baccalaureate and
degree-seeking students by gender.
Question: Are
graduate students who are potentially eligible for Division III athletics
participation captured in the EADA data?
Answer: No. The EADA report does not include graduate
students in its enrollment figures.
Question: With an
effective date of August 1, 2010, which year’s data will be included in
the enrollment figure for sports sponsorship in 2010-11?
Answer: In accordance
with the August 2010 effective date, the enrollment figure shall reflect data
from the 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 academic years.
Question: How will
an unusually large recruiting class in one year affect the institutional
enrollment figure used for this proposal?
Answer: The enrollment
figure used to determine sponsorship requirements shall reflect a four-year
rolling average, thus smoothing the normal fluctuation of enrollment numbers
from year-to-year.
Question: If an
institution has enrollment higher than 1,400 students, will the institution be
required to sponsor at least seven sports for males/mixed teams and at least seven
for all female teams?
Answer: No. The institution must sponsor 14 total sports.
It is required to sponsor a minimum
of five sports for males/mixed teams and five for all-female teams per the
current standard in Bylaw 20.11.3.
The remaining four sports may be for male/mixed or all-female teams
based on institutional discretion (and gender-equity considerations).
Question: How many
schools would need to add sports as a result of this proposal?
Answer: Approximately
30 institutions do not currently meet the proposed new sponsorship levels based
on EADA data from the 1999-00 through 2002-03 academic years, the most recent
data the NCAA had available to calculate this figure. (It should be noted that Proposal Nos. 7
and 8 require different institutions to add sports. For example, some institutions with
enrollment between 1,000 and 1,099 would need to add a sport for Proposal No. 8
but not for Proposal No. 7.)
Question: What
enrollment level will be most affected by the proposal?
Answer: Most
institutions that would need to add sports fall into the 1,400 to 2,500
enrollment range.
Question: Will there
be a waiver opportunity for institutions not meeting the new sports-sponsorship
requirements?
Answer: Yes. Consistent with current legislation,
there will be a waiver of the sport-sponsorship requirements when unique
circumstances warrant such action.
In addition to other issues of circumstance, the membership committee
shall consider the percentage of student-athletes in the student body when
considering these waivers, noting that 16 percent is the average for the
division.
Question: Is the
conference five-sport/three-season requirement affected by this proposal?
Answer: No. Because of potential variation in
enrollments across institutions, conference sports-sponsorship requirements
will not be altered by this proposal.
Title: DIVISION III MEMBERSHIP -- ACTIVE
MEMBERSHIP -- SPORTS SPONSORSHIP REQUIREMENT -- SIX SPORTS FOR MALES/MIXED AND
FEMALE TEAMS (NCAA Division III Presidents Council [Management Council -
Membership Committee]).
Official Notice No. 8
Intent: To increase the required number of
sports an institution must sponsor to achieve or maintain active Division III
membership from five to six per gender for institutions with enrollment greater
than 1,000 students.
Effective Date:
Question: How does
Proposal No. 8 differ from Proposal No. 7 with respect to requirements per each
gender?
Answer: For
institutions over the specified enrollment level, Proposal No. 8 requires the
addition of both male/mixed and all-female teams beyond current minimums while
Proposal No. 7 requires the addition of teams generally, not specified by
gender.
Question: Which
students are included in the EADA number?
Answer: The EADA number
includes undergraduate fall enrollment figures for full-time, baccalaureate and
degree-seeking students by gender.
Question: Are
graduate students who are potentially eligible for Division III athletics
participation captured in the EADA data?
Answer: No. The EADA report does not include graduate
students in its enrollment figures.
Question: With an
effective date of August 1, 2010, which year’s data will be included in
the enrollment figure for sports sponsorship in 2010-11?
Answer: In accordance
with the August 2010 effective date, the enrollment figure shall reflect data
from the 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08 academic years.
Question: How will
an unusually large recruiting class in one year affect the institutional
enrollment figure used for this proposal?
Answer: The enrollment
figure used to determine sponsorship requirements shall reflect a four-year
rolling average thus smoothing the normal fluctuation of enrollment numbers
from year to year.
Question: How will
institutional enrollment be counted?
Answer: Institutional
enrollment for sports-sponsorship requirements shall be based on a rolling
four-year average using the full-time undergraduate enrollment figure submitted
for the EADA. The institution shall
sponsor the required number of sports the academic year following the October
EADA submission. (This is the same
process as for Proposal No. 7.)
Question: How many
institutions would need to add sports as a result of this proposal?
Answer: Approximately
20 institutions based on EADA data from the 1999-00 through 2002-03 academic
years, the most recent data the NCAA had available to calculate this figure. (It should be noted that Proposal Nos. 7
and 8 require different institutions to add sports. For example, some institutions with
enrollment between 1,000 and 1,099 would need to add a sport for Proposal No. 8
but not for Proposal No. 7.)
Question: Will there
be a waiver opportunity for institutions not meeting the new sports-sponsorship
requirements?
Answer: Yes. Consistent with current legislation,
there will be a waiver of the sport-sponsorship requirements when unique
circumstances warrant such action.
In addition to other issues of circumstance, the membership committee
shall consider the percentage of student-athletes in the student body when
considering these waivers, noting that 16 percent is the average for the
division.
Question: Is the
conference five-sport/three-season requirement affected by this proposal?
Answer: No. Because of potential variation in
enrollments across institutions, conference sports-sponsorship requirements
will not be altered by this proposal.
Title: DIVISION III MEMBERSHIP -- PHILOSOPHY
STATEMENT -- INTEGRATION OF ADMINISTRATION -- ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE -- ADMISSION
POLICIES (NCAA Division III Presidents Council - Future of Division III Phase
II Oversight Group).
Official Notice No. 9
Intent: To amend the Division III philosophy
statement to note that coaches play a significant role as educators, to
indicate that academic performance of student-athletes should be, at a minimum,
consistent with that of the general student body, that admissions policies and
procedures for student-athletes should be consistent with those applicable to
the general student body and that the administration of the institution’s
athletics program should be integrated into the campus culture and educational
mission.
Effective Date:
Question: Are there penalties for not abiding
by the principles in the philosophy statement?
Answer: No. The philosophy statement
serves as a guide for Division III institutions, conferences, committees and
councils to make policy and legislative decisions. The philosophy statement is not like
other bylaws that have related enforcement provisions.
Question: Does
Division III legislation already require student-athletes to satisfy the same
academic requirements as the general student-body?
Answer: Yes.
Legislation already exists
outlining the academic expectations of Division III student-athletes to be
eligible for athletics participation where student-athletes must meet
institutional good academic standing and satisfactory progress standards for
all students. This proposal
enhances the Division III philosophy statement by capturing, more specifically,
the principles that drive current and future legislation and campus level
policy setting.
Title: DIVISION III MEMBERSHIP --
PHILOSOPHY STATEMENT -- ELIMINATION OF IN-REGION COMPETITION EMPHASIS (College
Conference of
Official Notice No. 10
Intent: To eliminate the emphasis on
in-region competition within the Division III philosophy statement and the
championships selection process for all Division III team sports.
Effective Date:
Question: Does this proposal give equal
emphasis to all Division III contests, regardless of location, for
championships selection principles?
Answer: Yes. This proposal has been described using
the phrase "a Division III game is a Division III game."
Title: EXECUTIVE REGULATIONS -- SELECTION OF
TEAMS AND INDIVIDUALS FOR CHAMPIONSHIPS PARTICIPATION -- MAXIMUM SIZE OF
CHAMPIONSHIPS FIELDS (NCAA Division III Presidents Council - Future of Division
III Phase II Oversight Group).
Official Notice No. 11
Intent: In team sports other than football,
to establish a maximum bracket size of 64; further, in football, to specify a
maximum bracket size of 32.
Effective Date:
Question: Does the 1:6.5 access ratio to
establish championship-field size still exist?
Answer: Yes.
The access ratio remains 1:6.5 but at the point sponsorship of any sport
exceeds 416 (64 x 6.5), the championship will be capped at 64 teams.
Question: Why is the football bracket set at 32
teams?
Answer: Because of the nature of football, a 64-team
bracket may not be played in three weeks.
The current football bracket is set at 32 and it will remain as such,
regardless of a division-wide access ratio. The current championship lasts five
weeks. A larger field would further
increase missed class time.
Title: DIVISION III
MEMBERSHIP -- MAXIMUM CAPACITY (
Official Notice No. 12
Intent: To establish a maximum number of
active, provisional and reclassifying Division III members as of June 1, 2006;
further, to permit all exploratory members as of September 1, 2005, to be
included in the membership total and to permit those current NCAA members of
Divisions I and II which may choose to reclassify their institutions into
Division III as of June 1, 2006, to be included in the membership total.
Effective Date: Immediate (for provisional or
exploratory institutions);
Question: May
institutions that leave Division III re-enter Division III after this proposal
becomes effective?
Answer:
Yes. This proposal establishes
an overall size of the Division III membership. It does not specify which institutions
may be members of the division. A
total number of institutions shall be established (e.g., 455 institutions) and
as institutions leave the division, others could join to replace them, up to
the legislated maximum number.
Question: What
would adoption of this proposal do to the Division III provisional membership
program?
Answer:
That program would continue to exist but the cap of six institutions to
begin the provisional program in any year would be updated to accommodate the
overall membership capacity. The
NCAA Division III Membership Committee will examine related issues at its
January meeting if the proposal is adopted.
Title: DIVISION III MEMBERSHIP AND
CHAMPIONSHIPS SELECTION -- MEMBER CONFERENCE -- SELF-STUDY GUIDE AND LIMITED
REALIGNMENT PERIOD (NCAA Division III Presidents Council - Future of Division
III Phase II Oversight Group).
Official Notice No. 13
Intent: To require that conferences conduct
a comprehensive self-study and evaluation at least once every five years using
a Conference Self-Study Guide (CSSG); further, to specify that for a two-year period,
an AQ conference that completes the self-study may remain eligible for
automatic qualification during a two-year period without satisfying the
seven-institution minimum requirement or continuity of membership requirement,
as specified.
Effective Date:
Question: Is
the conference self-study guide document available yet?
Answer: No. The membership committee
is working on this document and it will be posted on the NCAA Web site (www.ncaa.org) by
Question: Does this proposal allow a new conference to form and be immediately
eligible for automatic qualification?
Answer: No. This proposal allows
existing AQ conferences to drop below seven members sponsoring the
particular sport and retain the AQ for a two-year period (2008-2010). The conference must maintain four core
members from the most previous academic year but it does not have to meet the
seven institution minimum requirement or the continuity of membership
requirement. For example,
conference ABC currently has eight members and does qualify for AQ. It completes its CSSG in the spring of
2008, determines that its current composition is not appropriate and two
institutions leave the conference. Conference ABC has until
Question: Does a
conference keep its AQ if it maintains four or more core members, but has less
than four core members sponsoring a particular sport?
Answer: The
conference must maintain four core members sponsoring the sport in question to
maintain automatic qualification during the specified period.
Question: What
is a core conference member?
Answer: Core
refers to an institution that participates in conference competition in more
than one sport in the conference seeking automatic qualification.
Question: An existing conference of 10 schools wants to split into two
conferences. Can they both get an
AQ if they can both find two new members?
If not, which one gets to keep the AQ?
Answer: This proposal does not create new automatic qualification
conferences. Thus, if a conference
splits into multiple new conferences (where each new conference has at least
four core members from the previous conference), only one of those new
conferences may retain the AQ.
Essentially, one conference should be recognized as the previous AQ
conference and retain the AQ; the other conference must pursue membership as a
new conference (and thus would be subject to the current two-year waiting
period for the AQ). The original
conference office should determine which “new” conference retains
the AQ.
Question: How is Proposal No. 13 different than
Proposal No. 14?
Answer: Proposal
No. 13 requires a conference self-study while Proposal No. 14 does not. Both proposals require that a conference
maintain at least four members from the previous AQ conference (Proposal No. 13
requires that these four members be core), but Proposal No. 13 maintains one AQ
while proposal No. 14 could result in creating multiple AQ conferences. The realignment window for Proposal No. 13
is 2008-2010 while the window in proposal No. 14 is 2007-2009.
Question: How is
Proposal No. 13 different than Proposal No. 15?
Answer: Proposal
No. 13 requires a conference self-study to be conducted once every five years. The conference self-study must be
completed before a conference has the opportunity to realign without loss of
automatic qualification. Proposal
13 affords conferences a one-time, two-year window to drop below seven
institutions and maintain automatic qualification status. Proposal No. 15 does not require
completion of a conference self-study in order to drop below seven institutions
and maintain the automatic qualification.
Further, Proposal 15 protects those conferences that have a member drop
the sport while Proposal No. 13 only protects conferences when a member leaves
the conference entirely. The
two-year window provided in Proposal 13 is August 1, 2008 through August 1,
2010; proposal 15 becomes effective August 1, 2006.
Title: EXECUTIVE REGULATIONS -- AUTOMATIC
QUALIFICATION -- CONFERENCE REALIGNMENT PERIOD (
Official Notice No. 14
Intent: To permit a new conference to be
eligible for automatic qualification for a limited time period, as specified.
Effective Date:
Question: What are the requirements for a new conference to receive the immediate
AQ?
Answer: The
conference may contain no less than four members that came from any one
conference the most previous academic year and must have seven members
sponsoring a particular sport to receive an AQ in that sport. For example, Conference A has 14 members
and an AQ for the 2006-07 academic year. The conference breaks into three new
conferences, B, C and D for the 2007-08 year. Each of B, C and D contain at least four
members from conference A, and each conference adds additional members so that
total conference membership per AQ sport meets or exceeds seven. In this case, B, C and D each earn an AQ
for the 2007-08 year. If any of B,
C or D had fewer than four members from conference A, or less than seven
institutions sponsoring a particular sport, the conference does not receive an
immediate AQ.
Question: May new
conferences that form before
Answer: No. The conference must be made of a majority
of members coming from an AQ conference. Any conference forming before
Question: How long
does this immediate AQ opportunity last?
Answer: The immediate AQ would be available to
new conferences forming between
Question: How is Proposal No. 13 different than
Proposal No. 14?
Answer: Proposal
No. 13 requires a conference self-study while Proposal No. 14 does not. Both proposals require that a conference
maintain at least four members from the previous AQ conference (Proposal No. 13
requires that these four members be core), but Proposal No. 13 maintains one AQ
while proposal No. 14 could result in creating multiple AQ conferences. The realignment window for Proposal No. 13
is 2008-2010 while the window in proposal No. 14 is 2007-2009.
Question: How is Proposal No. 14 different than Proposal No.
15?
Answer: Both proposals require that a conference
maintain at least four members from the previous AQ conference (Proposal No. 15
requires that these four members be core), but Proposal No. 14 may create new AQ conferences while
Proposal No. 15 protects existing AQ conferences. Stated another way, Proposal No. 15 maintains one AQ while
proposal No. 14 could result in the creation of additional AQ conferences. The realignment window for Proposal No.
14 is 2007-2009 while Proposal 15 protects existing conference AQs on a
permanent basis, beginning August 1, 2006.
Title: EXECUTIVE REGULATIONS -- SELECTION
OF TEAMS AND INDIVIDUALS FOR CHAMPIONSHIPS PARTICIPATION -- AUTOMATIC
QUALIFICATION -- SEVEN INSTITUTION REQUIREMENT -- TWO-YEAR GRACE PERIOD (Empire
8).
Official Notice No. 15
Intent: To provide conferences with
automatic qualification status a two academic-year grace period to meet the
minimum member-sponsorship requirement of seven teams, should the conference
fall below that minimum; further, to specify that if the conference falls below
four core institutions, the grace period would become void and the conference
would lose its automatic qualification status.
Effective Date:
Question: Why is this proposal noted as a grace
period while the other related proposals are noted as exceptions to the AQ
requirements?
Answer: This proposal is not limited in
duration. It is to be an enduring standard in the awarding of AQs.
Question: Could a four-team conference receive
an AQ during the grace period?
Answer: Yes. A conference could retain as few as four
of its members and still receive an AQ.
If the conference’s membership drops below four institutions or if
it does not have seven members at the end of the grace period, that conference
loses the AQ and is subject to all existing AQ regulations to earn back the AQ.
Question: Does this proposal allow a new
conference of only four members to be immediately eligible for an AQ?
Answer: No. This proposal is designed
to maintain an AQ when an existing AQ conference loses members. It does not provide relief of the
two-year waiting period for new conferences.
Question: How is
the academic year applied?
Answer: A
conference has two academic years following the date of withdrawal of the
institution (or sport) to meet the minimum of seven members. For example, if a conference fell to six
during the summer of 2006, it would have the next two academic years (2006-07,
2007-08) to meet the minimum of seven members. If the conference did not meet that
minimum by the start of 2008-09 academic year it would lose its AQ. Further, if a conference fell to six
during October of 2006, it would have the next two academic years (2007-08 and
2008-09) to meet the minimum of seven members. If the conference did not meet that
minimum by the start of 2008-09 academic year it would lose its AQ.
Question: How is
Proposal No. 13 different than Proposal No. 15?
Answer: Proposal
No. 13 requires a conference self-study to be conducted once every five years. The conference self-study must be
completed before a conference has the opportunity to realign without loss of
automatic qualification. Proposal
13 affords conferences a one-time, two-year window to drop below seven
institutions and maintain automatic qualification status. Proposal No. 15 does not require
completion of a conference self-study in order to drop below seven institutions
and maintain the automatic qualification.
Further, Proposal 15 protects those conferences that have a member drop
the sport while Proposal No. 13 only protects conferences when a member leaves
the conference entirely. The
two-year window provided in Proposal 13 is August 1, 2008 through August 1,
2010; proposal 15 becomes effective August 1, 2006.
Question: How is Proposal No. 14 different than Proposal No.
15?
Answer: Both proposals require that a conference
maintain at least four members from the previous AQ conference, but Proposal No. 14 may create new AQ
conferences while Proposal No. 15 protects existing AQ conferences. Stated another way, Proposal No. 15 maintains one AQ while Proposal
No. 14 could result in the creation of additional AQ conferences. The realignment window for Proposal No.
14 is 2007-2009 while Proposal 15 protects existing conference AQs on a
permanent basis, beginning August 1, 2006.
|
Title: EXECUTIVE REGULATIONS -- SELECTION
OF TEAMS AND INDIVIDUALS FOR CHAMPIONSHIPS PARTICIPATION -- PRIMARY CRITERIA
-- RANKING AND SELECTION -- STRENGTH-OF-SEASON INDEX (College Conference of |
Official Notice No. 16
Intent: To specify that the primary selection
criteria for Pools B and C must include the results of the statistical standing
compilation based on the strength-of-season index.
Effective Date:
Question: Will
selection committees be forced to use this new criterion?
Answer: No. This added criterion is designed to
assist, not bind, committees in making selections.
Question: How will
selection committees have flexibility with this new criterion?
Answer: Selection
committees should only use this criterion when it is helpful. If, for example, a conference isolated
from non-league competition may not have more than a few non-conference
games. If there is not a large
enough sample or relatively equal samples from each team under consideration,
then the committees should use common sense in deciding that the strength-of-season
criterion would not apply.
Question: How does
this proposal affect independents?
Answer: This proposal should
neither help nor hinder independents because independent institutions will not
have a conference index, neither high nor low. The strength-of-season index should only
be used when comparing two teams under consideration from different
conferences. It would not be used,
for example, to compare an independent institution with a conference-affiliated
institution.
Question: How will
this statistical model be developed?
Answer: If this
proposal is adopted, the NCAA Championships Committee will develop this index
based on a sample provided by the sponsor. If adopted, the index shall be developed
prior to the proposal's August 1, 2007, effective date.
Question: Is the Championships
Committee considering any similar changes to the primary selection criteria?
Answer: The Championships
Committee received a preliminary presentation regarding an opponent average-winning
percentage, which would potentially replace the strength-of-schedule index and
would consistently affect conference members and independents. The concept is currently under review
with each of the sports committees with formal consideration by the Championships
Committee to occur in June 2006. (The
concept would require Management Council and Presidents Council approval after
the June 2006 Championships Committee meeting.) This concept is considered an alternative
to the strength-of-season index.
Title: PLAYING AND PRACTICE SEASONS --
EXCEPTION TO PLAYING SEASON LIMITATIONS AND CONTEST EXEMPTION -- POSTSEASON
CHAMPIONSHIP EVENT (
Official Notice No. 17
Intent: In all sports, to exclude one
postseason championship event from the declared playing and practice season;
further, to exempt from maximum contest limitations at least one postseason
championship event, as specified.
Effective Date:
Question: Does this proposal extend the playing and practice season beyond 18 to 19
weeks?
Answer: Those teams selected for postseason tournaments will benefit from
additional time if this proposal is adopted. Under current regulations, institutions
wanting to participate in postseason events like the Eastern College Athletic Association,
the New York State Women’s Collegiate Athletic Association and the United
States Collegiate Athletic Association tournaments have to save weeks for these
events. If this proposal is adopted,
teams will not be required to save time to participate in such postseason events,
as long as the event meets the definition of a postseason championship. (A postseason championship is an event
that shall be a season-ending, invitational tournament scheduled to occur after
a conference or independent’s championship and shall involve competition
between teams that are not identified until the close of the regular season.)
Question: May a
postseason event, exempted per this proposal, be scheduled at the same time as
a conference tournament or independent’s championship?
Answer: No. This proposal defines a postseason
championship as one that occurs after the conference or independent’s
championship, thus it may not run currently with those other events.
Question: How does this proposal affect maximum contest limitations and contest
exemptions?
Answer: This proposal standardizes post-season contest exemptions so that every
sport can exempt one post-season championship event sponsored by any
organization. Currently, there is a
broad but inconsistent variety of exempted post-season championship
events. Most notably, post-season
tournaments sponsored by any organization are already exempt from counting in
the following sports: baseball, basketball, fencing, field hockey, ice hockey,
lacrosse, soccer and softball. In
other sports (specifically: cross country, football, golf, tennis, indoor and
outdoor track and field, wrestling), allowances are made to exempt
participation in the NCAA, NAIA and/or NCCAA post-season championships
only. Another group of sports
(specifically: archery, badminton, gymnastics, rifle, rowing, skiing, squash,
synchronized swimming, team handball, water polo) exempt a different group of
tournaments (e.g., national governing body championships). Bowling receives no post-season exemptions
except for the NCAA tournament and volleyball limits the exemption to the
Molten Championship, NCAA Championship, NAIA championship, National
Invitational Volleyball Tournament or the NCCAA Championship.)
Question: How is a post-season event defined for purposes of this proposal?
Answer: The proposal defines a post-season event as the following: A post-season championship event shall
be a season-ending, invitational tournament scheduled to occur after a
conference or independent’s championship and shall involve competition
between teams that are not identified until the close of the regular
season. The sponsoring organization
and selection requirements must be established prior to the first permissible contest
date for the sport. The sponsoring
organization may not consist solely of the members of any single conference
that has already conducted a conference championship tournament or solely of a
group of independents that have already conducted an independent’s
championship tournament.
Question: For purposes of this proposal, when does the regular season conclude?
Answer:
Before a conference tournament but after regular season contests.
Question: Does
a non-NCAA post-season championship event need to be “pre-approved?”
Answer.
No. As long as a
tournament/event meets the various criteria spelled out in the amendment of
Bylaw 17.1.7, there is no other approval process.
Question: May a team exclude both the NCAA tournament and a non-NCAA post-season
championship event from the 18 or 19 week limit? May it exempt contests in both of these
events from maximum contest limitations?