NCAA Athletics Certification
Second-Cycle Questions and Answers

GOVERNANCE AND COMMITMENT TO RULES COMPLIANCE

Q:  What areas must the comprehensive rules-compliance evaluation include?

A:  The rules-compliance evaluation must review an institution's entire rules-compliance program (i.e., initial-, continuing-, and transfer-eligibility certification; financial aid administration, including individual and team limits; recruiting; camps and clinics; investigation and self-reporting of rules violations; rules-education initiatives; extra benefits; playing and practice seasons; and student-athlete employment) to determine whether, or to what extent, the rules-compliance program actually is engaged and functioning.  Please note this evaluation must occur at least once every four years.

Q:  May the peer-review team perform the required evaluation of the rules-compliance program during the evaluation visit? 

A:  The peer-review team may not perform the required rules-compliance evaluation.

Q:  Is the faculty athletics representative an acceptable external authority to perform the required evaluation of an institution's rules-compliance program?

A:  The NCAA Division I Committee on Athletics Certification (hereafter referred to as "committee") has agreed that the answer to this question might differ for each institution depending on the qualifications and job responsibilities of its faculty athletics representative.  While past precedent has allowed for an institution's rules-compliance program to be evaluated by a faculty athletics representative who is not involved in compliance on an ongoing basis, the committee also agreed that a faculty athletics representative involved in the institution's day-to-day compliance activities would not be an acceptable external authority to conduct the required review.  Further, the faculty athletics representative (or any other individual external to athletics) should not evaluate an area in which he or she is assigned compliance responsibility or oversight.  Finally, the committee has determined that acceptable compliance reviews must be conducted by an authority outside the athletics department who is knowledgeable of NCAA compliance policies and who does not have day-to-day responsibilities in the areas under review.

Q:  May a compliance officer who reports outside athletics (e.g., to the president or chancellor) perform the evaluation of the rules-compliance program?

A:  The periodic evaluation must be done by an individual who does not perform compliance work on a day-to-day or continuing basis.  Further, the review must be performed by an authority outside the compliance process.  As a result, a compliance committee, including any individual performing ongoing compliance duties (e.g., compliance coordinator or registrar), would not meet the committee's expectations because that group is not external to the compliance process.  Finally, the committee has determined that acceptable compliance reviews must be conducted by an authority outside the athletics department who is knowledgeable of NCAA compliance policies and who does not have day-to-day responsibilities in the areas under review.

Q:  Must the evaluation of an institution's rules-compliance program be completed prior to the committee making a certification decision?

A:  The evaluation must be completed not later than the academic year during which the institution has its evaluation visit.

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY

Q:  For NCAA Operating Principle No. 2.1, what does the phrase "certification of academic standing" include when having to determine if the responsibilities are vested in the same agencies that have authority for students generally?

A:  The committee confirmed that the phrase "certification of academic standing" in this operating principle includes the institution's good academic standing policies applicable to all students, as well as other aspects of NCAA continuing-eligibility legislation that relates to the student body generally (e.g., determining which courses count toward a degree).  However, the committee noted this operating principle does not prescribe how, or to what extent, the institutional entity has to be involved in the certification of NCAA continuing eligibility for student-athletes.

Q:  If an institution is completing the academic charts at midyear, how should it compile data for the "three most recent academic years?"

A:  Institutions are required to compile data for the three most recent academic years for which complete data is available.  If an institution wishes to include data from a partially completed year, it should keep that information separate from the three-year data charts.

Q:  What is the definition of "freshman students" in the charts?

A: According to the federal definition on the Integrated Postsecondary Education Date System Graduation Rate Survey (IPEDS GR-1) which all institutions must complete, "a first-time freshman is an entering freshman who has never attended any college (or other postsecondary institution)."  This includes a student enrolled in the fall term who attended college for the first time during the prior summer term.  This also includes a student who entered with advanced standing (college credits earned before graduation from high school).

Q:  What definition of "special admit" should be used?

A: The institution is permitted to use its own definition, but it should be prepared to articulate that definition and explain the reasons for choosing it to the peer-review team and the committee.  Also, the institution should note the provisions of NCAA Bylaw 14.1.5.1.1, which states, "A student-athlete may be admitted under a special exception to the institution's normal entrance requirements if the discretionary authority of the president or chancellor (or designated admissions officer or committee) to grant such exceptions is set forth in an official document published by the university (e.g., official catalog) that describes the institution's admissions requirements."

Q:  May an institution have special admissions policies applicable only to student-athletes?

A:  The committee has noted that the result of this operating principle is that an institution's special admissions policies must be for all students and not just a policy for student-athletes.  Further, the committee noted the institution's special admission policy must be published and must have a formal application process that is available for all students generally.  Any special admissions policy that includes student-athletes must be included in the special admissions policy for students generally.

Q: How will the committee respond to an institution that has a special admissions policy only for student-athletes?

A: The committee will not accept a special admissions policy if the policy is only for student-athletes and does not apply to other special admissions categories for students generally or other student subgroups (e.g., fine arts students).

Q:   How are student-athletes who enter the institution during the preceding summer term or at midterm counted in the admissions information? 

A:  In responding to self-study Item No. 2 (Attachment No. 1), institutions should use the methodology on the graduation-rates disclosure form (i.e., include freshman who entered during the preceding summer term but not those who are midterm enrollees).  However, self-study Item No. 3 (Attachment No. 2) includes all summer and midterm enrollees.  Given the relatively small number of special admits at most institutions, eliminating these students may substantially affect the data.

Q:  Should institutions that do not award athletics aid or that sponsor nonscholarship sports compile graduation rates information for freshman student-athletes who are recruited instead of gathering data for freshman student-athletes on athletics aid?

A:  The committee agreed that institutions or sports that do not award athletics aid, such as the Ivy Group or nonscholarship sports, may compile graduation rates information for freshman student-athletes who are recruited.  As a reminder, when completing Operating Principle 2.1, institutions still are required to provide admissions information (i.e., average core-course grade-point average and standardized test scores), but this information may be compiled for only student-athletes who were recruited.

Q:  How is Operating Principle No. 2.2, in the "Academic Integrity" section of the self-study instrument interpreted in relation to the responsibility for periodic approval and review of support services by academic authorities outside the department of intercollegiate athletics?

A: The approval and review of such services needs to be more active than merely the passive receipt of "yes" and "no" responses to a written evaluation.  In addition, academic authorities outside the athletics department must conduct the review.  If the institution's athletics academic support services are under the supervision of a unit external to the department of athletics, it would not be permissible for the review to be conducted by academic authorities inside athletics who have day-to-day responsibilities in the academic support services area.

Q:  My institution provides academic support services to our student-athletes through the academic support program for students generally.  May the academic dean review the academic support services unit to meet the once-every-three-years requirement?

A:  If the academic support services for student-athletes are housed within the academic support program for students generally, the periodic review must be conducted by an individual who is external to the athletics department and does not have day-to-day responsibilities in the academic support area.  Thus, if the academic dean does not have day-to-day responsibilities with the academic support program for students generally, he or she may review the academic support services unit to meet the once-every-three-years requirement.

Q: May a conference office review the academic support services unit to meet this requirement?

A: The committee noted that Operating Principle 2.2-(d) requires the academic support programs for student-athletes to be reviewed periodically by authorities external to the athletics department who do not have day-to-day responsibilities in the academic support services area.  Further, the committee noted that an institution's conference office would not be considered an academic authority outside of athletics and would not meet the intent of the operating principle.

Q: May an outside consultant review the academic support services unit to meet this requirement?

A: The committee noted that Operating Principle 2.2-(d) requires the academic support programs for student-athletes to be reviewed periodically by authorities external to the athletics department who do not have day-to-day responsibilities in the academic support services area. Further, the committee noted that an institution may wish to involve outside consultants in the review of the academic support services unit.  Should an institution involve outside consultants, the functions of these individuals or agencies should be limited to data collection, organization and reviewing of the academic support services unit.  In such cases, it is understood that the academic support services unit review remains the responsibility of the institution to examine its own program, make evaluative interpretations of the study, and implement ecommendations for improvement. In no way should the balance of responsibility for the academic support services shift from internal to external personnel.

EQUITY AND STUDENT-ATHLETE WELFARE

Q:  Does an institution need to address all 13 program areas for gender issues when developing its gender-equity plan?

A:  The committee has confirmed that institutions must include all 13 program areas in gender-equity plans.  The committee agreed that for those program areas in which an institution is not deficient, the development of an evaluation mechanism to monitor the institution's equitable status in the program areas could be an acceptable plan element to meet the committee's requirement.

Q:  How do institutions ensure that salary information for athletics department personnel remains private?

A:  The committee noted that this information is included in the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) reports (which are subject to open records laws) in the self-study report.  However, the committee agreed to allow institutions the option of submitting salary amounts on EADA worksheets in the form of percentages, rather than require the specific salary amount in order to maintain confidentiality.

Q:  When providing the gender and racial or ethnic composition for other full- and part-time athletics department staff members, even those not funded by or not reporting to the athletics department, should an institution consider its dance team coach, cheerleader coach and cheerleading advisor?

A:  Generally, a dance team coach, cheerleader coach or cheerleading advisor is not considered an athletics department staff member.  Examples of athletics department staff members that are not funded by or do not report to the athletics department include an athletics academic advisor and a compliance coordinator.  An institution may reference its completed certification of compliance form to determine which staff members to include in the composition for other full- and part-time athletics department staff members.

Q:  May an institution state that its gender-equity and minority-issues plans are "ongoing" as part of the required timetable?

A:  The committee has determined that institutions are permitted to have "ongoing" timetables in their plans, as long as it is clearly stated that the overall plan extends at least five years into the future or until the next opportunity for review by the committee.  In addition, institutions must have active plans at all times.

Q: Are Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) exempt from the minority-issues plan requirement?

A: Legal research confirms that HBCUs are not exempt from affirmative action requirements.  The committee has agreed to apply its standards and expectations equally across all Division I institutions.  Therefore, all Division I institutions, including HBCUs, are required to develop a minority-issues plan for improvement as part of the self-study report.

Q: How may HBCUs fulfill requirements for minority-issues plans?

A: The committee agreed that HBCUs may fulfill requirements for minority-issues plans by referencing current programs for black student-athletes and staff, provided a mechanism for evaluation of each of the minority-issues program areas is addressed and all required plan elements are included.

Q: Is an athletics department required to have grievance procedures specifically for student-athletes or are institutional grievance procedures for all students acceptable in meeting Operating Principle 4.3?

A: The committee has agreed that institutional grievance procedures for students generally would be accepted as partial completion of this requirement of the operating principle, provided the procedures are available to all student-athletes.  However, an institution's athletics department will need to supplement institutional procedures with procedures for athletics-specific grievances.  Further, all grievance procedures must be documented and clearly communicated (e.g., published in the athletics department policies and procedures manual or student-athlete handbook) to all student-athletes.

Q:  What is the required length of time for gender-equity and minority-issues plans during the revised certification process? 

A:  The committee's plan expectations are as follows:

Plans for improvement must extend at least five years into the future or until the next opportunity for review by the committee and be active at all times.  If a plan for improvement concludes prior to the commencement of the institution's next self-study, the institution is expected to review its five-year plan and create a new five-year plan for improvement.  Even if each of the actions in the institution's original plan were ongoing in nature, that institution must develop a new five-year plan that will maintain conformity with the applicable operating principle.  Please note that all institutional plans for improvement must contain all eight of the committee's required elements.

CONFERENCE OFFICE INVOLVEMENT

Q:  May a conference office staff member serve as a member of the institution's steering committee?

A:  Conference office involvement in athletics certification is optional but encouraged by the committee.  The role of an institution's conference office is to be determined by the institution.

Q:  May conference office personnel participate in interviews during the institution's evaluation visit?

A:  Conference office personnel may participate in the introductory and exit meetings during the institution's evaluation visit.  However, the conference office representative is not permitted to attend interviews or meetings of the peer-review team.

THE STEERING COMMITTEE

Q:  May an institution's faculty athletics representative serve as the chair or vice-chair of its steering committee?

A:  The faculty athletics representative may serve as the chair or vice-chair, provided this individual is considered by the institution to be part of its senior-management team.

SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMITY

Q:  How is conformity with the operating principles determined?

A: To determine conformity with the operating principles, an institution must demonstrate adequate follow-up to concerns/improvement plans directly related to the operating principles that were identified by the institution or the committee during the institution's first- and second-cycle self-studies.  The committee has developed measurable standards documents for each operating principle to clarify expectations and to bring more consistency to the athletics certification process for institutions, peer-review teams and the committee.

MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS

Q:  When an institution has been reviewed previously by the committee but there still are outstanding concerns, how long will the institution have to resolve these conditions?

A:  The institution will have approximately four to six weeks to respond to the committee's initial concerns prior to the peer-review team's visit.  After the peer-review team's visit, the institution will have two weeks to respond to the peer-review team's report.  The committee will review the peer-review team's report and the institution's response to the peer-review team's report and determine if there are any concerns that the institution has not thoroughly addressed.  The committee will provide institutions up to one year to respond to conditions when the institution has been reviewed previously by the committee.  The committee reserves the right to alter this time frame as necessary.

Q:  What did the committee mean when it said that peer-review team members will look at the "opportunities afforded to campus groups to offer comments?"

A:  Steering committee and subcommittee members are representatives of constituent groups on campus.  The steering committee will need to demonstrate that various groups (as well as individuals) had the opportunity to provide comments.  This also reflects the institution's commitment to ensuring that its self-study was broadbased in nature.

Q:  May an institution use different three-year periods for data collection either within a certain section (e.g., Academic Integrity) or for different sections (e.g., 2001-02 through 2004-05 for Academic Integrity but 2002-03 through 2005-06 for Governance and Commitment to Rules Compliance)?