Division I Advanced Student-Athlete Reinstatement

NCAA Academic and Membership Affairs

Previously on Introduction to Student-Athlete Reinstatement...

Through vigorous investigation,

institution found a violation that affects

eligibility…….

The institution managed to navigate NCAA.org to the reinstatement page and found the reinstatement guidelines and online submission….

How can the institution prepare more than just a report of the violation and put the best reinstatement case forward?

Overview

Best practices for submitting a request.

Searching LSDBi – tips and tricks.

Reinstatement policies and procedures.

Guidelines for case review.

Best practices for submitting an appeal.

Case studies.

Best Practices for Submitting a Request

Best Practices for Submitting a Request

Have the following information prepared for online submission:

Conclusion that a violation has occurred.

Obtain all pertinent interpretations. SAR cannot provide interpretations.

Signed Buckley Statement.

A clear timeline of events.

Relevant bylaw cites.

Best Practices, cont.

Gather statements from involved parties.

PDF versions of relevant documents for uploading.

Review SAR case precedent, policies and procedures and guidelines.

Present mitigation and recommended outcome.

How can using case precedent help institutions?

Assist institutions with supporting positions and guidance.

Demonstrate how cases are similar/distinguished.

Help formulate “corrective actions.”

Searching LSDBi (Tips and Tricks) Search using words specific to the unique circumstances

of your case (e.g., financial, accident, parent, etc.)

Rationale search “totality of circumstances.”

Search granted and denied cases and review rationale. Too many cases? Narrow down using multiple terms via

advanced tab.

Best Practices, cont.

Developing an institutional position:

What does institution believe to be appropriate reinstatement condition and why?

Why was no advantage gained?

What is unique about the case?

Is the student-athlete culpability lessened? If yes, why?

Best Practices, cont.

Reliance on institutional staff members advice. Get a statement from the individual.

Could it have been otherwise permissible within NCAA legislation? If so, how?

Extraordinary circumstance (e.g., health or safety issue)?

Reasonable expectations of the student-athlete. Financial aid violation.

Examples of Mitigation For Violations:

WE HAVE A GAME!

Steps For an URGENT Case:

URGENT: Competition within next 10 days.

Accurately indicate the next date of competition via online application (include date of travel to away contest).

Staff will be automatically notified on submission.

Provide institutional contact numbers. Include cell phone contact or additional staff members.

Staff will contact with possible follow-up.

Case Priority

Policies and procedures direct staff to prioritize cases based on combination of factors:

Date of next contest.

Date reinstatement request submitted.

Date violation discovered.

SAR Points of Contact

Student-Athlete Reinstatement

(Academic and Membership Affairs)

SecondaryEnforcement

Cases

Agent, Gambling and Amateurism Activities

AmateurismCertification

Process (ACP)

Major Enforcement

Cases

Commonly Considered Factors in Case Analysis

Student-athlete/institutional culpability.

Guidelines and case precedent.

Student-athlete first philosophy.

Place the student-athlete back in position he or she would have been before the violation.

Repayment. Withholding.

Spectrum of Impact of Flexible Approach on Outcome of Cases

Ethical Conduct, Amateurism, Extra Benefits(Student-athlete acting independent of institution)

General Eligibility, Financial Aid(Institution primarily responsible for violation)

Professional Salary, Professional Contract.

Contract w/ agent

Entrance Exam (i.e., ACT, SAT) Fraud

Academic Fraud (e.g., having academic tutor write paper)

Providing false information

Benefits from sports agent

Benefits from booster

Prize Money

Five-Year Clock Extensions

Financial Aid violations

Competing for institution while ineligible (transfers, progress toward degree, initial eligibility, less than full time)

Policies and Procedures

Assertions Against Another Institution or Institutional Employee

Institution or employee against whom allegations are made must be provided a copy of all relevant documentation.

Applicant institution facilitates contact.

Institution shall be given 10 business days to respond to allegations.

Policies and Procedures

Chancellor’s and President’s Letter

Sent when relief from guidelines is provided due to institutional error or misinformation. “Totality of circumstance” cases.

Serves as notification to institution.

Conference office notified (beginning February 2010).

Policies and Procedures, cont.

Fulfilling withholding conditions: Student-athlete must be otherwise eligible.

Contests must be among those used for consideration for team selection for NCAA championship.

Exhibitions and scrimmages DO NOT count toward withholding.

Must be fulfilled during one of four seasons of eligibility.

Policies and Procedures, cont.

Reinstatement Guidelines

SAR Guidelines

Created by NCAA Division I Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement.

Reviewed and updated at each committee meeting.

Provided as a starting point for violations to assist NCAA staff and membership.

Available online.

SAR Guidelines, cont.

Providing false or misleading information.

Minimum withholding condition of 50% of season.

Up to permanent loss of eligibility.

Several instances in the past year.

NCAA Bylaw 10.1

SAR Guidelines, cont.

Providing false or misleading information.

The committee indicated that student-athletes should not be reinstated when the following factors apply:

 1. Acted actively and deliberately to conceal, omit or provide inaccurate or

false information; 2. Had multiple opportunities to correct or provide accurate information; or 3. Provided incomplete or inaccurate information to the NCAA enforcement

or amateurism certification staffs. (May 2008)

Bylaw 10.1

SAR Guidelines, cont.

Competition while enrolled less than full time.

One-for-one withholding condition.

Mitigation:

Student-athlete continued to attend class.

Student-athlete did not realize he or she had dropped

below full time.

Student-athlete made reasonable effort to remain

enrolled full time.

Bylaw 14.1.8.2

SAR Guidelines, cont. Progress-Toward-Degree Violations.

The committee determined that the student-athlete reinstatement staff can provide relief from withholding for progress-toward-degree violations when:

The institution can demonstrate that the student-athlete would have been eligible under a different major at the institution, at the time the violation occurred.

  Certified in writing by an academic authority at the institution.  

Bylaw 14.4.1

SAR Guidelines, cont.Progress-Toward-Degree Violations (Cont.)

The student-athlete was unaware that they were not eligible for competition.

  The institution puts in writing that the miscertification was due to

institutional error.

In addition, in situations where there is no way the student-athlete could have been eligible, the student- athlete should be withheld on a one-for-one basis.

Bylaw 14.4.1

SAR Guidelines, cont.

Initial-eligibility violations involving academic certification.

Qualifiers: one-for-two withholding from practice and competition.

Nonqualifiers: one-for-one withholding from practice and competition; repayment of impermissible financial aid.

Bylaw 14.3

SAR Guidelines, cont.

Initial-eligibility violations involving Amateurism Certification Process (ACP).

Subsequently certified: one-for-two withholding from practice and competition.

Subsequently provided with ACP withholding penalty: one-for-one withholding from competition after completion of ACP penalty.

Bylaw 12.1.1.1.3

SAR Guidelines, cont.

Receipt of benefits under Bylaws 12, 15 and 16.

Repayment of value of impermissible benefits.

Possible withholding based on assessment of student-athlete’s culpability/responsibility/value of benefit.

SAR Guidelines, cont.

Receipt of benefits under Bylaws 12, 15 and 16 (cont.). Starting point for withholding:

Prospects:

$0 - $500 = Repayment

$500 - $700 = 10% and repayment

$700 - $1,000 = 20% and repayment

$1,000 and above = 30% and repayment.

SAR Guidelines, cont.

Receipt of benefits under Bylaws 12, 15 and 16 (cont.). Starting point for withholding:

Enrolled SAs: $100 - $300 = 10% and repayment $300 - $500 = 20% and repayment $500 = 30% and repayment.

SAR Guidelines, cont.

Other processes for repayment and withholding:

Repayment plans.

Staggering a withholding condition.

Percentage Rounding.

Appeals…..

Appeals Process

Staff decisions are appealed to the committee.

Staff and committee do not communicate about on-going cases.

Waiver appeals are reviewed via written record.

Violation appeals are heard via conference call or written record.

Preconference call.

Best Practices for Submitting an Appeal

Timeliness – recognize the minimum amount of time required to organize, schedule and host a teleconference.

Understand why SAR staff made its decision. Including guidelines, policies and procedures and precedent.

Understand the committee’s authority. Cannot change facts, interpretations or legislation.

Is the Institution appealing each part of decision? If not, focus on specific portion of the decision institution is

appealing (repayment amount vs. withholding).

Best Practices for Submitting an Appeal

Focus on distinguishing your case from case precedent and directives.

Committee has read all the information; concentrate on arguments.

Student-athlete should make his or her own personal statement.

Offer alternative outcomes.

Case Studies

“Competition While Enrolled Less Than Full Time” Case Study Institution permitted Tootie, a second-year softball student-athlete to

compete in four contests while enrolled in less than a full-time program of study.

Tootie and the head coach, Ms. Garrett, were notified that Tootie was not to compete until enrolled full time.

Tootie called her academic advisor to add a course, and obtained permission from professor to enroll. She began attending class as soon as permission was obtained from the professor.

Tootie informed Ms. Garrett that the situation was resolved, and resumed competition. Tootie subsequently competed four times prior to discovering she was not on course roster, therefore, not enrolled full time.

“Competition While Enrolled Less Than Full Time” Case Study, con’t.

Mitigation: Ms. Garrett failed to follow proper protocol in allowing Tootie to

compete without confirming eligibility status with compliance. Statement from Tootie’s athletics academic advisor noted that

she had been instructed to complete the registration process with professor and registrar. However, she failed to follow protocol.

Guidelines:1. Did student-athlete continue to attend class?

yes

2. Did student-athlete realize they dropped below full-time status?

yes

3. Did student-athlete make reasonable effort to remain enrolled full time?

Partially

Bonus Question - from which 1980’s sitcom did we takethese names?

“Unethical Conduct” Case Study

Institution reported Archie provided false and misleading information to compliance staff regarding possible sale of his complimentary game tickets.

Archie’s girlfriend, Edith, was also involved in the plan to sell the tickets and she informed compliance staff of her involvement immediately during interview.

Ultimately, Archie did not end up executing sale of the tickets, therefore, Bylaw 10.1(d) is the only violation being reported by institution.

“Unethical Conduct” Case Study, con’t. Mitigation / Additional details:

Institution covers unethical conduct with all student-athletes each year during educational meetings. Further, institution requires student-athletes to sign an acknowledgement that they have read and understand Bylaw 10.1.

Archie interviewed with compliance staff twice before Edith. On both occasions, Archie provided false and misleading information, and was informed each time of the significant consequences of lying.

Subsequent to Archie’s first two interviews, Edith interviewed and informed compliance staff that Archie had asked her to indicate that she sent e-mails and made attempts to sell Archie’s tickets.

After Archie discovered that compliance staff had information contrary to what he had provided, he came clean in his third interview.

Remember the Bylaw 10.1 Guideline?Bonus question – From which 1970’s sitcom did the names come?

“Progress-Toward-Degree (PTD)” Case Study

Institution permitted Opie to compete in 11 contests while not meeting PTD requirements.

Opie, majoring in Psychology, earned a “D” in the course during fall 2008 and received course credit which counted for overall credits received, but not toward Opie’s degree program.

Therefore, Opie was miscertified as eligible for competition.

“Progress-Toward-Degree (PTD)” Case Study, con’t. Mitigation:

Institution stated that athletics academic advisor (Barney) and registrar liaison who miscertified Opie, were in their first semester in new positions.

Institution provided statement from registrar liaison that he had misapplied legislation when reviewing Opie’s eligibility status for 2009-10.

Institution stated that had they become aware of Opie’s three-credit deficiency during spring 2009, Opie would have been advised to enroll in summer 2009.

Institution reported Opie was aware he needed to repeat course in two subsequent semesters, earning a “D” in spring 2009 and a “C” in fall 2009. Opie also fell into academic probation following fall 2008 and academic warning due to low GPA following spring 2009.

“Progress-Toward-Degree (PTD)” Case Study, con’t.- Guidelines:

1. Is it reasonable that Opie could have rectified the problem?

Possibly, if advised properly in previous year.

2. How proactive was Opie in ensuring he met PTD criteria?

Opie followed instruction of athletics academic advisor, Barney.

3. Was Opie misinformed by an appropriate academic source?

Yes, athletics academic advisor (Barney) and registrar liaison.

4. Did Opie’s performance contribute to his failure to meet PTD?

Yes, Opie took course three times, as well as falling into academic probation and academic warning in successive semesters.

**Bonus Question; What 1960’s sitcom starred Barney and Opie?

“Impermissible Books” Case Study

Four student-athletes were permitted to receive impermissible books and/or noncourse-related items with book scholarship vouchers.

SA No. 1, Matt, used his book scholarship voucher to purchase books valued at $175 for his teammate Doc (SA No. 2) who was a walk-on not receiving athletics aid.

SA Nos. 3 (Kitty) and 4 (Chester) were permitted to purchase noncourse-related items with their scholarship book vouchers over two semesters. Kitty’s items valued at $285 beyond the cost of her required materials. Chester’s items valued at $346 beyond the cost of his required materials.

“Impermissible Books” Case Study, cont. Mitigation / Additional facts:

Violation occurred in institution’s first year providing athletics aid to student-athletes. Athletics department had not communicated the new scholarship policy to bookstore staff.

Matt (SA No. 1), a football student-athlete, received education from compliance staff at beginning of preseason camp, prior to start of semester. Doc (SA No. 2), a walk-on, was not a part of the team until after the academic year had commenced.

Confusion existed with Kitty and Chester (SA Nos. 3 and 4) when bookstore staff, unfamiliar with new athletics aid policy, advised them to purchase items with remaining unused funds on their book scholarship vouchers.

Bookstore staff states they allowed student-athletes to purchase items above and beyond cost of books because campus policy allows normal students to do so.

“Impermissible Books” Case Study, cont.

Kitty, a basketball student-athlete, received education from her head coach and compliance at beginning of semester, prior to purchasing books. Chester, a baseball student-athlete, had not.

None of the SAs asked their coaches or compliance prior to making the purchases.

Guidelines – dollar amounts: Greater than $100-$300 = 10 percent withholding Greater than $300-$500 = 20 percent withholding Greater than $500 = 30 percent withholding.

Bonus Question: What television western premiered in 1955 and contained all five characters?

Contacting Student-Athlete Reinstatement

Telephone: 317/917-6222 (ask for student-athlete reinstatement).

Facsimile: 317/917-6736.

SAR Web page:

http://www.ncaa.org/reinstatement

Questions?