The NCAA News - News & Features

Proposal's wording differs from intent -- Division I Tennis

When the NCAA adopted Proposal No. 57 at the 1996 NCAA Convention, many Division I tennis coaches hailed the passage as a step toward leveling the competitive playing field. But sponsors of the proposal now are finding that the legislation is producing unintended consequences.

Developed by the Intercollegiate Tennis Association (ITA), the legislation, which takes effect August 1, 1997, was intended to reduce an influx of student-athletes who -- before enrolling at member institutions -- are spending considerable time and gaining what some see as a competitive advantage competing as amateurs in organized tennis events.

"The rationale in drafting the rule was to create a level playing field," said David Benjamin, men's tennis coach at Princeton University and executive director of the ITA. "We feel that student-athletes who compete in organized tennis events after graduating from high school and before enrolling in college have a distinct advantage over those athletes who come to college immediately after high school."

The legislation, an amendment to Bylaws 14.2.4 and 14.3.1, states:

"In Division I, subsequent to graduating from high school (or the international equivalent as specified in the NCAA Guide to International Academic Standards for Athletics Eligibility), a student-athlete shall have one year in order to be immediately eligible upon and retain the opportunity for four seasons of competition upon initial, full-time collegiate enrollment...."

Bylaw 14.2.4.2 later states: "A student who does not enroll at a collegiate institution as a full-time student during the one-year period shall be subject to the following:

"(a) The student-athlete shall be charged with a season of intercollegiate tennis eligibility for each calendar year after graduation from high school (or the international equivalent) and before full-time collegiate enrollment during which the student-athlete has participated in organized tennis events;

"(b) Upon matriculation at the certifying institution, the student-athlete must fulfill an academic year in residence before being eligible to represent the institution in intercollegiate tennis competition."

"Our intention in drafting the rule was that after a year's grace period, players would run into sanctions if they played organized tennis during the next year and any years after," said Benjamin. "It was a way of creating a fairer playing environment."

But despite the intent, that is not the legislation's effect.

While it may originally have been intended to address student-athletes who compete in "organized events," the governing language of Bylaw 14.2.4.2 does not specifically make that distinction.

As a result, student-athletes in the sport of tennis who do not enroll at a member institution until after the one-year period must upon enrollment fulfill a year of academic residence, regardless of whether they competed in organized tennis events.

"Certainly, if someone isn't playing competitive tennis and then two or three years later wants to go to college and play tennis, they have no unfair advantage," said Benjamin. "There's no reason whatsoever for us to want to penalize students who aren't playing tennis, but taking a couple of years off.

"It never came up in our discussions that someone should sit out a year if they didn't play organized tennis. It was our intention that sanctions would only go into effect if you played organized tennis. That if, after that one-year grace period, you worked in a hospital, you would not have to sit out a year when you came to school."

Given the discrepancy between the way the legislation reads and the intent, the ITA currently is considering whether to take steps to amend the bylaw.

If it chooses, the ITA can petition the NCAA Council under Constitution 5.4.1.1.1 to modify the legislation.

Constitution 5.4.1.1.1 states that the Council, by a two-thirds majority of its members present and voting, may interpret legislation consistent with the intent of the membership in adopting the legislation if sufficient documentation and testimony are available to establish clearly that the wording of the legislation is inconsistent with that intent. Further, the Council shall sponsor legislation at the next annual Convention to confirm any such interpretations.

"What we need to decide, based on what we learned, is whether we should seek some type of redress and ask the NCAA Council to modify the wording in paragraph (b) so it reflects what we originally intended," Benjamin said. "Since the rule doesn't go into effect until 1997, there's plenty of time to change it.

"It is a bit ironic, though, that as the group that originated the legislation we're now understanding ramifications that we weren't aware of. But that's good. It's good for us to know that."