The NCAA News - News & Features

Committee toughens stance regarding those awaiting clearinghouse certification

The Eligibility Committee met June 17-19 in Jackson Hole, Wyoming.

During the first two years of operation of the Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse, the Eligibility Committee did not impose penalties upon student-athletes who practiced, competed or received financial aid before being certified, as long as the student-athlete subsequently was certified as eligible by the clearinghouse. Instead, eligibility was restored immediately after the Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse certified the student-athlete as eligible.

The committee believes institutions that withheld student-athletes from practice and competition until a certification decision was rendered were adversely affected by institutions that allowed student-athletes to practice and play while waiting for the clearinghouse to certify the student-athletes.

"Many institutions believed they were doing the right thing by withholding a student-athlete who was not yet certified, and that those schools that did not withhold a student-athlete were gaining a competitive advantage," said Carrie Doyle, NCAA director of eligibility.

Effective with the 1996-97 academic year, the following conditions for restoration will apply:

1) A student-athlete who practices beyond the temporary certification period while waiting for certification will be withheld from the same number of practices he or she gained improperly.

2) A student-athlete who competes while not certified, and who subsequently is certified by the clearinghouse as eligible, will be withheld from the same number of contests in which he or she competed while not yet certified.

3) A student-athlete who receives impermissible financial aid when he or she has not yet been certified must repay the cost of the aid if later it is determined the student-athlete is not eligible for such aid.

"The committee believes that most of the violations in the past have been inadvertent," Doyle said. "But the committee believes that an appropriate adjustment time has passed with the clearinghouse and now the committee will impose appropriate conditions when these types of violations occur."

In an unrelated matter, the Eligibility Committee recommended that the NCAA Council sponsor legislation for the 1997 Convention that would permit student-athletes in all sports to accept prize money based upon place finish if that prize money is less than the student-athlete's actual and necessary expenses for an event.

Currently, international tennis student-athletes who win prize money based upon place finish are, as a condition for restoration, withheld from minimal competition but are permitted to keep the prize money received as long as it does not exceed their actual and necessary expenses for that event.

These conditions, which are less-stringent than those imposed upon individuals in all other sports in which prize money is provided, are due to the 80 international tennis eligibility cases received by the NCAA eligibility staff in the spring of 1994.

The international student-athletes in these cases indicated that they were not knowledgeable of NCAA rules and that they believed they had preserved their amateur status by accepting prize money that was less than their actual and necessary expenses.

The committee is faced with the choice of either requiring international tennis student-athletes to repay all money they receive as prize money, or permitting individuals in all other sports to accept prize money based upon place finish as long as it is less than actual and necessary expenses.

The committee hopes that the membership's adoption or rejection of this proposal will provide sufficient guidance to the committee in deciding how to treat these types of cases in the future.

In another matter, the committee changed its policy of imposing conditions for restoration involving the "next" scheduled contest(s) to specify the first regularly scheduled competition during the traditional season (if that season hasn't started) and the next regularly scheduled competition during the traditional season (if the season has already started).

In the past, conditions for restoration were applied to the "next" regularly scheduled contest, which in some cases were contests that occurred during the nontraditional season (women's tennis, for example). In other sports -- such as football -- where a nontraditional season does not exist, the condition for restoration was imposed during the traditional season.

The committee believes that the conditions for restoration should be applied in all sports during the season that "counts" in an effort to treat all sports equitably.

Other highlights

Eligibility Committee
June 17-19/Jackson Hole, Wyoming

* Recommended that the NCAA Council adopt modifications of NCAA Bylaw 30.6.1 regarding requests to extend a student-athlete's five-year/10-semester period of eligibility in order to clarify the legislation's intent, which is to grant a waiver, based upon objective evidence, for circumstances that are beyond the student-athlete's or institution's control. Included in the proposed modifications is a new Bylaw 30.6.1.2-(f) as a circumstance within the control of the student-athlete, indicating that it is the student-athlete's responsibility to know when his or her period of eligibility started.

The committee recommended that the legislation, if adopted by the Council, should become effective immediately.

* Asked the Council to sponsor legislation for the 1997 Convention that would specify additional instances in which a de minimis violation would not render a prospective student-athlete or enrolled student-athlete ineligible, even though the institution would remain in violation of NCAA rules.

These proposals include many instances in which a coaching staff member violates an NCAA rule but there is no resulting benefit to the student-athlete and little, if any, recruiting or competitive advantage. Such a violation currently renders a prospect or student-athlete ineligible.

* Supported the NCAA eligibility staff's handling of 17 cases involving student-athletes and agents during the last year, and reiterated its view that student-athletes should be held responsible for asking appropriate questions regarding the source of these benefits.

* Developed a preliminary policy for Council review and approval regarding staff contact with media representatives about eligibility cases. The policy recommends, in part, that the group executive director for enforcement and eligibility appeals, the director of eligibility and the director of public information shall have authority to publicly comment on the specific facts of an eligibility case only after a decision has been made in the case, except to confirm or correct information released by the institution during the processing of the case.

The purpose of the policy is to (1) help media representatives verify information concerning the case, (2) correct incomplete, inaccurate or misleading information in an effort to help others understand the eligibility appeals process and (3) explain the NCAA staff's or committee's rationale for imposing a certain condition for restoration in a specific case.