The NCAA News - News and FeaturesJuly 21, 1997
Tennis repayment exception nearing an end
The NCAA Eligibility Committee -- after determining that the international tennis community has had sufficient opportunity to become knowlegeable about the Association's restrictions on payment to student-athletes of prize money based on place finish -- is preparing to reinstate a requirement that international tennis student-athletes repay impermissible prize money in order to regain eligibility for NCAA competition.
The committee has agreed to apply that condition for restoration in all eligibility cases in which a student-athlete competes after January 1, 1998, and receives impermissible prize money based on place finish.
The Eligibility Committee is authorized to apply that condition without the approval of the Association's governing bodies, but it also agreed during its June 16-18 meeting in Monterey, California, to ask the Divisions I, II and III Management Councils to endorse the action.
The repayment condition for reinstatement of eligibility currently is applied by the committee in all NCAA sports except tennis.
International student-athletes in tennis have been subject since 1994 to a temporary minimum condition for restoration that was implemented following objections from the international tennis community that many student-athletes were unable to repay the oftentimes large amounts of prize money they received without knowledge of NCAA restrictions.
In response to those objections, the Eligibility Committee and NCAA eligibility staff agreed to temporarily impose a lesser condition for reinstatement in such cases until the international tennis community became more knowlegeable about NCAA legislation.
As a result, the staff began applying what has become known as the "10 percent condition" in such cases. Rather than making repayment, international tennis student-athletes have instead been required to sit out 10 percent of intercollegiate competition during their first traditional tennis season.
The "10 percent condition" will continue to be applied to cases arising from participation in tennis competition before January 1, 1998.
The committee also noted that it can impose additional conditions for restoration of eligibility in cases where there are other impermissible actions by a student-athlete.
Use of an agent or the endorsement of a commercial product are examples of impermissible actions that may result in additional conditions for restoration being imposed.
In other actions, the Eligibility Committee:
Recommended to the Divisions I, II and III Management Councils several changes in Bylaw 10.3, which deals with gambling activities. The changes would substitute the term "sports wagering" for "gambling" and also would specifically incorporate recent legislative interpretations addressing circumstances in which placement of a wager or participation in gambling-related activities is prohibited.
Directed the NCAA staff to study whether it is possible to create a reasonable threshold to permit limited, "friendly" gambling activities (such as student-athletes' betting of jerseys on the outcome of a game), or whether the NCAA should adopt a strong "no gambling" posture. The committee is exploring the issue because it agrees that the Association's public image is negatively affected when a student-athlete's eligibility is adversely affected by participation in such "friendly" activities.
Noted educational activities that have been undertaken by the NCAA staff related to gambling. The staff reported to the committee that it has provided to member conferences a videotape addressing gambling issues and is creating a poster that will be sent to each member institution this fall.
Recommended to the Divisions I, II and III Management Councils that they sponsor proposed legislation governing circumstances in which the Eligibility Committee requires repayment or restitution as a condition for restoration of eligibility. These "restitution proposals" would eliminate, in situations involving an impermissible benefit of $25 or less, the requirement that an institution must declare a student-athlete or prospect ineligible and then seek restoration of eligibility from the NCAA. Under these proposals, a student-athlete or prospect would be required to pay the value of the benefit to a charity of his or her choice in order to regain eligible status; the student-athlete would not be eligible for competition until the institution obtained documentation of the student-athlete's repayment. The Eligibility Committee would not be involved in restoring the eligibility of those student-athletes; rather, each institution would be responsible for documenting this repayment and sending a report to the NCAA enforcement staff. A self-report to the enforcement staff also would be required since such violations would continue to be regarded as institutional violations under Constitution 2.8.1.
Recommended to the division Management Councils that they sponsor legislation that would specify additional instances in which a de minimus violation would not render a prospective student-athlete or enrolled student-athlete ineligible, even though the institution would remain responsible for such a violation. The NCAA membership adopted similar legislation at the 1995 and 1996 Conventions.
Asked the division Management Councils to approve a proposed name change for the division Eligibility Committees. The committee proposes that the name be changed to the Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement, in acknowledgment of the committee's primary responsibility for reinstating student-athletes to competitive status after their involvement in a violation of NCAA rules. The committee noted that its current name creates the erroneous impression that the Eligibility Committee handles academic eligibility issues (initial and continuing eligibility). The Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet already has endorsed the name change.
|
