National Collegiate Athletic Association

The NCAA News - News and Features

December 1, 1997

Consistency, timeliness reasons for new self-reporting process

Division I institutions soon will be able to report 46 different secondary infractions through a new self-reporting process designed to result in consistent and more timely corrective and disciplinary actions.

The Division I Management Council gave final approval in October to the new procedure, which goes into effect January 1. The procedure permits institutions to apply a prescribed punitive or disciplinary action for a violation and then submit that action to its conference's office for review.

Conferences periodically will inform the NCAA of all actions involving those violations that are reported by institutions, thus permitting the Association to oversee the process.

The procedure was recommended to the Management Council by the Division I Committee on Infractions, which compiled a list of secondary infractions that are deemed routine or noncontroversial in nature and minimum appropriate corrective or disciplinary actions that institutions should impose in response to those infractions.

The list of infractions and appropriate actions will be mailed to Division I conferences and institutions prior to implementation of the new process.

Self-reporting increases

The Division I Committee on Infractions decided to devise a more streamlined process for review of secondary infractions after noting a continuing increase in the number of cases that are self-reported by institutions to the NCAA.

More than 1,400 self-reported cases were processed in the national office during 1996.

The committee estimates that 500, or more than one-third, of those 1,400 cases could have been handled by institutions and conferences under the new procedure.

In general, the list of appropriate cases and corrective and punitive actions compiled by the Division I Committee on Infractions involves:

  • Violations of the requirement in Constitution 6 that institutions complete the annual institutional audit within the prescribed time period.

  • Various violations of Bylaw 11 involving institutional staff members.

  • Violations of legislation in Bylaw 12 relating to impermissible use of a logo on a team uniform.

  • Various violations of the recruiting legislation of Bylaw 13, including impermissible telephone and other types of contact with prospective student-athletes; providing impermissible recruiting materials to prospects; violations of legislation governing official visits; impermissible publicity involving a prospect; and violations of legislation prohibiting institutional donations to high schools.

  • Various violations of the eligibility legislation of Bylaw 14, including impermissible competition by student-athletes prior to completing required forms, and participation by student-athletes who have exhausted eligibility in a sport.

  • Violations of Bylaw 15 legislation involving participation in competition prior to being added to the squad list.

  • Various violations of the playing- and practice-seasons legislation of Bylaw 17, including violations of limits on athletically related activities, and practice or competition outside permissible dates for those activities.

    Some of the violations listed by the committee continue to have eligibility ramifications for involved student-athletes. In such cases, the institution will continue to submit requests for restoration of eligibility to the NCAA student-athlete reinstatement staff, but the institution's involvement in that case can be addressed through the new process.

    Limits on procedure's use

    There are limits on the degree to which an institution can use the new procedure.

    Institutions will be permitted to use the procedure for a specific violation in a specific sport only once in a four-year period. In the event of a repeat violation, the institution will be required to submit the case directly to the national office staff for review.

    That time period is consistent with the four-year statute of limitations that currently is employed by the Association in handling infractions cases.

    Also, the national office staff retains the ability to request additional information about and otherwise review a specific case that has been handled by a conference under the new procedure. The primary purpose of national office staff oversight over the new procedure is to ensure reasonable nationwide consistency and uniformity in the handling of secondary infractions cases.

    Institutions and conferences retain some latitude in actions taken under the new procedure.

    The Division I Committee on Infractions determined that institutions and conferences will not be limited to imposing the prescribed penalty in cases where additional action is deemed appropriate.

    Institutions also may report a case directly to the national office in instances where it believes extenuating circumstances may warrant less severe actions than those that have been prescribed by the committee. Institutions also retain the ability under Bylaw 19.7.1 to appeal an action in a secondary case to the Division I Committee on Infractions.

    More self-reporting sought

    The committee hopes the new procedure will encourage even more self-reporting of secondary cases by institutions. By prescribing specific actions for routine cases, the committee also hopes it will reduce any tendency by an institution to impose more stringent penalties than may be appropriate in a specific case.

    The committee plans to review the list of cases and prescribed actions annually, in order to determine whether additional secondary cases should be approved for handling under the procedure.