The NCAA News - News and Features

The NCAA News -- July 5, 1999

Student-athlete reinstatement panel requests waiver revision

The Division II Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement will ask the Division II Management Council to reconsider its position on providing a season-of-competition waiver for student-athletes who stand to lose a season of competition because of an error made by a coach at the beginning of a season.

That decision was one of the actions taken at a June 21-23 meeting of the Divisions I, II and III (sub)committees on student-athlete reinstatement.

Last summer, the Division I Subcommittee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement, the Division II Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement and the Division III Subcommittee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement all recommended amending NCAA Bylaw 14.2.6. The amendment would grant relief to student-athletes who participate in limited competition at the direction of a coaching staff member before a determination of their eligibility status is made.

Before the amendment, student-athletes simply used one of their four seasons of competition per Bylaw 14.2.4.1, which states that any competition, regardless of time, shall be counted as a season of competition in that sport.

The reinstatement committees believed that cases did exist in which coaches inadvertently ordered student-athletes into games even though the athletes had not been certified as eligible and were subsequently certified as ineligible.

Divisions I and III previously approved the amendment to the waiver opportunity. The rule is now in effect in Division I and will be in effect in August in Division III.

However, the Division II Management Council declined at its July 1998 meeting to sponsor such legislation for the 1999 NCAA Convention, instead noting its belief that such cases should continue to be reviewed by the Division II Administrative Review Subcommittee on a case-by-case basis. In its discussion of the matter, the Management Council felt that altering the rule in the suggested way would introduce too much opportunity for abuse.

The Division II Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement continues to believe that student-athletes should not be adversely affected because of administrative errors made by their coaches and agreed at its June meeting to recommend that the Division II Management Council reconsider its previous decision.

Other business

In other actions, the Division III Subcommittee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement asked that Division III conduct a formal review of amateurism issues, using a model similar to that of the Division II Amateurism Project Team.

Specifically, the group recommends establishment of a nine-person ad hoc task force that would operate independent of the amateurism teams examining Divisions I and II amateurism issues (although the groups could be expected to meet together occasionally). It is recommended that the Division III group would consist of two chief executive officers, one Division III Management Council representative, one Division III Student-Athlete Advisory Committee student-athlete representative, two coaches (one team sport and one individual), two athletics directors and one active member of the Division III Subcommittee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement.

The reinstatement subcommittee believes the creation of the group is justified for three reasons, the first being the importance of amateurism to the division's philosophy. Second, Division III strongly supports deregulation of its governing rules and an analysis of Bylaw 12 should be a part of the division's efforts to deregulate. The third reason is that changes being contemplated in Divisions I and II could affect Division III and that input should be sought.

In a specific amateurism matter, the reinstatement committees examined a unique issue involving women's bowling.

In three cases, prospective student-athletes have received educational grants based on place finishes in that sport. The situations are unusual because bowling was not yet an emerging sport at the time the grants were won. The committees did not want to punish the student-athletes in question but did recommend the following language to deal with similar cases in the future:

"In the sport of women's bowling, individuals who, as prospective student-athletes, have been awarded prize money based on place finish prior to August 1, 2001, will be reinstated without conditions if the prize money has been declined and not disbursed to an institution.

"Those individuals who have accepted prize money while a prospect prior to August 1, 2001, will be reinstated without the requirement of repayment but after they have been withheld from the 10 percent of the season's regularly scheduled contests. Any prize money accepted by an individual after August 1, 2001, must be repaid as a minimum condition for reinstatement."

The meeting was the final one for current staff liaisons Carrie A. Doyle, Melisa A. Dehon, Kevin R. Fite and Charles A. Jones. Doyle, Dehon and Jones are not relocating with the staff to Indianapolis while Fite will assume other responsibilities when the staff relocates.

The committees recognized the contributions of the departing staff members with a standing ovation.