The NCAA division (sub)committees on student-athlete reinstatement have approved guidelines designed to increase consistency in the way amateurism cases involving individuals who sign professional contracts are treated, along with cases involving individuals who compete with professionals.

They involve a two-prong test, the first of which focuses on the individual's intent to professionalize and the second of which addresses any competitive advantage gained from the individual's actions.

The (sub)committees noted that given the complexity of many professional and amateur organizations, it is often difficult to assess an individual's intent when the level of the league/team with whom the individual signed the contract is likewise difficult to assess. For example, many international soccer and basketball club teams appear to be amateur in nature but are funded by professional organizations, which in turn makes the amateur teams professional under NCAA rules. However, when the individual signs the contract with the amateur organization, the athlete often does not intend to professionalize since he or she does not accept a salary, benefits or other compensation but instead only agrees to play with the amateur team.

If a student-athlete exhibits a clear intent to professionalize -- for example, signing a professional contract -- the (sub)committees agreed that individual may not warrant reinstatement. However, in cases where there is uncertainty about the student-athlete's intent, the committees agreed that the following factors should be considered:

Whether the individual agreed to receive any monetary reward or other benefit and, if applicable, the amount and purpose.

The level at which the competition occurred, if any.

The level of the professional league.

Whether special circumstances existed surrounding the signing of the contract (for example, age, lack of availability of sport).

Whether the league defines the individual as a professional.

Individual's knowledge of NCAA legislation at the time of the violation.

The (sub)committees agreed that if the first analysis reveals that reinstatement is warranted (with or without conditions), in addition the individual should be withheld from the equivalent number of contests in which he or she participated at the professional level. In other words, the student-athlete would be withheld from one college contest for every professional contest in which he or she competed.

In other matters, the (sub)committees:

Discussed appropriate responses to cases involving academic fraud. Divisions I and III asked the staff to continue to take a conservative (that is, more punitive) approach on reinstatement in such cases. Division II agreed, further specifying that the period of ineligibility should start at one year in such cases.

Agreed that when the period of ineligibility involves a fraction of a contest (for example, 2.5 games) the rounding should be done to favor the student-athlete. Therefore, .5 would be rounded to the next lowest number.

Agreed on a range of penalties for cases in which a student-athlete arranges for an extra benefit without the knowledge of the institution. The most common such cases involve long-distance telephone abuse or the textbook fraud. The following ranges were approved: $50-$299 -- ineligibility in 10 percent of contests; $300-$500 -- 20 percent; $501 and up -- minimum of 30 percent. The committees noted that these are guidelines and that any mitigating factors, which indicate an increased or decreased culpability on the part of the student-athlete, should always be considered in determining the appropriate condition for reinstatement.

Recommended legislation that would permit a student-athlete who has exhausted his or her intercollegiate athletics eligibility to practice, but not compete, for 30 consecutive calendar days in those instances in which the institution has filed a five-year/10-semester ex-
tension request waiver with the subcommittee on student-athlete reinstatement. The proposal will be considered at the next meeting of the Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet; in Divisions II and III, the proposed legislation would not be considered until the 2001 NCAA Convention.