A recently implemented policy change regarding impermissible education expenses received a second look from the Division I Student-Athlete Reinstatement Subcommittee.

The Division I group, which met along with the Divisions II and III Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committees June 26-28 in Seattle, revisited its educational-expense directive issued in May and reaffirmed that the policy is an appropriate reaction to the growing problem of impermissible educational expenses.

The one-time directive sent to Division I conferences and institutions states that any impermissible educational expenses (for example, tuition, room, board and fees) received by an individual before August 1, 2000, for attendance at a high school or prep school before August 1, 2000, will result in the individual being withheld from the next 10 percent of his or her team's regularly scheduled contests after full disclosure of receipt of the benefit. The directive also states that repayment of the impermissible expenses will not be required in such cases.

To take advantage of the directive, a student-athlete must disclose his or her involvement in accepting such impermissible expenses, and the institution must submit the request for reinstatement to the student-athlete reinstatement staff within 30 days of the student-athlete initially signing the student-athlete statement in 2000-01 or thereafter.

Some concern had been expressed about the severity of the policy, which prompted the Division I reinstatement group to revisit the directive. After review, however, the subcommittee determined that the current directive should remain in place.

The subcommittee noted that the core philosophy of the student-athlete reinstatement program is to return the student-athlete to the position he or she was in before the violation occurred. The group noted that in general, student-athletes who accept impermissible expenses are required to fulfill the minimum reinstatement condition of repayment. With the impermissible educational expenses directive, the group believes the reinstatement condition of withholding student-athletes from the first 10 percent of competition without requiring repayment reconciles the conflict between the student-athlete reinstatement philosophy and the extreme financial hardship placed on prospective student-athletes who do not have the resources to repay the value of the benefit.

The subcommittee confirmed, however, that a choice between repayment of the impermissible educational expenses and withholding from competition will not be made available for application by the staff. In other words, student-athletes may not attempt to "buy" their eligibility by repaying the value of the benefit. Further, the group agreed that in cases where institutions or student-athletes knowingly did not disclose acceptance of impermissible education expenses, the penalty would likely be far more stringent than requiring the student-athlete to miss 10 percent of his or her team's upcoming competitions.

The subcommittee also discussed potential cases in which two or more student-athletes from the same team have requested reinstatement under the parameters of the directive. In such cases, the subcommittee instructed the staff to allow for staggering of the withholding of those individuals.

Other impermissible benefits

In a related issue, the three groups reviewed amateurism reinstatement requests that involved student-athletes receiving actual and necessary expenses from impermissible sources. Relief has been provided from repayment of expenses received from impermissible sources such as professional athletics teams or teams financially supported by professional athletics teams in a significant number of cases.

The groups acknowledged that relief of repayment of the actual and necessary expenses of travel, room, board and basic living expenses seems inconsistent with current NCAA bylaws, which specifically state that any reimbursement of expenses from a professional sports organization based upon participation is impermissible. Accordingly, the groups directed the NCAA staff to continue reviewing amateurism reinstatement cases involving impermissible expenses, including actual and necessary expenses, on a case-by-case basis until August 1, 2001. The groups agreed, however, that as of August 1, 2001, student-athletes will be required to repay all impermissible expenses, including actual and necessary expenses.

In other actions, the three groups reviewed student-athlete reinstatement committee policies and procedures and issued several clarifications. In policies regarding the initial staff decision in reinstatement requests, the committees agreed that in cases that involve competition as a condition, the student-athlete must fulfill the reinstatement condition during a season in which he or she competes. Further, the committee agreed that the director of student-athlete reinstatement and the vice-president for enforcement services have the authority to stay a staff decision if the following conditions are met:

The institution and the student-athlete first become aware of the violation within 48 hours of the competition; and

Case precedent is unclear whether competition as a condition for reinstatement is warranted.

If the staff does grant a stay, the student-athlete will be eligible for competition until the appropriate committee's first available opportunity for an appeal call.

Regarding appeals procedures, the committees agreed to require a minimum of 48 hours to review documentation before an appeal call or before rendering a decision for a paper review. Exceptions to this policy can be made if the director of student-athlete reinstatement and the appropriate committee chair determine that the urgency of the case warrants immediate consideration and the appropriate committee is able to thoroughly review the documentation before the call or in the case of a paper review, before issuing a decision.

In another action, the Divisions II and III committees voted to establish a two-tiered process of sanctions for violations of NCAA gambling/sports wagering legislation. The sanctions are similar to those adopted by Division I when it approved the basketball issues legislative package in April.