The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit has reversed the decision of a federal district court in the case of Cureton v. NCAA.

The case involved the NCAA's initial-eligibility rules and other jurisdictional issues.

The complaint, filed by student-athletes Tai Kwan Cureton, Leatrice Shaw and others, alleged that the minimum standardized-test score component of the NCAA's Division I initial-eligibility standards for incoming college freshmen student-athletes, also known as Proposition 16, has a disparate impact on African-American student-athletes and is in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

In its 2-1 decision, the court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that receipt of federal funds by the National Youth Sports Program (NYSP) subjects all of the NCAA's programs to Title VI scrutiny and that member schools, which are recipients of federal funds, ceded control of their athletics programs to the Association.

The decision did not address the merits of the case, specifically the plaintiffs' argument that African-American student-athletes are unfairly affected by the initial-eligibility rules. The court said that because of its determinations about Title VI, it was unnecessary to address the other issues raised on appeal.

"The effect of this ruling is that the Association's initial-eligibility bylaws remain in effect, and two more important jurisdictional questions have been answered with regard to the application of federal law to the NCAA," said Graham B. Spanier, chair of the NCAA Division I Board of Directors and president of Pennsylvania State University.

"We are pleased to obtain this ruling from the court. But as we have said all along, we will continue to review initial-eligibility rules, including the test-score cutoff."

The appeals court said that Title VI regulations adopted by the Department of Health and Human Services apply only to the program that receives the funds, in this case, the NYSP, not all NCAA programs.

Regarding the question of whether the NCAA is a recipient of federal funds because of the plaintiffs' claim that member schools cede authority to the Association, the court said, "The ultimate decision as to which freshmen an institution will permit to participate in varsity intercollegiate athletics and which applicants will be awarded athletics scholarships belongs to the member schools. The fact that the institutions make these decisions cognizant of NCAA sanctions does not mean that the NCAA controls them, because they have the option, albeit unpalatable, of risking sanctions or voluntarily withdrawing from the NCAA."

The NCAA appealed a March 8 decision by a federal court judge in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that declared the NCAA's Division I initial-eligibility standards invalid. The district court's decision also addressed the same jurisdictional issues but found the NCAA was a recipient of federal funds.

The NCAA's initial-eligibility standards, in effect since August 1, 1996, have required that entering Division I freshmen graduate from high school, successfully complete at least 13 core academic courses and achieve a grade-point average and test score on the ACT or SAT based on a qualifier index to gain eligibility.

Even before the March 8 decision, the NCAA has been involved in an ongoing review of the effects of Proposition 16. The Board of Directors, as well as other NCAA groups, has been considering various alternative models designed to increase student-athlete graduation rates without having a disparate impact on any group.

The Board also appointed a group of Division I initial-eligibility consultants this summer to study the matter further. That group is expected to provide an update at the Board's January meeting.

Key Dates in Cureton v. NCAA

January 8, 1997 -- Two student-athletes file suit against the NCAA, challenging the legality of the Association's initial-eligibility rules.

March 8, 1999 -- A U.S. district judge rules that Proposition 16 has a disparate impact on African Americans.

March 17, 1999 -- The NCAA appeals the March 8 decision.

March 30, 1999 -- The Association is granted a stay on the March 8 judgment.

October 1, 1999 -- The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit hears oral arguments from the plaintiffs and the NCAA.

December 22, 1999 -- The 3rd Circuit Court reverses the March 8 ruling.