The agents and amateurism subcommittee of the Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet has developed responses to frequently asked questions about proposed amateurism deregulation in Division I:

Pre-enrollment frequently asked questions

Q Why the need for amateurism deregulation? Why change the Association's philosophy of amateurism?

A Quite simply, the subcommittee has discovered that the application of our amateurism philosophy has resulted in inconsistency and inequity. Increasingly, institutions are recruiting prospects who have attained significant pre-enrollment athletics experience and thus bring an increased competitive advantage. Often, these prospects enjoy four seasons of competition upon initial enrollment while prospects who have done nothing more than sign a contract or enter the draft (which brings no competitive advantage) are precluded from participating in intercollegiate athletics.

The concepts of competitive equity and what is best for our prospective student-athletes should drive the Association in its amateurism philosophy. The antiquated notion that money is the standard by which to judge an individual's appropriateness for our programs does nothing to promote these concepts. The subcommittee seeks to put into place a philosophy of amateurism that will grow with and enhance member institutions and our student-athletes. Further, deregulation will assist institutions in the recruiting process. Deregulation will decrease the uncertainty as to a prospect's eligibility status and remaining eligibility upon enrollment.

* * *

Q Aren't we deregulating amateurism in response to the general end of amateurism throughout the world?

A The subcommittee firmly believes that deregulation maintains the values of the Association while recognizing the changing environment of intercollegiate athletics. After reviewing student-athlete reinstatement cases involving prospects who have violated current amateurism legislation and the accompanying arguments made by the involved institutions that these prospects should be included in our programs, it has become clear that deregulation reflects the current culture of intercollegiate athletics and trends in recruiting.

* * *

Q If deregulation is successful, won't some prospective student-athletes possess a competitive advantage once they initially enroll?

A As happens today, some prospective student-athletes may have obtained a competitive advantage due to their athletics participation between high-school graduation and initial enrollment. This competitive inequity currently exists and has proven difficult to remedy. The subcommittee believes that the expansion and modification of NCAA Bylaw 14.2.4.2 to all sports will negate any competitive advantage. Under this proposal, for every year of participation in organized competition from the next opportunity for the prospective student-athlete to initially enroll following the graduation of the prospective student-athlete's high-school class, the individual will lose a season of competition and must fulfill an academic year in residence upon initial, full-time enrollment.

* * *

Q How does one overcome the feelings of discomfort in allowing prospects to accept money?

A This feeling is understandable. The subcommittee also had to struggle with its initial discomfort at the thought of deregulation. At every opportunity, the subcommittee has requested individuals to provide a definitive justification for not allowing prospects to accept money. To date, no one has been able to provide this justification. The subcommittee has determined that the act of accepting money does not impact competitive equity. However, we do tend to equate the acceptance of money with the opportunity to compete at a high level of competition, and this may be a source of discomfort. The subcommittee has addressed this legitimate concern with the expansion of Bylaw 14.2.4.2, which would negate the competitive advantage gained through actual competition before enrollment rather than focusing on the act of accepting money.

* * *

Q Aren't there significant amounts of prize money available for prospects to accept?

A Generally, no. If one reviews student-athlete reinstatement case precedent, the cases most frequently involve small amounts of prize money. However, for those limited number of prospects who possess the athletics ability to earn large sums of money over a number of years, the subcommittee believes it unlikely that this prospect would be willing to forfeit future earnings in order to participate in collegiate athletics. This is especially true when considering that the prospect would have to sit a year in residency and would have less than four seasons of competition after application of Bylaw 14.2.4.2 .

* * *

Q Will we be encouraging prospects to pursue professional careers and bypass education?

A The subcommittee has discussed this issue at length and believes that more prospects will be provided the opportunity to pursue education as a result of deregulation. Currently, the opportunities for prospects to engage in organized competition before collegiate enrollment are ever-increasing. There is no indication that this trend will lessen by maintaining our current amateurism philosophy. As a result of these increasing opportunities available now, most prospects who test their athletics abilities before collegiate enrollment do not possess the skills to be successful and often forfeit any future opportunities to pursue intercollegiate athletics.

Furthermore, the relatively small number of prospects who possess the athletics ability to be successful at the professional level will not increase by deregulating amateurism. The opportunities for these individuals remain the same. In addition, we currently allow student-athletes who are professionals in one sport to compete in intercollegiate athletics in a different sport. To the subcommittee, it is inconsistent to not allow prospects to explore professional opportunities before collegiate enrollment.

It will be the majority of prospects who would not achieve success at a professional level who will be impacted by deregulation. Often, these prospects have not gained a competitive advantage and should be allowed in our programs. Deregulation will increase the opportunities for prospects to pursue an education and intercollegiate athletics. Finally, in the extremely unlikely event that a prospect who has achieved success at a highly competitive level will wish to enroll in college, the subcommittee looks to this as a strong affirmation of the importance of education in that the prospect has chosen to forfeit monetary gains in order to participate in intercollegiate sports.

* * *

Q Could an individual such as Kobe Bryant return and play at an NCAA institution?

A While amateurism deregulation would not prevent Kobe Bryant from enrolling and possibly competing for a member institution, the subcommittee has reviewed this type of scenario and concluded that through the application of Bylaw 14.2.4.2, it is highly unlikely that an individual who has attained such a high level of success over the course of several years would be interested in relinquishing their monetary benefits in order to compete at the collegiate level. This individual would be required to fulfill an academic year in residence, have less than four years of eligibility for competition and face the possibility of injury during collegiate competition, thus impacting the resumption of his or her professional career. The subcommittee does not consider this to be a realistic outcome of deregulation.

* * *

Q Is it necessary for the membership to see all the deregulation proposals?

A The subcommittee firmly believes that it is. In order for the membership to fully understand the concept of deregulation and how the individual proposals work with each other, it must be aware of the legislative proposals in their entirety. Many believe that the deregulation of amateurism is an important key to the successful future of the Association and is too important an issue to be dismissed without the membership's input.

* * *

Q I agree with most of the proposals, but am unsure of some. Will there be an assessment if all the proposals are implemented?

A Please remember that the subcommittee is a permanent body that will continually evaluate and address the consequences of deregulation. The subcommittee is committed to providing the best possible structure in determining who should participate in our programs. To that end, the subcommittee will closely monitor the results of deregulation and propose additional changes if necessary.

* * *

Q What if a prospective student-athlete has accepted prize money or signed a professional contract before the effective date of the deregulation proposals? Will the new legislation apply to them?

A It is anticipated that should the deregulated legislation successfully move through the process, the legislation would become effective immediately and be applicable to student-athletes enrolling on or after August 1, 2001, for example. This means that for those prospective student-athletes who may have violated current amateurism rules, eligibility would not be affected if initial enrollment occurs on or after August 1, 2001.

* * *

Q Won't apparel/shoe companies create high-paying leagues for prospects and possibly engage in recruiting activities?

A Apparel and shoe manufacturers may create such leagues. The subcommittee is not concerned with the establishment of the leagues themselves but shares concerns regarding possible impermissible recruiting activities. Accordingly, in order to deter recruiting abuses, the subcommittee has proposed (and the Management Council adopted) that an interpretation be issued clarifying that the definition of a representative of an institution's athletics interests includes corporate entities and other organizations. This means that a corporation or organization that has a contractual agreement with an institution or otherwise promotes the institution's athletics programs would be a representative and must conduct its activities within NCAA legislation. Also, those corporations and organizations that may not have a previous relationship with an institution would become a representative the moment they engage in any recruiting-type activities.

* * *

Q Won't this result in an increased number of international student-athletes being able to participate at our institutions?

A One must remember that an increase in the number of international student-athletes can occur only if our institutions want to recruit more international athletes. Currently, there already are a significant number of international student-athletes participating in intercollegiate athletics. Because of the expenses associated with recruiting international athletes, we typically recruit only elite international athletes, and many have been involved for a significant period of time in some form of organized competition between high-school graduation and initial enrollment. Many of these athletes will have reduced seasons of competition after applying Bylaw 14.2.4.2, which is just as likely to result in the number of international athletes remaining the same rather than increasing.

Further, many international athletes now enroll and receive four seasons of competition due to the difficulties in determining their actual amateur status. Under deregulation, we no longer need to determine amateur status and need only to know the number of years an athlete participated in organized competition after high-school graduation in order to apply Bylaw 14.2.4.2.

* * *

Q What recruiting rules would apply for the prospective student-athlete who chooses to participate in organized competition after high school for a period of time?

A The same recruiting rules that apply for those individuals today who delay their initial NCAA enrollment would apply in this situation. For example, for a prospective student-athlete who would pursue participation in organized competition for a period of time, the prospective student-athlete would get a one-time provision of five additional official visits as of October 15 following high-school graduation, just as the prospective student-athlete would today if the prospective student-athlete decided to delay enrollment in order to work.

* * *

Q What if the prospective student-athlete described in the previous question had signed a National Letter of Intent?

A The National Letter of Intent has a four-year statute of limitations, which means that the prospective student-athlete remains committed to the institution for a period of four years. If the prospective student-athlete should enroll at the institution during the four-year period, the prospective student-athlete would need to sign a financial aid agreement for the upcoming academic year. Also, any challenges to the letter of intent would be conducted in the same way that appeals are handled today.

* * *

Q What financial aid could I offer to a prospective student-athlete who may enroll at my institution with less than four seasons of competition due to his or her previous involvement in organized competition?

A The current financial aid legislation would apply. For example, if a prospective student-athlete has two seasons of competition upon initial enrollment, the prospective student-athlete would have five years in which to participate in two seasons of competition. The institution may provide five years of financial aid. Also, as under current rules, student-athletes who have exhausted eligibility but are still receiving aid may engage in practice activities and not be considered counters so long as they have time remaining on their five-year clock.

Postenrollment

frequently asked questions

Q How can we possibly regulate student-athletes engaging in fee-for-lesson employment? Couldn't boosters get involved and pay student-athletes outrageous fees?

A Abuse is no more likely in fee-for-lesson employment than other forms. We presently monitor student-athlete employment and fee-for-lesson would fall under the same restrictions and considerations. Boosters are allowed to employ student-athletes now and could pay a student-athlete for work not performed or an unreasonably high rate, but we trust that boosters and student-athletes will adhere to the legislative requirements. Several years ago, when the membership debated whether student-athletes should be permitted to work, individuals predicted widespread abuse and monitoring problems. To date, none of these concerns have materialized, and the subcommittee believes that the same would hold true for fee-for-lesson.

* * *

Q What about student-athletes who may be able to earn more money because of the position they play on a team or their particular sport?

A The reality is that there are inherent inequities within and among each sport. It would be impossible to create legislation to address each and every difference. While earning fees for lessons may come more easily for some student-athletes, others may just need to be more creative. Fee-for-lesson is another form of employment being made available to student-athletes, and a student-athlete can choose whether it, or another form, would be the best option for them.

* * *

Q How would coaches know whom to recruit and sign if a student-athlete could return to school after being drafted?

A Right now in the sport of basketball, student-athletes can enter the draft and return to school as long as they are not drafted. This means that a coach today must recruit based on whether they think a student-athlete would be drafted or not. Allowing them to return within 30 days of the draft does not add a significant difference to the process.

However, the subcommittee is aware that this issue is of particular importance in the sport of football because of the timing of when a student-athlete must declare for the draft (January), the early signing period (February), the combines (February) and then the actual draft (April). Just as the subcommittee has done in regard to the pre-enrollment proposals, it will communicate with appropriate individuals to gather as much information as possible before the proposals are put forth to the cabinet in June.

* * *

Q Isn't it true that an agent is not rewarded unless the prospective student-athlete/student-athlete signs a contract so the agent will push to have the prospective student-athlete/student-athlete turn pro and academic pursuits will not be encouraged as an alternative? How do we prevent this from happening?

A The subcommittee understands that the membership has many questions regarding agents. What we must first understand is that the concerns that individuals are expressing about agents and deregulation actually are concerns that exist right now without deregulation and must be addressed. We also must understand the inherent difficulty in attempting to control the activity of individuals who do not have a relationship with institutions that could be used to regulate them.

The subcommittee realizes that certain things must be done to decrease the inappropriate influence of agents if we are to allow legitimate business relationships. First, we must strongly define who an agent is under deregulation so as to distinguish them from "runners" or nonscholastic coaches. Second, we need to confine, control and limit agents' access to prospective student-athletes and enrolled student-athletes. We must make it clear when an agent may contact a prospective student-athlete or enrolled student-athlete and under what circumstances.

One possibility is to allow prospective student-athletes or enrolled student-athletes to have contact with an agent only after they are drafted. This is reasonable given the fact that a prospective student-athlete or enrolled student-athlete does not need an agent before this time inasmuch as an agent cannot enhance a prospective student-athlete's or enrolled student-athlete's draft position. Along with this idea, we must better educate athletes as to the resources that currently are available to them in determining their projected draft position.

Another restriction would be to allow a prospective student-athlete to use an agent only in contract negotiations with a professional team.

Finally, there may be options within the deregulation efforts to limit the need for an agent. For example, if the draft exception for basketball was extended to all sports without providing that student-athletes may return after they are drafted, then the issue of how to allow student-athletes to have agents if they are drafted but choose to return to school is not something we must deal with because those student-athletes would be rendered permanently ineligible by virtue of being drafted.

The subcommittee firmly believes that the bulk of the efforts to control agent activity should be concentrated in the postenrollment period, and it feels that its position of increased education and defined sanctions for a student-athlete's involvement with an agent will lead to the best results. Likewise, the subcommittee does not believe that it is in the prospective student-athlete's best interests to deregulate other areas of Bylaw 12 and increase their opportunities while not allowing them to utilize the best representation for business purposes.