The Division I Subcommittee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement and the Division II Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee have confirmed their belief that violations of NCAA agent legislation are more serious than general extra benefit offenses identified in Bylaws 12 and 16 and, because of that, monetary guidelines should be more stringent for cases involving agents than for other extra-benefit violations.

At their December 4-5 meeting, the Divisions I and II (sub)committees affirmed that the staff should consider the following issues when considering agent violations: the value of the benefit received by the student-athlete, the student-athlete's awareness of the person's agent status and the student-athlete's involvement in obtaining the extra benefit. The committees also directed the staff to impose a minimum 10 percent withholding condition for any type of impermissible benefit received by a student-athlete from an agent.

The Division I subcommittee also confirmed that the staff should review extra-benefit violations where boosters are involved in the same manner as cases in which student-athletes act independently of the institution (for example, taking advantage of a scholarship in violation of Bylaw 16.12.2.1 to obtain books or accepting impermissible benefits from an outside source in violation of Bylaw 12.1.1.1.6).

The Division I subcommittee determined that prospective student-athletes who violate Bylaw 12.1.1.1.6 might not be as aware of NCAA legislation as enrolled student-athletes and provided the staff with the following reinstatement guidelines to use in such cases: benefits valued between $300 and $500, 10 percent withholding and repayment; $501-$700 -- 20 percent withholding and repayment; and more than $701 -- a minimum of 30 percent withholding and repayment.

Bylaw 14

The Divisions I and II committees also addressed reinstatement matters involving Bylaw 14.

Regarding Bylaw 14.3, in cases in which a student-athlete practiced before being certified by the NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse but was subsequently certified as a qualifier or partial qualifier, the Divisions I and II (sub)committees directed the staff to withhold that student-athlete from one practice for every two impermissible practices in which he or she participated. For situations in which the violation occurred because of institutional error without fault by the student-athlete, the committees directed that the student-athlete not be withheld from practice if the institution provides the following documentation:

A letter from the person at the institution responsible for submitting names to the NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse indicating that the student-athlete's name was never submitted and documenting the institutional error.

As for student-athletes who compete before certification and are subsequently certified as a qualifier, the committees directed the staff to withhold the student-athlete from one competition for every two impermissible competitions in which the student-athlete competed.

Amateurism

The subcommittee also reviewed case precedent involving the Australian Women's National Basketball Association (AWNBL) and affirmed that cases involving that league should be reviewed under the December 1999 guidelines. For that reason, AWNBL case precedent before the December 1999 guidelines is no longer binding.