Significantly different eligibility standards are being applied to prospective student-athletes enrolling for the 2003-04 academic year.

Prospective student-athletes who have engaged in activities that professionalize themselves will be deemed permanently ineligible for Division I athletics.

The Division I Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee is reviewing an individual's actions under a "reasonable-person" standard to determine if the actions warrant the individual not being reinstated for Division I eligibility. The committee's previous standard for review was whether the athlete had indicated an "intent to professionalize."

The new standard will apply to all prospective student-athletes, although the change will have the greatest effect on international prospects. (An extensive description of the changes appeared in the October 14, 2002, issue of The NCAA News.)

Prospective student-athletes will be deemed to be permanently ineligible if they:

Have signed a professional contract.

Have competed with professionals after their first opportunity to enroll in college.

"The NCAA's Principle of Amateurism specifies that student participation in athletics is an avocation," Bill Saum, NCAA director of agent, gambling and amateurism activities, wrote in an April 23 memorandum to international basketball federations.

"This is a bedrock principle for the NCAA. The Division I membership recently defeated proposals to significantly change its amateurism rules, indicating that the current rules need to be consistently upheld. An individual who pursues sport as a vocation, even if the individual fails at that pursuit, shall not be permitted to compete in (Division I) intercollegiate athletics. The individual's intent is no longer relevant with respect to whether the individual actually became a professional athlete."

The first two tests -- signing contracts and receiving compensation beyond expenses -- are fairly clear-cut because they are so quantifiable (moreover, the committee has indicated it will be "understanding" of issues when the actual expense figure is in doubt). The third test, the one involving competition with professionals, has been made clearer by a "professional-team" definition that was sharpened in April 2002 when the Division I Management Council concluded a five-year review of amateurism issues. In short, a team is considered professional if it calls itself professional or provides compensation above expenses.

"When it comes to competition, we know more than we ever have before," Saum said. "What we know is reflected on the international student-athlete section of NCAA Online, where we provide information on leagues in specific countries.

"But there are more than 200 basketball federations throughout the world that regulate men's basketball, and no two of them are the same. We have identified leagues that we know to be professional, but we are light years from knowing everything."

While a complete list would be desirable in a perfect world, it is less of an issue in this environment since Division I coaches recruit the very best international players. Those prospects typically are not found in obscure professional leagues, Saum said.

The standard that will be applied for prospects enrolling this August was approved at the July 2002 meeting of the Division I Management Council. The reinstatement condition since fall 2001 has been to withhold individuals who competed with professional teams (but did not demonstrate an intent to professionalize) from a maximum of 20 percent of the number of professional games played in basketball or eight games, whichever is less. Before that, the longstanding reinstatement condition was a one-for-one sit-out period.

The new standard has been communicated through various means, including multiple presentations at each of the three recent Regional Rules-Compliance Seminars, reports to the Division I Management Council, memos to coaches associations, e-mails to compliance coordinators, articles in The NCAA News, and information appearing in the agents, gambling and amateurism section of NCAA Online.

"The change has been communicated to the membership in so many ways," said Julie Roe, NCAA director of student-athlete reinstatement. "The intent has been to educate institutions on the front end.

"With respect to prospective student-athletes, knowledge of NCAA rules or the amateurism directive is not the issue. The issue will be whether the prospect professionalized through his or her actions. The Management Council has significantly clarified what specific actions constitute 'professionalizing.' "

The issue has student-athlete welfare overtones. Previously, prospects who had signed a contract or competed with professionals could have retained eligibility for Division I competition with modest eligibility consequences so long as they had not demonstrated an intent to professionalize. While signing a professional contract has indicated an intent to professionalize, some prospects have overcome that presumption by offering significant mitigation. The new standard shifts from the subjective analysis of evaluating intent to a clear, objective approach, away from intent and focused on actions.

Some may see the new, more rigid standard as denying opportunity to those prospects and conflicting with recent NCAA efforts to find ways to say "yes" more often on eligibility matters.

However, the position of the Division I Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee is that the clearer directive recognizes and favors individuals who have taken steps to preserve their amateur status -- a status that Division I clearly values, as evidenced by its legislative actions. From a practical perspective, the committee is reacting to requests from coaches, administrators and prospective student-athletes to clarify the front end of the recruiting process rather than encouraging a practice that argues for some eligibility once the prospect has made a commitment to come to the United States (and has received a financial commitment from an institution).

Changes regarding the acceptance of prize money also have been communicated to the membership.

In a July 3 memo to selected coaches associations, Carolayne Henry, chair of the Division I Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee, wrote:

"In light of the new legislative change regarding the acceptance of prize money and many other discussions involving Division I amateurism legislation, the Division I Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee ... concluded that an individual who is clearly aware that he or she accepted prize money in excess of his or her expenses after September 1, 2002, should not be reinstated.

"This represents a shift from the previous reinstatement condition, which simply required the repayment of any prize money received by an individual. Beginning with prize money accepted after September 1, 2002, if the individual accepts prize money in an event exceeding his or her expenses, the general presumption would be that the individual not be reinstated."

Amateurism reform timeline

Fall 1997: Governance structure directs the Agents and Amateurism Subcommittee to initiate amateurism-reform review.

June 1999: The amateurism-reform concept is introduced to the Division I Academics/ Eligibility/Compliance (AEC) Cabinet.

September 1999: AEC supports amateurism-reform legislative proposals.

January 2001: The NCAA Convention includes a Division I forum on amateurism reform.

October 2001: The Division I Management Council amends the student-athlete reinstatement directive for competition with professionals (eight-game maximum applied for the 2001-02 and

2002-03 seasons).

April 2002: The Division I Management Council and Board of Directors vote on amateurism reform for prospective student-athletes: Adopt prize-money exception, ability to enter draft, acceptance of educational expenses; defeat professional contracts, competition with professionals, pay for play.

June 2002: The Division I Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee proposes a new philosophical approach and penalty structure for amateurism violations as a result of the April vote. The AEC approves the approach and forwards it to the Management Council.

July 2002: The Division I Management Council adopts the philosophy and penalty schedule and amends the penalty for competition with professionals to permanent ineligibility.

October 2002: The Division I Management Council reaffirms the philosophy and penalty schedule.

Communication of reinstatement consequences to membership

June 2002: Academics/Eligibility/Compliance report to the membership.

July 2002: Division I Management Council report.

September 2002: June report that highlighted prize-money issues is forwarded to the Collegiate Commissioners Association Compliance Administrators (CCACA).

October 2002: Division I Management Council report; forwarded the reinstatement directive approved by the Management Council to the CCACA; NCAA News article.

November 2002: Memorandum provided to selected coaches associations.

February 2003: AEC report, with clarifications; NCAA News article.

March 2003: December report forwarded to the CCACA after AEC clarifies parts of directive.

April 2003: Memorandum provided to the ice hockey coaches association.

July 2003: NCAA News article.

Ongoing: Agent, gambling and amateurism, and reinstatement Web site.

Analyzing international student-athletes

An affirmative response to any one of the following circumstances could result in a violation of NCAA rules:

Did the individual receive compensation for his or her participation with a club team?

Did the individual sign a contract with the team?

Did the individual receive a salary?

Did the individual receive educational expenses?

Did the individual receive other benefits based on his or her athletics ability?

Did the individual agree to be represented by an agent?

Was the club or league in which the individual participated considered a professional athletics team or organization by applying NCAA legislation?

Did the individual receive compensation beyond actual and necessary expenses from an amateur sports organization?

Did the individual compete on an organized team that meets the definition of a professional team, even if the individual did not receive pay or remuneration for expenses?