National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2004
« back to 2004 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
|
The NCAA News
The Divisions I, II and III Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committees used their most recent meetings to conduct a year-end review of the new "student-athlete-first" culture that the Executive Committee and NCAA President Myles Brand encouraged 12 months ago.
The consensus is that the initiative is working as planned.
The committees, which met June 20-23 in Colorado Springs, Colorado, re-viewed implementation of the new philosophy that gives student-athletes the benefit of the doubt in reinstatement cases, eligibility appeals and waiver requests in which the student-athlete had no culpability in the violation. The philosophy represents a significant shift from a previous system predicated on case precedent and strict application of the rule, regardless of mitigating factors.
For the student-athlete reinstatement committees, the philosophy changes the way the committees approach each case. Under the new philosophy, the staff and committee members now consider mitigating factors and the totality of the circumstances at a greater level than in the past.
For example, during the past year the student-athlete reinstatement staff and the Division I committee reviewed several requests regarding student-athletes who did not meet -- for whatever reason -- the six-credit-hour requirement to receive athletics aid during the summer term. Many fail to meet that requirement due solely to an institutional error.
In the past, since the aid was in no way permissible while not enrolled in six credit hours, repayment was required. Now, if the committees discover the student-athlete did everything reasonably expected (for example, met with the academic advisor but the advisor was un-aware of the six-hour requirement) and the student-athlete could have taken the six hours but for the misinformation provided, relief from repayment may occur. The committees did note that when common violations are identified, education should be provided to the membership to avoid similar violations. Thus, in the future, the argument of confusion or lack of knowledge may not always lead to relief.
Less bureaucratic system
The student-athlete-first philosophy initially caused unease among segments of the membership who were concerned that the more flexible environment would be open to abuse. But student-athlete reinstatement committee members, many of whom had wanted to find a more friendly approach even before the new philosophy was adopted, are seeing positive results.
The implementation of the new philosophy has led to two major changes within the processing of reinstatement requests. The first is the greater authority given to the student-athlete reinstatement staff to make decisions. That authority has resulted in fewer appeals; however, the committee still provides oversight and input to the staff. Although the committees may see fewer cases on appeal, members review all cases where the flexible review resulted in a different outcome. That review takes place on a quarterly basis and provides the staff with insight into the factors that should be considered in its analysis. In about 98 percent of the cases decided by the staff, the committees have agreed with the staff's decision.
In addition to the increased staff authority, the implementation of the new philosophy resulted in a shift away from dictated outcomes or directives to a focus on approach. With this change in focus, the staff and committees now spend time discussing what factors should be considered in the analysis of various cases.
Guidelines to follow
Now that the staff and committees are becoming more comfortable with implementing the new philosophy, members used their June meetings to review and reaffirm their approach in reinstatement cases under the more flexible guidelines. The staff and committee reviewed cases processed in each bylaw to determine underlying themes and points for consideration in analysis of future cases. Some common principles considered in all cases were identified:
In addition, it became apparent that reinstatement cases can be viewed on a spectrum of severity -- certainly some types of violations are more likely to result in a flexible outcome then others. Bylaw 14 was the area that resulted in the most flexible outcomes during the past year. In the past, if a student-athlete competed while ineligible, a one-for-one withholding condition was imposed. Although the one-for-one condition is still the starting point, under the new philosophy other mitigation is considered to see if some level of relief is appropriate.
For example, in the past if an institution allowed a transfer student-athlete to compete, even if the institution did not have all the necessary documents from the previous institution to certify the student-athlete as eligible, the student-athlete was withheld on a one-for-one basis. Under the new analysis, if an institution can demonstrate that but for the institutional error it was reasonable to conclude the student-athlete could have been eligible (for example, the previous institution would have given permission to use the one-time transfer exception before competition), relief may be provided.
Although the analysis has changed in all cases, the outcome or reinstatement condition has not. Thus, many cases still are processed in reinstatement where conditions are imposed on student-athletes. Precedent and committee guidelines still serve as a starting point for the staff in its analysis.
Though committee members were pleased with the results of the new philosophy so far, they did acknowledge at least one area that needs attention. Many in the membership have been concerned that the student-athlete-first philosophy may be used as a safety net for member institutions to continue the practice that caused the violation in the first place. In other words, if members become accustomed to successful appeals, there may not be enough accountability to make them change the behavior that caused the appeal to be made.
The reinstatement committees talked about two approaches that may address the concern. The most direct would be for the committees to send a letter to the institution's CEO in cases in which institutional error caused the student-athlete to be in harm's way but relief was granted. Committee members believe that CEOs who receive many of these letters -- or more than one that deals with the same violation -- would be likely to ensure that the reason for the behavior was modified. The letter is not intended to serve as a penalty but rather to make the institution aware that relief from a penalty was provided because of an institutional error.
The groups also discussed educational efforts to modify behavior. Committee members believe the more that institutions know about the number and types of requests -- and the patterns that emerge from the requests -- the more likely that the behavior will change.
The committees plan to work with compliance administrators and conference commissioners in this regard.
Medical documentation
In other actions during their June meetings, the student-athlete reinstatement committees discussed medical documentation standards that apply to conference-granted hardship waivers and extension waivers.
Committee members noted increased confusion regarding the types of medical documentation necessary to grant a hardship waiver or be considered a denied participation opportunity within the extension legislation. NCAA legislation requires the submission of contemporaneous medical documentation to meet the requirements of both the hardship and extension waivers.
The committees discussed the possibility of establishing a more standardized medical-documentation threshold for extension requests that may also provide a means to ensure more consistent application of the hardship legislation. Committee members believe such standards will assist conferences and institutions in designing a medical treatment protocol that satisfies all questions of incapacitation within the original generation of documents rather than attempting to satisfy the documentation requirements months or years after the injury has been diagnosed and treated.
Committee members agreed to continue those discussions with the hope of creating a document to be circulated to the membership.
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy