The Divisions I, II and III Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committees will implement a new policy this year designed to increase institutional accountability in the "student-athlete-first" initiative.

Beginning January 1, when relief is provided in reinstatement cases or waivers processed by the reinstatement staff and committee as a result of an institutional error, the CEO at the institution will be notified of the error that triggered the violation or resulted in the need for the waiver.

The committee agreed upon the idea in concept at its June 2004 meeting and worked out the specifics at its December meeting in Indianapolis. Committee members hope that this new policy will allow for mitigation to be considered in the reinstatement process while still providing accountability for the institution. The letter is not punitive in nature and is simply notification that relief was provided as a result of institutional error.

There has been some concern since the student-athlete-first philosophy was adopted 18 months ago that there wasn't an adequate accountability mechanism in place that would deter the institution from repeating the behavior that triggered the violation or need for the waiver. In other words, while the student-athlete-first philosophy has resulted in positive outcomes in more cases, the committee believes institutions still should be held accountable if institutional error created the situation. Committee members think notifying the CEO is a step in the right direction.

In addition, the Division I committee discussed an educational approach to help reduce some of the more common violations. For example, the committee has reviewed a number of cases recently involving men's and women's basketball student-athletes who received financial aid during the summer before their initial full-time enrollment despite not being enrolled in six credit hours. Current legislation requires enrollment in a minimum of six hours before aid can be awarded.

Several other cases involved golf student-athletes receiving gift certificates during the academic year. This practice is allowable under United States Golf Association rules, but not under NCAA legislation. NCAA golf student-athletes are required to follow NCAA rules, which do not permit gift certificates during the academic year.

The committee also noticed multiple cases in which enrolled student-athletes in tennis received prize money up to expenses. That is allowable only for prospective student-athletes, however.

The Division I committee members believe that educating the membership more in those areas and others will result in fewer repeat cases and positively aid implementation of the student-first philosophy. They are considering educational sessions targeting coaches associations, student-athlete advisory committees, the National Federation of State High School Associations and the Collegiate Commissioners Association of Compliance Administrators.

"One of the challenges with the student-athlete-first initiative from the start has been getting the word out," said Carolayne Henry, associate commissioner of the Mountain West Conference and chair of the Division I committee. "While it appears more people are understanding the new philosophy, we want to reinforce the initiative with as much education as possible."

Review of outcomes

The committees also reviewed an executive summary of student-athlete reinstatement at its December meeting, including an overview of the number of cases processed this year. Through October, more than 600 cases had been processed, including more than 400 in Division I. Fewer than 1 percent of the cases resulted in permanent ineligibility. Also, more than 80 percent of the cases in which staff rendered the initial decision were upheld on appeal.

For the 2003-04 academic year, the numbers are as follows:

• More than 1,900 cases processed (increase from 1,666 in 2002-03).

• 1,400 cases in Division I.

• 2.5 percent of cases appealed (decrease from 5.4 percent in 2002-03).

• In 83 percent of cases heard on appeal, the initial staff decision was affirmed.

• Fewer than 1 percent of cases resulted in permanent ineligibility.

The three committees also reviewed and reaffirmed the summary of changes resulting from the new philosophy, including less reliance on case precedent, considering mitigation at a greater level, and allowing staff greater discretion to render decisions. The committee also noted that although the approach to each case has changed and the staff and committee give greater weight to the individuality of each case, many violations still result in a condition of reinstatement. Also, if the violation is a significant violation of NCAA rules (such as amateurism violations or academic fraud) or the student-athlete has a high degree of culpability, a significant reinstatement condition is still imposed.

Members emphasized that cases still will be viewed on a spectrum as well. The most serious violations (for example, amateurism and academic fraud) will be less likely to result in a flexible outcome. Violations with little student-athlete culpability, or documented institutional error where the violation could have been avoided, will be more likely to result in a flexible outcome.

In addition to the full reinstatement committees' meeting, the Division II group met with ad hoc committee members, including Carol Dunn and Phil Roach from the Division II Amateurism Project Team. They examined the impact of amateurism changes adopted at the 2000 NCAA Convention.

With the help of members from the amateurism project team, the Division II reinstatement committee is beginning a review of the amateurism changes to examine if the proposals are accomplishing what was intended, with an eye toward closing any loopholes.

The Division III group appointed Stuart Robinson, director of athletics at State University College at New Paltz, as its new chair.