The Divisions I and II Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committees have adopted policies and procedures regarding how they will interface with the newly established amateurism clearinghouse.

Committee members made those decisions at their June 8-10 meeting in Indianapolis. The Division III reinstatement committee also met at that time.

The new policies establish prescribed penalties for violations of amateurism legislation that the amateurism clearinghouse staff will administer. The reinstatement committees will oversee the penalties but the amateurism clearinghouse staff will be able to apply them. The policies also provide for a reinstatement staff review before the appellate process for those violations not on the prescribed penalty list or those that are on the list and contain mitigation.

Since the goal of the amateurism clearinghouse is to provide information to institutions early in the recruiting process, reinstatement committee members thought it was important to establish efficient policies to allow for the greatest level of review before certification is rendered.

"The student-athlete reinstatement committee is not a fact-finding group, but an appellate group," said committee Chair Cecil Huey, the faculty athletics representative at Clemson University. "But you’d like to be able to deal with the recruiting issues before certification has run its course."

The committee developed a set of prescribed penalties that the clearinghouse can apply in situations where the facts appear on the prescribed penalty list and no mitigation is present. In situations where the issue does not appear on the prescribed penalty list or where mitigation is present, the clearinghouse staff will forward the case to the reinstatement staff for review.

Huey said the new polices provide for efficient communication and sharing of information between the clearinghouse and reinstatement functions, while also allowing the reinstatement committee continued oversight and implementation of penalties.

For the Division I group, the prescribed penalties were created based on the amateurism guideline the Division I Management Council approved in January. Division II relied on its reinstatement philosophy and case precedent.

In addition to reviewing policies related to the clearinghouse, all three reinstatement committees reviewed their commitment to the student-first principle in the following reinstatement case groupings:

In other action, all three committees reviewed gambling-related cases in which a student-athlete had not triggered the minimum penalty set forth in Bylaw 10.3.1. In such cases, the staff has imposed various withholding conditions based on the particular facts of the case. The committees noted that factors such as dollar amount, number of bets and formality of the bets should be considered in the staff’s determination of the appropriate withholding condition.

In addition, the committees reviewed cases that did trigger the minimum penalty and discussed situations that may warrant an increase beyond the minimum one-year sanction. The committee noted that cases should be reviewed on an individual basis to determine if a withholding penalty beyond the one-year withholding is warranted.

The Division I committee also reviewed pre-draft and tryout issues in basketball. The discussion included the timing of when student-athletes have to notify their institution that they are returning to the institution, agent involvement and tryouts.

Based on increased education and information being available regarding the permissible means for student-athletes to navigate the process for declaring for the NBA draft and maintaining NCAA eligibility, the committee determined that more significant penalties should be imposed for those violations. The expectation is that student-athletes should engage the institution in the process and are responsible for ensuring that violations do not occur.

Based on that shift in direction, previous cases have been archived and no longer are binding to the staff and committee in their deliberation of appropriate decisions.

Divisions II and III

The Divisions II and III reinstatement committees focused on educational efforts regarding the student-first philosophy.

Division II, for example, presented for the first time at this year’s Regional Rules Seminars and recently distributed a Division II-specific month-by-month reinstatement "compliance calendar" regarding reinstatement issues. The Division II committee also is developing a "one-stop shop" compliance Web link for reinstatement-related matters.

The Division II committee also discussed the increased use of international recruiting services and a review of the current guidelines for post-enrollment amateurism issues.

In the Division III meeting, committee members focused on how best to deliver education efforts targeting campus administrators and student-athletes. Possibilities include an enhanced use of the commissioners’ newsletter and other conference resources, and including the reinstatement segment within the Division III "Getting In the Game" CD-ROM. Committee members also discussed possibly creating a compliance calendar, as Division II did.

The group also reviewed hardship-waiver legislation and case precedent involving appeals of denied hardship waivers to ensure the appropriate and fair application of legislation within the student-first philosophy.