The Division I Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement will be reviewing pre-enrollment amateurism cases beginning with the 2006-07 academic year in ways that fit more with the Association’s “student-athlete first” philosophy. Recently approved guidelines give the committee more latitude in amateurism cases to determine whether the violations warrant permanent ineligibility.

Essentially, the new guidelines are consistent with the general philosophy of the previous directive for amateurism violations that the Division I Management Council approved in 2002 and reaffirmed in 2004, but they afford the committee and staff with the flexibility needed to consider the unique facts of each case.

“The reinstatement staff and committee have been applying the Council-endorsed amateurism directive since July 2002 and, although the general philosophy of the directive is still supported, the staff and committee believe that its application in certain cases is unnecessarily restrictive,” said Jennifer Strawley, NCAA director of membership services and student-athlete reinstatement.

Under the old directive, for example, conditions of permanent ineligibility were rendered for any signed agreement to play professional athletics or for any competition beyond a prospect’s first opportunity to enroll. “Although in concept that appears to be appropriate when examining the facts and mitigation of certain cases,” Strawley said, “those penalties are extremely harsh for individuals the committee believes are not intended to be ruled permanently ineligible.”

The new guidelines, which the Management Council approved in January, call for the staff and committee to review individual cases under a “reasonable person” standard beginning in 2006-07 to determine if the actions warrant permanent ineligibility.

While the guidelines may provide relief in certain cases, they do not change outcomes in cases that violate the NCAA’s bedrock amateurism principles. Within the new guidelines, for example, if individuals engage in activities that are clearly professional, their eligibility will still not be reinstated.

Such cases include when an individual:

• Signs an agreement or contract stating that the team is professional or the individual is professional;
• Signs an agreement or contract that provides the individual with money above expenses (even if the money is never provided);
• Receives money above expenses, indicating that the individual has profited from his or her sport (whether from cash payments, prize money or a stipend);
• Consistently represents himself or herself as a professional athlete;
• Enters into a written or verbal agreement with an agent; or
• Accepts significant monetary benefits from an agent.

“Individuals in those instances clearly have crossed the threshold of professionalism and — absent significant mitigation — will not have their eligibility reinstated,” Strawley said.

But many cases the reinstatement staff and the committee review are not as clear-cut. For example, suppose a prospect signs a contract to play amateur ball but has to sign with the parent club to play with the amateur team. The provisions of the contract would allow participation on the parent professional club, even though there is no intent from the prospect or the club to do that. The old directive would have considered the contract as grounds for permanent ineligibility, but the new guidelines allows the committee to evaluate mitigating factors to see if a threshold has indeed been crossed.

“In many cases, individuals become trapped in the issues surrounding professional competition,” said committee Chair Cecil Huey, the faculty athletics representative at Clemson University. “Under NCAA rules we permit student-atheltes to practice with professionals but not to compete. That made the threshold between scrimmages and actual competition critical and could require student-athletes who were training with a professional organization to draw fine distinctions on the spot, based on the NCAA technical definition of competition. A relatively innocent slip-up could result in permanent ineligibility under the old standard.

“Under the old directive, it was hard to find a comfort zone if you thought permanent ineligibility was inappropriate,” Huey said.

The new guidelines address five areas: professional contracts, compensation, professional competition, agent violations and preferential-treatment violations (see accompanying box for guidelines in each area).

“The membership has always made it clear that they don’t want failed professionals, people with extensive involvement with professionals or people who received significant benefits from professionals or agents to be competing,” said Huey. “While the committee will continue to operate under that bedrock principle, the new guidelines provide a more reasonable approach that enables us to more appropriately match the reinstatement penalties or conditions with the circumstances that actually occurred.

“We want to be consistent with the will of the membership, but we needed to insert some more latitude to adequately address the range of cases that we were encountering. Since 2002, though, the committee had felt restrained by the rigidity of the old directive, and members didn’t feel comfortable straying too far from that.”

The reinstatement condition for all penalties is effective for individuals initially enrolling at an NCAA institution for the 2006-07 academic year. Although some individuals may have been ruled permanently ineligible under the previous standard, the standard was based on year of enrollment. To maintain the most equitable shift, committee members felt the change should be implemented based on enrollment date at an NCAA institution.

Reinstatement guidelines for pre-enrollment amateurism violations

Professional contract

• An individual who enters into an agreement clearly indicating that the individual will participate in professional athletics, participate as a professional or may be provided compensation (including incentives or bonuses) for participation shall not be permitted to compete in intercollegiate athletics. 
• An individual who enters into an agreement that does not clearly indicate the individual will participate in professional athletics, participate as a professional or may be provided compensation for participation shall be reinstated with conditions.

Comment: An individual who signs an agreement that clearly designates professional actions has displayed an intent to participate in athletics as an avocation and, thus, has compromised his or her NCAA eligibility. In situations where a student-athlete signs an agreement in violation of NCAA legislation that does not clearly delineate that he or she is a professional, although the act is a violation of NCAA legislation, it does not rise to the level of permanent ineligibility.

Compensation

• An individual who accepts compensation, salary or prize money above expenses shall not be permitted to compete in intercollegiate athletics. 
• An individual who accepts prize money above expenses in limited events where the totality of the prize money does not exceed expenses shall be evaluated to determine if reinstatement is warranted. If so, appropriate conditions will be imposed. 
• An individual who accepts expenses from a professional team shall be reinstated with condition.

Comment: The acceptance of a salary for competing in professional athletics historically has been viewed as a clear decision to abandon amateur status and has not resulted in reinstatement of intercollegiate athletics eligibility. In addition, if an individual accepts prize money that exceeds his or her actual and necessary expenses, similar to a salary, the individual has profited from his or her sport and has crossed a threshold not warranting reinstatement. However, in situations where the individual’s actions violated amateurism rules but payments did not clearly result in a profit or intent to profit, the cases shall be evaluated to determine if reinstatement is warranted.

Professional competition

• An individual who competes on a professional team while in high school shall be withheld on a one-for-one basis not to exceed the equivalent of an NCAA season.
• An individual who competes on a professional team after his or her first opportunity to enroll shall be withheld two contests for every contest he or she participated in at the professional level.

Comment: Although participation on a professional team is a serious violation, the act in and of itself does not cross the threshold warranting permanent ineligibility. However, the serious nature of the violation and the competitive advantage gained will be addressed through appropriate withholding conditions. In addition, participation while in high school is not as significant a violation as participation beyond the first opportunity to enroll. If an individual follows the normal educational path and competition is concurrent with this path, the penalty shall be less significant than for an individual who competes after the first opportunity to enroll. Further, although no maximum limit is established for when participation on a professional team warrants not reinstating, based on the two-for-one penalty, an inherit number is set that, once an individual exceeds a certain level of competition, he or she will not have any NCAA eligibility remaining. 

Agent violations

• If an individual signs an agreement or agrees to be represented by an agent, his or her eligibility should not be reinstated.
• If an individual accepts significant monetary benefits from an agent, his or her eligibility should not be reinstated. If an individual accepts benefits from an agent that are not significant enough to warrant permanent ineligibility, the student-athlete will be withheld for the violation and will be required to repay the value of the benefits.

Comment: An individual who signs an agreement to be represented by an agent or takes significant money from an agent has shown a clear determination to explore the professional arena and has abandoned his or her NCAA eligibility. An individual who accepts any benefits from an agent shall be subject to a reinstatement condition. 

Preferential-treatment violations

• If an individual accepts benefits greater than $500 based on his or her athletics reputation, his or her eligibility will be reinstated based on repayment, and the student-athlete may be withheld based on the specific facts of the case.
• If an individual accepts benefits less than $500 based on his or her athletics reputation, the individual will be reinstated based on repayment. 

Comment: When reviewing preferential-treatment violations, there is clearly a point when the violation reaches a serious nature warranting a withholding condition. However, for violations where the value is less than $500, the individual has not reached a point where his or her culpability warrants a significant condition.