NCAA Division I Student-NCAA Division I Student-Athlete ReinstatementAthlete Reinstatement(Part I)(Part I)

Kelly Groddy

Jennifer Henderson

Session OverviewSession Overview

Student-Athlete Reinstatement (SAR) Requests.• Best practices for institution’s request.

• Potential outcomes.

Decision Making Resources for Membership and Staff.

• Committee guidelines.

• Case precedent.

• Mitigation.

• Institution’s action.

Staff Decision Making Process with Case Studies.

Session OutcomesSession Outcomes

Gain a better understanding of the necessary information to include within AMA Online student-athlete reinstatement requests.

Leave with a better understanding of the role of various resources used by staff in reaching a reinstatement decision.

Session ObjectivesSession ObjectivesAssist compliance and institutional

representatives with:

• Developing complete AMA Online submissions.

• Identification of relevant information.• Understanding starting point for possible

outcomes to prepare personnel and involved student-athletes.

• Imposing meaningful and appropriate institutional actions.

STUDENT-ATHLETE STUDENT-ATHLETE REINSTATEMENT REQUESTS REINSTATEMENT REQUESTS

Best Practices:Best Practices:Institution’s AMA Online SAR Institution’s AMA Online SAR RequestRequest

• Submission must be made through AMA Online.

• Urgent requests and next date of competition.

• Use of application or “see attached”.

Best Practices:Best Practices:Institution’s AMA Online SAR Institution’s AMA Online SAR RequestRequest

• Institutional action.

• Mitigation and supporting documentation.

• Appropriate signatures.

• Select submit.

Potential OutcomesPotential Outcomes

Staff Decisions: Approve institution’s request for

reinstatement.Decision with or without conditions.Repayment.Withholding.

Deny institution’s request for reinstatement.Not reinstated.

Rationale.

Potential OutcomesPotential Outcomes

Decision ScreenDecision Screen

Student-Athlete Student-Athlete Reinstatement Decision Reinstatement Decision

Making Resources Making Resources

Decision Making ResourcesDecision Making Resources

NCAA Division I Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement Guidelines.• Available on student-athlete reinstatement

webpage.• Developed by Division I committee.• Apply to identified violations.• Starting point for outcomes. Minimum condition.

Decision Making ResourcesDecision Making Resources

COMMITTEE GUIDELINES

Bylaws 14.1.8.1/14.1.8.2 Competition While Enrolled in Less than Full Time

The committee confirmed a one-for-one withholding condition is appropriate for competition while enrolled in less than full time.

Identified specific criteria for possible relief.

Decision Making ResourcesDecision Making Resources

COMMITTEE GUIDELINES

Relief may be appropriate if the following are met:

The institution can demonstrate that the

student-athlete was continuing to attend class; Student-athlete did not realize he or she had

dropped below 12 credit hours; andThe student-athlete made a reasonable effort

to remain enrolled in a full course load.

Decision Making ResourcesDecision Making ResourcesCOMMITTEE GUIDELINES

Bylaws 10.1-(b) (Academic Fraud)Staff is to begin its withholding analysis at

permanent loss of eligibility. Consideration of mitigating factors may permit imposition of a minimum condition of withholding from one season and charging with a season of competition. (12/07)

The committee indicated that all institutional proceedings must be concluded prior to submitting a request for reinstatement. (5/08)

Decision Making ResourcesDecision Making Resources

Case Precedent.• Available in two databases.

• Use bylaw and relevant search terms.

• Purpose of “totality of circumstances”.

• Five years of precedent.

Decision Making ResourcesDecision Making Resources

Mitigation presented by institution.• Unique facts distinguishing from other

precedent cases and intent of legislation.• Supporting documentation.

Institution’s actions.• Apply guidelines. • Request partial relief.• Request full relief.

Student-Athlete Student-Athlete Reinstatement Decision Reinstatement Decision

Making Process Making Process

Case Study No. 1Case Study No. 1

Four men’s golf student-athletes receive impermissible textbooks as part of book scholarships.

Dollar values from $80 to $1,300SA No. 1 = $80SA No. 2 = $330SA No. 3 = $157SA No. 4 = $1,300

What does staff need to reach a decision?

Case Study No. 1Case Study No. 1

What supporting documentation will staff need?

What resources should institution and staff consult during decision making process?

What are the possible outcomes?

Case Study No. 1Case Study No. 1

Committee Guidelines

Assessment of Culpability for Violations Where a Tangible Benefit is Received.

When an extra benefit exceeding $100 is received, the student-athlete’s culpability will be assessed and a withholding condition may be applied based on the dollar amount of the benefit. (May 2008)

Case Study No. 1Case Study No. 1

Committee Guidelines

Greater than $100 to $300 = 10 percent withholding condition and repayment.

Greater than $300 to $500 = 20 percent withholding condition and repayment.

Greater than $500 = 30 percent withholding condition and repayment.

Case Study No. 1Case Study No. 1

Determining value. The withholding condition associated with a textbook violation = Full retail value of the book at the time of purchase, whether purchased as a new or used textbook.

The repayment value = Full retail value of the book at the time of purchase, minus the return value of the book at the time returned. (December 2009)

Case Study No. 1Case Study No. 1Determining withholding. Generally if student-

athletes either:

• Obtained books for classes they were not enrolled in; or

• Purchased books for other individuals.

Result: Apply standard withholding guidelines for impermissible benefits and may consider the following factors to determine if an increase or decrease in withholding is warranted. (December 2006)

Case Study No. 1Case Study No. 1

Case Precedent.• Generally precedent reflects

imposing guidelines specific to repayment and withholding.

• Limited circumstances where relief is provided.

Case Study No. 1Case Study No. 1

Facts/Mitigation:• SA No. 1 ($80) purchased

recommended textbooks; first semester/first year scholarship.

• SA No. 2 ($330) purchased for a teammate who was not on scholarship but having financial issues.

Case Study No. 1Case Study No. 1

Facts/Mitigation:• SA No. 3 ($157) intended to enroll in

the course but full – waiting to be added officially.

• SA No. 4 ($1,300) sold non required books for profit and provided books to brother of SA’s girlfriend.

Case Study No. 2Case Study No. 2

Nine members of the tennis team participate in a NCAA Division I Women’s Final Four pool.

Money held by part-time assistant coach.

Each student-athlete and assistant coach bet $35.

Bill won pool and received $350.

Case Study No. 2Case Study No. 2

What supporting documentation will staff need?

What resources should institution and staff consult during decision making process?

What are the possible outcomes?

Case Study No. 2Case Study No. 2Committee Guidelines

 

$25 or less = no withholding.

  Above $25 to $100 = 10 percent withholding.

Above $100 to $300 = 30 percent withholding.

Above $300 to $500 = 50 percent withholding.

Above $500 = sit-a-season/charge-a-season.  

Case Study No. 2Case Study No. 2

Case Precedent.

Mitigation.

Institutional Action.

Outcome.

Case Study No. 3Case Study No. 3

Junior men’s soccer student-athlete accepted $400 from agent.

He wanted money for upcoming international team travel.

Case Study No. 3Case Study No. 3

What supporting documentation will staff need?

What resources should institution and staff consult during decision making process?

What are the possible outcomes?

Case Study No. 3Case Study No. 3

Committee Guidelines

Violations of Receipt of Benefits from Prospective Agents.

Committee determined agent violations are more serious than general extra-benefit violations and identified specific withholding conditions.

Case Study No. 3Case Study No. 3Committee Guidelines

$100 or less = repay to charity and 10 percent;

Greater than $100 to $300 = repay to charity and 20 percent;

Greater than $300 to $500 = repay to charity and 30 percent;

Greater than $500 to $1,000= repay to charity and 50 percent; and

Committee Guidelines

For violations in which the value of the benefit is greater than $1,000, the committee indicated the minimum withholding condition applied should be sit-a-season/charge-a-season up to permanent ineligibility.

Case Study No. 3Case Study No. 3

Case Study No. 3Case Study No. 3

Case Precedent.

Mitigation.

Institutional Action.

Outcome.

SummarySummary

Keys to successful AMA Online submissions.

Resources available to assist membership.

Role of committee guidelines and case precedent.