Transcript NCAA Division I Interpretations Philosophy Brandy Hataway & Charnele Kemper Overview • Background. • Data. • Feedback. • Case Studies. • NCAA Division I Committee for Legislative Relief.

NCAA Division I
Interpretations
Philosophy
Brandy Hataway & Charnele Kemper
Overview
• Background.
• Data.
• Feedback.
• Case Studies.
• NCAA Division I Committee for Legislative Relief (CLR).
Background
Background
• Aligns with the NCAA Working Group on Collegiate Model Rules initiative from 2011.
• Developed collaboratively by academic and membership
affairs, enforcement, Collegiate Commissioners Association
Compliance Administrators (CCACA) and National Association
for Athletics Compliance(NAAC).
• Goal is to develop shared responsibility by increasing local
decision making.
• Minimize burdensome procedures and improper outcomes.
Application of the NCAA Division I Interpretations Philosophy
Direct
Rational Review
•
•
•
•
Application
of the rule
supports a
Division I
commitment
•
•
•
•
•
Circumstances involving health
or safety of a SA or PSA.
Medical expenses for a SA.
Academic and other support
services.
Assisting SAs with a family
emergency.
Expenses arising due to
participation in athletics.
Team entertainment provided
by the institution.
Nominal benefits from an
institution to a SA on an
occasional basis.
Institutionally arranged benefits
for SAs at the going rate in the
locale (e.g., employment,
housing).
Nominal benefits to PSA-age
children of an alumnus who is
receiving benefits consistent
with institutional practice.
Intermediate Review
•
•
•
•
•
Application of rules
requiring evaluation of
familial relationships.
Benefits to SAs (or family
members) from teammates
(or family members of
teammates).
Determination of countable
athletically related
activities.
Limited participation in
organized competition with
minimal competitive
benefit.
Institutional fundraising
activities involving SAs.
Strict Review
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Academic integrity and
eligibility requirements.
Sports Wagering.
Extra benefits from a
representative of athletics
interests.
Involvement with agents
and advisors.
Maximum financial aid
limits.
Application of recruiting
legislation absent
extraordinary
circumstances.
Application of coaching
limits and IAWP legislation.
Playing season limits (e.g.,
length of season, number of
contests).
Indirect
Less
Application of the rule is clear or
nationally consequential
More
The following questions may be helpful in determining whether institutional discretion is appropriate, regardless of the applicable
standard of review. These questions do not represent an exhaustive list and the order is not intended to suggest a hierarchy of
importance.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Do the circumstances at issue impact the immediate health or safety of a student-athlete?
Do the circumstances at issue impact student-athlete success generally (e.g., personal or academic well-being)?
Was the legislation intended to address the circumstances at issue?
To what extent does the proposed action provide a recruiting, competitive or other advantage or benefit?
Is the proposed action an isolated or limited occurrence?
Is the proposed action associated with a recruiting initiative?
Is there another way to permissibly accomplish the intended objective?
Standards of Review
Rational – Applies to
circumstances that present no
more than a minimal benefit or
advantage or for which the
application of the legislation is
inconsistent with the Division I
commitments. Institutions have
discretion to take actions that a
reasonable person would consider
appropriate in light of the
applicable rule(s) and the relevant
circumstances. Institutions should
exercise the utmost flexibility in
circumstances involving the
immediate health or safety of a
student-athlete without concern
over an isolated rules violation.
Intermediate – Applies to
circumstances that are not clearly
within the intended scope of the
legislation or previous
interpretations and may provide
more than a minimal benefit or
advantage. Institutional discretion
is appropriate where a proposed
action is not inconsistent with
one or more Division I
commitments.
Strict – Applies where the
legislation or previous
interpretations are clear but the
application of the rule(s) to a
particular situation is inconsistent
with a Division I commitment. An
action must be absolutely
necessary to directly support one
or more Division I commitments to
justify flexibility in the application
of the rule.
Background
• Institutions and conferences are encouraged to apply
philosophy as appropriate.
• Situations involving the immediate health or safety of a
PSA, SA and/or his or her family members.
• Academic and membership affairs staff can provide guidance
when requested via Requests/Self-Reports Online (RSRO).
• NCAA Division I bylaw teams review waiver submissions.
• Student-Athlete Reinstatement (SAR) and secondary
enforcement flag cases for academic and membership affairs
interpretations team review.
Data
Data
2200
21
2150
2100
2050
2154
2000
48
2006
1950
1900
2013-14
Interpretations
2014-15
New Interpretations Philosophy
Data
Interpretations Reviewed by
Academic and Membership Affairs
Through Secondary Violation Reports
Process Violations
6%
26%
NIP
68%
(n:391)
No Violation for Reason
Other than NIP
Feedback
When reviewing interpretative issues on
my campus, I regularly consider the new
interpretations philosophy.
1. Yes.
2. No.
0%
1
0%
2
Have you applied the new
interpretations philosophy on your
campus?
1. Yes, within the last 6
months.
2. Yes, within the last 30
days.
3. No.
0%
1
0%
2
0%
3
The new interpretations philosophy is
most easy to apply with the following
bylaw:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
NCAA Division I Bylaw 11.
Bylaw 12.
Bylaw 13.
Bylaw 14.
Bylaw 15.
Bylaw 16.
Bylaw 17.
Bylaw 20.
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
The new interpretations philosophy is
most difficult to apply with the following
bylaw:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Bylaw 11.
Bylaw 12.
Bylaw 13.
Bylaw 14.
Bylaw 15.
Bylaw 16.
Bylaw 17.
Bylaw 20.
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
I apply the new interpretations
philosophy most frequently with the
following bylaw:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Bylaw 11.
Bylaw 12.
Bylaw 13.
Bylaw 14.
Bylaw 15.
Bylaw 16.
Bylaw 17.
Bylaw 20.
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
When I am uncertain as to whether to
apply the new interpretations
philosophy in a particular situation, I
most frequently:
1. Submit a request in RSRO.
2. Contact my conference
office.
3. Contact other colleagues
in the membership.
4. Do not apply the
philosophy.
0%
1
0%
2
0%
3
0%
4
When applying the interpretations
philosophy I use the following
resources:
1. September 15, 2014, NCAA
educational column.
2. Spectrum of cases (red,
yellow, green)
3. Both the educational
column and the spectrum.
4. None of the above.
0%
1
0%
2
0%
3
0%
4
Case Studies
NCAA Division I Bylaw 13.6.4.1 –
Length of an Official Visit
• During a PSA’s official visit, PSA’s mother reschedules
departing flight due to family member’s illness.
• PSA and her mother depart campus within the 48-hour limit
and drive to a nearby city to visit her critically ill grandmother.
• Later the same day and outside of the 48-hour period, PSA
and her mother return to the locale of the institution to fly
home.
Would your institution apply the
interpretations philosophy to provide
expenses for the PSA’s flight home?
1. Yes
2. No
0%
1
0%
2
Academic and Membership Affairs
Response and Rationale
• Applied the philosophy to permit institution to provide return
transportation expenses to PSA.
• The reason for the delay was not associated with any
recruiting initiative.
• The circumstances involved the immediate health of the PSA’s
family member.
Bylaw 13.6.7.1.1 –
Meals and Lodging While in Transit
• PSA planned to arrive in locale of institution night prior to
start of official visit and receive lodging expenses.
• PSA’s parents were traveling separately and planned to meet
PSA at hotel night prior to visit.
• PSA’s connecting flight to locale of institution was cancelled
due to weather.
• PSA’s parents arrived on time and stayed at the hotel.
Would your institution apply the
interpretations philosophy to permit
PSA’s parents to receive lodging
expenses?
1. Yes.
2. No.
0%
1
0%
2
Academic and Membership Affairs
Response and Rationale
• Applied the philosophy to permit PSA’s parents to receive
lodging expenses on the night prior to the start of the official
visit.
• If not for weather and PSA’s flight cancellation, institution
could have paid for the hotel room for PSA.
• There was no intent to provide a recruiting advantage.
• The action is an isolated occurrence.
Bylaw 16.6.1 – Expenses for StudentAthlete’s Friends and Family Members
• SA’s father flew to an away contest and stayed at the team
hotel. Flight and hotel reservation arranged and paid for by
the father.
• SA’s father did not rent a car during the trip and relied on
other modes of transportation.
• SA’s father used hotel shuttle to get to the contest which
began at 8:30 p.m.
• After the game, and at approximately 11 p.m., SA’s father
could not find return transportation to the hotel, which was
approximately two miles away.
Would your institution apply the
interpretations philosophy to permit the
SA’s father to ride the team bus back to
the hotel?
1. Yes
2. No
0%
1
0%
2
Academic and Membership Affairs
Response and Rationale
• Applied the philosophy to permit the institution to provide the
SA’s father to ride the team bus from the contest to the team
hotel.
• The transportation is related to the immediate safety and
well-being of the SA’s father.
• The action is an isolated occurrence.
• The provision of transportation is a nominal benefit.
Summary
• Interpretations philosophy cases are different than flexible
interpretations.
• Staff continues to issue confirmations and determinations
that may provide flexibility.
• Generally, philosophy cases are:
• Not intended to be applied broadly; and
• Interpretive analysis is not complex because legislation is
clear.
• Analysis is whether the legislation is intended to apply to fact
scenario presented.
CLR Waivers and
Interpretations
Philosophy
Fact Scenario
• Head coach invited to attend former SA’s wedding.
• Former SA played for head coach and has maintained 10+ year
relationship.
• Former SA’s brother is a PSA who is being recruited by head
coach.
• PSA will be in attendance at wedding.
• Wedding occurs during quiet period.
• Head coach would like to attend and provide wedding gift to
former SA.
Would your institution submit the fact
scenario as a CLR waiver request or apply the
interpretations philosophy?
1. CLR Waiver
2. Interpretations
Philosophy
0%
1
0%
2
Academic and Membership Affairs
Response and Rationale
• Apply interpretations philosophy to permit:
• Incidental contact between PSA and head coach; and
• Provision of wedding gift to former SA by head coach.
• The purpose of the event is not associated with any recruiting
initiative.
• Neither recruiting conversations nor activities will occur.
• Presence of PSA is not being initiated or coordinated by the
institution.
• Activity is an isolated incident.
Summary
• May consider application of interpretations philosophy instead
of waiver submission when:
• Very specific fact scenario; and
• Analysis results in a permissible response without any
conditions.
Questions?