Legislative Relief and Student-Athlete Reinstatement Waivers

 Departure/Return Expense Restrictions;  Hardship Waiver Appeal (and independent);  Graduate Student Transfers;  Transfer Year-In-Residence;  Athletics Activities Waiver;

 Extension Requests;  Season-of-competition waiver—competition while ineligible and eligible;  Delayed Enrollment Amateurism Conditions;  AND…Violations.

Waiver Discussions

 Conference office forwarded denied hardship waiver for football, Frank, due to competition in second half of season.  Frank competed in second and seventh contests out of 12.  While competing in second contest, Frank suffered a shoulder injury.  Frank underwent rehabilitation and treatment and was cleared to return to competition for the seventh contest.  Frank competed in only six plays of the seventh contest before suffering a season-ending toe injury which required surgery.  In total, Frank competed in only two of 12 contests.

 What follow up questions might you have for the institution?  What type of documentation would you request?  Does anything else cause concern after reading the facts?  What information do you want to know?  What information do you need to know?

1.Institution is not asserting medical misdiagnosis or training staff error. 2.Institution is asserting Frank’s shoulder injury was handled with more conservative approach allowing him to return sooner and but for subsequent toe injury, Frank would have competed. 3.Relief from legislation should be provided given coaches decision to play Frank; limited competitive advantage gained; and student-athlete fairness.

 What are the factors and discussion points for approving the waiver?  What are the factors and discussion points for denying the waiver?  Does everyone have all the information they need to make a decision?

 STAFF DENIED the hardship waiver appeal request based on the following: 1.Frank competed in one contest in the second half of the season; 2.Frank suffered a new injury (toe) in second half of season following indication he was medically cleared for competition after first injury (shoulder). 3.Institution did not demonstrate extenuating circumstances existed.

 , and academic years: Men’s basketball Jon practiced, competed and received aid at Institution No. 1.  Jon graduated from Institution No. 1 at the conclusion of the 2011 spring term.  July 2011: Jon was admitted to applicant institution’s Master of Arts in Sports Administration program.  Institution No. 1 offers a sports administration master’s degree.  Institution No. 1 stated that Jon would have had an opportunity to return to Institution No. 1 and would have received athletics aid.

 What follow up questions might you have for the institution?  What type of documentation would you request?  Does anything else cause concern after reading the facts?  What information do you want to know?  What information do you need to know?

1.Institution No. 1’s program is a joint program within Education and Environmental Sciences. Broader focus and not detailed focus in intercollegiate athletics; 2.Also is designed to be completed within three to five semesters with majority of classes being offered at night.

3.Applicant institution’s courses are offered during the day; anticipating students to be full time and the majority of courses (24 credit hours) are completed during year one, leaving a thesis and the internship in the athletics department in year two; 4.Institution No. 1 supports the waiver and supports SA gaining immediate eligibility.

 What are the factors and discussion points for approving the waiver?  What are the factors and discussion points for denying the waiver?  Does everyone have all the information they need to make a decision?

 STAFF APPROVED the waiver request based on the following:  Based on case precedent and SA well-being. The staff noted: 1.Jon graduated with one year of eligibility remaining; 2.Jon has been accepted as a full time, degree- seeking graduate student at applicant institution in a specific graduate degree program;

3.Institution No. 1 supports the waiver request; and 4.Applicant institution provided documentation demonstrating the two degree programs differ and applicant institution offers a different concentration of study than program offered by Institution No. 1.

: Women’s basketball, Mary, redshirted : Mary competed in the sport of women’s basketball : Mary competed in the sport of women’s basketball : Mary competed in the sport of women’s basketball : Mary suffered life threatening injuries due to an automobile accident caused by a drunk driver one week prior to first practice of her final season. Mary was in intensive care for eight days and was cleared for a gradual return to athletics March 31, 2012 but was not cleared to compete.

 What follow up questions might you have for the institution?  What type of documentation would you request?  Does anything else cause concern after reading the facts?  What information do you want to know?  What information do you need to know?

1.Institution is asserting the circumstances that occurred during are extraordinary and warrants granting a one-year extension. 2.Institution acknowledges case only involves one denied participation opportunity.

 What are the factors and discussion points for approving the waiver?  What are the factors and discussion points for denying the waiver?  Does everyone have all the information they need to make a decision?

 STAFF APPROVED the extension request based on the following: 1.Mary's injuries were the result of an unexpected and unforeseen incident and rose to the level of extraordinary circumstances. 2.Although the case does not meet the more than one denied participation opportunity criteria outlined in extension legislation, the staff believed the extraordinary circumstances warranted an extension of Mary’s eligibility.

 Women’s basketball SA, Heather, is from Africa.  August June 2006: Heather completed grade nine in Africa.  August 2008: Heather was enrolled in grade 12 in Africa.  October 2008: Heather moved to the United States and enrolled in an academy. Heather was placed in grade 10 on enrollment.  June 2009: Heather’s expected date of high school graduation as determined by the NCAA Eligibility Center.  July June 2010: Heather's one-year grace period.

 August June 2010: Heather completed grade 11.  May 21, 2010: Applicant institution began recruiting Heather.  August June 2011: Heather was enrolled at the academy and competed in 35 contests on the high school basketball team as well as 22 contests for a local AAU basketball team.  June 2011: Heather graduated from high school in United States.  Fall 2011: Heather enrolled at applicant institution.

 What follow up questions might you have for the institution?  What type of documentation would you request?  Does anything else cause concern after reading the facts?  What information do you want to know?  What information do you need to know?

1.In 2008, Heather’s home country was in a violent civil war. Heather’s father was the mayor of a city and was killed during the conflict; 2.To protect Heather from the danger in her country, her mother decided Heather should leave Africa and attend the academy in the U.S. to receive a quality education and a possible college scholarship;

3.Heather was placed in grade 10 by administrators at the academy despite having successfully completed grade 11 in Africa; and 4.Heather never knew her date of graduation would be determined to be June of 2009 until notified of the determination by the NCAA Eligibility Center July of 2011.

 What are the factors and discussion points for approving the waiver?  What are the factors and discussion points for denying the waiver?  Does everyone have all the information they need to make a decision?

 STAFF APPROVED the waiver request based on the following:  Based on SA well-being. The staff noted: 1.Heather left her country due to civil war, political unrest and violence; and 2.But for the move to the United States, Heather would have remained in her home country and her graduation date would have been June 2009.

 Baseball SA, Dan, was serving a transfer year-in- residence during the academic year.  Head baseball coach allowed Dan to pitch in one inning of alumni contest September 20,  Baseball staff were under the impression Dan would be able to compete in alumni contest, since the contest was exempted competition and not counted toward permissible contests for baseball season playing.

 What follow up questions might you have for the institution?  What type of documentation would you request?  Does anything else cause concern after reading the facts?  What information do you want to know?  What information do you need to know ?

1.Institution asserts no competitive advantage was gained given competition occurred in an alumni contest. 2.Coaching staff was new to coaching and did not know Dan could not compete. 3.Institution does acknowledge coaching staff knew Dan needed to serve a year in residence.

 STAFF APPROVED the waiver based on the following: 1.Case precedent; 2.Requirements of the season-of-competition waiver—competition while ineligible legislation are satisfied. 3.Also, Dan must sit out the first regularly scheduled contest of the academic year due to his ineligible competition.

 and academic years: Football SA, Tim, practiced, competed and received athletics aid at Institution No. 1 (FBS institution).  December 2, 2010: Tim is informed his sister is pregnant. Tim's sister suffers from a congenital heart condition, which resulted in her pregnancy being considered at-risk.  December 3, 2010: Tim met with Institution No. 1’s head coach to discuss transferring to be closer to his sister.

 December 14, 2010: Institution No. 1’s head coach announced he would be leaving Institution No. 1.  February 2011: Tim discussed with the new head coach transferring to another institution.  June 2011: Tim’s sister delivered a baby girl.

 What follow up questions might you have for the institution?  What type of documentation would you request?  Does anything else cause concern after reading the facts?  What information do you want to know?  What information do you need to know?

1.Once Tim learned of his sister’s pregnancy, he discussed with head coach immediately the potential of transferring. However, the head coach left the institution 11 days later. Additionally, the director of athletics at Institution No. 1 encouraged all SAs not to make any transfer decisions until after they spoke to the new coach; 2.Tim and his siblings lost both parents when Tim was a child and were raised by his older brother;

3.Tim’s sister has diagnosed heart problems dating back to when she was a child and had heart valve replacement surgery; 4.Institution No. 1 was located approximately 350 miles from Tim’s sister while applicant institution is located approximately 60 miles from SA’s sister;

 STAFF DENIED the waiver request based on the following:  Based on case precedent, intent of the legislation and guidelines for transfer requests involving assertions related to injury/illness of a SA or an immediate family member. The staff noted:  Applicant institution provided information regarding Tim’s sister’s heart condition; however, this was a pre-existing condition and contemporaneous documentation was not submitted demonstrating that the condition worsened.

 Walk-on men’s basketball SA, Mike, played in three regular season contests during the first half of the season prior to his father’s business being forced to close its doors December 12,  As a result, Mike needed to obtain employment in order to pay for his books, housing and other costs, which interfered with his ability to fulfill basketball obligations.  Mike worked for the remainder of the academic year.  Mike’s father obtained new employment while Mike was at home the following summer.

 What follow up questions might you have for the institution?  What type of documentation would you request?  Does anything else cause concern after reading the facts?  What information do you want to know?  What information do you need to know?

 STAFF APPROVED the waiver based on the following:  Case precedent;  Requirements of the season-of-competition waiver—competition while eligible legislation are satisfied.

 : Men’s basketball SA, Owen, practiced, competed and received athletics aid at Institution No. 1.  May 2011: Applicant institution received permission to contact began recruiting Owen.  Institution No. 1 is approximately 525 miles from Owen’s home while applicant institution is 5 miles from Owen’s home.  June 2011: Owen’s father is deployed to Iraq.  2011 fall term: Owen transferred to applicant institution and is receiving athletics aid.

 What follow up questions might you have for the institution?  What type of documentation would you request?  Does anything else cause concern after reading the facts?  What information do you want to know?  What information do you need to know?

1.Owen’s younger brother is severely autistic and requires significant assistance; 2.Owen’s father has been deployed to Iraq, which would otherwise leave Owen’s mother home alone to care for Owen’s younger brother on her own;

3.Owen will live at home to assist with the day-to-day care his brother requires; 4.Applicant institution’s head coach will provide Owen flexibility to miss team activities as necessary to attend to family obligations; and 5.Institution No. 1 supports the waiver request.

 STAFF APROVED the waiver request based on the following:  Based on case precedent and SA well-being. The staff noted:  Medical and military documentation supports that Owen moved home to assist in care of severely autistic sibling following father’s deployment to Iraq.