Division I Student-Athlete Reinstatement – PART II

Collaborative, interactive case-study review. Audience as decision maker. Conduct time-sensitive analysis. Audience-outcome determination. Review of outcome with presenters. Overview

Learning Objectives Interactive discussion and feedback regarding student-athlete reinstatement process. Efficient navigation of reinstatement process. Evaluate reinstatement cases from NCAA staff perspective.

Tools Open Packet No. 1 to review your reference documents. Committee Guidelines: Determined by the NCAA Division I Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement, give staff a “starting point” for each case. Case Precedent: What outcomes have been determined in previous, similar cases and why? NCAA Division I Legislation: What does legislation dictate in this case?

Basic Issues / Outcomes to Consider Withholding: Analysis relates to SA’s culpability. Repayment: Relates to benefit received. Aim of NCAA staff is to put SA back in the position he/she was prior to the violation. Restitution: What is a restitution violation?

Extra Benefits Open Packet No. 2 to review the facts of this case.

Peanuts - Case Facts and Discussion SA impermissibly received to-go “weight-gain” sacks containing extra food at the conclusion of each training-table meal throughout the academic year. Value = $140. SA unaware impermissible. Guideline = repayment of impermissible benefit and 10 percent withholding. NOTE: Institution has required repayment and requests relief from withholding.

Peanuts - NCAA Staff ● Do you have all information necessary for decision?  If not, what would be helpful? ● What is your decision?  Why?

NCAA Staff Decision Conditions: Eligibility reinstated based on institution’s action requiring SA to make repayment of impermissible benefit received. Decision Rationale: Relief from withholding based on:  Significant institutional involvement/error.  Lack of SA culpability.

Unethical Conduct / Preferential Treatment ● Open Packet No. 3 to review the facts of this case.

To Tell The Truth – Case Facts and Discussion Third-year men’s basketball SA received $80 in preferential treatment at a summer celebrity basketball event. SA subsequently engaged in unethical conduct by providing false and misleading information to institution’s compliance staff September 14. SA provided false and misleading information to institution’s compliance staff a second time September 17.

To Tell The Truth – Case Facts and Discussion Guideline: Starting point of withholding from 50 percent of a season, maximum condition of permanent loss of eligibility. NOTE: Institution proposes withholding condition of 50 percent of a season (guideline starting point).

To Tell The Truth - NCAA Staff Is staff comfortable with information provided? Are you prepared to make a decision?  Why or Why not?

To Tell The Truth – CLARIFICATION of Case Facts and Discussion Third-year men’s basketball SA received $80 in preferential treatment at a summer celebrity basketball event. SA engaged in unethical conduct by providing false and misleading information to NCAA staff in writing September 18, after providing false and misleading information to institution’s compliance staff on two separate occasions.

To Tell The Truth – CLARIFICATION of Case Facts and Discussion SA had multiple opportunities to rectify the situation and provide accurate information, including two weeks between written statements to NCAA staff. Guideline: Starting point of withholding from 50 percent of a season, maximum condition of permanent loss of eligibility.

To Tell The Truth - NCAA Staff ● Do you have all information necessary for decision?  If not, what would be helpful? ● What is your decision?  Why?

NCAA Staff Decision Conditions: Eligibility reinstated based on withholding SA from one year and charging SA with one season of competition. Decision Rationale:  Acted deliberately to conceal, omit or provide inaccurate or false information.  Had multiple opportunities to correct or provide accurate information.  Provided inaccurate, false and misleading information to NCAA staff.

Competing While Less Than Full Time ● Open Packet No. 5 to review the facts of this case.

URGENT CASE!!!!! The bus is leaving for a two-game road trip in 15 minutes…. What do you do?

Speed – Case Facts and Discussion Women’s volleyball SA dropped below full-time status during a drop/add August 22. SA followed institutional protocol for drop/add. During the process, registrar informed SA she would not be added to her new course until the following week, however, SA still dropped her existing course.

Speed – Case Facts and Discussion SA subsequently competed in two dates of competition (August 22 and 24) while enrolled less than full time. SA officially returned to full-time status August 25. Guideline: One-for-one withholding condition.

Speed - NCAA Staff ● Do you have all information necessary for decision?  If not, what would be helpful? ● What is your decision?  Why?

In Summary Preparation of case.  AMA Online Resources.  Statements.  Guidelines.  Case Precedent. Communication with NCAA staff.  Questions.  Timing (Urgent case?)

Questions…