1. NCAA Division I Bylaw 11 (Conduct and Employment of Athletics Personnel) Charnele Kemper Kristen Matha

2. Agenda  New Legislation.  Recent Interpretations.  Scouting of Opponents.

3. NEW LEGISLATION

4. Sports Safety Package Proposals  Proposals based on the principle of student-athlete (SA) well-being.  CPR and AED requirement intended to provide SAs with initial care prior to more skilled responders arrival.  Certification requirement provides foundation for appropriate health care oversight, critical prevention and response to catastrophic health and safety issues.  See also NCAA Division I Proposal Nos. 2013-15 and 2013-16.

5. Proposal No. 2013-17 Effective August 1, 2014  As amended by 2013-17-1.  Requires an institutional staff member with current certification in first aid, CPR and AED to be present any time a SA participates in a physical Countable Athletically Related Activity.  Can be any institutional staff member.  Includes in-season and out-of-season activities.  Does not include requirement that each coach must have current certification.

6. Proposal No. 2013-18 Effective August 1, 2015  Strength and conditioning coaches must be certified and maintain certification through a nationally accredited strength and conditioning certification program.  Removes requirement from original proposal that sport coaches maintain certification.  Changes program from “recognized” to “accredited”.

7. Proposal No. 2013-18 Effective August 1, 2015 A nationally accredited strength and conditioning certification program is one that is: a. Accredited by the National Commission for Certifying Agencies; b. Requires an undergraduate college degree; c. Requires a continuing education component; and d. Requires current first aid, CPR and AED certification.

8. Proposal No. 2013-18 Effective August 1, 2015  Institutions have discretion to select appropriate certifying agency.  National Strength Coaches Association and Collegiate Strength and Conditioning Coaches Association are both accredited.

9. Proposal No. 2013-18 Effective August 1, 2015  Does not apply to noninstitutional fitness instructors.  Certified strength and conditioning coach has to be physically present if noncertified coach is working with SAs.

10. Triathlon Proposal  USA Triathlon’s female membership has grown substantially over the past two decades.  162 registered club teams.  Will produce a significant increase in participation opportunities for women.

11. Proposal No. 2013-21 Effective August 1, 2014  Adds women’s triathlon to emerging sport list.  Limit of two countable coaches.  Permits three volunteer coaches, one for each element.

12. Proposal No. 2013-24 Effective August 1, 2014  Clarifies the actions that cause an individual to become a countable coach.  Provides technical or tactical instruction related to the sport to SAs at anytime;  Makes or assists in making tactical decisions related to the sport during practice or competition; or  Engages in off-campus recruiting activities.  Includes any institutional staff member or individual outside of the institution.

13. Proposal No. 2013-24 Effective August 1, 2014  Technical instruction.  Teaching that relates to any sports-related technique.  Tactical instruction.  Teaches a strategy, maneuver, play, scheme, etc.  Tactical decisions.  A conclusion, determination or judgment related to a strategy, maneuver, play, scheme, etc.

14. RECENT INTERPRETATIONS

15. Athletics Personnel Involvement in Summer Athletics Activities 4/25/2014 May a manager, undergraduate student-assistant coach, or graduate-assistant coach perform managerial or coaching duties, respectively, during required summer activities in basketball or football?

16. Athletics Personnel Involvement in Summer Athletics Activities 4/25/2014  Yes, must have been enrolled full time at the conclusion of the regular academic term prior to the summer or has been accepted for enrollment as a full-time student for the term immediately following the summer.  For graduate-assistant coach in bowl subdivision football, must have been enrolled in 50% of the minimum regular graduate program or has been accepted in graduate program for the term immediately following the summer.

17. Recruiting Service Consultants Bylaw 11.3.2.5 Institutional athletics department staff members may not endorse, serve as consultants or participate on advisory panels for any recruiting or scouting service.

18. Endorsement of Recruiting or Scouting Service  Harrison, a PSA, signed a National Letter of Intent with Pope College.  According to Recruitu.com, Harrison is a top 10 recruit and is going to make an immediate impact at Pope next year.  Recruitu.com also has ranked Pope’s recruiting class in the top 25 nationally.

19. Endorsement of Recruiting or Scouting Service  May Pope include a quote from Recruitu.com in its press release about Harrison?  Yes, provided there is no indication that the institution endorses the service.  PSA must have committed to the institution per NCAA Division I Bylaw 13.02.12.1 (exception – after commitment).  Staff interpretation 8/13/2013.

20. Endorsement of Recruiting or Scouting Service  May the press release include a hyperlink to video of Harrison on Recruitu.com’s website?  No. An institution’s website may not include a hyperlink to a recruiting or scouting service.  Staff interpretation 8/13/2013.

21. Endorsement of Recruiting or Scouting Service  May the press release include video of Harrison with Recruitu.com’s logo?  No. The inclusion of video with the service’s logo would be considered an impermissible endorsement.

22. Endorsement of Recruiting or Scouting Service  May Pope issue a release regarding its recruiting class ranking by Recruitu.com?  Yes, provided there is no indication that the institution endorses the service and there is not a hyperlink to the service’s website.

23. SCOUTING OF OPPONENTS

24. Bylaw 11.6- Scouting of Opponents  Off-campus, in-person scouting is prohibited.  Future opponents in the same season.  Exception for the same event at the same site (Bylaw 11.6.1.1).  Exception for conference or NCAA championships (Bylaw 11.6.1.2).

25. Case Study No. 1  College is scheduled to play University September 20.  College is scheduled to play University February 22. Question : May State’s coaching staff scout College at College’s game against University September 20, during the nonchampionship segment? Answer : No, because State is scheduled to compete against College February 17, so College is considered a future opponent.

26. Scouting  Future opponents and same season.  Appears on the team’s schedule in the remainder of the same season.  Same season includes nonchampionship and championship segments.  A potential conference or NCAA tournament opponent is not a future opponent until it is scheduled.  Attending a conference or NCAA championship in which a future opponent participates is not prohibited.

27. Case Study No. 2  College is scheduled to play University September 20.  College is scheduled to play University February 22. Question : May State’s coaching staff scout College at College's game against University February 22, during the championship segment, knowing they may compete against College in the conference tournament? Answer : Yes, because the conference tournament schedule has not been set, so College is not considered a future opponent.

28. Case Study No. 3  Tech is hosting a multiteam field hockey competition beginning Friday and ending Sunday.  The teams include: Tech, State and College.  Tech will play State Friday.  State will play College Saturday.  Tech will play College Sunday.  The teams will compete at the same site but the competition is not a tournament or double- header. Question : Is it permissible for State and College to scout future opponents during the multiteam competition? Answer : Yes, this series of contests is considered an “event” and are occurring at the same site, so it is an exception to the off-campus scouting prohibition.

29. Case Study No. 4  State’s assistant women’s lacrosse coach, Meredith Grey, has been invited to return to her alma mater, University, to play in the lacrosse program’s alumni game.  State and University are scheduled to compete later in the season. Question : Is Coach Grey’s participation in the alumni game contrary to the off-campus, in-person scouting prohibition? Answer : No, the intent of the legislation was not to preclude this type of activity.  Purpose of the alumni game is not to scout.  Coach was invited by the institution to participate.

30. Case Study No. 5  State’s home facility is located on campus.  During the field hockey season, College is playing Tech at State’s facility.  Both College and Tech are future opponents of State in the same season. Question : May State’s coaching staff scout the College v. Tech game? Answer : Yes, because the competition occurs on the institution's campus (September 9, 2013, Staff Interpretation).

31. Case Study No. 6  State’s home soccer field is located off campus and is privately owned.  During the soccer season, College is playing Tech at State’s facility.  Both College and Tech are future opponents of State in the same season. Question : May State’s coaching staff scout the College v. Tech game? Answer : No, because the game is taking place at an off-campus facility.

32. Scouting and Home Facilities  Institution’s coaching staff may scout a competition involving a future opponent that occurs on the institution’s campus (September 9, 2013, Staff Interpretation).  Does not extend to an off-campus, privately owned facility used to host the institution's home contests.  Coaching staff would be precluded from scouting a competition involving a future opponent at an off- campus, privately owned facility.

33. Case Study No. 7  College’s men’s basketball program is scheduled to play against Tech later in the season.  Tech is competing at University, which is located in College’s locale.  College’s coaching staff plans to bus the team to University to watch the game following practice. Question : May College arrange for the team to scout the Tech v. University game? Answer : No, it is not permissible for an institution to pay expenses for its team to scout a future opponent as entertainment in conjunction with practice or competition (March 17, 2014, Staff Interpretation).

34. Case Study No. 8  College’s men’s basketball program is scheduled to play against Tech later in the season.  Tech is competing at University, which is located in College’s locale.  Several College players plan to drive to University to watch the game following practice. Question : May College’s players attend the Tech v. University game? Answer : Yes, provided they do not attend at the direction of the coaching staff, do not receive any expenses from the institution and do not report back to the coaching staff.

35. Scouting, Expenses and Student-Athletes  Institution may not pay expenses for the team to scout a future opponent as entertainment in conjunction with practice or competition (March 17, 2014, Staff Interpretation).  Exception if participating in the same event at the same site even if expenses are associated.  Student-athletes may attend a future opponent’s competition provided they:  Do not attend at the direction of the coaching staff;  Do not report back to the coaching staff; and  Do not receive any expenses from the institution to attend the competition.

36. Scouting and Family  Coaching staff may attend contests of future opponents if the coaching staff member is the:  Parent, legal guardian, sibling or spouse/partner of a participant (e.g., player, coach) (September 27, 2013, Staff Interpretation).

37. Summary of Exceptions  Same event at the same site (Bylaw 11.6.1.1).  Conference or NCAA championships (Bylaw 11.6.1.2).  Attending an immediate family member’s contest (September 27, 2013, Staff Interpretation).  Contest that occurs on the institution’s campus (September 9, 2013, Staff Interpretation).

38. NAVIGATING THE PROCESS

39.  Requests and Self-Reports Online (RSRO).  Service standard for nonurgent cases is three (3) to five (5) days.  Complex cases may exceed service standard.  Urgent requests.  Review within the next two (2) business days.  Reasons for expedited review. Timing of event other than competition (e.g., campus visit, contact, promotional activity). Admissions or financial aid deadlines. Other (must provide an explanation).  If the staff determines that the case does not meet the urgency guidelines then they will contact the institution and update the assessment in RSRO. Interpretative Assistance