1. NCAA Division I Student- Athlete Reinstatement (Part I) Kelly Groddy Jennifer Henderson

2. Session 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.

3. Session 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.

4. Session Objectives Assist 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.

5. STUDENT-ATHLETE REINSTATEMENT REQUESTS

6. Best Practices: Institution’s AMA Online SAR Request Submission must be made through AMA Online. Urgent requests and next date of competition. Use of application or “see attached”.

7. Best Practices: Institution’s AMA Online SAR Request Institutional action. Mitigation and supporting documentation. Appropriate signatures. Select submit.

8. Potential 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.

9. Potential Outcomes

10. Decision Screen

11. Student-Athlete Reinstatement Decision Making Resources

12. Decision 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.

13. Decision 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.

14. Decision 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; and The student-athlete made a reasonable effort to remain enrolled in a full course load.

15. Decision Making Resources COMMITTEE 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)

16. Decision Making Resources Case Precedent. Available in two databases. Use bylaw and relevant search terms. Purpose of “totality of circumstances”. Five years of precedent.

17. Decision 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.

18. Student-Athlete Reinstatement Decision Making Process

19. Case Study No. 1 Four men’s golf student-athletes receive impermissible textbooks as part of book scholarships. Dollar values from $80 to $1,300 SA No. 1 = $80 SA No. 2 = $330 SA No. 3 = $157 SA No. 4 = $1,300 What does staff need to reach a decision?

20. Case 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?

21. Case 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)

22. Case 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.

23. Case 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)

24. Case Study No. 1 Determining 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)

25. Case Study No. 1 Case Precedent. Generally precedent reflects imposing guidelines specific to repayment and withholding. Limited circumstances where relief is provided.

26. Case 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.

27. Case 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.

28. Case 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.

29. Case 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?

30. Case Study No. 2 Committee 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.

31. Case Study No. 2 Case Precedent. Mitigation. Institutional Action. Outcome.

32. Case Study No. 3 Junior men’s soccer student-athlete accepted $400 from agent. He wanted money for upcoming international team travel.

33. Case 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?

34. Case 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.

35. Case Study No. 3 Committee 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

36. 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. 3

37. Case Precedent. Mitigation. Institutional Action. Outcome.

38. Summary Keys to successful AMA Online submissions. Resources available to assist membership. Role of committee guidelines and case precedent.