2015 NCAA Convention Division III Legislative Proposals Question

2015 NCAA Convention Division III Legislative Proposals Question and Answer Guide

Approved November 20, 2014, by the

NCAA Division III Interpretations and Legislation Committee Please note this is the first edition of the 2015 NCAA Convention Division III Legislative Proposals Question and Answer Guide. Future editions may be developed as questions are presented to the NCAA staff or the NCAA Division III Interpretations and Legislation Committee. On release of subsequent editions of this guide, newly approved questions and answers will be shaded in gray. Understanding How to Read the 2015 NCAA Convention Division III Official Notice. 1. How to read the NCAA Division III legislative proposals. When reviewing legislative

proposals, it is important to note that:

a. The letters and words that appear in italics and strikethrough are letters and words in the current NCAA Division III rule that would be deleted with the adoption of the proposal;

b. The letters and words that appear in bold face and underlined are letters and

words that would be added with the adoption of the proposal; and

c. The letters and words that appear in normal text are letters and words in the current Division III rule that would remain unchanged with the adoption of the proposal.

2. What appears in the white pages of the NCAA Division III Official Notice?

The white pages of the Official Notice contain the legislative proposals that will be voted on individually at the NCAA Division III business session. Anticipated questions and answers related to each of the proposals appearing in the white pages are contained in the question and answer section.

3. What is the difference between the presidential grouping and the general grouping of

proposals? The NCAA Division III Presidents Council has determined that it will focus primarily on those national issues in Division III athletics that prompt widespread concern among Division III chancellors or presidents. The Presidents Council has identified six proposals that it believes are of particular interest to Division III chancellors or presidents and has included them in the Presidents

2015 NCAA Division III Convention Legislative Proposals Question and Answer Guide Page No. 2 _________

Council grouping. The remaining proposals are included in the general grouping. All proposals have been identified by the Presidents Council for a roll-call vote.

4. What appears in the blue pages of the Official Notice?

The blue pages of the Official Notice contain three types of legislative proposals. The proposals appearing in the blue pages have already been adopted by the authority of the NCAA Division III Management Council. These proposals have an immediate effective date from the time of adoption. These groups of proposals will be ratified by the NCAA Division III membership during the Division III business session. If a delegate objects to the incorporation of any one of these legislative proposals, that objection should be raised prior to the ratification of the package of proposals. It is preferred that any delegate intending to raise an objection also inform a member of the NCAA academic and membership affairs staff of that intent before the Division III business session. The Division III membership would then vote on the proposal in question via a separate action. The question and answer document does not address proposals that are included in the blue pages. The blue pages, however, include an “additional information” section with each proposal that provides additional clarification regarding the proposal.

The three types of legislation contained within the blue pages are listed below.

(1) Interpretations to be incorporated in the 2015-16 NCAA Division III

Manual. These interpretations have already been accepted by the membership and the only issue that is before the membership is whether they should be set forth in the Division III Manual.

(2) Noncontroversial legislation adopted by the Management Council. These

proposals constitute all of the noncontroversial legislative changes the Management Council has adopted during the past year. The Management Council is permitted to adopt such legislation, if it is necessary, to promote the normal and orderly administration of the Association’s legislation.

(3) Modifications of wording. These proposals are modifications to current

legislation that have been shown to be consistent with the intent of the membership in adopting the current legislation. To approve such a change, the Management Council has determined that sufficient documentation and testimony exists to establish clearly, that the original wording of the legislation requires modification to better reflect the original intent.


Questions and Answers 2015 NCAA Convention Division III Legislative Proposals

NCAA Division III Proposal No. 2015-1 (2-14). Title: DIVISION MEMBERSHIP -- PROVISIONAL AND RECLASSIFYING MEMBERSHIP -- WAIVER OF EXPLORATORY YEAR Effective Date: September 1, 2015. Source: NCAA Division III Presidents Council [Management Council (Membership Committee)]. Intent: To establish a waiver of the exploratory year of the Division III provisional and reclassifying membership process, as specified. Question No. 1: What is the current timeline for an institution to become a Division III

member? Answer: The current process to become a Division III member is five years. There

is one exploratory year and four provisional years. Currently, an institution may waive one of the provisional years if certain criteria are met (NCAA Division III Bylaw 20.3.3.1.1). This proposal would make another waiver available to forego the exploratory year. If this proposal passes then it would be possible for an institution to become a Division III member in three years.

Question No. 2: Can an institution be eligible for the waiver pursuant to this proposal if

student-athletes who are already receiving athletics aid continue to receive that aid?

Answer: Yes. Student-athletes could continue to receive athletically related

financial aid, but would no longer be eligible for Division III participation. An institution is permitted to honor existing athletically related aid to continuing students through the exploratory year and the first two years of provisional status without impacting the students’ eligibility, but the institution would not be eligible for the waiver and would have to complete the five year membership process.


Question No. 3: Is an institution eligible to receive the exploratory year waiver if student-athletes are awarded athletically related financial aid during the same academic year that the institution submits the exploratory year application and waiver?

Answer: Yes. Institutions are eligible to receive the exploratory year waiver even if

student-athletes are awarded athletically related financial aid during the academic year in which the institution submits the exploratory year application and waiver. An institution would have to demonstrate that it would either not award athletically related financial aid to any student that participates in athletics, or honor previously awarded athletically related financial aid to students who choose not to participate in intercollegiate athletics, beginning September 1 of the academic year following receipt of the application and waiver.

Question No. 4: May an institution submit an exploratory year waiver at the same time it

submits the exploratory year application? Answer: Yes. An institution may submit an exploratory year waiver with the

exploratory year application (due January 15); however, an institution has until May 15 to submit the waiver request if additional time is necessary.

Question No. 5: Who must write and/or sign the letter of recommendation from the

sponsoring Division III member institution? Answer: The NCAA Division III Membership Committee policy would dictate that

the letter of recommendation must be written and/or signed by the sponsoring institution’s chancellor or president, director of athletics, senior woman administrator and faculty athletics representative.

Question No. 6: Does this proposal establish specific requirements of the mentor

relationship with the sponsoring Division III institution? Answer: No. It only specifies that a mentoring relationship shall exist. Question No. 7: If an institution submits its exploratory year waiver prior to the conclusion

of the academic year, may that academic year be used as one of the three academic years to demonstrate that the institution satisfied minimum sports-sponsorship requirements?

Answer: If the institution can demonstrate that it met minimum sports-sponsorship

requirements using results collected for that academic year, it is


permissible to use the academic year in which the exploratory year waiver is submitted.

Question No. 8: If an institution submits an exploratory year waiver by May 15, are the

director of athletics and individual with compliance oversight required to attend the NCAA Regional Rules Seminar during the same year, even if the waiver has not yet been decided by the Membership Committee? For example, the Membership Committee may review the waiver at its June in-person meeting which typically occurs after completion of both Regional Rules Seminars?

Answer: Yes. The director of athletics and the individual with compliance

responsibilities would be required to attend the NCAA Regional Rules Seminar that occurs during the same year that an institution submits an exploratory year waiver, even if a waiver decision has not yet been rendered.

Question No. 9: If an institution received an exploratory year waiver, would the institution

still have to pay the exploratory year fee, which is currently $500? Answer: No. Proposal No. 2015-2 (2-12). Title: CHAMPIONSHIPS -- WOMEN’S SAND VOLLEYBALL -- ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL COLLEGIATE CHAMPIONSHIP Effective Date: August 1, 2015. Source: NCAA Division III Management Council (Committee on Women’s Athletics). Intent: In sand volleyball, to establish a National Collegiate Championship and to establish a six person sand volleyball committee. Question No. 1: Does this proposal need to be adopted in all three divisions to establish a

National Collegiate Championship? Answer: Yes.


Question No. 2: If sand volleyball is adopted as a National Collegiate Championship, would Division III be precluded from sponsoring a Division III Championship in the future?

Answer: No. A divisional championship may be established if 40 Division III

institutions sponsor the sport at the varsity level. Question No. 3: Can sand volleyball be adopted as a National Collegiate Championship

and not a Division III sport? Answer: Yes. However, if sand volleyball is not adopted as a Division III sport,

Division III institutions would not be eligible for the National Collegiate Championship.

Question No. 4: If this proposal is not adopted in all three divisions, can Division III adopt

a divisional championship? Answer: Yes. A divisional championship may be established by a vote of the

membership if 40 Division III institutions sponsor the sport at the varsity level.

Questions No. 5: How are National Collegiate Championships funded? Answer: National Collegiate Championships are included in the Division I

championship budget and do not impact the Division III championship budget.

Question No. 6: When will the first championship be conducted? Answer: The target date for the first championship is spring 2016. Question No. 7: How will the six members of the NCAA Division III Women’s Sand

Volleyball Committee be selected? Answer: Consistent with Division I Bylaw 21.4, each Division’s governance

structure shall appoint members to serve on the committee. Only institutions that sponsor the sport of women’s sand volleyball shall be represented on the committee and committee members shall be appointed to four-year terms. A former member may be appointed to an additional term after a three-year time period has elapsed. An individual who has served two terms on the committee may not serve further on the committee.


Question No. 8: If a Division III institution sponsors varsity sand volleyball, will the

Division III institution be eligible to participate in the National Collegiate Championship?

Answer: In order for the Division III institution to be eligible to participate in the

National Collegiate Championship in the sport of sand volleyball, Proposal Nos. 2015-2 and 2015-3 must both be adopted.

Proposal No. 2015-3 (2-13). Title: DIVISION MEMBERSHIP, AMATEURISM AND PLAYING AND PRACTICE SEASONS -- ESTABLISHING WOMEN’S SAND VOLLEYBALL AS A DIVISION III SPORT Effective Date: August 1, 2015. Source: NCAA Division III Management Council (Committee on Women’s Athletics). Intent: To add women’s sand volleyball as a championship sport and establish legislation related to amateurism, playing and practice seasons and membership, as specified. Question No. 1: Why is sand volleyball not being added as an emerging sport for women? Answer: Because Divisions I and II have achieved the required 40 institutions to

sponsor a National Collegiate Championship, sand volleyball will no longer be considered an emerging sport for women.

Question No. 2: If this proposal is adopted, will Division III institutions be required to

sponsor sand volleyball? Answer: No. Question No. 3: When is the traditional segment for sand volleyball? Answer: Spring. Question No. 4: Have the playing rules for sand volleyball been developed? Answer: Yes. Playing rules were developed when Divisions I and II added sand

volleyball as an emerging sport for women.


Question No. 5: Is sand volleyball an individual or team sport? Answer: Team sport. Question No. 6: How do sand volleyball and indoor volleyball differ? Answer: In indoor volleyball, six participants compete for each team on a wood

playing surface, while in sand volleyball, two participants compete for each team on a sand playing surface. A sand volleyball court is one meter narrower and one meter shorter than a wood volleyball court and a sand volleyball is slightly heavier than an indoor volleyball.

Question No. 7: What is the average squad size for a sand volleyball team? Answer: The average squad size for a sand volleyball team is between 14 and 15

student-athletes. Question No. 8: What is the format for conducting a sand volleyball match? Answer: The format for a sand volleyball competition is similar to the format for a

collegiate tennis competition. Each institution is represented by five pairs of student-athletes competing in a stacked format from the No. 1 pair through the No. 5 pair. The competition is best three out of five. Substitutions may be made from one dual match to another, provided the pairs remain stacked by ability level.

Question No. 9: How long does a sand volleyball competition last? Answer: The length of a dual match will depend on the number of sand volleyball

courts available. Each flight plays two sets to 21, with a third set tie-breaker to 15 if necessary. Each flight lasts between 24 and 40 minutes. With three courts available, a dual match can be completed in 60 to 75 minutes. Many competitions are scheduled as double dual matches with two institutions competing against one another in two separate dual matches on the same date. Also popular are formats with four institutions competing at a single site with each institution competing in three dual matches during the course of the day.

Question No. 10: How does the officiating differ between sand volleyball and indoor

volleyball?


Answer: Because only two student-athletes compete per side in sand volleyball and because there are no substitutions in sand volleyball, only one referee is necessary. Additionally, ball marks left in the sand negate the need for line judges, so a single trained referee can officiate a sand volleyball court.

Question No. 11: Can a collegiate sand volleyball match be played indoors? Answer: Yes. Similar to collegiate tennis, the preference is outdoor competition,

but indoor play is permitted. Proposal No. 2015-4 (2-6). Title: RECRUITING -- ON-CAMPUS EVALUATIONS OF PROSPECTIVE STUDENT-ATHLETES Effective Date: August 1, 2015. Source: NCAA Division III Presidents Council (Recruiting Working Group). Intent: To specify that an institution may conduct on-campus evaluations, as specified. Question No. 1: Does this proposal apply to all prospective student-athletes (high school,

two-year college and four-year college prospective student-athletes)? Answer: Yes. For a four-year college prospective student-athlete to engage in an

on-campus evaluation, the four-year college prospective student-athlete must have signed a self-release or have received permission to contact, consistent with Bylaw 13.1.1.2.

Question No. 2: Can prospective student-athletes waive the sickle cell trait status

requirement? Answer: Yes, the process is the same as for student-athletes. The institution must

provide education to the prospective student-athlete regarding the implications of exercising the waiver option and the prospective student-athlete must engage in mandatory education (Bylaw 17.1.6.4.1.1) prior to engaging in the on-campus evaluation.

Question No. 3: If the prospective student-athlete is a minor, is a parent or legal guardian

required to sign the prospective student-athlete’s release when the prospective student-athlete declines a sickle cell solubility test?


Answer: Typically yes, but institutions should consult legal counsel. Question No. 4: How recent must the medical examination be? Answer: The medical exam must have been conducted within six months prior to

the prospective student-athlete’s participation in the on-campus evaluation.

Question No. 5: Is the one on-campus evaluation per year restriction based on the calendar

year or the prospective student-athlete’s academic year? Answer: The restriction is based on the prospective student-athlete’s academic year.

For purposes of this analysis, the summer that follows the academic year is considered part of that academic year.

Question No. 6: How many prospective student-athletes may be involved in an on-campus

evaluation? Answer: This proposal would not limit the number of prospective student-athletes

who may participate in a particular on-campus evaluation. Question No. 7: How many evaluations may coaches conduct? Answer: There is no limit on the number of evaluations a coach may conduct.

Prospective student-athletes are limited to one evaluation per institution, per sport, per year.

Question No. 8: Can institutional alumni participate in an on-campus evaluation? Answer: No. Alumni could only participate if they are a coach or administrator at

the institution. Question No. 9: How does this proposal impact the tryout legislation? Answer: The general tryout prohibition would still be in effect; this proposal would

create an opportunity, under specific parameters, in which an institution may conduct an on-campus evaluation.

Question No. 10: How do you count an on-campus evaluation that does not involve sport-

specific activities (e.g., strength, speed and agility drills)?


Answer: The evaluation would count as the one evaluation per year for the sports in which the coaches of those sport were involved in the evaluation.

Question No. 11: Is contact permitted in the sports for which competition during the on-

campus evaluation is precluded (i.e., football, ice hockey, men’s lacrosse, wrestling, rugby and water polo)?

Answer: No. Question No. 12: Does this proposal impact students who are currently enrolled at the

institution and may be interested in trying out for the team? Answer: No. A student who is currently at the institution would not be subject to

this proposal and could continue to tryout for an institution’s team as is currently permitted.

Question No. 13: Can an institution provide transportation to an off-campus practice or

competition site? If so, is the transportation considered part of the two hour on-campus evaluation restrictions?

Answer: An institution may provide transportation to an off-campus practice or

competition site and such transportation would not count towards the two hour on-campus evaluation restriction.

Question No. 14: Does this proposal require an institution to acquire insurance for a

prospective student-athlete participating in an on-campus evaluation? Answer: Institutions should consult legal counsel to determine liability concerns

and insurance needs. Question No. 15: How is the four-year college prospective student-athlete’s traditional

playing and practice season defined for the purpose of this proposal? Answer: The traditional season begins with the four-year college’s first official

team practice and concludes with the four-year college’s final competition in the traditional segment. [For the sports of golf, tennis and rowing this would include both the fall and spring periods.]

Question No. 16: May a four-year college prospective student-athlete who does not

participate on his or her current four-year college’s intercollegiate team engage in an on-campus evaluation during his or her four-year college’s traditional season?


Answer: The four-year college prospective student-athlete would not be permitted

to engage in an on-campus evaluation during his or her four-year college’s traditional season, regardless of whether the prospective student-athlete participates with that team.

Question No 17: Is a four-year prospective student-athlete prohibited from engaging in an

on-campus evaluation during the declared playing season of the institution conducting the evaluation, or the four-year prospective student-athlete’s declared playing season?

Answer: The timing prohibition refers to the four-year prospective student-athlete’s

playing season. Question No. 18: May an institution conduct an on-campus evaluation of a prospective

student-athlete who is required to repeat the sophomore year of high school?

Answer: No, because that prospective student-athlete is not yet a junior in high

school. Question No. 19: Does a violation of this bylaw impact a prospective student-athlete’s

eligibility? Answer: No. It is an institutional violation. Question No. 20: Would this proposal allow current student-athletes to be involved in

conducting on-campus evaluations outside the declared playing season? Answer: No. Current student-athletes could not be involved with conducting (e.g.,

competing against prospective student-athletes) an on-campus evaluation outside the declared playing and practice season. Bylaw 17 out of season athletically related activities prohibitions would still apply.

Question No. 21: Does institutional athletics training staff have to be present for the on-

campus evaluations? Answer: The institution shall determine the proper athletics training coverage for

on-campus evaluations. Question No. 22: May an institution provide safety equipment to a prospective student-

athlete to participate in an on-campus evaluation?


Answer: Yes. The institution may provide equipment for use during the on-campus evaluation to be returned after the evaluation. The institution may not provide apparel items.

Proposal No. 2015-5 (2-10). Title: PLAYING AND PRACTICE SEASONS -- FOOTBALL -- NONTRADITIONAL SEGMENT Effective Date: Immediate. Source: Adrian College, Buffalo State, State University of New York, East Texas Baptist University, Emory and Henry College, Framingham State University, Gallaudet University, Guilford College, Hardin-Simmons University, Howard Payne University, Ithaca College, LaGrange College, Olivet College, Randolph-Macon College, St. John Fisher College, State University of New York Maritime College, State University of New York at Cortland, Trine University, University of Dubuque, University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, University of Wisconsin, LaCrosse and University of Wisconsin-Whitewater. Intent: To provide students participating in the sport of football with skill instruction and development opportunities equivalent to the opportunities provided student-athletes participating in other sports, while maintaining the health and safety of the student-athletes as a top priority. Question No. 1: If this proposal is adopted, is an institution required to conduct a

nontraditional segment? Answer: No. Question No. 2: May an institution continue to conduct a strength and conditioning and

limited skill instruction period as opposed to a full nontraditional segment involving contact?

Answer: Yes. However, each student-athlete would be required to complete three

acclimatization days prior to participating in activities involving the use of sport related equipment (e.g., football or hand shield). If sport related equipment is not being used, then the institution could conduct 14 strength and conditioning days in lieu of the nontraditional segment as proposed.

Question No. 3: Can the football nontraditional segment be conducted over a period of

time in excess of five weeks?


Answer: Yes. The five calendar weeks during which an institution may conduct a nontraditional segment in football do not have to be consecutive. A week shall be defined by the institution as any consecutive seven-day period, regardless of the day on which the seven-day period begins. Practice during any part of a calendar week shall be counted as a full week. An institution may not redefine its week except in one of the circumstances outlined in Bylaw 17.1.2.

Question No. 4: Is the institution required to have four noninstruction days? Answer: No. Question No. 5: Must the four noninstruction days occur prior to the three day

acclimatization period? Answer: No. The four noninstruction days may occur at any point prior to, during

or after the three day acclimatization period. For example, if an institution has a declared week of Monday through Sunday, the institution may conduct the acclimatization period as follows:

Monday Acclimatization Day One Tuesday Noninstruction Day Wednesday Acclimatization Day Two Thursday Acclimatization Day Three Monday General Practice Period – On-field

Proposal No. 2015-6 (2-7). Title: PLAYING AND PRACTICE SEASONS -- NUMBER OF CONTESTS AND DATES OF COMPETITION -- MAXIMUM LIMITATIONS -- REDUCTIONS Effective Date: August 1, 2016. Source: NCAA Division III Presidents Council, Old Dominion Athletic Conference, Centennial Conference and Midwest Conference. Intent: To decrease traditional segment contest and date of competition limits in selected sports by up to 10 percent. Question No. 1: Does this proposal impact sport-specific exemptions?


Answer: No. Question No. 2: Does this proposal impact the 70 percent in-region requirement for

championship selection? Answer: No. Question No. 3: Does this proposal impact the minimum contest requirements for sports

sponsorship? Answer: No. Question No. 4: What is the average number of contests or dates of competition that

Division III institutions complete compared to the maximum number of contests or dates of competition?

Answer:

Sport Contests Completed

Contests Permitted

Baseball 36.3 40 Men’s Basketball 24.7 25 Women’s Basketball 24.7 25 Men’s Cross Country 5.9 9 Women’s Cross Country 5.8 9 Field Hockey 17.1 20 Football 9.8 10 Men’s Golf 10 20 Women’s Golf 8.9 20 Men’s Ice Hockey 24.7 25 Women’s Ice Hockey 24.5 25 Men’s Lacrosse 14.7 17 Women’s Lacrosse 14.9 17 Rowing 10 20 Men’s Soccer 17.5 20 Women’s Soccer 17.4 20 Softball 34.9 40 Men’s Swimming 10.9 16 Women’s Swimming 11.3 16 Men’s Tennis 16.2 20 Women’s Tennis 15.6 20


Men’s Indoor Track 6.4 18 Women’s Indoor Track 6.2 18 Men’s Outdoor Track 7.4 18 Women’s Outdoor Track 7.2 18 Men’s Volleyball 21.5 22 Women’s Volleyball 21.5 22 Wrestling 14.3 16

Data obtained from the Annual Sports Sponsorship and Demographic Survey for completed regular season contests.

Proposal No. 2015-6-1. Title: PLAYING AND PRACTICE SEASONS -- NUMBER OF CONTESTS AND DATES OF COMPETITION -- MAXIMUM LIMITATIONS -- REDUCTIONS Effective Date: August 1, 2016. Source: Babson College, Becker College, College at Brockport, State University of New York, Castleton State College, State University of New York at Cortland, Curry College, Elmira College, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Johnson & Wales University (RI), University of Massachusetts Boston, Neumann University, New England College, Nichols College, Norwich University, State University of New York at Oswego, Plattsburgh State University of New York, Plymouth State University, State University of New York at Potsdam, Skidmore College, St. Norbert College, Salve Regina University, Wentworth Institute of Technology and Western New England University. Intent: For ice hockey to have a maximum of 24 contest dates and one exempted scrimmage. Question No. 1: Which sports currently have exempted scrimmages? Answer: Men’s and women’s basketball and football. Question No. 2: Does the exempted scrimmage as proposed, have to occur before the first

regular season contest? Answer: No. The scrimmage could occur anytime during the designated playing

and practice season.


Proposal No. 2015-7 (2-2). Title: RECRUITING -- CONTACTS AND EVALUATIONS -- CONTACTABLE PROSPECTIVE STUDENT-ATHLETES -- CONTACT AFTER COMPLETION OF SOPHOMORE YEAR Effective Date: Effective for prospective student-athletes who complete their sophomore year in high school during the 2014-15 academic year or later. Source: NCAA Division III Management Council (Recruiting Working Group). Intent: To allow in-person, off-campus contacts to be made with a prospective student-athlete or the prospective student-athlete’s relatives or guardian(s) after the prospective student-athlete has completed the sophomore year in high school. Question No. 1: Could the permissible date to have in-person, off-campus contacts vary by

prospective student-athlete? Answer: Yes. The completion of the sophomore year is based on the individual

prospective student-athlete’s high school academic calendar. Question No. 2: May an institution contact a prospective student-athlete during the summer

after the completion of the sophomore year in high school? Answer : Yes. Question No. 3: Does the timing of when a prospective student-athlete may be contacted

extend to his or her relatives, guardian(s) or individual of comparable relationship?

Answer: Yes. The proposal does not change the current rule which states that if it

is not permissible to contact a prospective student-athlete off campus then it is not permissible to contact that prospective student-athlete’s parents off campus either.

Question No. 4: If this proposal is adopted, would an institution be permitted to

immediately have in-person, off-campus contact with prospective student-athletes that are in their junior year of high school?

Answer: No. Upon passage of the proposal, institutions could not have contact

with sophomores or juniors until the summer following the completion of the 2014-15 academic year.


Proposal No. 2015-8 (2-5). Title: RECRUITING -- LETTER OF INTENT PROGRAMS -- ATHLETICS CELEBRATORY STANDARDIZED SIGNING FORM Effective Date: August 1, 2015. Source: NCAA Division III Management Council (Recruiting Working Group). Intent: To specify that an institution may use a standard, NCAA provided, nonbinding athletics celebratory form after a prospective student-athlete has been accepted to the institution. Question No. 1: May the nonbinding athletics celebratory signing form be placed on

institutional letterhead? Answer: Yes. Question No. 2: May the nonbinding athletics celebratory signing form be customized by

individual institutions? Answer: No. Institutions would be precluded from altering the content of the

nonbinding athletics celebratory signing form, although it could put the form on institutional letterhead or attach an institutional logo of some form.

Question No. 3: Must the nonbinding athletics celebratory signing form be submitted to the

NCAA after signing? Answer: No. Question No. 4: May institutional coaches be present during signing? Answer: No. Coaches could not be in attendance during a signing, regardless of

whether media is present. Question No. 5: Is there a limit on the number of nonbinding athletics celebratory signing

forms a prospective student-athlete may sign? Answer: No. Question No. 6: May the institution donate or loan institutional apparel (e.g., shirt or hat)

for the prospective student-athlete to wear during signing?


Answer: No. This proposal would not change the application of the offers and inducements legislation. As such, the institution would be precluded from providing any apparel or equipment items to a prospective student-athlete, unless the same benefit is generally provided to all prospective students.

Question No. 7: Must a prospective student-athlete make a financial deposit before signing

the nonbinding athletics celebratory signing form? Answer: No. The prospective student-athlete must only have been accepted to the

institution to be eligible to sign the nonbinding athletics celebratory form. Question No. 8: Can the prospective student-athlete sign both the nonbinding athletics

celebratory signing form and the institutional admissions form available to all students?

Answer: Yes. This proposal does not increase restrictions on prospective student-

athletes. As such, prospective student-athletes would still be permitted to sign any pre-enrollment forms provided to prospective students in general at that institution.

Question No. 9: If a prospective student-athlete signs the nonbinding athletics celebratory

signing form, is the institution obligated to include the prospective student-athlete on the roster in that sport?

Answer: No. Question No. 10: Is there a limitation on how the celebratory signing form may be delivered

(e.g., personally delivered)? Answer: No. Question No. 11: Is an institution required to use the nonbinding athletics celebratory

signing form? Answer: No. Institutions may use their discretion in determining whether to use the

celebratory signing form. Other forms, however, will not be permitted.


Proposal No. 2015-9 (2-3). Title: RECRUITING -- CONTACTS AND EVALUATIONS -- CONTACT RESTRICTIONS AT SPECIFIED SITES -- CONTACT AT THE COMPETITION SITE ON EACH DAY OF COMPETITION Effective Date: Immediate. Source: NCAA Division III Management Council (Recruiting Working Group). Intent: To permit institutional coaching staff members to have contact with a prospective student-athlete of contactable age on a day of competition (before or after the competition), provided the prospective student-athlete is considered released or not “on-call” by the appropriate authorities (e.g., team coach). Question No. 1: How does the proposal change the current rule? Answer: The current rule prohibits contact on the day of competition, including

before the prospective student-athlete reports on call, until the prospective student-athlete is finished with the multi-day event and has been released by the appropriate authorities. The proposal would allow contact at any point on the day of competition before the prospective student-athlete reports on call and at any time the prospective student-athlete is considered released by the prospective student athlete’s coach or comparable authority.

Question No. 2: How is “on-call” defined? Answer: A prospective student-athlete is considered to be “on-call” based on the

discretion of the prospective student-athlete’s coach or comparable authority.

Question No. 3: How does this proposal apply to multiple games during a day? Answer: Coaches may have contact with prospective student-athletes of contactable

age, provided the prospective student-athletes are not considered “on-call” and have been released by the appropriate authorities. It will be up to the discretion of the prospective student-athlete’s coach or comparable authority whether a given prospective student-athlete is released between two contests on the same day.


Question No. 4: Are prospective student-athletes considered to be “on-call” if they have to attend a night meeting?

Answer: A prospective student-athlete is considered to be “on-call” based on the

discretion of the prospective student-athlete’s coach or comparable authority.

Question No. 5: Would this proposal allow in person contact if the prospective student-

athlete is on the institution’s campus? Answer: Under the current rule, on the day of a contest, institutional athletics staff

are not permitted to have contact (on or off campus) with a prospective student-athlete. This proposal would allow the contact provided the prospective student-athlete has been released or is not considered to be “on-call” by the appropriate authority.

Proposal No. 2015-9-1. Title: RECRUITING -- CONTACTS AND EVALUATIONS -- CONTACT RESTRICTIONS AT SPECIFIED SITES -- CONTACT AT THE COMPETITION SITE ON EACH DAY OF COMPETITION Effective Date: Immediate. Source: Landmark Conference and University Athletic Association. Intent: To permit institutional coaching staff members to have contact with a prospective student-athlete of contactable age on a day of competition after the competition, provided the prospective student-athlete has completed competition for the day and is considered released or not on-call by the appropriate authorities (e.g., team coach). Question No. 1: How does the amendment change the proposal? Answer: The proposal would allow contact at any time the prospective student-

athlete is not considered “on call.” The amendment would allow contact only after the prospective student-athlete has completed all competition for the day and has been released.

Question No. 2: If the prospective student-athlete has an end-of-day meeting, would

contact have to occur after that meeting?


Answer: The amendment is specific to competition. Therefore, as long as the prospective student-athlete has been released and all competition is completed, a coach could contact the prospective student-athlete, even if there is an end-of-day meeting.

Question No. 3: Would this amendment allow a coach to have in person contact with a

prospective student-athlete on the day of a contest prior to the prospective student-athlete reporting on call for that contest?

Answer: No. Proposal No. 2015-10 (2-4). Title: RECRUITING -- OFFICIAL VISIT -- FIRST OPPORTUNITY TO VISIT -- JANUARY 1 OF JUNIOR YEAR Effective Date: August 1, 2015. Source: NCAA Division III Management Council (Interpretations and Legislation Committee). Intent: To specify that a prospective student-athlete may be provided an official visit as of January 1 of the prospective student-athlete’s junior year in high school. Question No. 1: How will allowing earlier official visits impact students on a

nontraditional high school academic calendar? Answer: The proposal does not change the current analysis that the determination

of the prospective student-athlete’s junior year is based on the individual prospective student-athlete’s high school academic calendar.

Question No. 2: Does this proposal change the number of official visits that a given

prospective student-athlete is permitted? Answer: No. Division III institutions will still only be allowed to finance one visit

per prospective student-athlete. Proposal No. 2015-11 (2-8). Title: PLAYING AND PRACTICE SEASONS -- BASKETBALL -- DATE OF FIRST CONTEST


Effective Date: August 1, 2015. Source: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference and New Jersey Athletic Conference. Intent: To permit an institution to conduct its first date of regular-season competition in basketball on November 15 or the preceding Friday if November 15 falls on a Saturday, Sunday or Monday. Question No. 1: Does this proposal change the first permissible practice date in basketball? Answer: No. Question No. 2: Will the specific dates for the first permissible contest be included in the

Division III Manual? Answer: Yes. The specific dates for upcoming years will be included in

Figure 17-1. If adopted, the following dates would be the first permissible competition dates in basketball [bolded dates represent changes from current rule]:

Year First Date of Competition 2015-16 Friday, November 13 2016-17 Tuesday, November 15 2017-18 Wednesday, November 15 2018-19 Thursday, November 15 2019-20 Friday, November 15

2020-21 Friday, November 13 Proposal No. 2015-12 (2-9). Title: PLAYING AND PRACTICE SEASONS -- FOOTBALL -- FIRST PERMISSIBLE CONTEST Effective Date: August 1, 2015. Source: Heartland Collegiate Athletic Conference, College Conference of Illinois & Wisconsin and Presidents’ Athletic Conference. Intent: To permit an institution, in the sport of football, to play its first permissible contest (game) on the Thursday preceding the weekend that is eleven weeks prior to the first round of the NCAA Division III Championships.


Question No. 1: Will the specific dates for the first permissible contest be included in the

Division III Manual? Answer: Yes. The specific dates for upcoming years will be included in

Figure 17-1. If adopted, the following dates would be the first permissible competition dates in football [bolded dates represent changes from current rule]:

Year First Date of Competition 2015-16 September 3 2016-17 September 1 2017-18 August 31 2018-19 August 30 2019-20 September 5

Question No. 2: If adopted, will an institution be able to compete in a preseason joint

practice, scrimmage or exhibition prior to the first permissible contest date?

Answer: Yes. This proposal does not change the exception to participate in one

joint practice, scrimmage or exhibition during the preseason practice period.

Question No. 3: How does this proposal change the first permissible practice date for the

sport of football? Answer: An institution must still determine its first permissible practice date based

on the date that will permit a maximum of 25 practice opportunities before its first scheduled intercollegiate game or the Friday after the institution’s first contest if the institution’s first contest is scheduled on a Thursday.

Proposal No. 2015-13 (2-11). Title: PLAYING AND PRACTICE SEASONS -- SOCCER AND WOMEN’S VOLLEYBALL -- PRESEASON JOINT PRACTICE, SCRIMMAGE OR EXHIBITION -- EXEMPTION FROM MAXIMUM CONTEST AND DATE OF COMPETITION LIMITATIONS Effective Date: August 1, 2015. Source: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association and New England Collegiate Conference.


Intent: To allow soccer and women’s volleyball to conduct an exempted pre-season joint practice, scrimmage, or exhibition with outside competition conducted during the pre-season period prior to their first permissible date of competition or contest. Question No. 1: Will this proposal be impacted if Proposal No. 2015-6 (Playing and

Practice Season -- Number of Contests and Dates of Competition -- Maximum Limitations -- Reductions) is adopted?

Answer: If Proposal No. 2015-6 is adopted, it would reduce the maximum contest

limit in soccer to 18 and the maximum date of competition limit in volleyball to 20. Therefore if this proposal were adopted, it would allow soccer and women’s volleyball to conduct one preseason joint practice, scrimmage or exhibition which would be exempted from the maximum limitations in Proposal No. 2015-6. For example, soccer would be permitted 20 contests with an additional joint practice, scrimmage or exhibition for a total of 21 contests.

Question No. 2: In the sport of soccer, could an institution exempt the one date on which

an institution may conduct an unlimited number of exhibitions or scrimmages prior to the first permissible contest date?

Answer: This proposal allows an institution to exempt one joint practice,

scrimmage or exhibition. As such, if an institution chooses to conduct an unlimited number of exhibitions or scrimmages on a single date prior to the first permissible contest date, the institution may only exempt one of those scrimmages from the maximum contest limitations.

Proposal No. 2015-14 (2-15). Title: EXECUTIVE REGULATIONS -- INSTITUTIONAL ELIGIBILITY FOR CHAMPIONSHIPS -- IMPACT OF AN INELIGIBLE STUDENT-ATHLETE -- NULLIFICATION Effective Date: August 1, 2015. Source: NCAA Division III Management Council (Championships Committee). Intent: To specify that if a student-athlete has participated while ineligible during regular-season competition, the Championships Committee may impose a nullification penalty on the institution and that the institution may be denied the right to participate in the applicable NCAA


championship. Further, to lower the minimum allowable fine for a secondary violation from $500 to no minimum. Question No. 1: What is “nullification?” Answer: Nullification is a championship penalty for teams that have competed with

an ineligible student-athlete(s). The penalty applies only to those institutions that competed while represented by an ineligible student-athlete. The penalty will impact an institution’s winning percentage and strength of schedule thereby affecting the institution’s consideration for championships.

Question No. 2: Would the nullification policy result in an institution being rendered

ineligible for championship participation? Answer: No. An institution isn’t declared ineligible for championship participation

as a result of applying the nullification policy. By applying the policy, an institution’s strength of schedule and win-loss percentage may be impacted to such a degree that consideration for the championship is no longer viable.

Question No. 3: When is a contest nullified? Answer: A contest is nullified when a student-athlete competes in a contest while

ineligible. In team sports, nullification is assessed in the selection process. In individual and/or individual/team sports, the individual’s performance is void; thus, if the student-athlete was ineligible while achieving a qualifying standard, that standard does not count toward qualifying for championship competition. Likewise, in an individual/team sport such as golf (play five count four), the ineligible student-athlete’s score would be voided and the remaining student-athletes’ scores would be counted.

Question No. 4: How is the nullification value calculated? Answer: The nullification value represents the average value necessary to move the

institution down one spot if teams were to be ranked according to the selection criterion (i.e., either won-lost percentage or strength of schedule). The calculation takes the difference between the highest value and the lowest value and then divides the difference by the number of teams in the data set. The values are determined on a sport-by-sport basis


and are derived from the prior year’s score reporting data. The value for the won-lost percentage and the strength of schedule may be different.

Question No. 5: What does it mean to my institution if one or more of our contests are

nullified? Answer: Nullification will be assessed to each contest (win, lose or tie) in which an

ineligible player participated. For each contest nullified, a team will receive a deduction to the won-lost record and the strength of schedule. If the proposal is adopted, the nullification value will be determined for each sport. The value will differ by sport. As an example: At the end of the season, your won/lost percentage = .750 and your strength of schedule = .670 and your team played five games with an ineligible player (nullification value = .050).

The nullification penalty: (5 x .050) = .250. Your new won/lost percent: (.750-.250) = .500. Your strength of schedule: (.670 -.250) = .420. The .500 won/lost and .420 SOS are your statistics used for selection

purposes. Question No. 6: Who decides if the contest is nullified? Answer: The institution, in conjunction with the NCAA academic and membership

affairs staff, determines that the student-athlete is ineligible and the contest(s) he or she participated in during the time the student-athlete was ineligible. The institution must report the contests impacted by the use of an ineligible student-athlete to enforcement and or student-athlete reinstatement and the NCAA director of enforcement for secondary infractions and/or the director of student-athlete reinstatement notifies the championships staff. Upon this notification, championship staff would apply nullification.

Question No. 7: If my institution did not know the circumstances that deemed the student-

athlete ineligible and there was absolutely no way they should have known, will my institution’s contests still be nullified?

Answer: Yes. Regardless of knowledge of the violation, the player still competed

while ineligible; therefore, nullification must be assessed.


Question No. 8: If my opponent plays with an ineligible player, what does that do to my statistics?

Answer: Your statistical information remains unchanged. The only changes are

made to the team with nullification(s). Question No. 9: If an institution lost a contest to an institution that used an ineligible

student-athlete, can that institution classify that contest as a victory for championship selection purposes?

Answer: No. Nullification only impacts the team that competed with the ineligible

student-athlete by applying a numerical impact to the championship selection criteria for that institution.

Question No. 10: Can nullification carry over from one year to the next? Answer: No. Question No. 11: Does this proposal impact the way Division III conferences handle an

institution who has competed with an ineligible student-athlete? Answer: No. Division III conferences may continue to follow their conference

policies and procedures for institutions that have competed with an ineligible student-athlete.

Question No. 12: Does nullification affect automatic qualification? Answer: No. Question No. 13: Would this proposal apply to student-athletes who competed while

ineligible due to a playing rule (as opposed to being ineligible based on NCAA legislation)?

Answer: No. The nullification penalty would only be imposed when an institution

competed with a student-athlete who was ineligible based on NCAA legislation, not the playing rules.

Question No. 14: Is there an appeals process if my institution does not agree with the

nullification assessed? Answer: Yes. All appeals regarding nullifications will be heard by the Division III

Championships Committee.


Question No. 15: When will fines be assessed? Answer: Fines may be issued when a student-athlete has competed while ineligible

related to any type of eligibility certification violation (would not include restitution or de minimus violations).

Question No. 16: Who decides if an institution should be fined, and who will assess the

fines? Answer: Fines may be assessed by the NCAA enforcement staff through the regular

enforcement process. Question No. 17: If my institution did not know the circumstances that deemed the student-

athlete ineligible and there was absolutely no way they should have known, will my institution still be fined?

Answer: Enforcement will determine if relief from the fine is appropriate. Question No. 18: Is there an appeals process if my institution does not agree with the fine

assessed? Answer: Yes. All appeals regarding fines will be heard by the NCAA Division III

Committee on Infractions. Question No. 19: Where are fines sent, and how is the money used? Answer: Fines are collected by the NCAA national office, and the money is used

for fundraising initiatives (e.g., Special Olympics). Proposal No. 2015-15 (2-1). Title: ELIGIBILITY -- FULL-TIME ENROLLMENT -- EXCEPTION FOR A COOPERATIVE EDUCATIONAL WORK EXPERIENCE Effective Date: August 1, 2015. Source: University Athletic Association and Commonwealth Coast Conference.


NCAA/msaa/gov/DIII Committees/10 InterpretationsandLegislativeCommittee/QandA/2015/Q_A 2015Convention First Edition/JM:cm/112514

Intent: To allow student-athletes to participate in intercollegiate athletics while participating in a cooperative educational work experiences regardless of whether such educational experiences are a required part of the academic programs. Question No. 1: What does it mean to be “part of the program?” Answer: Each individual institution shall be responsible for determining whether a

cooperative educational work experience is considered part of the student-athlete’s academic program. This determination shall be based on policies and procedures applicable to all students at the institution.

Question No. 2: Must student-athletes receive credit for the cooperative educational work

experience as part of the degree in order to participate? Answer: No. The student-athlete must be considered enrolled full time by the

institution.

Documents

2015 NCAA Convention Division III Legislative Proposals Question