Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Tiger Monthly
Citation preview
DECEMBER, 2011 | VOL. 1
DECEMBER, 2011 | VOL. 1
COMPLIANCE STAFF
570 Normal Street | Memphis, TN 38125 | Office: 901.678.2088 | Fax: 901.678.1653
INFRACTIONS APPEALS COMMITTEE UPHOLDS PENALTIES, MOST FINDINGS FOR ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY PUBLISH DATE: NOVEMBER 4, 2011
The NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee upheld the penalties and most of the appealed findings for Arizona State University. Two of the appealed major violations were upheld, while the Infractions Appeals Committee reduced a third violation from major to secondary.
The case primarily involved a series of violations that occurred over a period of more than five years in the baseball program and involved coaching staff limits, paying student-athletes for work not performed, use of an impermissible recruiter and a lack of institutional control.
Penalties, including those self-imposed by the university, are a three-year probation, a ban on postseason baseball compe-tition, scholarship reductions, a vacation of wins, recruiting restrictions and limitations on coaching activity during practice.
In the appeal, the university argued that three of the violations were secondary, rather than major, including coaching staff limits and paying student-athletes for work not performed. Under NCAA legislation, secondary violations are violations that are isolated or inadvertent; provide only minimal recruit-ing or competitive advantage and do not include any significant recruiting inducement or extra impermissible benefit. All other violations are considered major violations.
In addition, the university asserted that the three-year probation and postseason competition ban were excessive such that they constituted an abuse of discretion by the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions.
The Infractions Appeals Committee found the penalties imposed by the Committee on Infractions were justified based on the facts of the violations and because of the university’s repeat violator status. Additionally, the Infractions Appeals Committee noted that even though it reduced one violation from major to secondary, there was sufficient basis for all of the penalties imposed by the Committee on Infractions.
In considering the university’s appeal, the Infractions Appeals Committee reviewed the notice of appeal; the transcript of the university’s Committee on Infractions hearing; and the submis-sions by both the university and the Committee on Infractions.
The Infractions Appeals Committee may overturn a finding of a violation if it is contrary to the evidence, does not constitute a violation of NCAA rules, or due to a procedural error. A penalty by the Committee on Infractions may be set aside on appeal if the penalty is excessive such that it constituted an abuse of discretion by the Committee on Infractions.
The members of the Infractions Appeals Committee who heard this case were: Christopher L. Griffin, Foley & Lardner LLP, chair; Jack Friedenthal, professor of law at George Washington University; Susan Cross Lipnickey, health studies professor and the faculty athletics representative at Miami University (Ohio); and Patti Ohlendorf, vice president for legal affairs at University of Texas at Austin. M
Nicole GreenDirector of Compliance
Sally AndrewsAssistant Compliance Coordinator
Ryan CrewsCompliance Assistant
DECEMBER, 2011 | VOL. 12
COMPLIANCE STAFF
570 Normal Street | Memphis, TN 38125 | Office: 901.678.2088 | Fax: 901.678.1653
Nicole GreenDirector of Compliance
Sally AndrewsAssistant Compliance Coordinator
Ryan CrewsCompliance Assistant
IMPORTANT DATES
Dec. 14 . . . . Coaches Rules EducationMeeting at 10 am
RECRUITING PERIODS
CROSS COUNTRY / TRACK & FIELDDec. 1-11 . . . . . . . . . . . Contact PeriodDec. 12-15 . . . . . . . . . . . . Dead PeriodDec. 16-31 . . . . . . . . . . . . Quiet Period
BASEBALLDec. 1-31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quiet Period
MEN’S BASKETBALLDec. 1-23 . . . . . . . . Evaluation PeriodDec. 24-26 . . . . . . . . . . . . Dead PeriodDec. 27-31 . . . . . . . Evaluation Period
WOMEN’S BASKETBALLDec. 1-23 . . . . . . . . Evaluation PeriodDec. 24-26 . . . . . . . . . . . . Dead PeriodDec. 27-31 . . . . . . . Evaluation Period
FOOTBALLDec. 1-17 . . . . . . . . . . . Contact PeriodDec. 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quiet PeriodDec. 19-31 . . . . . . . . . . . . Dead Period
JUNIOR COLLEGE PLAYERS ENROLLING AT MIDYEARDec. 1-17 . . . . . . . . . . . Contact PeriodDec. 18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quiet PeriodDec. 19-22 . . . . . . . . . . . . Dead PeriodDec. 23-31 . . . . . . . . . . . . Quiet Period
SOFTBALLDec. 1-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dead PeriodDec. 4-31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quiet Period
VOLLEYBALLDec. 1-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . Contact PeriodDec. 5-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quiet PeriodDec. 14-31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dead Period
ALL OTHER SPORTSDec. 1-31 . . . . . . . . . . . Contact Period
REEVALUATING THE MOST IMPORTANT RULEDECEMBER 3, 2011 | BY JOHN INFANTE
If you ask someone what the most important rule in the NCAA Manual is, you’re likely to get a range of responses. Amateurism, aca-demic eligibility rules, and ethical conduct are likely to be among the most popular. Some might point to rules on scholarship limits or initial eligibility instead.
All of those might be among the most impor-tant rules in the NCAA. But in Division I, it is hard to argue with the five-year rule as being the most important. Here is Bylaw 14.2.1 in all its glory: 14.2.1 – Five-Year Rule.
A student-athlete shall complete his or her seasons of participation within five calendar years from the beginning of the semester or quarter in which the student-athlete first registered for a minimum full-time program of studies in a collegiate institution, with time spent in the armed services, on official religious missions or with recognized foreign aid services of the U.S. government being excepted. For international students, service in the armed forces or on an official religious mission of the student’s home country is considered equivalent to such service in the United States.
The basics of the five-year rule state that once you start college, your Division I eligibility is gone after five years. And the only way to stop the march of the five-year rule is to join the military or go on a religious mission. There are some other exceptions for pregnancy and elite international com-petition. But for the vast majority of student- athletes, once the clock starts, it does not stop until the five years are up.
Combined with other rules like the core-cur-riculum time limitation and the delayed en-rollment rules, the five-year clock establishes Division I eligibility as a privilege that can only be used to its maximum extent by keeping up with the responsibilities that the NCAA im-poses on student-athletes. Fail to reach initial eligibility standards, fail to maintain academic
eligibility or spend too long chasing profes-sional athletics and your Division I eligibility simply vanishes.
The five-year rule is certainly a harsh rule. Divisions II and III do not have it, opting instead for the more forgiving 10-semester/ 15-quarter rule. The 10-semester/15-quarter rule can be stopped simply by withdrawing from school or dropping below full time. But even that rule has the same issues as the five-year clock.
Collegiate eligibility is often thought of as being four years of playing and one redshirt year. The reality is that collegiate eligibility is four years of playing that must be com-pleted within five years, leaving one year of cushion for anything that might happen to a student-athlete during their collegiate career. Redshirts, medical hardship waivers, transfer residence, nonqualifier residence, financial difficulties, academic ineligibility and rein-statement conditions all have to share that one year.
One option would be for Division I members to adopt this Division II waiver for student-athletes who redshirt during their freshman year. That would cover cases where freshman choose to redshirt or are redshirted by the coaching staff, and solves a recurring issue in clock extension waivers where five year-old medical documentation is need to prove an injury during the first year. It would not allow student-athletes forced to sit out for a year due to transfer the same flexibility though.
With 400,000 athletes, it would be impossible to have a rule that never creates a single bad result and still have the concept of eligibility that runs out or can be exhausted. The trick is balancing how many athletes run out of time with how many athletes and institutions are manipulating the system or failing to hold up their end of the bargain. The five-year rule gets it mostly right, and just needs tweaks to strike an even better balance. M
3
COMPLIANCE STAFF
570 Normal Street | Memphis, TN 38125 | Office: 901.678.2088 | Fax: 901.678.1653
Nicole GreenDirector of Compliance
Sally AndrewsAssistant Compliance Coordinator
Ryan CrewsCompliance Assistant
DECEMBER, 2011 | VOL. 1
INTERPSofficial interpretation
Departments Outside Athletics Hosting Non-athletics High School, Preparatory School or Two-Year College Personnel (I)Date Published: October 20, 2011 | Item Ref: 4
Interpretation: The Legislative Council determined that an institutional department outside the athletics department (e.g., president’s office, admissions) may host nonathletics high school, preparatory school or two-year college personnel (e.g., guidance counselors, principals) in conjunction with a home intercollegiate athletics event and may provide such individuals reasonable expenses (e.g., food, refreshments, parking, room) and a nominal gift, provided the visit is not related to athletics recruiting and there is no involvement by the institution’s athletics department in the arrangements for the visit, other than providing (in accordance with established policy) free admissions to an athletics event.
[References: NCAA Bylaws 13.8.1 (entertainment restrictions) and 13.8.2 (material benefits)] M
staff interpretation Student-Athlete Performing Required Work other than Regular Employment (I)Date Published: October 20, 2011 | Item Ref: a
Interpretation: The academic and membership affairs staff confirmed that any work performed by a student-athlete (e.g., field or facility preparation for practice or competition) that is required, supervised or monitored by a coaching staff member (including strength and conditioning coaches) or noncoaching staff member with sports specific responsibilities, other than regular employment in accordance with NCAA employment legislation, is a countable athletically related activity.
[References: NCAA Division I Bylaws 11.7.1.1.1.1.1 (exception -- noncoaching staff member with sport-specific responsi-bilities), 12.4.1 (criteria governing compensation to student -athletes), 15.2.7 (employment) and 17.02.1 (countable athletically related activities); and a staff interpretation (8/9/91, Item No. a), which has been archived] M
TWEET LEADS TO LEHIGH SUSPENSIONCOPYRIGHT 2011 BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
BETHLEHEM, Pa. -- Lehigh's top receiver has been suspended for Saturday's FCS quarterfinal at North Dakota State for forwarding a Twitter message that included a racial slur against members of the Towson University football team.
The Division I Football Championship committee announced Thurs-day that it had also reprimanded junior Ryan Spadola of Howell, N.J.
The committee said in a statement that Spadola used "an inappro-priate and repugnant racial reference" in retweeting the offending message, which had been sent to him by a friend before last week's 40-38 win over Towson.
"The football committee was very disappointed with the unsports-manlike action taken by the student-athlete," said committee chairman Jim O'Day, athletic director at Montana. "This was a very unfortunate incident, but racially insensitive characterizations are unacceptable and will not be tolerated. The offensive language of this nature by Mr. Spadola, whether intentional or not, was unsportsmanlike and discredited the championship overall."
Spadola issued a written apology in which he asked the offended parties for forgiveness.
"At the time I received and forwarded the tweet, I didn't stop to think about how this could be offensive," he wrote. "In hindsight, I recognize that it was clearly inappropriate. I would never do anything intentionally harm or berate others regardless of ethnicity. Everyone who knows me knows that to be true."
Lehigh athletic director Joe Sterrett said Spadola is an outstanding student and respected member of the team.
"The suspension delivers a clear message that this is not acceptable behavior within college athletics," Sterrett said.
As a result of the incident, Sterrett said, Lehigh is holding a series of campus discussions on derogatory racial language and its impact.
Spadola is a key figure in the No. 4 passing offense in the Football Championship Subdivision. He set a school record with 96 receptions this season, and his 1,614 yards are a Patriot League record. He has scored 11 touchdowns.
The winner between sixth-ranked and unseeded Lehigh (11-1) and the fourth-ranked and No. 2-seeded Bison (11-1) will play either Georgia Southern or Maine in next week's semifinals.
A Towson spokesman said Friday that athletic director Mike Waddell had no comment. M
