Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Tiger Monthly September 2012 Edition
Citation preview
SEP 2012 | VOL. 2
SEPTEMBER, 2012 | VOL. 2
COMPLIANCE STAFF
570 Normal Street | Memphis, TN 38125 | Office: 901.678.2088 | Fax: 901.678.1653
As the Rules Working Group continues its review of the Division I manual, the student-athletes on the national Student-Athlete Advisory Committee are paying close attention. At every quarterly meeting they vet the concepts from their perspective and the perspective of their peers across the country.
They’ve developed early positions on some topics and will provide those positions to the Rules Group. Their biggest message for the administrators, coaches and presidents on that body? Thank you for listening.
“Our voices are being heard. The NCAA cares about our input and is actually taking that into consideration before they finalize anything,” said Chalonda Goodman, a track and field student-athlete at Texas. “I feel like that’s the most important thing for student-athletes.”
Maddie Salamone, a lacrosse student-athlete at Duke University and vice-chair of the 31-member national Student-Athlete Advisory Committee, wants to be sure that sentiment continues, and that members of the SAAC take seriously their responsibility to gather input from peers.
“We want to be in the loop as much as possible, and we are making a big push to increase our communication (to other student-athletes),” she said. “Right now, we’re pleased with (the rules group) opening up the legislation to allow for more flexibility for student-athletes.”
Georgia football student-athlete Christian Conley agreed that student-athletes are satisfied with the way the rules group is progressing.
Nicole Green, Assistant Athletic Director
Joel Vickery, Director of Compliance
Ryan Crews, Compliance Assistant
Jon Michalik, Graduate Assistant
DI SAAC weighs in on rules changesBy Michelle Brutlag Hosick | NCAA.org | Publish date: August 29, 2012
Continued on Page 3
EDUCATION
Sports Sponsorship Minimum Contest Requirements — Counting Multi-team Events in Individual Sports (I)
Date Published: August 17, 2012 Item Ref: 3
NCAA Division I institutions should note that, in individual sports, not more than three institution-versus-institution meetings shall be counted as contests in any multi-team competition (e.g., quadrangular track and field meet) for purposes of meeting the minimum-contests requirement for sports sponsorship. If
the institution achieves a single score in competition with the other competing institutions (e.g., a conference championship), it shall be counted as one contest. In addition, a meet at which no team scoring is kept counts as a contest for the purpose of meeting the minimum-contest requirement, provided at least the minimum number of participants, per NCAA Bylaw 20.9.4.3, participate in the event. Finally, if a sponsor of an event conducts the event either with no team scoring or with institutions achieving a single score against other competing institutions, it is not permissible for institutions to score the event as an institution-versus-institution event.
Continued on Page 2
2
COMPLIANCE STAFF
570 Normal Street | Memphis, TN 38125 | Office: 901.678.2088 | Fax: 901.678.1653
SEP 2012 | VOL. 2
STAFF INTERPSWalk-on Student-Athlete Receiving Training Table Meal (I)
Date Published: August 24, 2012Item Ref: a
Interpretation:The academic and membership affairs staff confirmed that a student-athlete who is not receiving athletically related financial aid that includes board (e.g., walk-on) may receive training table meals under any of the following circumstances:
1. The student-athlete has previously paid for all meals through a regular institutional meal plan and misses a meal due to practice activities (i.e., the meal is available in the dining hall only during the time practice is in session);
2. The student-athlete pays for the training table meal at the same rate that the institution deducts from the board allowance of student-athletes who receive athletically related aid covering board costs;
3. The student-athlete is on an institutional meal plan and pays the difference in the cost between the two meals, provided the student-athlete could not use the unused meal under the regular institutional meal plan at a later date; or
4. The student-athlete reports on call and becomes involved in activities related to a home competition.
[References: NCAA Division I Bylaws 16.5.2-(d) (meals incidental to participation) and 16.8.1.2 (competition while representing institution) and a 8/25/04 staff interpretation, item 1a and a 5/12/93 staff interpretation, item c, which have been archived] M
The following questions and answers are designed to assist the Division I membership with the application of this legislation.
Question: If the operator of a track and field event conducts the event with no team scoring and participants compete on an individual basis, may an institution with individuals competing in the track and field event change the scoring of the event from individual scoring to head-to-head scoring with other participating institutions after the event has been conducted?Answer: No.
Question: May participating institutions request that the event operator of an individual sport event (e.g., track and field meet, swimming meet) conduct the event on an institution versus institution basis?Answer: Yes, but only if the event is scored as such during the conduct of the event and not rescored by the operator or participating institutions after the event.
Question: If the participating institutions and the operator of a track and field event agree as to how a multi-team event will be scored prior to the event (e.g., Team A vs. Team C, Team D vs. Team B, and Team F vs. Team E) may a competing institution(s) change how the event is scored (e.g., Team A vs. Team B, Team C vs. Team E, and Team F vs. Team D) after the event has been conducted?Answer: No.
[References: NCAA Division I Bylaws 20.9.4.3.3 (counting multi-team events in individual sports), 20.9.4.3.3.1 (meets with no team scoring); and an official interpretation (6/30/93, Item No. 8.(2)]
Notice about Educational Columns: Educational columns and hot topics are intended to assist the membership with the correct application of legislation and/or interpretations by providing clarifications, reminders and examples. They are based on legislation and official and staff interpretations applicable at the time of publication. Therefore, educational columns and hot topics are binding to the extent that the legislation and interpretations on which they are based remain applicable. Educational columns are posted on a regular basis to address a variety of issues and hot topics are posted as necessary in order to address timely issues. M
EDUCATION
Continued from Page 1
Nicole Green, Assistant Athletic Director
Joel Vickery, Director of Compliance
Ryan Crews, Compliance Assistant
Jon Michalik, Graduate Assistant
3
COMPLIANCE STAFF
570 Normal Street | Memphis, TN 38125 | Office: 901.678.2088 | Fax: 901.678.1653
SEP 2012 | VOL. 2
“We as a committee definitely agreed that there are some rules that are over-the-top,” Conley said. “We have confidence in the way the NCAA is handling it, and we are thankful they are allowing us input as student-athletes.”
RecruitingIn the past, the national SAAC has voiced strong opinions on changes to recruiting rules. In 2007, the student-athletes were successful in convincing administrators to prohibit coaches from text-messaging recruits, and were instrumental in preventing an override of that legislation. As the years passed, attitudes toward the quick-hit form of communication evolved. As the membership considers deregulating recruiting contacts, the student-athletes on SAAC (none of which were on the committee in 2007), are supportive — to a point.
“In the sport of football, allowing text-messaging would open up whole new venues for coaches to contact recruits. A lot of communication comes through text messages now. It could be a good thing,” Conley said. “But we want to keep the student-athlete’s best interests in mind. There should be a little bit of breathing room so they’re not badgered all the time. It has the potential to be overwhelming.”
Conley acknowledged that coaches probably won’t bombard recruits with texts if they believe it could backfire, but said there’s no real way to regulate that. For their part, he believes some recruits will be intimidated enough by coaches that they won’t be able to say “stop.”
“It will be a risk we take,” he said.
SAAC Chair Eugene Daniels, a former football player at Colorado State, said coaches have lives to live as well, and that life-work balance issues still need to be
worked out. The student-athletes believe phone calls are more invasive than text messages and should be regulated more strongly. The SAAC is in favor of allowing contact with recruits starting July 1 following the student’s sophomore year in high school. The current proposal has a June 15 date.
AcademicsThe SAAC is also supportive of strengthening the academic rules and regulations, including strengthening progress-toward-degree requirements. Salamone said the group wants to reinforce the idea that “student” comes before “athlete.”
“It’s funny, I think people expect us to be against (stronger academic requirements), but I think we can be the hardest on ourselves and have the highest expectations. We push ourselves on the field, but we also push ourselves in the classroom,” she said. “We do want to perform well in the classroom, and we think stronger standards are not unreasonable.”
The group also discussed the idea of creating academic requirements for student-athletes in some sports to transfer and play immediately. Conley noted the dangers of allowing student-athletes in all sports to play immediately upon transfer, but supported the addition of an academic component.
“We don’t want to broaden it necessarily because there will be a lot of team-swapping by a lot of people in certain sports,” he said. “In smaller sports, there should be more leeway because they are usually transferring not because they want to play but because of personal preference and opportunities at another university. If they have the right grades and are on top of things academically, they shouldn’t be hampered by a rule.”
MealsSome administrators have longed to eliminate rules that tell schools what, when, where and how they can feed their student-athletes. The student-athletes are interested in that topic as well. They support a deregulation of meals legislation and want to include all student-athletes, not just those on scholarship.
“I’ve always felt uncomfortable personally about walk-ons not being able to eat the same thing when they are working as hard if not harder then we (scholarship athletes) are,” Daniels said. “They also have to find a way to pay for school. We think we should feed everybody.”
Daniels acknowledged the issues such a plan would create between schools at different resource levels, but said the student-athletes ended up in much the same place as the rules working group: The less-resourced schools are already at a recruiting disadvantage because they have fewer resources in other areas, not just meals.
“It’s not about me going on my official visit and seeing that the team gets steak and lobster before a game. That’s not what makes my decision for me,” he said.
Daniels said the SAAC did not support providing cash instead of a meal because student-athletes don’t always make the best nutritional decisions when provided cash instead of food.
“I’m not going to spend that whole $15 on a meal. I’ll get the McDonald’s dollar menu, which doesn’t provide enough nutrition,” he said. M
Rules Changes, continued from Page 1
Nicole Green, Assistant Athletic Director
Joel Vickery, Director of Compliance
Ryan Crews, Compliance Assistant
Jon Michalik, Graduate Assistant
