NOTE: The Board is scheduled to participate in the following functions with other Division I governance bodies in advance of the Board of Directors meeting: Division I Dialogue on Thursday, January 16 (2-5 p.m.) and Friday, January 17 (8 a.m. – noon) For Board members who are members of the Executive Committee, the Executive Committee Meeting on Friday, January 17, 2014 (1:30-4:30 p.m.) Joint Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee/Board of Directors Breakfast Saturday, January 18, 2014, (7:30 – 9 a.m.) A G E N D A National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Board of Directors Sapphire D Ballroom January 18, 2014 Hilton Bayfront Hotel 9 a.m. – 3 p.m. 1. Welcome and introductions. 2. Governance review discussion. (Supplement No. 1) President Hatch and Jean Frankel will facilitate Board discussion related to feedback received from the membership during the January 16 and 17 Division I Dialogue sessions, as well as the work of the Board of Directors Steering Committee on Governance. General Business Session 1. Report of the Board of Directors October 30, 2013, meeting. (Supplement No. 2) [Anticipated Action Item.] The Board will be asked to approve the report of its October meeting. 2. Report of January 16, 2014, NCAA Division I Leadership Council meeting. (Supplement No. 3 to be distributed at the meeting.) [Anticipated Action Item.]
Transcript
NOTE: The Board is scheduled to participate in the following functions with other Division I governance bodies in advance of the Board of Directors meeting:
Division I Dialogue on Thursday, January 16 (2-5 p.m.) and Friday,
January 17 (8 a.m. – noon)
For Board members who are members of the Executive Committee, the Executive Committee Meeting on Friday, January 17, 2014 (1:30-4:30 p.m.)
Joint Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee/Board of Directors Breakfast
Saturday, January 18, 2014, (7:30 – 9 a.m.)
A G E N D A
National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Board of Directors
Sapphire D Ballroom January 18, 2014 Hilton Bayfront Hotel 9 a.m. – 3 p.m. 1. Welcome and introductions. 2. Governance review discussion. (Supplement No. 1)
President Hatch and Jean Frankel will facilitate Board discussion related to feedback received from the membership during the January 16 and 17 Division I Dialogue sessions, as well as the work of the Board of Directors Steering Committee on Governance.
General Business Session 1. Report of the Board of Directors October 30, 2013, meeting. (Supplement No. 2)
[Anticipated Action Item.]
The Board will be asked to approve the report of its October meeting.
2. Report of January 16, 2014, NCAA Division I Leadership Council meeting. (Supplement
No. 3 to be distributed at the meeting.) [Anticipated Action Item.]
DI Board of Directors agenda January 18, 2014 Page No. 2 _________
documentcenter.ncaa.org/msaa/gov/DI Committees/Board of Directors/2014-01 Board of Directors/00, BOD Agenda Januuary 2014.docx:vlm:1/9/14
The Board will receive a report of the January 15, 2014, meeting of the Leadership Council, which will include several requests for action by the Board.
• Recommendation regarding decision-making process for specified waiver issues.
(Supplement No. 4) [Possible Action Item.]
It is anticipated that this item will be presented to the Board as part of the Leadership Council report; however, a separate supplement was prepared for the Board’s review prior to the meeting. The supplement summarizes a recommendation regarding a temporary review process for specified regulatory waivers, amateurism certification decisions and student-athlete reinstatement conditions.
3. Report of January 15, 2014, NCAA Division I Legislative Council meeting. (Supplement No. 5 to be distributed at the meeting.)
The Board will receive a brief report of the January 15, 2014, Legislative Council meeting.
5. Other business. 6. Future meeting dates.
a. Thursday, April 24, 2014, Indianapolis, Indiana.
b. Thursday, August 7, 2014, Indianapolis, Indiana.
c. Thursday, October 30, 2014, Indianapolis, Indiana.
d. Saturday, January 17, 2015, Washington, DC. (In conjunction with the 2015 NCAA Convention.)
Mr. Stan Albrecht President Utah State University 1400 Old Main Hall Logan, Utah 84322 Phone: 435/797-7172 Fax: 435/797-2118 E-mail: [email protected]
Mountain West Conference
August 2016*
FBS Exec.
Dr. Gene Block Chancellor University of California, Los Angeles 2147 Murphy Hall, Box 951405 Los Angeles, CA 90095-1405 Phone: 310/825-2151 Fax: 310/206-6030 E-mail: [email protected]
Pacific-12 Conference
August 2016*
FCS PAG Exec.
Dr. Rita Cheng Chancellor Southern Illinois University at Carbondale 1265 Lincoln Drive Anthony Hall, Room 116 Carbondale, IL 62901-4304 Phone: 618/453-2341 Fax: 618/453-4235 E-mail: [email protected]
Missouri Valley Conference
August 2016*
DIV. I PAG Exec.
Dr. Michael Drake Chancellor University of California, Irvine Chancellor’s Office Irvine, CA 92697 Phone: 949-824-5111 Fax: 949-824-2087 E-mail: [email protected]
Big West Conference
August 2016*
FCS PAG
Dr. Philip Hanlon President Dartmouth College 207 Parkhurst Hall, HB 6001 Hanover, New Hampshire 03755 Phone: 603/646-2223 Fax: 603-646-2266 E-mail: [email protected]
Division I Board of Directors Roster Page No. 2 __________
Subd
Name and Contact Information
Conference Representing Term
Expiration
FCS Exec PAG
Dr. Patrick Harker President University of Delaware 175 S. College Avenue, 104 Hullihen Hall Newark, Delaware Phone: 302/831-8436 Fax: 302/831-1297 E-mail: [email protected]
Colonial Athletic Association
August 2016
FBS Exec.
Dr. Nathan Hatch President Wake Forest University 1834 Wake Forest Road Winston Salem, NC 27106 Phone: 336/758-5211 Fax: 336-/758-5212 E-mail: [email protected]
Atlantic Coast Conference
August 2014*
FBS
Dr. John Hitt President University of Central Florida 400 Central Florida Blvd. Building 39 Orlando, Florida 32816 Phone: 407/823-1823 Fax: 407/823-5293 E-mail: [email protected]
Dr. David Hopkins President Wright State University 3640 Colonial Glenn Hwy Dayton, OH 45435 Phone: 937/775-2312 Fax: 937/775-2421 E-mail: [email protected]
Horizon League
August 2015*
FBS Exec.
Mr. David Leebron President Rice University President’s Office MS-1, P.O. Box 1892 Houston, Texas 77251 Phone: 713/348-5050 Fax: 713/348-5010 E-mail: [email protected]
Division I Board of Directors Roster Page No. 3 __________
Subd
Name and Contact Information
Conference Representing Term
Expiration
FBS
Dr. Roderick McDavis President Ohio University Cutler Hall 108, 1 Ohio Athens, OH 45701 Phone: 740/593-1804 Fax: 740/593-9196 E-mail: [email protected]
Mid-American Conference
August 2017*
FBS Exec.
Dr. Horace Mitchell President California State University, Bakersfield 9001 Stockdale Highway Bakersfield, CA 93311 Phone: 661/654-2241 Fax: 661/654-3188 E-Mail: [email protected]
Western Athletic Conference
August 2017*
DIV. I PAG
Dr. Daniel Papp President Kennesaw State University 1000 Chastain Road MD0101, KH, Building 1, Room 5600 Kennesaw, GA 30144 Phone: 770-423-6033 Fax” 770-423-6543 E-mail: [email protected]
Atlantic Sun Conference
August 2017*
FBS Exec.
Dr. Harris Pastides President University of South Carolina 206 Osborne Admin. Building 915 Bull Street Columbia, SC 29208 Phone: 803/576-6017 Fax: 803/777-3264 E-mail: [email protected]
Southeastern Conference
August 2015*
FCS PAG
Dr. Baker Pattillo President Stephen F. Austin State University P.O. Box 6078 Nacogdoches, TX 75962 Phone: 936/468-2201 Fax: 936/468-2202 E-mail: [email protected]
Division I Board of Directors Roster Page No. 4 __________
documentcenter.ncaa.org/msaa/gov/DI Committees/Board of Directors/Roster.Contact Sheets/Cont Sht-Board 2012.2013.docx:vlm:01/08/14
Subd Name and Contact Information
Conference Representing Term
Expiration FBS Exec.
Dr. Joseph Savoie President University of Louisiana, Lafayette P. O. Drawer 41008 Lafayette, LA 70506 Phone: 337/482-6203 Fax: 337/482-5194 E-mail: [email protected]
Sun Belt Conference August 2017
FBS Exec.
.
Dr. Kirk Schulz President Kansas State University 110 Anderson Hall Manhattan, Kansas Phone: 785/532-6221 Fax: 785/532-7639 E:mail: [email protected]
Big 12 Conference
August 2016*
FBS Exec.
Dr. Lou Anna Simon President Michigan State University 248 Jension Field House East Lansing, MI 48824 Phone: 517/355-6560 Fax: 517/432-0200 E-mail: [email protected]
Big Ten Conference
August 2014*
* Not eligible for reselection. Note: "Exec." Indicates Board members serving on the Executive Committee.
“PAG” Indicated Board members serving on the Presidential Advisory Group.
As promised, this is my second communication to the NCAA Division I membership regarding a Governance Structure Redesign. Click here for a template prepared by the Division I Board of Directors’ Steering Committee on Governance that is intended to aid participants during the January 16 and 17 Division I Dialogue in San Diego. Please note that we expect approximately 850 presidents, athletic directors, faculty, senior women administrators, compliance personnel, Student-Athlete Advisory Committee members, and officers of affiliated groups to participate. Media representatives also will be present in a designated location in the room as observers. Copies of the material I circulated to you on December 13 and the attached power point template will be available at the Division I Dialogue, and please note that there will be interactive email, tweets and polling that will take place throughout the dialogue sessions. Participants should arrive with fully charged laptops, tablets, I Pads, phones, etc. since there will not be a power source at your seats. Also, participants should pick up polling units at Convention registration well in advance of the Dialogue sessions to avoid delays and to confirm your attendance.
SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 DI Board of Directors 1/14 Page No. 2 _________
documentcenter.ncaa.org/msaa/gov/DI Committees/Board of Directors/2014-01 Board of Directors/01, Memo to Membership 1-9-14.docx:vlm:1/9/14
The sessions will include small and large group discussions and we ask that you not sit with your usual institutional or conference colleagues. We would like to encourage discussion among diverse groups and we plan to pre-assign seats only for our Board and Presidential Advisory Group presidents/chancellors throughout the meeting room. The Division I Board of Directors looks forward to the NCAA Convention and these meetings in particular. Following the Convention, the Board Steering Committee will continue its efforts to develop membership consensus and to draft necessary legislation where appropriate for consideration by the Board of Directors as early as April or August 2014. Your assistance and commitment to an effective and viable governance structure is greatly appreciated.
Nathan O. Hatch President Wake Forest University Division I Board Chair
ATTACHMENT A SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 DI Board of Directors 1/14
vmceachran
Typewritten Text
vmceachran
Typewritten Text
vmceachran
Typewritten Text
vmceachran
Typewritten Text
vmceachran
Typewritten Text
vmceachran
Typewritten Text
Governance Redesign Process
Governance Design Principles Redesign Process
New NCAA Division I
Governance System
Current Division I
Governance Structure
Current DI Governance Structure Diagram
Current Legislative Structure • Board – Voting is weighted via slots on the Board. 11 FBS and
7 from either FCS or Division I (non-football conferences)--61% for FBS.
• Leadership Council - Intended as a 32-member policy body without weighted voting. They can sponsor legislation or make recommendations for action to the Board or Legislative Council, but they cannot pass legislation on their own.
• Legislative Council -The 7 FBS (ACC, Big 10, Big-12, Pac-12, SEC, Conference-USA and American Athletic) conferences’ votes are valued at 3 each. Their votes total 27, and the other 4 FBS conferences' (WAC, MWC, MAC and Sun Belt) votes are valued at 1.5 each for a total of 6. All the FBS votes total 27 on all the 32 member bodies (Leadership and Legislative Council and Championships Cabinet).The other 21 conferences' votes equal 1.14 each for a total of 23.94 on all 32-member bodies. The total of all votes is 50.94, with FBS have a 53% majority if they all vote together on 32-member bodies.
• Cabinets - In some, there are 21 members, with 11 FBS members and 10 from other conferences. All have one vote, but FBS has more members. These numbers still include the WAC in FBS, but they will move to non-football group when we adopt a new structure. The FBS number we should use for the future is 10 and others are 22.
Current Governing Body: Division I Board of Directors Duties as legislated: • Establish and direct general policy; • Establish a strategic plan; • Adopt or defeat legislative proposals independent of the Legislative Council (e.g.,
emergency, noncontroversial or other proposals sponsored by the Board); • At its discretion, ratify, amend or defeat legislation adopted by the Legislative Council
(see Constitution 5.3.2); • Delegate to the Leadership Council or Legislative Council responsibilities for specific
matters it deems appropriate; • Appoint members of the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions and the Division I
Infractions Appeals Committee; • Review and approve policies and procedures governing the enforcement program; • Ratify, amend or rescind the actions of the Leadership Council or Legislative Council; • Assure that there is gender and ethnic diversity among its membership and the
membership of each of the other bodies in the administrative structure; • Require bodies in the administrative structure to alter (but not expand) their
membership to achieve diversity; • Approve an annual budget; • Approve regulations providing for the expenditure of funds and the distribution of
income consistent with the provisions of Constitution 4.01.2.2; • Approve regulations providing for the administration of championships; • Advise the Executive Committee concerning the employment of the NCAA president
and concerning the oversight of his or her employment; • Be responsible for the administration, compilation and disclosure of information
concerning the Academic Progress Rate (APR) and Academic Performance Census (APC); and
• Elect institutions to active Division I membership. Non-legislated Activities of the Board of Directors since August 2011 Presidential Retreat: • Appoint working groups (i.e., Rules, Enforcement, Resource Allocation, Student-Athlete
Well-Being, Committee on Academic Performance) to address an accelerated agenda of presidential initiatives;
• Adopt emergency legislation to implement working group recommendations, and • Adopt emergency legislation to implement new men’s and women’s basketball
recruiting models as recommended by the Division I Leadership.
Current Sub-Structure: Presidential Advisory Group (PAG) Duties as legislated:
The Division I Presidential Advisory Group shall advise and provide input to the seven members of the committee who serve on the Board of Directors. Members of the Presidential Advisory Group who represent Football Championship Subdivision conferences shall have the authority to act on behalf of the Football Championship Subdivision members of the Board of Directors on legislative issues that relate to championship subdivision football, subject to review by the full Board of Directors.
Current Sub-Structure: Leadership Council Duties and Responsibilities as legislated:
• Take final action on matters delegated to it by the Board of Directors;
• Make recommendations to the Board of Directors on matters that it deems appropriate;
• Suggest policies to the Board of Directors that are necessary to ensure proper management;
• Review recommendations of the substructure;
• Oversee the appointment of the members of the substructure (e.g., cabinets and committees);
• Recommend fiscal, competitive, academic and championships policies to the Board of Directors and the substructure;
• Oversee Division I membership requirements and processes;
• Advise the Board of Directors on the performance of the NCAA president;
• Coordinate strategic planning activities;
• Identify and examine trends and issues of intercollegiate athletics;
• In conjunction with the Minority Opportunities and Interests Committee, review issues related to the interests of ethnic minority student-athletes, NCAA minority programs and NCAA policies that affect ethnic minorities; and
• In conjunction with the Committee on Women's Athletics, study and make policy recommendations concerning opportunities for women in athletics at the institutional, conference and national levels, and other issues directly affecting women's athletics.
Current Sub-Structure: Legislative Council
Duties and Responsibilities as legislated:
• Serve as the division's primary legislative authority, subject to review by the Board of Directors (see Constitution 5.3.2);
• Take final action on matters delegated to it by the Board of Directors;
• Make interpretations of the bylaws; and
• Review the recommendations of the substructure.
Current Sub-Structure: Academic Cabinet
Duties as legislated:
• Be responsible for review and consideration of the portions of Division I legislation that relate to principles of sound academic requirements;
• Work with the Division II governance structure to ensure that consistent policies exist when possible, while maintaining each division's philosophy and legislative intent;
• Study issues and make policy or legislative recommendations concerning relationships between the Association and the nation's two-year colleges as represented by established regional and national organizations;
• Oversee academic policies;
• Establish, manage and monitor eligibility standards-related policies; and
• Administer waivers as specified by legislation and/or policy.
Current Sub-Structure: Administration Cabinet
Duties as legislated:
• Oversee the administrative functions related to the management of the governance structure;
• Appoint the members of the substructure (e.g., committees);
• Administer the legislation and policies and procedures related to Division I membership; and
• In conjunction with the Research Committee:
• Evaluate, supervise and coordinate research activities;
• Make recommendations regarding expenditures of funds for research projects; and
• (3) Make recommendations concerning research topics in intercollegiate athletics.
Current Sub-Structure: Amateurism Cabinet
Duties as legislated:
• Be responsible for review and consideration of the portions of Division I legislation that relate to principles of amateurism;
• Study issues and make policy or legislative recommendations concerning the relationship between intercollegiate athletics and professional teams and organizations;
• Study issues and make policy or legislative recommendations related to commercialism and the use of student-athletes' names and likenesses; and
• Serve as the final appellate body for cases involving the determination of facts related to the certification of amateur status per Bylaw 12.01.1.
Current Sub-Structure: Awards, Benefits, Expenses, and Financial Aid Cabinet Duties as legislated:
• (a) Be responsible for review and consideration of the portions of Division I legislation that relate to principles of awards, benefits, expenses and financial aid;
• (b) Study issues and make policy or legislative recommendations related to the provision of financial aid to student-athletes; and
• (c) Study issues and make policy or legislative recommendations related to the provision of awards, benefits and expenses to student-athletes (excluding awards, benefits and expenses related to NCAA championships).
Current Sub-Structure: Championship/ Sports Management Cabinet
Duties as legislated:
• In championships administration:
• Supervise qualification and/or selection procedures for National Collegiate Championships and Division I championships;
• (2) Review recommendations from sports committees regarding the administration of those championships;
• (3) Process other issues related to the administration of those championships; and
• (4) Act for the Leadership Council as the final authority regarding championships matters in Division I or in a National Collegiate Championship that are subject to appeal to the Leadership Council (excluding appeals of championships selection or assignment in championships competition).
• In working with the Association-wide Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports:
• Assist in the collection and development of pertinent information regarding desirable training methods, prevention and treatment of sports injuries, usage of sound safety measures at the college level, drug education and drug testing;
• Assist in the dissemination of such information as might be brought appropriately to the attention of the membership and adopt recommended policies and standards designed to further the above objectives; and
• Assist in the supervision of the Association's drug-education and drug-testing programs under the direction of the Executive Committee.
In other areas:
• Be responsible for issues involving postseason football contests, college all-star football and basketball contests and exempted contests. The Football Bowl Subdivision members shall vote on bowl subdivision football matters; the Football Championship Subdivision members shall vote on championship subdivision football matters; and all members, regardless of subdivision, shall vote on all other matters; and
• Be responsible for issues involving playing and practice seasons.
• In conjunction with the Association-wide Olympic Sports Liaison Committee:
• Act as a liaison between Division I, the U.S. Olympic Committee and national governing bodies; and
• (2) Study and make recommendations concerning the division's and the Association's appropriate role and the involvement of student-athletes in international athletics.
Current Sub-Structure – Recruiting and Athletics Personnel Issues Cabinet
Duties as legislated:
• Be responsible for review and consideration of the portions of Division I legislation that relate to principles of recruiting and athletics personnel;
• Study issues and make policy or legislative recommendations related to the recruiting process; and
• Study issues and make policy or legislative recommendations related to athletics personnel issues.
Division I Board Steering Committee on Governance
Draft New Governance System Design January 2014
vmceachran
Typewritten Text
vmceachran
Typewritten Text
vmceachran
Typewritten Text
vmceachran
Typewritten Text
vmceachran
Typewritten Text
vmceachran
Typewritten Text
vmceachran
Typewritten Text
vmceachran
Typewritten Text
vmceachran
Typewritten Text
vmceachran
Typewritten Text
vmceachran
Typewritten Text
vmceachran
Typewritten Text
vmceachran
Typewritten Text
vmceachran
Typewritten Text
vmceachran
Typewritten Text
ATTACHMENT B SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 DI Board of Directors 1/14
vmceachran
Typewritten Text
NCAA Division I Board Steering Committee on Governance Draft Governance System Design January 2014 Page 2
Components of An Effective NCAA Division I Governance System
• Governing Principles – The ideas and concepts around which the model is designed and operated.
• Governing Body – The nature of the top-level Division I governing body – the board, including size, composition, role and focus,
• Sub-Structures – The high-level working bodies of the division, where decision-making that assists the Board with its work occurs. This discussion includes, size, composition, role and focus of the supporting structures.
• Legislative Structure – Legislated agreements about weighted voting, autonomy and shared governance across Division I, specified by subdivision as appropriate.
• An effective governance system must work effectively with shared vision, strategy and goals, as well as supporting programs, services and infrastructure. These will be focuses of future Division I membership conversations.
NCAA Division I Board Steering Committee on Governance Draft Governance System Design January 2014 Page 3
Governance Redesign Process
Governance Design Principles Redesign Process
New NCAA Division I
Governance System
Current Division I
Governance Structure
NCAA Division I Board Steering Committee on Governance Draft Governance System Design January 2014 Page 4
NCAA Division I Board Steering Committee on Governance Draft Governance System Design January 2014 Page 5
Proposed Governing Principles
• Student-Athlete Well-Being. Intercollegiate athletics must ensure and improve student-athlete well-being.
• Collegiate Model. We remain committed to the collegiate model of intercollegiate athletics, which melds athletics opportunities with a holistic educational experience, enabling our student-athletes to be successful in the classroom, within their sport, in their community and post-graduation.
• Higher Education Focus. Intercollegiate athletics is a component of the educational enterprise and must complement and align with the values of higher education. Ensure intercollegiate athletics remains a positive contributing factor within the higher education model.
• Academic Rigor. Intercollegiate athletics must ensure a level of academic rigor and commitment for all student-athletes, commensurate with the general student body, that will enable them to be educated, to graduate and to be successful in their chosen careers.
• Responsiveness. The rules and governance structure must provide sufficient flexibility to address the ever-changing cultural, fiscal and educational landscapes that impact intercollegiate athletics.
• Widespread Competitive Opportunity. Ensure widespread opportunity and fair competition, recognizing that schools differ in a variety of ways, such as geography, size and resources.
NCAA Division I Board Steering Committee on Governance Draft Governance System Design January 2014 Page 6
• Presidential Control And Oversight With Greater Practitioner Engagement And Consultation. The new governance system will continue to have effective oversight and control by presidents, but primary legislative responsibility will include ADs, FARs and other practitioners, either through Board standing committees or more effective substructures.
• Competency-Based Approach. The new system will feature a competency-based approach to populating governing and working bodies, encompassing a mix of representation, diversity, talent and commitment, accessing leaders across the profession through a more formal nominations process that encourages them to serve.
• Increased Collaboration, Less Hierarchy. The new system will move Division I from the relatively hierarchical structure that exists today into a more collaborative structure, process and culture. It will break down hierarchies and silos, and will encourage dialogue, communication and shared understanding across the division.
Proposed Governance System Headlines
NCAA Division I Board Steering Committee on Governance Draft Governance System Design January 2014 Page 7
Proposed Governing Body: Board of Directors
Roles and Responsibilities
• The Division I Board will serve as the overall governing body for the division, with responsibility for strategy, policy, legislative and management oversight. For example:
– Strategy - address future issues, challenges, opportunities and outcomes.
– Policy – review and set parameters that guide and determine present and future decisions, embracing general goals and acceptable procedures.
– Legislative - compare legislative outcomes with guiding principles, ascertaining consistency, etc.
– Management - partner with ncaa staff to determine how the association can serve the membership most effectively.
Size and Composition • Seventeen, using the same conference representational mechanism as exists today.
• Board may consist entirely of presidents, or could include several distinguished individuals to provide outside perspectives.
• There will be groups below that include practitioners with expertise, and some may serve on Board committees and participate in some Board meetings.
• Council chair may (or may not) serve on the Board as a voting (or non-voting) member.
Nominations Process • The Board will begin to move toward a competency-based model and a more formal nominations
process. Council substructure members will be selected through this process, which will blend competency, related experience and other factors with traditional representation and diversity factors, and which will define specific criteria/requirements for each position considered.
NCAA Division I Board Steering Committee on Governance Draft Governance System Design January 2014 Page 8
Proposed Governing Body: Board of Directors
Voting Structure
• Still to be determined is whether and in what cases the Board should be given full authority; and not subject to override.
• The option for override votes could be designed into the structure, but, at the same time, the opportunity should not be used on a routine basis.
Operating Components
Board Standing Committees
• The Division I Board will work as a committee of the whole to address important issues, but the addition of a well-designed Board standing committee structure that enables the Board to divide its governing work into manageable pieces on which members of the Board can focus serious attention will serve as a powerful engine for carrying out the governing work of a Board of Directors at a high level.
• Board standing committees will be chaired by Board members, and may include others (ADs, FARs, etc, in a voting or non-voting capacity). Their role will be to work with substructure groups to provide a more direct path for bringing appropriate work to the Board’s agenda. Their tasks will include: improving communication between the Board and the substructure, helping to communicate the Board’s intent, enabling early identification of problems or concerns raised in these groups and support effective discussion/action to resolve issues raised, facilitating early identification of developments or opportunities where Board involvement/action would advance success.
• Board standing committees may exist for major areas of accountability in the functioning of Division I, such as finance, communications, student-athlete well-being, academic standards, governance, enforcement, and there should be a nominating committee added as well.
Ad-Hoc Working Groups
• The Board should also leave open the option of forming ad-hoc groups to deal with specific and significant issues as they arise.
NCAA Division I Board Steering Committee on Governance Draft Governance System Design January 2014 Page 9
Proposed Structure: The PAG • The Division I Presidential Advisory Group is a body
of presidents reporting to the Division I Board.
• It shall advise and provide input to the seven members of the group who serve on the Board of Directors.
• The PAG will continue to be a key mechanism for presidents in conferences not represented on the board to connect with the governance system, be a source of strategic input, and advise the Division I Board on matters in the FCS and DI subdivisions.
NCAA Division I Board Steering Committee on Governance Draft Governance System Design January 2014 Page 10
Proposed Sub-Structure: The Council Roles and Responsibilities • The Council will be a high-level body, reporting directly to the Division I Board, with primary responsibility for
legislative and championships issues. It will collaborate with the Board on strategic and policy issues. It will be focused on empowering the practitioner level, making legislative decisions, and providing the Board with input on matters that support its oversight responsibilities. It will have primary responsibility for legislation, and will exercise plenary authority over all Division I sports.
Size, Composition
• Comprised of ADs, FARs, SWAs and commissioners, as well as Presidents from conferences not currently represented on the Division I Board.
• Representation from all conferences will be mandated.
• May also include 3-5 additional at-large seats.
• All will be selected by the Division I Board through its nominations committee and process.
Voting Structure
• The Council will have primary responsibility for legislative matters, with representation from all conferences, and voting mechanisms will be developed.
Operating Components
• The Council will have three formal substructures: Championships, with responsibility for playing and practice seasons and NCAA championships; Academics, with responsibility for APR, academic penalties, GSR, initial, continuing and transfer eligibility and Legislative Formulation.
• The Council can create other substructures as desired. Selection, Nomination and Qualifications • A formal nominations process for this will be developed in conjunction with the Board committee on nominations.
Membership Access and Connection • Regular mechanisms for feedback and two-way communication will be put into place to ensure membership connection
and enfranchisement, and to build trust.
NCAA Division I Board Steering Committee on Governance Draft Governance System Design January 2014 Page 11
• Maintain diversity of the current Division I membership under the “Big Tent” model.
• Agreement on legislative autonomy for the SEC, Big Ten, PAC-12, ACC and Big 12 and their institutions over regulations that are most sensitive to the differentiation of institutions. This will include setting the bar high in terms of the related decision-making process. And although this group will have full capacity to act, they will also have an obligation to invite comment from across Division I.
• Shared governance in other areas, recognizing the diversity of institutions and differing needs, but preserving meaningful participation for the full Division I membership.
• Continued access to NCAA basketball championships for all conferences.
• Continued distribution of NCAA revenue through the existing model.
• A simplified legislative structure that is managed by ADs and populated with senior-level practitioners who best understand the realities on campus and in competition, but one in which overall presidential oversight will remain a fundamental principle, on an exception rather than a routine basis.
• A legislative process that is simple, has an annual cycle and involves sufficient and effective membership input.
NCAA Division I Board Steering Committee on Governance Draft Governance System Design January 2014 Page 12
Legislative Autonomy
• Defined as the ability, within the current NCAA structure, for the SEC, B1G, PAC-12, ACC and Big 12 conferences and their institutions to adopt reforms in a regulatory structure that respects the demands on student-athletes in the 21st century and acknowledges the need for these conferences/institutions to define rules that address their unique challenges.
Proposed Areas for Autonomy
• Define a full grant-in-aid as meeting a student-athlete’s cost of attendance in a manner consistent with the core values of the collegiate model and not to exceed total cost of attendance.
• Lifetime opportunity to fund the undergraduate education of current and former student-athletes. New resources and greater accountability for success of student-athletes.
• Enhanced benefits provided to student-athletes for the purpose of supporting their needs based on available resources.
• Ensure that addressing health and safety needs remain a top priority.
• Creation of “athletics dead periods” for student-athletes to access opportunities outside of intercollegiate athletics.
• Comprehensive support for academically at-risk student-athletes.
• Redefinition of rules governing agents and advisors to assist student-athletes with career planning.
• Personnel limits. (number of non-coaching personnel).
Proposed Legislative Structure
NCAA Division I Board Steering Committee on Governance Draft Governance System Design January 2014 Page 13
Shared Governance Across All Division I Institutions and Conferences • Defined as any matter not otherwise identified as “autonomy” or “football,” will be part of
shared governance across Division I. Intended to maintain standards of access and excellence in a uniform manner across all Division I conferences and institutions in specific areas.
Examples of Areas for Shared Governance • Access to championships to all conferences. • Revenue distribution maintained. • Team scholarship limits in sports other than football. • Establishment of minimum academic standards.
Proposed Process for Decision-Making in Shared Governance Across All Division I Institutions and Conferences
• Regular responsibility for legislation will be delegated to the Council, and the Board will intercede only in extenuating circumstances, principles to be determined.
• Still to be determined are the details of what bodies or groups are authorized to propose legislation, and the process for adopting, including the nature of weighted voting, which ultimately will afford high-resource conferences more weight in developing policy; using various majority/supermajority voting structures.
• There will be some form of override but it will be modified - the threshold will be higher than exists today.
Proposed Legislative Structure
NCAA Division I Board Steering Committee on Governance Draft Governance System Design January 2014 Page 14
NCAA Core Values The Association – through its member institutions, conferences and national office staff – shares a belief in and commitment to:
• The collegiate model of athletics in which students participate as an avocation, balancing their academic, social and athletics experiences.
• The highest levels of integrity and sportsmanship.
• The pursuit of excellence in both academics and
• athletics.
• The supporting role that intercollegiate athletics plays in the higher education mission and in enhancing the sense of community and strengthening the identity of member institutions.
• An inclusive culture that fosters equitable participation for student-athletes and career opportunities for coaches and administrators from diverse backgrounds.
• Respect for institutional differences and the appropriate way they manifest themselves in intercollegiate athletics.
• Presidential leadership of intercollegiate athletics at the campus, conference and national levels.
SUPPLEMENT NO. 2 DI Board of Directors 1/14
REPORT OF THE OCTOBER 30, 2013, MEETING OF THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION
DIVISION I BOARD OF DIRECTORS
1. Report of the August 8, 2013, Board of Directors Meeting. The Board of Directors
approved the report of its August 8, 2013, meeting. (Unanimous Voice Vote.)
2. NCAA President’s Report. President Emmert commended the group on the previous day’s meeting with various stakeholder groups and emphasized the importance of maintaining a focus on student-athlete well-being and how a new structure can contribute to the success of student-athletes.
3. Governance Discussion. The Board was joined by NCAA Division I Presidential Advisory Group (PAG) members to review the stakeholder presentations from the previous day. The group was encouraged by the fact that there appears to be a number of common interests among groups; however, there also remain a number of significant unanswered questions (e.g., nature of autonomy). The group noted that there does not appear to be an interest in forming a separate division or subdivision for the most highly resourced institutions, but there is a desire to find a way to provide these institutions with more flexibility in the area of student-athlete benefits, which includes travel, meals, academic programming and possibly allowing financial aid related to the cost of attendance. The Board agreed that it should be focused more on overarching strategy and vision for the division and less on the day-to-day operational activities. The group also acknowledged the importance of continued collaboration with other stakeholders as the Board and its Steering Committee on Governance works to identify a more transparent, streamlined and simple governance structure/process. BOARD ACTION: The Board agreed to empower the Board of Directors Steering Committee on Governance to develop alternative governance models and to identify agenda topics for review and discussion during the January 16-17, 2014, Division I Dialogue sessions. (Unanimous voice vote.)
4. NCAA Division I Legislative Council Report. The Board received the following report
of the October 21, 2013, Legislative Council Meeting: a. The Legislative Council reviewed the proposals included in the 2013-14 legislative
cycle. The Council discussed a group of proposals referred to as a “safety package” for which there was support expressed for the concepts, yet some concerns were raised philosophically as to whether such items should be legislative mandates as opposed to recommended practices, as well concern regarding some interpretations. The Council is working with the sponsors (NCAA Committee on Competitive
SUPPLEMENT NO. 2 DI Board of Directors 1/14 Page No. 2 _________
Safeguards and Medical Aspect of Sport) to address the concerns before a January vote.
b. The Legislative Council reviewed several proposals developed in response to the Phase I Rules Working Group Proposals previously suspended or tabled by the Board in the area of recruiting. The Council agreed to place these proposals into this year’s legislative cycle. The proposals relate to initial dates for recruiting communication/ contact, modes of communication and printed recruiting materials. The proposals will be placed in the Official Notice to be posted by November 15 and the Legislative Council will vote on them in January.
c. The Legislative Council also placed into this year’s legislative cycle a select few proposals recommended by the Rules Working Group as part of their Phase II initiative, primarily related to financial aid, one specifically related to meals incidental to participation and snacks. Those proposals also will be placed in the Official Notice and the Legislative Council will vote on them in January.
d. The Legislative Council engaged in a discussion regarding the new governance
structure, specifically the role of a legislative body in a new structure. The group agreed there was merit in retaining such an entity, noting the need to establish clearer roles for legislative bodies and processes to ensure new proposals align with and address the Association’s enduring values as well as the recently adopted Division I commitments.
5. NCAA Division I Leadership Council report. The Board received the following report of the October 23-24, 2013, Leadership Council meeting:
a. NCAA Division I Leadership Council Football Recruiting Subcommittee. The
Leadership Council reviewed five proposals developed by the Leadership Council Football Recruiting Subcommittee and took the following actions:
(1) Agreed to recommend the NCAA Division I Board of Directors adopt the
following legislation for Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) football, effective immediately:
(a) A proposal that would prohibit coaches from attending all-star contests
and from contacting prospective student-athletes participating in an all-star contest from the time the prospective student-athlete arrives in the locale of the contest until he returns to either his home or to his educational institution. [See Proposal No. 2013-32.]
SUPPLEMENT NO. 2 DI Board of Directors 1/14 Page No. 3 _________
(b) A proposal that would establish a dead period that begins on the Monday of the week that includes the initial date of the midyear junior college transfer National Letter of Intent (NLI) signing period, extends through the Wednesday of the week of the annual AFCA Convention and maintains the existing exception for contact with prospective student-athletes admitted for midyear enrollment, provided the prospective student-athlete has signed an NLI or other offer of admission and/or financial aid to attend the institution and is required to be on campus to attend institutional orientation sessions for all students. [See Proposal No. 2013-34.]
(c) A proposal that would establish a 14-day dead period in July that begins July 1, if July 1 is a Monday; otherwise, on the Monday immediately preceding July 1. [See Proposal No. 2013-35.]
(d) A proposal that would permit a student-athlete to participate in eight hours per week of required weight training and conditioning instruction, and review of game and practice film with a coach (not to exceed two hours per week) during an eight-week period during the summer in accordance with specified requirements (i.e., enrollment in summer school, opt-out academic benchmarks). [See Proposal No. 2013-36.]
(e) A proposal that would permit institutions to provide meals for up to four family members accompanying a prospective student-athlete on an official visit, as specified. [See Proposal No. 2013-33.]
BOARD ACTION: The FBS members of the Board voted to adopt the five recommended proposals. (Unanimous voice vote.) [Note: The Board noted a concern that could impact the United States Military Academy and the United States Naval Academy due to the date of the annual Army vs. Navy football game and the impact this change would have on their recruiting opportunities in the month of December. It was noted that if this change indeed imposes a hardship on these institutions, they are invited to pursue a waiver through the NCAA Division I Legislative Council Subcommittee on Legislative Relief for temporary relief.]
b. Division I Men’s and Women’s Basketball Recruiting. The Leadership Council
reviewed a request from the Women’s Basketball Coaches Association (WBCA) and the National Association of Basketball Coaches (NABC) to eliminate a second non-scholastic evaluation weekend in May in those years when there is not an opportunity
SUPPLEMENT NO. 2 DI Board of Directors 1/14 Page No. 4 _________
for two weekends in April. The Leadership Council agreed to recommend that the Division I Board of Directors adopt this change in legislation, effective immediately. [See Proposal Nos. 2013-37 and 2013-38.]
BOARD ACTION: The Board voted to adopt the recommended change to the men’s and women’s basketball recruiting models, effective immediately. (Unanimous voice vote.)
6. Transforming Intercollegiate Athletics Collegiate Model – Enforcement Working
Group. The Enforcement Working Group, with the support of the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions and Infractions Appeals Committee, recommended that the Board amend Bylaw 19.3 to specify that an appeals advocate, as designated for each hearing panel, be able to fully participate in an infractions hearing (i.e., actively participate in the hearing and deliberations). BOARD ACTION: The Board voted to approve the amendment as recommended. (Unanimous voice vote.)
7. NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions. The committee requested the Board
approve several revisions to the committee’s internal operating procedures (IOPs). [Reference Supplement No. 5]
BOARD ACTION: The Board voted to approve the revisions to the committee’s IOPs. (Unanimous voice vote.)
8. Discussion of Online Courses. The Board discussed the increasing use of online courses by student-athletes and whether reliance on such courses is consistent with resident academic programs for student-athletes. The Board referred the issue to the Leadership Council for a more extensive review.
9. Other Business. The Board was informed that the term expirations of all the Football Bowl Subdivision positions on Division I cabinets and councils are scheduled for June 30, 2014. It was suggested that with the impending governance structure review and the likely changes that will occur, it seems prudent to suspend the expiration of these terms until the appropriate membership structure and supporting governance bodies are identified.
SUPPLEMENT NO. 2 DI Board of Directors 1/14 Page No. 5 _________
BOARD ACTION: The Board voted to suspend the June 30, 2014, term expirations for NCAA Division I cabinet and council members until the appropriate membership structure and supporting governance bodies are identified. (Unanimous voice vote.)
10. Future Meeting Dates.
a. Saturday, January 18, 2014, San Diego, California. [In conjunction with the 2014 NCAA Convention.]
b. Thursday, April 24, 2014, Indianapolis, Indiana.
c. Thursday, August 7, 2014, Indianapolis, Indiana.
d. Thursday, October 30, 2014, Indianapolis, Indiana.
e. Saturday, January 17, 2015, Washington, DC. [In conjunction with the 2015 NCAA
Convention.] Board of Directors chair: Nathan Hatch, Wake Forest University, Atlantic Coast Conference Staff Liaisons: S. David Berst, Division I governance
Jacqueline Campbell, Division I governance
Division I Board of Directors October 30, 2013, Meeting
ATTENDEES ABSENTEES Gene Block, University of California, Los Angeles, Pacific-12 Conference
Michael Drake, University of California, Irvine, Big West Conference
Rita Cheng, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Missouri Valley Conference
Harris Pastides, University of South Carolina, Southeastern Conference
Philip Hanlon, Dartmouth College, Ivy League Patrick Harker, University of Delaware, Colonial Athletic Association
Nathan Hatch, Wake Forest University, Atlantic Coast Conference, chair
John Hitt, University of Central Florida, American Athletic Conference
David Hopkins, Wright State University, Horizon League
SUPPLEMENT NO. 2 DI Board of Directors 1/14 Page No. 6 _________
documentcenter.ncaa.org/msaa/gov/DI Committees/Board of Directors/2014-01 Board of Directors/02, BOD REPORT 10.30.13.docx:vlm:1/9/14
Horace Mitchell, California State University, Bakersfield, Western Athletic Conference
Daniel Papp, Kennesaw State University, Atlantic Sun Conference
Baker Patillo, Stephen F. Austin State University, Southland Conference
Joseph Savoie, University of Louisiana, Lafayette, Sun Belt Conference
Kirk Schulz, Kansas State University , Big 12 Conference
Lou Anna Simon, Michigan State University, Big Ten Conference
Neal Smatresk, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Mountain West Conference
Guests for the Division I Presidential Advisory Group: William Beauchamp, University of Portland, West Coast Conference David Chicoine, South Dakota State University, Summit League James Danko, Butler University, Big East Conference Greg Dell’Omo, Robert Morris University, Northeast Conference Walter Harrison, University of Hartford, America East Conference John Hurley, Canisius College, Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference Penelope Kyle, Radford University, Big South Conference Kay Norton, University of Northern Colorado, Big Sky Conference Philip Oldham, Tennessee Technological University, Ohio Valley Conference Michael Rao, Virginia Commonwealth University, Atlantic 10 Conference Harry Williams, Delaware State University, Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference George C. Wright, Prairie View A&M University, Southwestern Athletic Conference NCAA staff liaisons in attendance: David Berst, Jacqueline Campbell
Other Guests: Jean Frankel, Ideas for Action, LLC Noreen Morris, Northeast Conference, chair of the Division I Leadership Council. Mary Mulveena, America East Conference, chair of the Division I Legislative Council.
Other NCAA staff members in attendance for portions of the meeting: Mark Emmert, Michelle Hosick, Jim Isch, Cari Klecka, Steve Mallonee, Kathleen McNeely, Binh Nguyen, Stacey Osborn, Donald Remy, Kris Richardson and Bob Williams.
[Note to NCAA Division I Board of Directors: The issue and recommendation below has been forwarded to the NCAA Division I Leadership Council for its consideration and approval.
This document is being shared with the Board for informational purposes only.]
Temporary Review Process for Specified Regulatory Waivers, Amateurism Certification Decisions and Student-Athlete Reinstatement Conditions
Issue. In some areas, the strict application of NCAA legislation, (sub)committee directives or guidelines and case precedent results in outcomes the membership increasingly views as too harsh and inconsistent with recent reform efforts to focus on rules that are meaningful, enforceable or that contribute to student-athlete success. Background. At the August 2011 presidential retreat, the NCAA Working Group on Collegiate Model - Rules was charged with reviewing the NCAA Division I Manual and identifying legislation that was inconsequential, unenforceable or not supportive of student-athlete success. In January 2013, 25 proposals recommended by the Rules Working Group were adopted by the NCAA Division I Board of Directors and became effective in August 2013. With the exception of three recruiting proposals that have been sponsored by the NCAA Division I Legislative Council in modified form, this deregulation generally has been well-received, particularly in areas involving benefits and expenses for student-athletes. In addition to the legislative review, NCAA staff was charged by the Board with reviewing existing rules interpretations to ensure consistency with a new regulatory environment that prioritizes meaningful rules and increased local decision-making and autonomy. The staff continues to make progress in this area and has done so in collaboration with the membership [e.g., Collegiate Commissioners Association Compliance Administrators (CCACA), National Association for Athletics Compliance (NAAC)]. Despite the success of these reform efforts, several areas of legislation remain, which could result in harsh outcomes for prospective or enrolled student-athletes if applied consistent with current (sub)committee directives or guidelines and case precedent. Specifically, some legislation sets forth specific penalties or withholding conditions and (sub)committee waiver directives or guidelines remain in place that can result in an inappropriate negative impact to a prospective or enrolled student-athlete. Included below are examples of legislated areas where these circumstances may exist. In these areas, staff and waiver (sub)committees have received increased feedback over the last several months from the membership at all positional levels (e.g., athletics director, president, compliance, coach, faculty) and all Division I membership levels regarding the perceived harsh outcome of waivers. To ensure this issue is one that needs to be rectified or mitigated however, the staff has set forth a recommendation and specific questions below for the Leadership Council to consider.
SUPPLEMENT NO. 4 DI Board of Directors 1/14 Page No. 2 _________ The staff recognizes that, as a normal course of business, permanent solutions to the issues identified in this document should be addressed through the governance process. However, given the ongoing governance review and likely timeline before new governance entities will be in place to recommend any potential solutions, staff feels it is necessary to use this temporary process to provide more appropriate outcomes to prospective and enrolled student-athletes in the short-term. Recommendation. The staff is requesting the Leadership Council grant staff authority to consider extenuating circumstances and exercise reasonable discretion in evaluating cases where the prescribed analysis, as set forth in the legislation, (sub)committee directives or guidelines and case precedent, result in an inappropriate negative impact to a prospective or enrolled student-athlete. Specifically, after determining the impact of a prescribed penalty, the staff is proposing to allow additional consideration of mitigating factors that may justify departure from the established penalty or outcome in the following categories of cases: Cases involving the health and safety of a student-athlete, or instances in which the
prescribed penalty or outcome would likely have a significant negative impact on a student-athlete’s well-being.
Cases involving prospective or enrolled student-athletes who have served active duty in
the military or who have delayed collegiate enrollment due to serving official religious missions.
Cases that involve the potential for significant withholding conditions (e.g., a year in
residence and one or more seasons of intercollegiate competition, loss of all or part of final year of eligibility), despite the existence of circumstances indicating that the application of prescribed penalties is disproportionate or otherwise inconsistent with the intent of the legislation.
Cases involving nominal or inconsequential benefits to student-athletes. Questions for the Leadership Council to Consider. The Leadership Council is encouraged to consider the following questions in its review of this recommendation. Feedback on these specific questions will ensure the proposed course of action is supported by the membership and appropriate in scope. 1. Do you agree that granting staff additional discretion as described above is appropriate?
2. Are there categories of cases that should be excluded from this temporary process? 3. Are there categories of cases that should be added to this temporary process?
SUPPLEMENT NO. 4 DI Board of Directors 1/14 Page No. 3 _________ 4. Other than the waiver (sub)committees, is there another body in the current governance
structure that should oversee and monitor this temporary process? Case Types Subject to Temporary Review Process. Initial-Eligibility Waivers. Cases involving personal hardship and military service (flexibility regarding partial
approval for athletics aid only at a minimum). Beginning in the 2014-15 academic year, for cases in which partial approval for athletics
aid only is provided, include a condition that would permit the student-athlete to earn practice in the immediately subsequent regular academic term of the first year (e.g., spring semester) by meeting requirements in the previous academic term. [Note: this policy recommendation will be presented to the NCAA Division I Academic Cabinet in February 2014.]
Cases involving nonqualifiers asserting military service as mitigation for not meeting
initial-eligibility requirements (e.g., not taking standardized examination or rectifying core course deficiency due to enlistment).
Cases already decided in the 2013-14 academic year will not be reconsidered.
Amateurism Certification Process. Cases involving delayed initial collegiate enrollment due to active duty military service,
participation on an official religious mission or in which a prospective student-athlete triggers the delayed enrollment legislation based on participation in minimal or loosely organized competition (e.g., prospect participated in recreational league with other military personnel while on active duty, prospect participated in five minutes of organized competition in municipal league, prospect participated in 5K “fun run” outside of one-year grace period).
Cases in which a prospective student-athlete triggers the delayed enrollment/organized
competition legislation as a result of high school or prep school competition. Cases involving a written agreement to participate in athletics in which the prospective
student-athlete never received in excess of actual and necessary expenses. Student-Athlete Academic Waivers.
SUPPLEMENT NO. 4 DI Board of Directors 1/14 Page No. 4 _________
documentcenter.ncaa.org/msaa/gov/DI Committees/Board of Directors/2014-01 Board of Directors/04, Temp Waiver Review Process - BoD.docx:vlm:1/9/14
Cases in which a student-athlete's active military service or participation in an official religious mission impacted his or her ability to meet progress-toward-degree requirements or 2-4 transfer requirements (e.g., enlisted in military service after one semester of two-year college enrollment).
Cases involving requests for relief of the full-time enrollment legislation where the
student-athlete is enrolled less than full-time for reasons related to health, well-being or personal hardship or is eligible for a less than full-time accommodation due to a recognized education-impacting disability, regardless of whether the institution recognizes the student-athlete as a full-time student under the circumstances.
Legislative Relief Waivers. Cases involving the health and safety of a student-athlete or his or her immediate family
member. Cases involving the assertion of significant personal hardship (e.g., death or serious
illness of immediate family member, extreme financial hardship). Cases in which the application of the legislation would likely have an inappropriate
negative impact on a student-athlete’s well-being. Consideration of additional benefits for nonqualifiers (e.g., attending team banquets,
traveling with the team) who receive a partial approval when warranted by the circumstances.
Cases involving use of a student-athlete’s likeness for nonathletic reasons (e.g., student-
athlete writing a book or selling artwork). Cases involving 4-4 transfers are not subject to this temporary review process. Student-Athlete Reinstatement. Cases in which a student-athlete was provided a benefit(s) not permitted by the
legislation out of concern for their health, safety or well-being.
Cases in which a student-athlete does not meet the criteria for an extension to the five-year clock, but whose circumstances warrant additional flexibility.
Cases will not include requests to regain a season of competition used while representing
an institution in competition absent extraordinary circumstances.
