NCAA Division I Presidential Working
Groups -- Rules and Enforcement
Working Groups
Overview and Updates
2012 NCAA Regional
Rules Seminars
Session Game Plan
 Presidential Working Groups.
 Rules Working Group.
 Enforcement Working Group.
 Additional information.
 Resources, feedback, etc.
Presidential Working Groups -Overview
 Working groups were created after the August
2011 NCAA Presidential Retreat.
 To affect needed change in the areas of
student-athlete well-being, academics, NCAA
bylaws, the enforcement and penalty process,
and fiscal sustainability in
Division I.
Presidential Working Groups
 NCAA Working Group on Collegiate Model 



Rules.
NCAA Working Group on Collegiate Model Enforcement.
NCAA Working Group on Collegiate Model Student-Athlete Well-Being.
NCAA Working Group on Collegiate Model Resource Allocation.
NCAA Division I Committee on Academic
Performance.
Rules Working Group
 Charge: Review and amend the NCAA
Division I Manual to reduce the volume of the
unenforceable and inconsequential rules that
fail to support our enduring values and place
emphasis on the most strategically important.
The group will also recommend processes and
procedures that ensures new legislation aligns
and addresses our enduring values.
Rules Working Group Roster
 Chair: Jim Barker, president, Clemson University
 Bob Bowlsby, director of athletics, Stanford University
 Joe Castiglione, director of athletics, University of






Oklahoma
Beth DeBauche, commissioner, Ohio Valley Conference
John DeGioia, president, Georgetown University
Dydia DeLyser, faculty athletics representative, Louisiana
State University
Jon Duncan, consultant, Spencer Fane Britt & Brown LLP
Amy Folan, associate athletics director for compliance,
University of Texas at Austin
Jim Haney, executive director, National Association of
Basketball Coaches
Rules Working Group Roster (cont.)
 Warde Manuel, director of athletics, University of





Connecticut
Charles Nelms, chancellor, North Carolina Central
University
Harvey Perlman, chancellor, University of Nebraska –
Lincoln
Greg Sankey, associate commissioner, Southeastern
Conference
Curtis Schickner, baseball student-athlete, University of
Maryland, Baltimore County
Steadman Upham, president, University of Tulsa

Tim White, chancellor, UC Riverside
Liaisons: Diane Dickman, Lynn Holzman, Kevin Lennon,
Steve Mallonee, Dave Schnase
Rules Working Group --Why Do This?
 Current regulatory culture.
 Regulating competitive equity.
 Too many rules.
 Not nationally significant.
 Too prescriptive.
 Regulate through a "one size fits all"
approach.
 Regulate against natural advantages.
Rules Working Group --Why Do This?
(cont.)
 Compliance and enforcement culture.
 Unnecessary complexities .
 No sense of administrative priorities.
 Inability to enforce.
 Cost-benefit analysis regarding rules
compliance.
Rules Working Group -- Benefits of a New
Approach
 Rules are meaningful, enforceable and
contribute to students success -- our values
and why we regulate.
 Principle-based approach -- outcomes we
seek.
 Rules with consequences.
 Reduction in unnecessary administrative
burden.
Rules Working Group -- Benefits of a
New Approach (cont.)
 Focus compliance efforts on what is most
important.
 Increase in shared responsibility for rules and
compliance.
 New rules -- higher scrutiny.
 Increase in public confidence that rules are
important.
Rules Working Group -- How Do We Do
This?
 Redefine competitive equity -- concept of
Fairness of Competition.
 Develop new regulatory construct.
Rules Working Group --Three Key Areas
 Institutional Commitments.
 Operating Bylaws.
 Issues Related to Structure/Process.
Rules Working Group -- Institutional
Commitments
 Currently entitled “NCAA Constitution, Article 2
-- Principles for Conduct of Intercollegiate
Athletics.”
 Describes 16 different principles “to which the
members are committed.”
 Designed to articulate the priorities at the highest level
and set the overall direction for the Association.
 Intentionally broad, as implementing detail is provided
in supporting and specific bylaws.
 All bylaws in the Manual, and all future legislation,
should advance one or more of these provisions.
Rules Working Group -- Institutional
Commitments
 Recommended changes are designed to:
 More accurately capture the fundamental principles
of the collegiate model;
 Update arguably obsolete language; and
 Streamline and simplify provisions in Constitution 2.
*Not all constitutional principles are being reviewed by
this group but remain very important (e.g., diversity,
gender-equity, fiscal management).
Commitment to Fair Competition
 Highlights:
 Bylaws designed to promote opportunity for
institutions and student-athletes to engage in
fair competition.
 Uniform bylaws impacting athletics
competition.
 Bylaws not designed to foreclose advantages
from institutional decisions regarding
allocation of resources or advantages or
disadvantages that may arise from
geographical location.
 Two alternatives being considered.
Operating Bylaws
 Intended to regulate day-to-day activities.
 Should have a nexus to institutional
commitments.
Operating Bylaws Nexus to
Commitments:
Bylaw 11 (Personnel) Example
 NCAA Commitment.
 2.5 Commitment to Institutional Control and
Compliance.
 Operating Bylaw Concept -- Bylaw 11
(personnel).
 Member institutions, as opposed to outside
persons or entities, shall be responsible for
determining who they employ and the amount of
salary each employee receives, consistent with
Association bylaws and subject to institutional
policies and procedures.
Operating Bylaws Nexus to
Commitments:
Bylaw 13 (Recruiting) Example
 NCAA Commitment.
 2.8 Commitment to Responsible Recruiting
Standards.
 Operating Bylaw Concept -- Bylaw 13
(recruiting).
 Eliminate restrictions governing modes and
restrictions (numerical limitations) on recruiting
communication and, establish regulations that
provide for earlier access (specific initial dates for
communication and contact) with prospective
student-athletes.
Operating Bylaws Nexus to
Commitments:
Bylaw 13 (Recruiting) Example
 NCAA Commitment.
 2.8 Commitment to Responsible Recruiting
Standards.
 Operating Bylaw Concept -- Bylaw 13
(recruiting).
 Recruiting materials.
 Deregulate completely and permit any and all
materials;
 Prohibit all recruiting materials; or
 Permit only those materials produced for all
prospective students by the admissions office.
Operating Bylaws Nexus to
Commitments: Bylaw 16 (Awards and
Benefits) Example
 NCAA Commitment.
 2.6 Commitment to Student-Athlete WellBeing.
 Operating Bylaw Concept -- Bylaw 16 (awards
and benefits).
 Permit an institution to provide academic
counseling and support services that are
determined reasonable and appropriate for the
success of the student-athletes.
Bylaw 16 (Awards and Benefits)
Example
 Permit an institution to provide academic
counseling and support services that are
determined reasonable and appropriate for
the success of the student-athletes.
 Institutional autonomy.
 Individualized approach.
 Costs?
 Reasonable?
Operating Bylaws -- Discussion Points
 Is the bylaw meaningful and of consequence?
 Is it an issue that merits a national regulation or
can it simply be addressed by institutions or
conferences?
 Does it support one or more commitments?
 Is the rule necessary?
 Is the bylaw enforceable?
 Does the rule present significant challenges either
in monitoring compliance or proving violations ?
 Does the bylaw further student-athlete success?
 Academic and/or athletics success.
 What challenges may arise as a result of the
change?
Structure and Process
 Expected changes to regulatory environment.
 New rules (bylaws) must have nexus to
commitment.
 Impact on interpretations.
 Greater responsibility at institution and conference
level.
 Impact on other regulatory work.
 NCAA Division I Institutional Performance Program,
student-athlete reinstatement, etc.
 Collaboration with Enforcement Working Group
is ongoing and critical.
 Bylaws should align with Enforcement Working Group
outcomes.
NCAA Division I Presidential Rules
Working Group --Timeline/Next Steps
 Phase I -- Part I review consists of NCAA
Division I Bylaw 11 (personnel), Bylaw 13
(recruiting) and Bylaw 16 (awards and benefits).
 March through April 20.
 Phase I -- Part 2 review consists of Bylaw 12
(amateurism) and Bylaw 14 (eligibility).
 May 7 through June 29.
 Phase II review consists of Bylaw 15 (financial
aid) and Bylaw 17 (playing seasons).
NCAA Division I Presidential Rules
Working Group --Timeline/Next Steps
 May 7 through June 29: Feedback collection:
 Bylaw 12 (amateurism)
 Bylaw 14 (eligibility).
 July: Rules Working Group meeting.
NCAA Division I Presidential Rules
Working Group --Timeline/Next Steps
 August 2: NCAA Division I Board of Directors
meeting. Rules Working Group provides
progress report. No legislative action
anticipated.
 October 30 and/or January 19, 2013: Board of
Directors meeting. Legislative action on Rules
Working Group recommendations anticipated.
 TBD: Board of Directors meeting. Additional
legislative action on Rules Working Group
recommendations anticipated.
Rules Working Group -- Regional Rules
Seminars -- Discussion Opportunities






Division I Academics: Hot Topics
Division I Amateurism: Part II
Division I Recruiting: Part III
Division I Awards, Benefits and Expenses
Division I Financial Aid: Part II
Invitation-only programs:
 Division I Welcome to the World of Compliance
 Division I Advanced Program for Compliance
Administrators
Enforcement Working Group
 Charge: Create a multilevel NCAA rules
violation structure and an enhanced penalty
structure for NCAA rules infractions; and
re-establish a sense of shared responsibility,
among the interested individuals and entities
in intercollegiate athletics, for NCAA rules
compliance and enforcement.
Enforcement Working Group -- Roster











Chair: Ed Ray, president, Oregon State University
Dan Beebe, former conference commissioner
John Bravman, president, Bucknell University
Julie Cromer, senior woman administrator, Indiana University,
Bloomington
Pat Haden, director of athletics, University of Southern California
Robin Harris, commissioner, The Ivy League
Eleanor Myers, faculty athletics representative, Temple University
LouAnna Simon, president, Michigan State University
Grant Teaff, executive director, American Football Coaches
Association
David Williams, director of athletics, Vanderbilt University
Nancy Zimpher, chancellor, State University of New York System
Liaisons:
Julie Roe Lach, Tom Hosty,
Chris Strobel, Laura McNab, Molly Richman
Enforcement Working Group --Why Do
This?
 Culture of winning versus integrity.
 Risk-reward analysis.
 Increase in third-party interference and
influence.
 Public and membership distrust of the NCAA's
ability to police itself.
Enforcement Working Group --Why Do
This? (cont.)
 Violations:
 Current violation structure lacks flexibility.
 Process:
 Cases take too long and lack transparency.
 NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions’
workload unreasonable.
 Penalties:
 Approach to penalties not understood,
predictable or strong.
 More emphasis on head coach responsibility.
 Expectations of shared responsibility unclear.
Enforcement Working Group -- Benefits
of a New Approach
 Violators will be dealt with swiftly and when
appropriate, very seriously.
 Predictable penalties deter the risk/reward
analysis.
 Faster mode for processing cases; more
transparency and representation on
Committee on Infractions.
 Clear definition of institutional control.
 Clear definition of shared responsibility.
Enforcement Working Group -- How Do
We Do This?
 Establish multilevel violation structure.
 Overhaul process.
 Develop penalty guidelines.
 Define shared responsibility.
Multilevel Violation Structure
 Four proposed levels:
 Level I: Severe major (e.g., academic fraud).
 Level II: Major (e.g., coaching limitations).
 Level III: Secondary (e.g., limited early
contact).
 Level IV: Limited (e.g., recruiting
correspondence).
 Remaining Issues:
 Refine definitions.
 More examples needed in report -- creating
resource library.
Modified Process
 Expanded Committee on Infractions (24).
 Use of 6- to 7-person panels of Committee on






Infractions to hear Level I and II cases.
Inclusion of current/former presidents, current/former
directors of athletics and former coaches.
Redesigned allegations; reference to evidence
supporting charges.
More streamlined approach to processing Level II
cases.
Traditional approach to Level III cases (secondary).
Conference review of Level IV cases.
Remaining Issue:
 Implementation plan for additional Committee on
Infractions members.
Penalty Structure
 Use of penalty guidelines for Level I and II cases.
 Use of core penalties:
 Postseason bans, recruiting restrictions, fines,
scholarship restrictions, meaningful probation and
show cause orders.
 Aggravating and mitigating circumstances affect
severity of penalties.
 Ranges of penalties.
 Greater predictability and consistency.
 Remaining Issues:
 Better understanding of how mitigating and
aggravating factors apply.
 Creating resource library with detailed analysis
of last two years of cases.
Penalty Structure (cont.)
LEVEL I
LEVEL II
Significant Aggravation
Aggravation
Aggravation
Standard
Standard
Mitigation
Mitigation
Significant Mitigation
Head Coach Responsibility
 If violations occur in coach’s program,
presumption of coach responsibility.
 Results in head coach control violation (Bylaw
11.1.2.1).
 Head coach suspended from 10 to 100 percent
of the season.
 Level III (secondary) violations in football,
men’s and women’s basketball.
 Designated list of intentional Level III
violations (serious secondary).
 Head coach suspended from a contest when
staff member commits violation.
President and Athletics Director
Accountability
 Findings of Lack of Institutional Control.
 President’s name listed on the public
infractions report.
 Athletics directors’ name listed on the public
infractions report.
 Head coach’s name listed on the public
infractions report.
 Failure to Monitor.
 Athletics director’s name listed on the public
infractions report.
Effective Date and Implementation
 Adoption August 2012.
 Effective date 2013.
 Remaining issues:
 Impact on violations committed after August 1,
2012.
 Impact on pending cases.
 Plan for phasing in new Committee on
Infractions’ members and panels.
Shared Responsibility and The
Cooperative Principle
 The Cooperative Principle.
 Defining common expectations for all involved
in major (Level I or II) infractions matters.
 Roles and responsibilities of institutions,
conferences, at-risk coaches and enforcement
staff.
2012 Timeline and Next Steps
 January 12: General concepts reported to




Board of Directors.
January 30: Enforcement Working Group
provided preliminary report to membership.
February to March: Input from membership
and others.
April 10: Enforcement Working Group revised
proposals based on feedback.
April 26: Interim report to Board of Directors
and membership.
2012 Timeline and Next Steps
 May to June: Continued outreach -- conference
meetings; seminars.
 July: Enforcement Working Group will revise
proposals as needed.
 August 2: Board of Directors meeting. A majority of
Enforcement Working Group recommendations
have an August 2013 effective date but some (e.g.
amended rationale of Bylaw 11.1.2.1) have an
August 2012 effective date.
 August -- TBD: Enforcement Working Group
continues to refine, resolve and educate the
membership regarding the implementation of
recommendations approved/ adopted by the Board
of Directors.
Questions?
NCAA Division I Rules Working Group
and Enforcement Working Group
Submit Feedback!
Where to find up-to-date
information!
ncaa.org/workinggroups