Previously Asked Questions
Bylaw 15
Question: A scholarship was offered to one of our baseball athletes. The $1,000 scholarship is given by the **** Baseball Organization to the athlete that best represents a previous *** player who passed away some time ago. The scholarship is intended to "assist in paying for tuition, books and fees" at any institution. It is based on the player's performance for the ***** team. It does not appear to fit under Bylaw 15.2.3.5-(a) and (f). Can the athlete accept it? Or, should the money instead be donated directly to the institution’s baseball program?
Answer: Per NCAA Bylaw 15.2.3.5, the athlete may not accept this scholarship. It would be permissible, since the student-athlete never received the funds (meaning he never used it contrary to the provisions of Bylaw 15.2.3.5), for the money to be donated directly to the institution’s baseball program. It would be better if the sponsor of the award gave it in the name of an institution, not a particular student.
Question [Note: question posed in August 2005]: Has the Financial Aid Committee discussed or created the types of justifications that will be deemed acceptable?
Answer: The FA Committee has discussed various types of justifications. There is no "menu" of acceptable justifications I could point to for schools to rely on during this process. My sense is that this is really a case by case, school by school review and that a justification that appears similar on the surface as presented by school A and school B, could be decisively different upon closer analysis which could lead to two different results for schools A and B.
Question [Note: question posed in August 2005]: Will an institution with a variance of 4.67%, for example, be considered to be in violation? Or, can you round down?
Answer: Above 4.0% is not in compliance with the variance established. No rounding down. An institution could argue that a 4.43% variance is minimally over 4%, but that is a "relative" argument (e.g., what's minimal?). Again, I cannot speculate as to what justifications the committee will accept regardless of an institution's variance.
Question [Note: question posed in August 2005]: For a school that is found to be in non-compliance and their justification is not accepted, will the sanctions be applied to the entire program? Or, simply the individual sports/teams that exceed the maximum variance?
Answer: If an institution goes through the Level I and II review process whereby the committee does not accept the variance nor justifications, the institution is forwarded to NCAA Enforcement for investigation. From there, the committee is out of the process and any penalties issued by Enforcement will be completely separate from the review process. It's possible that Enforcement's penalties apply to one
or two sport teams at one school, and to an entire athletics programs at others. Again, this goes to the nature of the variance (why the 4%+ variance? Team specific? Across the board?) and the case by case, school by school review. I can affirm that this process, including Enforcement's role, maintains an emphasis on the educational undercurrent with regards to DIII financial aid legislation. For example, penalties might require institutional staff to attend seminars or national office session on DIII FA legislation and principles. Again, I do not know specifics with regard to Enforcement penalties. The idea is that this process first and foremost is an educational endeavor, but there clearly is a penal component to it, which I refrain from speculation.
