Recruiting Travel Combined with Other Travel Date Issued: Dec 23, 2002 A coach who combines nonrecruiting travel (e.g., vacation, speaking engagement) with a recruiting trip may be replaced for purposes of recruitment with another authorized coach, provided the coach being replaced does not engage in additional recruiting activities until after he or she has returned to the institutions campus. Participating on Outside Team During the Weekend Before or After an Official Vacation Period Date Issued: Jul 28, 2004 A student-athlete may compete outside his or her institution's declared playing and practice season as a member of an outside team in any noncollegiate, amateur competition on a weekend (not included in the institution’s catalog as a vacation period) that immediately precedes or follows an institution’s official vacation period, provided the student-athlete does not miss class or exams.

IS

SU

E

20

DE

CE

MB

ER

20

06

DIVISION I RECRUITING CALENDAR

Baseball

♦ Dec. 1-31: Quiet Period

Football

♦ Dec. 1-16: Contact Period

♦ Dec. 17: Quiet Period

♦ Dec. 18: Dead Period

Men’s Basketball

♦ Dec. 1-23: Evaluation Period

♦ Dec. 24-26: Dead Period

♦ Dec. 27-31: Evaluation Period

Women’s Basketball

♦ Dec. 1-23: Evaluation Period

♦ Dec. 24-26: Dead Period

♦ Dec. 27-31: Evaluation Period

Softball

♦ Dec. 1-5: Quiet Period

♦ Dec. 6-10: Dead Period

♦ Dec. 11-31: Quiet Period

Volleyball

♦ Dec. 1-3: Contact / Evaluation Period

♦ Dec. 4-12: Quiet Period

♦ Dec. 13-31: Dead Period

DIVISION I RECRUITING DEFINITIONS

Contact Period

Time when it is permissible to make in-person, off campus, recruiting contacts and evaluations.

Dead Period

Time when it is not permissible to make in-person recruit-ing contacts or evaluations on or off the institution’s cam-pus or to permit official or unofficial visits by prospect’s to institution’s campus. Recruiting contacts or evaluations may be made.

Evaluation Period

Time when it is permissible to be involved in off-campus activities designed to assess the academic qualifications and playing ability of prospects. No in-person off-campus contact.

SO

UT

HE

RN

IL

LIN

OIS

UN

IVE

RS

ITY

TH

E C

OM

PL

IAN

CE

CO

NS

CIE

NC

ET

HE

CO

MP

LIA

NC

E C

ON

SC

IEN

CE

O

FF

ICIA

L N

EW

SL

ET

TE

R O

F T

HE

SA

LU

KI

AT

HL

ET

IC C

OM

PL

IAN

CE

OF

FIC

E

Competing Unattached in Individual Sports Q: Is it permissible for an institution to provide expenses (e.g., meals, entry fee, lodging) for a student-athlete to compete unattached, when that student-athlete is not representing the institution in competition (e.g., ineligible or "redshirting")? • When a student-athlete competes unattached in

any competition, the institution may not provide any expenses to the participating student-athlete.

Q: May an unattached student-athlete wear the uniform of the institution? • No. Wearing the uniform of the institution

constitutes representation of the institution. Q: Is the institution permitted to provide athletics training support and other medical services prior to and after the match for student-athletes who are competing unattached? • No. As a general rule, such expenses may not be

provided by the institution when the student-athlete is competing unattached.

Q: May an unattached student-athlete's institutional affiliation be identified in any manner (e.g., in a program, by an announcer)? • A: Identification of the unattached student-

athlete's institutional affiliation, in and of itself, does not constitute representation of the institution in intercollegiate competition; however, it is advisable that the unattached student-athlete's participation is clearly defined as being independent of the institution in order to avoid any confusion related to the student-athlete's participation.

RAPID REFERENCE: DECEMBER RECRUITING COMPLIANCE: DID YOU KNOW

QUESTIONS: UNATTACHED COMPETITION?

ATHLETIC REMINDERS: ”BECOME A SALUKI”

SALUKI ATHLETIC BOOSTER Q & A: GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF BOOSTER INVOLVEMENT IN A VIOLATION?

Page 2 SOUTHERN ILL INOIS UNIVERSITY

FROM A RECENT CHRONICLE ARTICLE:

The National Collegiate Athletic Association has placed the University of Kansas on probation for three years after finding that a booster made more than $5,000 in improper payments to two men's basketball players, and that a former graduate-assistant football coach provided test answers to two football prospects. As part of the university's penalty, the men's basketball and football teams face scholarship restrictions in the next two academic years, and the football team must limit the number of transfer students it accepts from two-year institutions. In addition, the booster is not allowed to associate with the athletics program for four years, and the former graduate-assistant coach may not work in college sports for three years without special permission. According to a report by the NCAA's Division I Committee on Infractions, the most severe problems in the football program occurred in the summer of 2003, when seven recruits from two-year institutions moved to the campus to participate in voluntary workouts and to take correspondence courses to qualify for admission to the university. According to the report, the graduate-assistant coach gave two of those players answers to a test they were taking in a dormitory room. The committee was also troubled by revelations that a booster had wined and dined a men's basketball recruit and the recruit's summer all-star coach during an NCAA tournament game in which Kansas appeared. After the player enrolled on the campus, the booster provided a $2,400 car loan to the player's mother. Those violations came to light during a conversation the booster had with the university's chancellor, Robert E. Hemenway, at an alumni event. Mr. Hemenway, the past chairman of the NCAA's Division I Board of Directors, asked the university's athletics director to investigate, and based on that inquiry, Kansas self-reported the problems to the NCAA. Other men's basketball boosters also came under fire in the report. The committee found that two more donors had been making improper gifts of up to $400 each to graduating men's basketball players for nearly two decades. Roy Williams, who was Kansas' head men's basketball coach for most of that period and is now head coach at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told the committee that a compliance official had said that the gifts were not a violation. The compliance officer did not recall saying that, but the committee ruled that the violations -- and any penalties -- would not follow Mr. Williams to North Carolina.

INFORMATION FOR SALUKI STUDENT-ATHLETES: NCAA GAMBLING REMINDER

Please note: some examples have been presented in this Q & A, however, not every possible situation has been covered. If you have any questions regarding your involvement with prospective or enrolled student-athletes and the NCAA rules and regulations, please direct those questions to: Christian Spears, Assistant Athletic Director (618) 453-5463 cspears@siu.edu or visit us on the web at: http://siusalukis.collegesports.com/ot/compliance.html

Page 3 SOUTHERN ILL INOIS UNIVERSITY

FROM THE CONFERENCE OFFICE: REMINDER

The Division I Board of Directors approved a recommendation to delete the labels Division I-A, I-AA and I-AAA from NCAA use, effective December 15, 2006. Additionally, the Board adopted the title “NCAA Division I Football Championship” to replace the “Division I-AA Football Championship”. Finally, the Board adopted the terms “Football Bowl Subdivision” and “NCAA Football Championship Subdivision” to refer to the level of football played by Division I members. 1. Why was there a need to change the subdivision labels? In recent years, the previous labels have generated a significant amount of concern among the I-AA and I-AAA membership, as the labels were confusing and misapplied by the public, boosters and media when referring not only to their football programs but their overall athletics programs (e.g., I-AA basketball program). In supporting the new labels, it was noted that Division I-A conferences attempt to brand each individual conference during the regular football season and seldom have used the I-A label. 2. Why were these particular titles selected? The labels were generated as a collective effort of the Division I membership as well as the NCAA staff to establish terms that were positive and reinforced the unique differences between the subdivision (i.e., that I-A football programs choose to participate in a postseason defined by a bowl system, while I-AA football programs choose to participate in the NCAA football championship postseason structure). 3. Isn’t the NCAA Division I Football Championship being played at the Fiesta Bowl this year? Like all new brands, there will be a period of adjustment for the fans and media. Nonetheless, we believe college football fans are savvy enough to know the difference between Texas vs. USC in the Rose Bowl and Appalachian State vs. Northern Iowa in the NCAA championship in Chattanooga, Tennessee. 4. When does the name change become effective? The change will become effective in conjunction with the 2006 NCAA Division I Football Championship (which culminates in a championship game on December 15 in Chattanooga, Tennessee). There is no expectation that the NCAA membership begin to adopt the use of the new labels until the championship. NCAA staff will work with the Division I football membership and NCAA media partners to facilitate this transition.

Institution: University of Iowa

Please note: This is an overview of their major infraction case. Violation Summary:

This case was resolved using the summary disposition process. The violations centered on fraud in the admissions process which resulted in ineligible competition by three foreign men's swimming student-athletes.

Penalty Summary:

Additional penalties imposed by the committee were as follows: public reprimand and censure; two years of probation; limitation of grants-in-aid in the sport of men's swimming to no more than 8.9 equivalencies during each of the 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 academic years; show cause provision placed on the former head men's swimming coach for a period of five years retroactive to 2004 and annual compliance reporting required.

FINDINGS OF VIOLATIONS OF NCAA LEGISLATION

The three former student-athletes falsified admissions documents by omitting previous college attendance. Moreover, the former head men's swimming coach (the "former head coach") had knowledge of the former student-athletes' previous college attendance prior to their enrollment at the institution and failed to report this information to institutional officials.

• UNETHICAL CONDUCT BY FORMER HEAD COACH

The former head coach did not on all occasions deport himself in accordance with the generally recognized high standards of honesty normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics in that (a) he had knowledge of former student-athletes 1, 2 and 3's omission of previous college attendance prior to enrollment at the institution and failed to report that information to institutional officials, as set forth in Finding No. 1; and (b) he provided false and misleading information to the institution when initially questioned about his knowledge of the student-athletes' previous college attendance.

• UNETHICAL CONDUCT BY FORMER STUDENT-ATHLETES

Former student-athletes 1, 2 and 3 did not on all occasions deport themselves in accordance with the generally recognized high standards of honesty normally associated with the conduct and administration of intercollegiate athletics in that they knowingly provided false information to institutional officials regarding previous college attendance, as set forth in Finding B-1.

PENALTIES

The institution and the former head swimming coach acknowledged and admitted to the facts of these findings and that the facts constitute violations of NCAA legislation. The institution accepted the resignation of its former swimming coach, in addition to forfeiting points earned and swimming team standings resulting from the ineligible participation of the three student-athletes. The institution did not believe a period of probation was warranted because "the violations were limited in nature and resulted from the intentional acts of several individuals who are no longer with the institution." The committee disagrees, and found that there were insufficient factors in this case to override the presumptive two-year probationary period.

1. The institution shall be publicly reprimanded and censored.

2. The institution shall be placed on two years of probation from November 2, 2006, to November 1, 2008.

3. The institution accepted the former head coach's resignation on December 17, 2004. (Institution imposed)

4. The institution shall limit grants-in-aid in the sport of men's swimming to no more than 8.9 equivalencies during each of the 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10 academic years. These reductions in financial aid awards are, and are intended to be, independent of and additional to any reductions in financial aid awards that may be imposed by the Committee on Academic Performance (CAP) either as a contemporaneous or historical penalty.

5. The three former men's swimming student-athletes at the center of this case were dismissed from the institution on January 14, 2005, and reinstatement of their eligibility was not requested. (Institution imposed)

6. The institution has paid a $5,000 fine for the ineligible participation of the three former student-athletes. (Institution imposed)

FROM THE NATIONAL OFFICE: INFRACTIONS REPORT

Previous Terminology New Terminology

Division I-A Football Bowl Subdivision

Division I-AA NCAA Football Championship Subdivision

NCAA Division I-AA Football Championship NCAA Division I Football Championship

I-A (short hand) Bowl Subdivision

I-AA (short hand) NCAA Championship Subdivision

I-AAA Division I

I-A (acronym for NCAA manual use) FBS

I-AA (acronym for NCAA manual use) FCS

Native American Mascots “Hostile and Abusive”

On August 4, 2005, the NCAA Executive Committee “adopted a new policy to prohibit NCAA colleges and universities from displaying hostile and abusive racial/ethnic/national origin mascots, nicknames or imagery at any of the Association’s national or regional championship competitions.” The policy became effective February 1, 2006. After careful study spanning four years, those representatives concluded that mascots, nicknames and images which stereotype Native Americans were inconsistent with the Constitution of the NCAA and had no place in NCAA championship events. Accordingly, the NCAA, a private voluntary association, adopted a Policy designed to rid its own championship events of hostile or abusive references to Native American culture. The Policy does not require any college or university to change its mascot, nickname or imagery. The Policy does not prohibit universities with Native American mascots or nicknames from using those references during the regular season or from participating in NCAA championship events.

COACHES CORNER: IN THE NEWS...INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ISSUES COACHES NEED TO KNOW

Page 4 SOUTHERN ILL INOIS UNIVERSITY

The NCAA and “Tax Exempt Status”

Historically, educational institutions, including colleges and universities and the organizations that support them, have received favored status in every income tax act passed by Congress. Amateur athletics, especially intercollegiate athlet-ics, have been similarly favored. Presumably, this is a reflection of Congress’s support for higher education and intercollegiate athletics, as demonstrated in the discussion above. Tax-exempt organizations are permitted to pay reasonable compensation for services that are necessary in carrying out their exempt function. The determination of what is “reasonable compensation” must take into consideration the amount that ordinarily would be paid for the same services by taxable as well as tax-exempt organizations. The fact that the resulting compensation may be large does not necessarily mean that it is excessive or unreasonable under the circumstances. The payment of large salaries and other benefits can be reasonable, when the payments are the result of arms-length bargaining. The education of the body as well as the mind is essential to becoming an educated individual, and therefore physical education, including athletic competition, is an integral part of the curriculum of most colleges and universities. As athletic competition is substantially related to the performance of educational purposes, a college’s or university’s revenues from such activities are not UBTI (Unrelated Business Income Tax), Moreover, athletic competition tends to enhance a college or university’s public image, and is an effective way to attract students and donations for the benefit of the institution. Most tax-exempt educational organizations engage in various activities to raise funds. Some activities are designed to attract contributions, including corporate sponsorships, and others are designed to earn profits. Such activities are not inconsistent with tax-exempt status.

Antitrust Lawsuit regarding the Capping of Athletic Scholarships

A federal antitrust lawsuit filed in Los Angeles seeks to prohibit the NCAA from telling member colleges they cannot offer athletic scholarships up to the full cost of attendance -- and could expose the NCAA to hundreds of millions of dollars in damages for past wrongs. The class-action claim was brought on behalf of Division I-A football players and major-college basketball players, whose programs generate the overwhelming amount of revenue that flows into college athletic departments. Under antitrust law, any current scholarship athlete, as well as any player in the past four years, qualifies as a plaintiff.

The suit does not list a damage amount but is structured in a way that suggests the NCAA pay a heavy price should the court find that the association acted illegally in its capping of scholarship costs. The lawsuit applies to 144 colleges, so the 20,000 or so affected athletes would have been shorted a potential $117 million, an aggregate figure that represents the gap between the grant-in-aid and the official cost of attendance over the past four years. Damages get trebled under antitrust law, pushing the potential penalty to $351 million.

On college campuses, athletes are the only students subject to aid restrictions imposed by an agreement among universities. Talented students in music, chemistry or any other area can be bid upon by individual colleges, without limits on the total value of their scholarship packages. Some, often graduate students, receive the full cost of attendance plus cash payments.

The new lawsuit, White vs. NCAA, asks that damages be paid to athletes in the graduating classes of 2002 through 2010, an amount that could mean several thousand dollars or more to each person, depending in part on how long they were on scholarship.

Berkeley suing Cal over Stadium upgrades

The City Council is planning a lawsuit to halt extensive upgrades to California's Memorial Stadium, which straddles the Hayward Fault. Council members voted unanimously to authorize a suit against the project a day before the University of California Board of Regents were set to vote on the stadium upgrades Tuesday. That vote was subsequently postponed, partly because of concerns about the suit. The delay means UC will have to wait at least a month to break ground on a sports training facility. However, UC officials said the overall construction schedule would not be affected. City officials said renovating the 83-year-old stadium and building an accompanying parking structure and athletic training facility is seismically hazardous. Experts have said the Hayward Fault is due for a large earthquake in the potentially lethal 6.7 to 7.0 range. "Our main concern is not that they're planning to build these facilities, but where they're putting them," said Councilwoman Linda Maio. "I think it's the wrong idea to intensify development near a major earthquake fault."