• Implications Related to Application of Initial-Eligibility Standards
• Issues Involving Current Partial Qualifiers and Nonqualifiers
• Current Prospective Student-Athletes

A federal court ruling in Cureton, et al. vs. NCAA has prohibited the continued application of the Division I initial-eligibility test-score cutoffs. We know you have a number of unanswered questions. This document is intended to provide you with some answers. The responses below are designed to assist your decision making UNTIL either the judge's decision is reversed or the NCAA Division I Board of Directors implements a new initial-eligibility standard. You will be notified of all relevant changes as they occur.

Scope of Ruling

The judge ruled that because the lawsuit challenged a generally applicable, facially neutral se-lection practice in the context of a federal antidiscrimination law, it was one that by its very na-ture affected a group of similarly situated people: Division I student-athletes. Therefore, he enjoined the NCAA from denying eligibility based on the standardized test-score component of NCAA Bylaw 14.3 to any Division I student-athlete. [Note: Class certification will not be de-cided until mid-April.] Although arguably the injunction only affects Division I student-athletes in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, its practical effect is to abolish the use of the initial-eligibility standards for all Division I student-athletes. If the judge's decision only affected Divi-sion I student-athletes in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, colleges and universities in that region would have a competitive advantage over all other Division I member institutions. They could recruit from a larger pool of athletes and potentially have deeper talent on their teams. Likewise, student-athletes from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania potentially would have an advantage over all other student-athletes for athletic scholarships wherever they chose to attend. Thus, the federal judge's ruling would create an uneven playing field if it were to be observed strictly in just federal district.

Return to top

[Note: This includes individuals whose initial-eligibility waivers were denied or who were de-termined to be partial qualifiers.]

1. Competition. An institution, at its discretion, may permit a partial qualifier or nonqualifier (whose status has been affected by the court order) to represent the institution in intercolle-giate competition this academic year, but the student-athlete would use a season of competi-tion.

a. If the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit overturns the trial judge's ruling and the NCAA Division I membership returns to the current initial-eligibility requirements, the restitution provisions set forth in Bylaw 19.8 would apply to the institution. The NCAA Division I Subcommittee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement, however, has determined that in this instance, the institution would not have to submit an appeal for student-athlete reinstatement. Since a student-athlete was eligible under the court order, requiring a reinstatement process could be perceived as a punitive action toward the student-athlete in these situations. Historically, no action against a student-athlete has been taken when the student-athlete has been allowed to compete under a court order.

b. If new initial-eligibility standards are implemented (even on a temporary basis), students who do not satisfy the new standard immediately would return to an ineligible status. If a student-athlete did compete prior to the implementation of a new standard, and the trial judge's decision is reversed, the restitution provisions set forth in Bylaw 19.8 would ap-ply. Further, the institution would not be required to submit an appeal for reinstatement of the student-athlete's eligibility under these circumstances, provided the student-athlete does not engage in additional competition when notified of the new standards.

2. Practice and Other Benefits. A Division I institution, at its discretion, may permit a partial qualifier or nonqualifier (whose status has been affected by the court order) to practice and receive all other benefits afforded qualifiers.

In the event that the judge's decision is reversed on appeal or a new initial-eligibility standard is implemented, these benefits must cease for those student-athletes subsequently determined to be ineligible. The restitution provisions set forth in Bylaw 19.8 would not apply to the in-stitution, assuming that a student-athlete has not represented the institution in any competi-tion. Further, the institution would not be required to submit an appeal for reinstatement of a student-athlete's eligibility under these circumstances, provided the student-athlete does not engage in additional practice sessions or receive any other nonpermissible benefits when no-tified of the new standards.

3. Financial Aid. If an institution provides countable financial aid to a student-athlete affected by the court order, the financial aid shall count against the institution's team limits in the applicable sport in accordance with the provisions of Bylaw 15.5.

In that regard, if a student-athlete (who currently is not receiving any countable financial aid) is awarded countable institutional financial aid, the student-athlete shall be a counter (initial and/or overall) in the institution's team limits in the applicable sport.

An institution may not award financial aid to a student-athlete affected by the judge's ruling for any time period prior to March 8, 1999, inasmuch as such aid would be considered retro-active aid contrary to the provisions of Bylaw 15.3.1.3.

4. Initial-Eligibility Waivers. A Division I institution should not submit any initial-eligibility waivers at this point in time because we do not have initial-eligibility standards for Division I. Waivers that have been submitted will not be processed until a new initial-eligibility stan-dard is established. At that time, waiver subcommittees will resume hearing initial-eligibility waivers for those student-athletes who do not meet the new standard.

5. Fourth Season of Competition. The issue of granting partial qualifiers or nonqualifiers a fourth season of competition is yet to be determined. The judge will address this issue at a later date. We will provide related information to you as soon as possible.

6. Transfer Student-Athlete. A current transfer (two-year or four-year) student-athlete ful-filling a year of residence because the student-athlete failed to satisfy the transfer provisions applicable to a partial qualifier or nonqualifer should be treated consistent with Item Nos. 1, 2 and 3 above, provided the student-athlete satisfies the transfer provisions applicable to a qualifier.

The following chart was designed to assist Division I institutions with an understanding of the impact of a partial qualifier (PQ) or a nonqualifier (NQ) participating in various activi-ties between the time of the initial court order and the time that a new rule is implemented or the judge's decision is reversed.

Return to top

1. National Letter of Intent. Although the NCAA does not administer the National Letter of Intent (NLI), the NCAA staff and the chair of the NLI Steering Committee determined that the following information would be beneficial to you.

The National Letter of Intent agreement states:

"The NLI is declared null and void if, by the institution's opening day of classes in the fall of 1999, I have not met…(c) the NCAA requirement for freshman financial aid" (i.e., student is determined to be a nonqualifier) "or the NCAA junior college transfer rule."

All NLI signees will be subject to the initial-eligibility standards that are in effect on the opening day of classes for fall 1999.

2. Official Visits. The judge's ruling does not apply to the provisions of Bylaw 13.7.1.2.3.1 and, thus, the academic requirements set forth in such legislation related to a prospect re-ceiving an official visit remain applicable. As you are aware, there is no minimum test score required to receive an official visit.

3. Offer of Financial Aid. If an institution has offered more than the maximum number of permissible awards to prospective student-athletes in a particular sport, the institution would be required to count the award of any entering student-athlete who satisfies the initial-eligibility requirement in effect at the time the student-athlete engages in practice or attends the first day of classes, whichever is earlier. If the total number of counters exceeds the per-missible awards in a sport per Bylaws 15.5.2, 15.5.3, 15.5.4 and 15.5.5, the institution would be in violation of the institutional financial aid limitations in the applicable sport.

4. Student-Athletes at Another Institution. The impact of the court's decision on current par-tial or nonqualifiers at another institution (two-year or four-year) who may desire to transfer to a Division I institution is yet to be fully determined.

5. NCAA Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse. In light of the judge's ruling and denial of our request for a stay while an appeal is heard, the clearinghouse has temporarily suspended gen-erating preliminary and final certifications (i.e., 48-C reports) for prospective student-athletes. Additionally, all reporting mechanisms (e.g., Web-status reports, weekly status re-ports, automated voice response, modem access) have been discontinued. Therefore, your methods for obtaining information on prospective student-athletes will not be available until a decision by the Board of Directors has been reached. The clearinghouse is continuing to process student registrations (i.e., student release forms), data enter academic documentation received from a high school, process core-course submissions by high schools and respond to e-mail and telephone inquiries. You can anticipate further updates as additional issues are resolved, and regular updates will be provided on the NCAA homepage (www.ncaa.org). When on the homepage, click on NCAA Online, then go to the "Division I initial-eligibility standards status report." Please contact the membership services staff if you have any questions.