Email Marc

Blog Tags


Archives

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Even more scholly discussion

Beofre I get started... a quick clarification of the issue regarding USAH's citation of the NCAA regs... they were citing 12.1.1(a) based on D-III manual, not the D-I. My D-I citation contains the same language, but is in a different location.

More follow up on the scholarship debate... let's start with the following NCAA reg:
12.02.4 Professional Athletics Team

A professional team is any organized team that:

(a) Provides any of its players more than actual and necessary expenses for participation on the team, except as otherwise permitted by NCAA legislation. Actual and necessary expenses are limited to the following, provided the value of these items is commensurate with the fair market value in the locality of the player(s) and is not excessive in nature: (Revised: 4/25/02 effective 8/1/02)

(1) Meals directly tied to competition and practice held in preparation for such competition;

(2) Lodging directly tied to competition and practice held in preparation for such competition;

(3) Apparel, equipment and supplies;

(4) Coaching and instruction;

(5) Health/medical insurance;

(6) Transportation (i.e., expenses to and from practice and competition, cost of transportation from home to training/practice site at the beginning of the season and from training/practice site to home at the end of season);

(7) Medical treatment and physical therapy;

(8) Facility usage; (Revised: 4/24/03)

(9) Entry fees; and (Revised: 4/24/03)

(10) Other reasonable expenses; or (Adopted 4/24/03; Revised: 10/28/04)

(b) Declares itself to be professional (see Bylaw 12.1.2.4.1.1). (Revised: 8/8/02)

Remember, this is not pay, this is reimbursement of expenses, so when going back to 12.1.1(a):
An individual loses amateur status and thus shall not be eligible for intercollegiate competition in a particular sport if the individual:

(a) Uses his or her athletics skill (directly or indirectly) for pay in any form in that sport; (Revised: 4/25/02 effective 8/1/02)

...we still find what appears to be an invalid justification for the "rule" (I put that in quotes because it's not actually in the USAH Rules and Regs, see earlier discussion for details).

In any case, this is a much more elegant argument than what I have previously written. As there still concerns with it? Yes. USAH addresses "pay for athletic skill," whereas I'm arguing that "reimbursement based on athletic skill" is not addressed, and thus fair game. The argument might be made that reimbursement based on athletic skill equals pay. If that argument is validated by the NCAA, then (*gasp*) I'm flat out wrong. I'm not seeing anything up front from the NCAA that supports the argument, but will keep looking.

Comments on "Even more scholly discussion"

 

post a comment

Links to this post:

<\$BlogItemBacklinkCreate\$>