Remember that side story to the Roy Williams/Kansas NCAA troubles about how the NCAA apparently considers athletes to be ineligible to receive gifts for their entire life? Well, the News & Observer has followed up on that angle. They interviewed a number of athletes and administrators about the rule and its interpretation. As you can imagine, most were surprised by it, but they also seemed resigned to the fact that it probably wouldn’t change anytime soon.
The weird thing is, is that when I read the rule, it doesn’t sound like it means for life. Maybe my book lernin’ weren’t too good. Here’s the text in question:
16.1.1.4 Subsequent to Completion of Athletics Eligibility. Awards limitations apply to enrolled student-athletes who have exhausted their collegiate athletics eligibility. An institution shall be held responsible through the Association’s enforcement procedures for the provision of improper awards to graduating seniors by the institution or its booster organizations. Awards to graduating seniors may not include cash, gift certificates, a cash-equivalent award (i.e., an item that is negotiable for cash or trade or other services, benefits or merchandise) for athletics participation, or country club or sports club membership.
The part that stands out to me is the sentence “Awards limitations apply to enrolled student-athletes who have exhausted their collegiate athletics eligibility.” Enrolled student-athletes. Doesn’t that mean students who are still enrolled in school? A strict reading of that clause (well, as strict as I can get) says that student-athletes have award limitations after they have exhausted their eligibility, but while they are still enrolled. Once they leave school and are no longer enrolled, they don’t fall under that clause. Am I right?
So, explain this extra article that reiterates that the NCAA interpretation is that “once you’re a student-athlete, you can never accept any sort of gift from anyone with a relationship to the university no matter how long it has been since you have completed your college eligibility?” Something’s not right.
Is it possible that I’m right and that the reporter has just read it wrong? Maybe one person got it wrong and reported it as such and now everyone thinks that is true. Is that possible? That last N&O article sure sounds like it is quoting the NCAA on its interpretation, but it doesn’t list a name for its source. If that is a true NCAA interpretation, how do they explain the word “enrolled?”
Can anyone ‘splain to me?
Leave a Reply