NCAA Compliance
CMU Faculty & Staff NCAA Compliance Education
CMU has a responsibility to ensure that its athletics department fully complies with all NCAA, MAC, and institutional rules and regulations. This responsibility involves an awareness of the actions of all CMU coaches, student-athletes, faculty and staff members, alumni, fans, and friends who support CMU Athletics. NCAA and MAC rules apply to all CMU faculty and staff members and, therefore, CMU is held accountable for any violations of these rules whether it be by a coach, faculty member, or administrative staff member. CMU Athletics has developed this Web site in order to provide a quick summary of rules and regulations that relate specifically to academics and faculty and staff members.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
What
are "Extra Benefits?"
One of the most common
violations of NCAA rules in regards to faculty and staff members is the
provision of “extra benefits" to student-athletes. The NCAA defines an "extra benefit" as: “...any special arrangement by an institutional employee or a representative of the
institution’s athletic interests…” (often referred to as a “booster”) “…to
provide a student-athlete or the student-athlete’s relative or friend a benefit
not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation.
The “Extra Benefit” Rules as It Relates to Faculty/Staff and Academic Matters
The general rule is that faculty members are not allowed to provide support
services, benefits, or treatment for a student-athlete that they would not
provide for any other student. For example, a faculty or staff member is not permitted
to…
Allowing such “extra benefits” puts the student-athlete, the team, and the university in jeopardy. Not only would the student-athlete be penalized for receiving the extra benefit (e.g., ineligible for competition), but CMU would be in violation of NCAA rules!!!
Please note that faculty and staff members should not refuse to provide support services for student-athletes that they would normally or reasonably provide to other students. For example, if a student-athlete must take a make-up examination because of a university-sponsored athletic competition, and if other students are afforded the opportunity to take a make-up examination for a good reason, then the student-athlete should be given the same opportunity.
Examples
of impermissible "Extra Benefits" at other institutions
Northern Illinois University, a
peer institution in the Mid-American Conference recently was found to have
engaged in a Major Infraction of NCAA rules… This case centered around a
relationship between a student-athlete and faculty member that involved the
exchange of over $2,000 in extra benefits.
“At the heart of this case was
a faculty member who, at the request of the athletic department, reached out to
help a struggling student,” said Northern Illinois President John Peters in a
statement released by the school. Here is a brief overview of the case...
The NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions has placed Northern Illinois University on probation for one year for limited violations in women’s basketball, mostly related to extra benefits given to a student-athlete by a faculty member. Beginning in December 2003 and concluding in June 2004, the faculty member provided extra benefits to a former women's basketball student-athlete. These benefits were provided in the context of a mentor relationship arranged by a former assistant director of athletics between the faculty member and the former student-athlete. This relationship between the faculty member and the former student-athlete resulted in the provision of extra benefits totaling $1973.12 to the student-athlete. The genesis of this case was the concern for the former student-athlete (by athletics department staff members) stemming from a difficult relationship with another student. They concluded that professional counseling/advice was needed to help her. The former student-athlete refused on more than one occasion to meet with a counselor, but explained that she could benefit from a relationship with a strong female role model. In response to this request, the former assistant director of athletics placed the former student-athlete in contact with the faculty member, a woman with whom the former assistant director of athletics had previously worked to enroll student-athletes in courses offered through the department in which the faculty member taught. The former assistant director of athletics regarded the faculty member as an individual with a kind disposition and with no interest or involvement with athletics.
At the NCAA Major Infraction Committee, the committee discussed at great length, with the institution, the faculty member and the enforcement staff, the circumstances surrounding the violations. The nature, scope and impetus of the relationship between the faculty member and the former student-athlete were fully explored. It was made clear to the committee that the relationship was not based on athletics and that the faculty member was a generous individual in her dealings with other students and her friends. The committee considered this to be a mitigating factor, but the mitigation runs only to the possible penalties in the case; it did not negate the fact that the violations in this case were major in nature. This case illustrates the fact that, although they can be taken into consideration, noble or kind-hearted motivations for helping a student athlete will not excuse a university, booster, faculty member, or student-athlete from complying with NCAA regulations.
Please remember to always contact the compliance office before providing a student-athlete with any benefit!
ASK BEFORE YOU ACT!Communication:
