7/12/2016
Complex Case Review
A Component of the Amateurism Certification Process
Session Overview
Goals for today’s session.
Provide an overview of the Amateurism Certification
Process and the Complex Case Review program.
Share concepts for enhancing the service-delivery
model.
Listen, learn and continue identifying opportunities for
collaboration.
2
Certification Charge and Scope
Determine the validity of the information on which the
amateur status of a prospective student-athlete is based.
NCAA Bylaw 12.1.1.1
Certification is limited to activities that occur prior to the
request for final amateurism certification or enrollment at
a Division I or II institution, whichever occurs earlier.
NCAA Bylaw 12.1.1.1.1
3
1
7/12/2016
Three Methods of Review
Automated Review.
Approximately 90% of all reviews.
Statistically low likelihood of a violation based on historical trends.
Manual Review.
Core Certification.
• Approximately 9% of all reviews.
• Designed to address issues that can generally be identified through
self-reported information (e.g., participation history).
Complex Case Review.
• Less than 0.5% of all reviews.
• Uses data analysis, online research and source information to address
issues that cannot be identified effectively through self-reported
information.
4
Scope of the Certification Process
100,000 students request amateurism certification each year.
Core Certification Process
Complex Case Review
Manual Review
Triggers
≈ 9,000 (9%) are identified for manual review through the core certification process.
≈ 475 (0.475%) are identified for complex case review.
Review/
Investigation
≈ 6,000 (66%) manual reviews require
additional information.
≈ 30 (6.3%) manual reviews lead to an investigation.
Certification
Conditions
≈ 700 (7%) manual reviews result in a violation.
≈ 15 (3%) manual reviews result in a violation.
5
Core Certification Review Triggers
Example of Core Certification Triggers
Student’s age at time of enrollment.
Student’s educational path and educational
path in the country where student attended
secondary school.
Sports structure in the country where the
student participated in athletics.
Student’s sport.
Student’s participation history.
Identifies fewer than 9,000
students for review.
Typical violations include
delayed enrollment,
participation with
professionals and prize
money.
Typical sports include
soccer, volleyball, swimming,
and track.
5-7% of manual reviews
have historically resulted in a
violation.
6
2
7/12/2016
Complex Case Review Triggers
Example of Complex Case Review Triggers
Geographic movement, multiple secondary
schools or changes in athletics participation.
Patterns of unofficial visits or
third-party involvement in the recruiting
process.
Affiliation with certain teams, events or
programs.
Source information associated with a specific
PSA.
Link analysis.
100 students have been
identified for 2016-17.
Typical violations include
preferential benefits, benefits
from a prospective agent and
agent agreement.
Typical sports include men’s
basketball and football.
3-5% of complex case
reviews have historically
resulted in a violation.
7
Pre-Enrollment Trends
Individuals and athletically-related foundations
marketing students for participation opportunities.
International recruiting.
Individuals asserting guardianship status.
Agents, financial advisors and apparel companies
providing payment, employment arrangements or other
opportunities.
Payment or benefits for participation (AAU, 7-on-7,
International Club, NBA Development League, Minor
League).
Third-party involvement with the recruiting process.
8
Pre-Enrollment Summit (Feb 29)
Regulatory Affairs staff met with a cross-section of
Division I membership impacted by the complex case
review process.
Discussion included policy and process considerations.
Key takeaways:
Focus on priority issues.
Timely movement through the process.
• Opportunities for the institution to take a lead role in running out the
issues.
• Information sharing, collaboration, interviews.
Notice of the issues, analysis and process on the front-end.
9
3
7/12/2016
Comparing Past and Present
2015-16 Model
Proposed (2016-17) Model
Intended Benefit
Institutions did not know which issues
were being reviewed and what
information was relevant to the
analysis at the onset of the review.
Priority issues are identified at the
onset of the review with input from the
membership, enforcement and AMA.
Eliminates uncertainty as to the scope of
the certification process; allows institutions
and national office to align resources with
priorities.
Institutions did not know what
information to gather or what
information would be relevant to the
interpretive analysis.
Staff will identify the issue(s) being
reviewed and provide guidance on the
applicable analysis at the onset of
each review.
Reduces timelines by allowing all parties
to focus on gathering relevant information.
Ensures all parties have an equal
understanding as to the relevance of
particular information.
Certification staff took a lead role in
conducting the review. Oftentimes, the
institution was not actively engaged
until an initial statement of facts was
issued.
Each complex case review will begin
with a kick-off call to develop a
collaborative review plan early in the
process.
Reduces uncertainty as to the scope of the
review and creates greater opportunity for
institutional participation in the process.
Helps reduce the timeline for review by
allowing the parties to determine how
information should be acquired.
Institutions had to agree to a set of
facts before knowing the interpretive
analysis, presenting mitigating
circumstances or discussing possible
outcomes.
The staff will summarize its findings,
identify any violation(s) being alleged
and provide its analysis through a
comprehensive review summary. The
institution can appeal from the staff
position or provide mitigation in support
of a reinstatement request.
Institutions will have all information
necessary to make an informed decisions
regarding the direction of the review,
including the decision whether to appeal a
factual or interpretive determination or
proceed to reinstatement.
10
THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS
11
Initial Assessment
After a PSA requests final amateurism certification, the
amateurism certification staff performs an initial
assessment.
The assessment protocol involves compiling information
from existing NCAA records and online resources.
12
4
7/12/2016
Status of Initial Assessments
As of May 16, 2016:
72 of 100 PSAs identified for complex case review have
requested final amateurism certification.
Staff completed an initial assessment on every PSA who
requested a final amateurism certification.
Most assessments were completed within four days of
the request for final amateurism certification.
Next step is “Final Certified” or …
13
Internal Review Board (IRB)
All investigatory reviews must be approved by the IRB,
which is comprised of the amateurism certification
management team.
Disposition options include:
Final Certified (with or without an “FYI” communication).
Institutionally-Managed Investigation.
Investigative Review.
Request an interpretation.
Refer to enforcement.
14
Range of Assessment Outcomes
Proceed to Investigative Review
8%
Pending Institutionally‐
Managed Review
5%
Transferred to Core
5%
Pending IRB Presentation
2%
Final Certified
73%
IRB/Director Hold
7%
As of May 16, 2016.
15
5
7/12/2016
Service Timelines
Our goal is to complete the assessment within seven (7) days
of a PSA’s request for certification.
Our goal is to provide an Internal Review Board decision
within fourteen (14) days of the request for certification.
On average these decisions have been communicated within
nine (9) days of the request for certification.
Request for Final Certification
Service Standard:
2016 Average:
7 days
Assessment
Assessment
Assessment
14 days
Notification
4 days
[30 cases in 2015]
Notification
Notification
Investigative Review
Investigative Review
Investigative Review
9 days
16
Institutionally-Managed Investigation
Initial Call.
ACP staff provides status of the review.
ACP staff identifies issues of concern.
Exchange available information through web custodial (Box.com)
Institution conducts the investigation independently and
reports findings of fact.
Institutional findings will determine next steps in the
process.
17
Investigatory Review Process
Initial Call.
ACP staff provides status of the review.
ACP staff identifies issues of concern.
Exchange available information through web custodial (Box.com)
Conduct a kick-off call.
Discuss available information; determine needed information.
Identify range of outcomes (published guidelines).
Develop a collaborative review plan and timeline for resolution.
Both parties will conduct the review in accordance with the review plan.
Wrap-up call.
Review summary.
Resolution options, if necessary.
18
6
7/12/2016
How would you proceed?
Scenario No. 1:
PSA is seen in several photographs with a Bentley automobile.
The photographs span multiple locations on multiple days.
PSA was approved for a fee waiver through the Eligibility Center.
Scenario No. 2:
A reliable source reports that PSA and his family are receiving
living expenses from a registered agent.
Initial assessment (public records review) confirms that PSA’s
family lives in a home owned by a business entity registered to
one of the agent’s known business associates.
PSA’s mother and the agent are linked through social media.
19
How would you proceed? (cont.)
Scenario No. 3:
PSA took more than twenty unofficial visits (many of which
required plane travel and overnight stays).
Media reports indicate PSA was accompanied on most visits by
his trainer.
PSA’s trainer had been the assistant basketball coach for PSA’s
8th grade AAU team; he also works with a registered agent to
prepare clients for pre-draft workouts.
According to an anonymous source, the trainer serves as the
PSA’s “handler” (i.e., all recruiting contact with the PSA must go
through the trainer).
A second source reported that the trainer solicited member
institutions to pay expenses associated with the PSA’s unofficial
visits.
20
Conclusion
Questions or comments…
About the complex case review program; or,
The pre-enrollment amateurism environment?
Any “best practices” that might help to inform the
process of conducting pre-enrollment amateurism
reviews?
Anything else?
[email protected]
21
7
7/12/2016
We Want Your Feedback
Your input is important.
Rate this session using the survey on the Regional
Rules Seminar app.
22
23
8