Login | April 25, 2024
Technicality in NCAA bylaw almost costs former Marine football eligibility
TIMOTHY L. EPSTEIN
Law Bulletin columnist
Published: September 9, 2013
The NCAA’s quick and decisive decision regarding former Marine Steven Rhodes’ eligibility may have quieted some critics of the NCAA’s original decision concerning Rhodes.
However, the NCAA is unlikely to escape the snowballing criticism exacerbated by this institutional oversight.
On Aug. 19, the NCAA waived one of its own bylaws regarding the eligibility of students returning from military service to compete in intercollegiate sports as it pertains to the Middle Tennessee State University freshman.
In waiving the bylaw, the NCAA admitted that it was time to re-evaluate its rules regarding organized competition, “especially as it impacts those returning from military service.”
Rhodes, 25, is a former Marine entering his freshman year at MTSU. After completing his five-year enlistment with the Marines this summer, Rhodes had planned on trying out for the MTSU football team this fall.
But when he arrived on campus, he learned that he would be ineligible to compete in MTSU’s games this season in addition to losing two of his four years of eligibility.
NCAA Bylaw 14.2.3.2.1 states that student-athletes that do not enroll in college within one year of completing high school will be charged one year of eligibility for each year they compete in organized competition prior to enrolling in college. Further, the bylaw requires students that do not enroll in college within one year of finishing high school to complete a year in residence at the school before being allowed to compete.
While stationed in San Diego, Rhodes competed in a recreational football league with other Marines stationed at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar. The NCAA deemed this league an organized competition under Bylaw 14.2.3.2.1 because the league had referees, team uniforms and kept score.
Rhodes participated in the intramural league over the course of two NCAA academic school years in the winter, summer and fall of 2012. As a result, the NCAA originally ruled that he would lose two years of eligibility and would not be eligible to play this season.
After an initial appeal by Rhodes and the MTSU athletic department, the NCAA partially reversed its decision, granting Rhodes four full years of eligibility but holding fast on the requirement that he sit out this season.
The decision drew national media attention, going so far as to motivate U.S. Rep. Scott DesJarlais, R-Tenn., to write a letter to NCAA President Mark Emmert to ask that Rhodes be allowed to play this season.
After the denial of their original appeal, MTSU began preparing a second appeal centered on the legislative intent of the original version of the bylaw implemented in 1980.
When originally written, the bylaw included an exception that exempted “participation in organized competition during times spent in the armed services, on official church missions, or with recognized foreign aid services of the U.S. government” from limiting eligibility.
Over the course of the ensuing decade, the bylaw was revised and rewritten, and the exception for participation in organized competition during time spent in the armed services was deleted from the language of the bylaw.
MTSU did not argue that the NCAA misapplied Bylaw 14.2.3.2.1. Rather, the school argued that an oversight in drafting the revisions of the bylaw had left out a principal part of the original intent of the bylaw.
Daryl Simpson, MTSU’s assistant athletic director, explained MTSU’s position.
“It’s nobody’s fault. There were unintended consequences of forgetting that clause over time. We’re saying, (to the NCAA), ‘Hey you forgot this clause,’” Simpson said.
MTSU never formally pursued its second appeal. But an NCAA press release seemed to be a confirmation of MTSU’s argument.
Twenty-four hours after the first public report about the circumstances surrounding Rhodes was published, the NCAA released a statement stating that after its continued evaluation of Rhodes eligibility, it had determined Rhodes would not be required to redshirt this season and that he would be immediately eligible to play.
Further, the NCAA explicitly acknowledged the need to “reevaluate its organized competition rules, especially as it applies to student-athletes returning from military service.”
The NCAA’s decision in the Rhodes case is an example of a successful application of NCAA procedure while also an admission of the need to reform current NCAA regulations.
On the one hand, the NCAA’s current eligibility review process worked as it was meant to. The NCAA properly applied the relevant bylaw, MTSU appealed the ruling and the NCAA evaluated the school’s appeal.
As a result, the NCAA granted Rhodes’ request for four years of eligibility without forcing him to miss a single game. Additionally, the NCAA identified a loophole in its bylaws that it will now re-evaluate.
At a time when criticism of the NCAA is at an unprecedented height, the NCAA demonstrated that it can efficiently and promptly review eligibility cases using its current procedures.
On the other hand, the NCAA essentially admitted an oversight contained in one of its own bylaws — a fact that supports claims by the organization’s critics that believe the NCAA rulebook has grown too large and complicated to be effectively administered.
For example, the military exception for organized competition exists for student-athletes participating in ice hockey, tennis and skiing — yet not for any other sport.
Rather than perpetuate the broad scope of the original bylaw created in 1980, the NCAA rewrote the bylaw with a narrower construction tailored to specific sports included in the language of the bylaw.
This oversight caused the unintended result of certain sports being excluded from the benefit of the military exception. It is difficult to imagine Rhodes being the only student-athlete adversely affected by this bylaw.
In recent months, many school administrators and conference officials have been critical of the administrative procedures of the NCAA.
At the respective football media days of the five Bowl Championship Series conferences, each conference commissioner specifically called for the NCAA to simplify its rules administration and enforcement procedures in addition to other reforms.
The omission of the military exception in the organized competition bylaw will likely be used as an example of the inadequacy of the NCAA’s current administrative process by critics of the NCAA.
In response to growing criticism, Emmert called a meeting of the NCAA Executive Board to discuss restructuring the NCAA’s operational procedures.
At that meeting, Emmert plainly stated, “Expect significant changes in how the NCAA operates within the next year.”
Simplification and maintenance of the current NCAA bylaws is likely to be one of the many proposed changes.
Timothy L. Epstein is a partner and chairman of the sports law practice group at SmithAmundsen LLC. He also serves as an adjunct professor at Loyola University Chicago School of Law, teaching courses in sports law. His sports law practice is all-encompassing, but focuses on the litigation needs of players, coaches, teams and schools. He can be reached at tepstein@salawus.com.