Eligibility Transfer |
(
Commissioner's Rulings
) |
U.S. Transfers Ruling AddendumFacts: This ruling is an addendum to the September 27, 2017 ruling of Interim Commissioner, Alan Rogan (attached). Mr. Rogan’s ruling still stands in relation to all future cases involving the transfer of athletes to the ACAC from U.S. two year institutions until such time as changes are made to the ACAC Operating Code. However, the ACAC is aware of four (4) current athletes who were deemed by the ACAC Office to be eligible to transfer from two year U.S. institutions and compete immediately despite not meeting the criteria subsequently required by the terms of Mr. Rogan’s ruling. Those athletes (and their current ACAC institutions) are as follows:
The ruling that follows applies only to these particular athletes. Ruling: In each of the above cases, the student-athlete and his or her ACAC institution relied upon the ACAC Office’s determination that they were eligible to transfer and immediately participate at the ACAC level. On that basis, each student-athlete enrolled in post-secondary studies and began participating in ACAC non-conference play. Similarly, each of the respective ACAC institutions incurred their own expenses in relation to these athletes, including scholarship allotment, while also foregoing the opportunity to fill their rosters with other student-athletes. In my opinion, the ACAC institutions and the ACAC Office acted in good faith in attempting to find a solution to unique transfer/eligibility circumstances. As it turns out, Mr. Rogan’s ruling resulted in a different set of eligibility standards for these types of transfer student-athletes. That said, however, one of the foundational principles of ACAC eligibility is “to encourage inclusiveness of student participation in athletic opportunities.” On that basis, I do not feel that the student-athletes in question should suffer from a retroactive, rigid application of Mr. Rogan’s ruling. Each athlete in question relied upon the advice of their respective institutions and that of the ACAC Office that they would be eligible to compete upon review of their academic eligibility status. To rule these student-athletes ineligible at this late date runs counter to the principle of inclusiveness. Therefore, it is my ruling that each of the above four athletes shall be granted an exception to remain eligible to compete immediately for their respective institutions during the Fall 2017 semester as per the original interpretation of their transfer status. Sincerely, Bill Hendsbee
2017-18 SeasonSeptember 27, 2017Facts The ACAC office has requested a ruling from the commissioner’s office pertaining to an unusual and what they have found to be a somewhat confusing circumstance regarding the application of ACAC rules and interpreting eligibility of transfer student athletes from 2 year US conferences to the ACAC. In conversation with the office staff it appears that recent rulings have been based more on the ability for a student athlete to compete in a secondary sport at the institution, participatory, and not as much on academic standing or progress. The office found it challenging to apply the ACAC transfer rule to two year conferences where there is no possibility of continuing past the second year. Many of the 2 year US institutions did not respond to the question of continuing academic eligibility in the same manner as 4 or 5 year conferences since there is no possibility of continuing past year two in the same sport regardless of academic standing. Ruling: Article 1 Section 5 Rule 1.6.2.2 states: A student-athlete who transfers to a CCAA institution from a post-secondary institution outside the CCAA is considered eligible to compete in the CCAA if the student athlete would be academically eligible to compete in the subsequent semester at the previous institution they attended. Example: A student athlete academically ineligible by the institution outside of the CCAA can apply the reāinstatement policy commencing the subsequent semester they were declared academically ineligible. It is clear that the US 2 year institutions do not currently have a process to determine whether a student athlete would be academically eligible to return to their post-secondary for year 3 due to the reason they are not physically able to compete in the same sport in the same institution for more than two years. From the information received it appears uniform from conference to conference that their academic progress rules from their first year to second are consistent. For example in one conference a student athlete is responsible to enroll in 12 credits per academic semester and successfully complete 24 credits, with a GPA of 2.0 by the end of year one to be academically eligible in year two. That same conference also stipulates that a student athlete in their second year must again be enrolled in 12 credits per semester to be eligible to compete in that year. In absence of an official rule or process it would be logical to determine that to follow the academic progress pattern a student athlete would be required to successfully attain the same minimum of 24 credits with a 2.0 GPA at the end of year two to be eligible to compete in year 3, if there was a year three available to them. In conclusion any student athlete who does not meet the 24 credit 2.0 GPA standard in year two of a two year conference, is deemed to have not met the academic standard for continued eligibility and would be required to submit to the reinstatement process if transferring to an ACAC institution. It is important to note that any institution who does not agree with this interpretation and application of ACAC Transfer and Academic eligibility principles has the option to appeal this ruling as per the ACAC Appeal Policy (OC Article III, Section 4). Due to the fact that the transfer rule is lacking clarity on how it applies to US 2 year institution transfers it is recommended that the Advocacy Committee review the rule and supply some additional clarity for future rulings. Sincerely, |