Eligibility: STMU Basketball-Dewsbery

2022-23 Season

October 14, 2022 

Facts:

Brock Dewsbery was a member of the Mount Royal University Men’s Basketball team during the 2021-22 academic year.

For family reasons related to the health of his wife, Mr. Dewsbery was forced to withdraw during the Winter semester. As a result, he only successfully completed 9 credits during the 2021-22 academic year, all of which were achieved during the Fall semester.

Mr. Dewsbery subsequently transferred to STMU for the 2022-23 academic year.

STMU requests a penalty free Institutional Academic Withdrawal ruling and confirmation that Mr. Dewsbery is immediately eligible to compete during the 2022-23 academic year.

Ruling:

Article I Section 5 Rule 1.1.4.3 of the ACAC Operating Code reads, in part, as follows:

1.1.4.3. Two Semester Participation 
(Amended August, 2013/May, 2021/June, 2021/June, 2022)

To be a student in good standing, a student athlete must pass eighteen (18) credits in an academic year to be eligible to participate in the subsequent semester and must pass a minimum of six (6) credits in the fall semester to be eligible for the winter semester. If the student athlete does NOT earn the required 6 credits (or equivalents) in the fall semester, the student athlete is immediately ineligible for participation in the winter semester and is subject to the conditions of the Reinstatement Rule.

If the student athlete passes six (6) or more credits in fall semester academic progress is measured again by August 31st to determine if the student athlete has earned the required eighteen (18) credits, over the academic year. (Amended May, 2021)

As Mr. Dewsbery was a two-semester participant during the 2021-22 academic year, and completed only 9 credit hours, he does not comply with Rule 1.1.4.3.

Article I Section 5 Rule 1.4.6 of the ACAC Operating Code is worded as follows:

1.4.6. Institutional Academic Withdrawal: Student Athletes granted a complete academic penalty free withdrawal from an institution by the institution’s registrar or designate, will not be held to the ACAC academic progress rule for that semester. A copy of the student athlete’s transcript is to be forwarded to the ACAC office along with a letter from the registrar (or designate) verifying that the student athlete was withdrawn from classes with cause and no academic penalty. As per ACAC eligibility rules the student-athlete will still have consumed a year of eligibility. (added September 2015) Note: Student athletes, who by their own choice, withdraw from their institution prior to the completion of a semester and, after competing in a minimum of one regular season competition, will be held to the academic progress rule and will have consumed a year of eligibility. (added September 2015)

I have been satisfied by the MRU Registrar’s Office that Mr. Dewsbery withdrew from his courses during the Winter semester of the 2021-22 academic year with cause and with no academic penalty. There is nothing in the wording of Rule 1.4.6 that prevents me from applying the rule to a student-athlete’s attendance at an academic institution outside of the ACAC. Therefore, it is my position that Mr. Dewsbery complies with the requirements of the rule.

Previous rulings relating to Rule 1.4.6 have involved ACAC student-athletes who continued to attend the same academic institution within the Conference. In this case, had Mr. Dewsbery been a returning STMU student-athlete, compliance with Rule 1.4.6 would have resulted in his immediate eligibility for the 2022-23 academic year.

Before determining Mr. Dewsbery’s eligibility status, the other issue to be determined is the interplay between Rule 1.4.6 and the relevant transfer protocols contained within the ACAC Operating Code. In this instance, the relevant rules are Rules 1.6.2.1 and 1.6.4.1, which are worded as follows:

1.6.2.1. A student-athlete who for the first time in their postsecondary career, transfers to a CCAA institution, is eligible to complete immediately, provided that all other eligibility criteria are met, including being academically eligible to compete in the subsequent semester at the previous institution they attended and, if transferring mid-season, are participating in a different sport (as per 1.6.1. above). That is, s/he is NOT required to sit-out one (1) year (365 days) from the date of their last league/playoff game participation as required in 1.6.2.2 below. (Added September, 2011/Amended August, 2014/April, 2017/December, 2020/August, 2021)

1.6.4.1. A student-athlete who transfers to a CCAA institution from a post-secondary institution outside of or within the CCAA is considered eligible to compete immediately in the CCAA if the student athlete is deemed academically eligible to compete in the subsequent semester at the previous institution they attended. Does not include mid-season transfers in the same sport or mid-season transfers in a different sport without meeting fall eligibility requirements as noted in 1.6.3.2.1 (Amended July 2018/May, 2020/December, 2020)

U Sports requires two-semester student-athletes to complete 18 credit hours within the academic year in order to retain eligibility. There is no U Sports equivalent to Rule 1.4.6, which is the reason that Mr. Dewsbery would be considered ineligible had he returned to MRU for the current semester.

The question is whether compliance with Rule 1.4.6 supersedes the requirement in Rules 1.6.2.1 and 1.6.4.1 that a student-athlete be considered academically eligible at the previous institution in order to be considered eligible at the student-athlete’s new institution.

The primary purpose of ACAC academic progress rules is to ensure that student-athletes are academically accountable. The Conference has enacted stringent requirements within the Operating Code in order to ensure this accountability. However, as recognized by Rule 1.4.6, we have also recognized that a certain amount of flexibility is required in order to strike a balance that also allows for the encouragement of inclusiveness of student participation, which is a key principle contained within the Operating Code.

Under the unique circumstances of this case, I am convinced that a flexible approach is required. I find that Mr. Dewsbery’s compliance with Rule 1.4.6 satisfies the requirement of academic accountability notwithstanding that he is not in strict compliance with Rules 1.6.2.1 and 1.6.4.1. Of note, my ruling would have been the same had Mr. Dewsbery been transferring from one CCAA institution to another.

Based on the above, and assuming that Mr. Dewsbery meets all other eligibility requirements, he is immediately eligible to compete within the ACAC.

Sincerely,

Bill Hendsbee 
ACAC Commissioner