The National Collegiate Athletic Association is not letting its members off the hook just because of a courtroom loss.
The association sent a mailing to its Division I members last week warning them not to interpret too freely a federal judge's decision to strike down the N.C.A.A.'s academic standards for freshman athletes. The judge, Ronald L. Buckwalter of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, ruled March 8 that SAT and ACT cutoffs established by the N.C.A.A. were racially biased.
In its advice to members, the N.C.A.A. warned teams that if they used players who had failed to meet the test-score minimums, they could risk forfeiting games and tournament revenues if the judge's ruling is overturned on appeal. The N.C.A.A. also said that teams may face forfeitures and lost revenues if they used players who did not meet new standards that the N.C.A.A. has yet to establish.
The association noted in its mailing that such sanctions were permissible under Bylaw 19.8 of its Division I manual. The sanctions apply to universities that allow ineligible athletes to play as a result of a court order.
The N.C.A.A.'s action angered Tai Kwan Cureton and the three other black athletes who successfully challenged the association's eligibility standards last month. The students, via their lawyers, asked the judge to command the N.C.A.A. to stop using the bylaw to threaten institutions in the case.
"The very language of [Bylaw 19.8] requires N.C.A.A. members to ignore court orders or face the wrath of the N.C.A.A.," the plaintiffs wrote.
Bylaw 19.8 was enacted by the association in the mid-1970s to prevent universities from seeking temporary restraining orders to permit top athletes to compete, said Wallace I. Renfro, an N.C.A.A. spokesman. The association's members voted for the rule to prevent institutions from using delays in the court system to keep athletes eligible for entire seasons, he said.
Even before the N.C.A.A.'s mailing, many university officials said they would not recruit prospects who lacked the test scores that had been required by the N.C.A.A.
"Basically, we're standing pat," said Michael B. McGee, athletics director at the University of South Carolina.
DeLoss Dodds, men's athletics director at the University of Texas at Austin, pointed out that its admissions standards for athletes were higher than the N.C.A.A.'s standards, so few of the university's recruits would be affected by the court battle.
"We're going after kids who can graduate at Texas," Mr. Dodds said. "We have a tough academic situation here, so we're going to make sure the kids who come here can make it. So, sometimes we don't pay much attention to the N.C.A.A.'s standards."
The judge's ruling may help athletes who have met two of the three N.C.A.A. eligibility requirements. Those athletes who have achieved a certain grade-point average on a sliding scale, and have completed 13 core high-school courses, but who have not met the test-score requirement, are known as "partial qualifiers" or "non-qualifiers."
A partial qualifier, who meets a slightly lower test-score cutoff than that required for full eligibility, is allowed to receive a scholarship as a freshman and to practice, but he or she cannot travel or compete for a university. Non-qualifiers, who have not met even the lower test-score standard, may not receive aid or participate in varsity sports during their freshman year.
Partial qualifiers and non-qualifiers who have lost a year of playing eligibility may be able to petition the N.C.A.A. to earn that extra year back, according to Adele P. Kimmel, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers.
The N.C.A.A. says that 850 of the 43,009 high-school seniors who have applied to the N.C.A.A.'s Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse will be partial or non-qualifiers.
Copyright © 1999 by The Chronicle of Higher Education