What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Utica sanctioned by NCAA for FA Violations

LakerFan99

New member
From the NCAA:

Utica College failed to monitor financial aid program

INDIANAPOLIS – Utica College failed to monitor its Canadian International Student Award program, which led to Canadian student-athletes receiving more financial aid than the general Canadian student body, according to findings by the NCAA Division III Committee on Infractions. Penalties in this case include two years of probation, a postseason ban for any teams with student-athletes receiving the financial aid and increased oversight requirements.

This case was resolved through the summary disposition process, a cooperative effort where the involved parties collectively submit the case to the Committee on Infractions in written form. The NCAA enforcement staff, college and involved individuals must agree to use the summary disposition process instead of having a formal hearing.

In 2010, the college developed the CISA program to attract Canadian students to under-enrolled majors. The goal of the program was to provide enough aid so that the cost of attendance for a Canadian student was roughly equivalent to that of a domestic student. Utica consulted the NCAA to ensure the program was designed to comply with NCAA rules. The NCAA advised the college to make the funds available to all prospective students using the same standard, to carefully monitor the impact of the financial aid and to act proactively if any problems arise.

As the program was administered, the number of Canadian student-athletes who enrolled at the college outnumbered the number of Canadian non-student-athletes. During the 2010-11 academic year, the college awarded the financial aid to five students. All recipients were men’s ice hockey student-athletes. In 2011-12, Utica awarded the financial aid to 11 students. The recipients were comprised of six men’s ice hockey student-athletes, one women’s ice hockey student-athlete and one baseball student-athlete.

When awarding the financial aid, the Office of International Education did not actively track whether the awardees were student-athletes. As a part of its effort to award financial aid without considering athletics participation, the college’s financial aid office did not track which students were members of athletics teams. During an internal review of the CISA program in December 2011, the college found that it was not achieving the proper balance between student-athletes and non-athletes receiving the financial aid. At that point, the college suspended the financial aid for incoming Canadian students for the 2012-13 academic year. It continued awarding the financial aid to continuing students who met the program’s eligibility criteria.

Because the college did not track the financial aid awarded to the Canadian student-athletes, the college failed to monitor the program. The committee notes that the lack of monitoring was intentional because the college did not want athletics participation to be a consideration in the financial aid progress.

The penalties include:

Public reprimand and censure.
Two years of probation, from August 29, 2013 through August 28, 2015.
A postseason ban for any of the college’s teams whose rosters include one or more student-athletes receiving CISA awards.
Request of a Level Two review from the NCAA Committee on Financial Aid. During this review, the committee looks closely at an institution’s policies and procedures for awarding aid, as well as the impact of those factors on aid received by student-athletes.
The members of the Division III Committee on Infractions who reviewed this case include Keith Jacques, attorney at Woodman, Edmands, Danylik, Austin, Smith and Jacques; Dave Cecil, chair and director of financial aid at Transylvania State; Amy Elizabeth Hackett, director of athletics at University of Puget Sound; Nancy Meyer, director of women’s athletics at Calvin College; and Garnett Purnell, director of athletics at Wittenberg University.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect...llege+failed+to+monitor+financial+aid+program
 
From the NCAA:

Utica College failed to monitor financial aid program

INDIANAPOLIS – Utica College failed to monitor its Canadian International Student Award program, which led to Canadian student-athletes receiving more financial aid than the general Canadian student body, according to findings by the NCAA Division III Committee on Infractions. Penalties in this case include two years of probation, a postseason ban for any teams with student-athletes receiving the financial aid and increased oversight requirements.

This case was resolved through the summary disposition process, a cooperative effort where the involved parties collectively submit the case to the Committee on Infractions in written form. The NCAA enforcement staff, college and involved individuals must agree to use the summary disposition process instead of having a formal hearing.

In 2010, the college developed the CISA program to attract Canadian students to under-enrolled majors. The goal of the program was to provide enough aid so that the cost of attendance for a Canadian student was roughly equivalent to that of a domestic student. Utica consulted the NCAA to ensure the program was designed to comply with NCAA rules. The NCAA advised the college to make the funds available to all prospective students using the same standard, to carefully monitor the impact of the financial aid and to act proactively if any problems arise.

As the program was administered, the number of Canadian student-athletes who enrolled at the college outnumbered the number of Canadian non-student-athletes. During the 2010-11 academic year, the college awarded the financial aid to five students. All recipients were men’s ice hockey student-athletes. In 2011-12, Utica awarded the financial aid to 11 students. The recipients were comprised of six men’s ice hockey student-athletes, one women’s ice hockey student-athlete and one baseball student-athlete.

When awarding the financial aid, the Office of International Education did not actively track whether the awardees were student-athletes. As a part of its effort to award financial aid without considering athletics participation, the college’s financial aid office did not track which students were members of athletics teams. During an internal review of the CISA program in December 2011, the college found that it was not achieving the proper balance between student-athletes and non-athletes receiving the financial aid. At that point, the college suspended the financial aid for incoming Canadian students for the 2012-13 academic year. It continued awarding the financial aid to continuing students who met the program’s eligibility criteria.

Because the college did not track the financial aid awarded to the Canadian student-athletes, the college failed to monitor the program. The committee notes that the lack of monitoring was intentional because the college did not want athletics participation to be a consideration in the financial aid progress.

The penalties include:

Public reprimand and censure.
Two years of probation, from August 29, 2013 through August 28, 2015.
A postseason ban for any of the college’s teams whose rosters include one or more student-athletes receiving CISA awards.
Request of a Level Two review from the NCAA Committee on Financial Aid. During this review, the committee looks closely at an institution’s policies and procedures for awarding aid, as well as the impact of those factors on aid received by student-athletes.
The members of the Division III Committee on Infractions who reviewed this case include Keith Jacques, attorney at Woodman, Edmands, Danylik, Austin, Smith and Jacques; Dave Cecil, chair and director of financial aid at Transylvania State; Amy Elizabeth Hackett, director of athletics at University of Puget Sound; Nancy Meyer, director of women’s athletics at Calvin College; and Garnett Purnell, director of athletics at Wittenberg University.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect...llege+failed+to+monitor+financial+aid+program

Here's a slap on the wrist Utica. As long as no players that receive the aid play, they can still play post season. No games forfeited either.
 
Re: Utica sanctioned by NCAA for FA Violations

You kind of just brush that off, but it seems to me that could be fairly significant.


Powers &8^]

The whole thing is wrong - it's a case of the NCAA telling Utica, "do this." Apparently the did, but the got in trouble anyway. There is a big difference between creating a class of aid that looks fair, but is intended to target athletes, and creating a class of aid that unintentionally gets more athletes than it should. The students who took advantage of the package should be allowed to continue and participate. If the NCAA doesn't like the results, then don't allow new grants to athletes. Pulling out a big source of FA from a student at the last minute can have drastic consequences and forcing a student who is already enrolled to choose between playing and receiving the package is wrong.
 
Re: Utica sanctioned by NCAA for FA Violations

It appears to me that someone on the Committee was out for blood.
 
According to UC, they ended the aid program in question in 2011, so one would assume that no current Canadian players are still receiving the aid.

Read it again, my friend:

At that point, the college suspended the financial aid for incoming Canadian students for the 2012-13 academic year. It continued awarding the financial aid to continuing students who met the program’s eligibility criteria

So any canadians who enrolled prior to the 2012-13 Academic Year may still be receiving the aid.
 
The whole thing is wrong - it's a case of the NCAA telling Utica, "do this." Apparently the did, but the got in trouble anyway. There is a big difference between creating a class of aid that looks fair, but is intended to target athletes, and creating a class of aid that unintentionally gets more athletes than it should. The students who took advantage of the package should be allowed to continue and participate. If the NCAA doesn't like the results, then don't allow new grants to athletes. Pulling out a big source of FA from a student at the last minute can have drastic consequences and forcing a student who is already enrolled to choose between playing and receiving the package is wrong.

Except that, according to this report, the NCAA advised Utica to "carefully monitor the impact of the financial aid", and Utica proceeded to not track the awarding of the aid at all. That seems to be where UC failed to comply with the NCAA.
 
Re: Utica sanctioned by NCAA for FA Violations

Read it again, my friend:



So any canadians who enrolled prior to the 2012-13 Academic Year may still be receiving the aid.

but were any revisions made to said criteria... it does say "Students" and not "Student Athletes". With that in mind, there were 3 other Canadian students by my count. The local newspaper said that the program has been discontinued.

There is way too much variety in the stories i'm getting right now.
 
Re: Utica sanctioned by NCAA for FA Violations

Just spoke to a member of administration. Utica is currently in compliance and will not serve any postseason ban.
 
Re: Utica sanctioned by NCAA for FA Violations

At some point in time, the NCAA is going to have to get draconian with the (for lack of a better term) cheaters. Slaps on the wrist will not deter. Forfeiting games and vacating championships will.
 
Re: Utica sanctioned by NCAA for FA Violations

At some point in time, the NCAA is going to have to get draconian with the (for lack of a better term) cheaters. Slaps on the wrist will not deter. Forfeiting games and vacating championships will.

The issue of international student aid is a tricky one - there are legitimate reasons for it. I think that as long as such a program is not designed with the intent of attracting athletes, it is a real tricky issue because denying them the ability to apply for such programs is reverse discrimination. Why should athletes be denied access to aid programs that they would have access to if they weren't athletes? The whole idea of the FA tests is that athletes and non-athletes are supposed to be treated the same. This is treating them as though they were second class citizens.

There must be another way to do this...

As a member of the Financial Aid Committee at NU for a few years (back in the dim past), I know there used to be loopholes big enough to drive a truck through, and the football program got a lot more aid for FB players than did any other organization on campus. The number of "leadership points," as they were called, that were allocated to quarterbacks, halfbacks, etc. was kind of amazing, but the process was legal with existing NCAA regulations. (Each campus sector was allocated a certain number of such points, or bumps, but somehow the Athletic Department got more than the Math Department.)
 
Re: Utica sanctioned by NCAA for FA Violations

At some point in time, the NCAA is going to have to get draconian with the (for lack of a better term) cheaters. Slaps on the wrist will not deter. Forfeiting games and vacating championships will.

Agreed. Now its possible that any of these teams over the last few years have gotten nailed, didn't actually realize anything was wrong until someone picked up on it whether in house or NCAA offices (See Hobart Lax).

However rule breakers should be punished. Neumann as an example, won a championship and elevated their program to perennial top 15 status. But when the NCAA found out later (few years after), nothing was really done and no one cared after a week or two. While I am not a fan of punishing players for coach/administration cheating, mistakes, covering up, etc, a harsher penalty than "probation" needs to be enforced. Possibly coach getting suspended for a few games or something along those lines.

Then as Prof said, it is very tricky to balance the international athletes with international students. At many of these schools, they simply do not get a lot of internationals to balance it out particularly if you open programs that are dedicated/focused to draw international students. Its generally hard to convince non-athletic students to come to your SUNY school or small school in a small location (ECAC-W).

The difficulties of D3 continue....
 
Re: Utica sanctioned by NCAA for FA Violations

One process which makes sense to my mind would be financial aid process in which athletic Q
and extra-curricular status is invisible, and the only information that the FA people have are the academic records, family financial information from the FAFSA, and any extenuating family circumstances. Even names would be withheld. It would be a violation if the athletic dept was involved in any way in helping the student apply for FA. Kind of like a double blind clinical trial. Nobody would know what the outcome would be until the application was processed. By definition, there would be no advantage or disadvantage in the process for any group of students. The place where violations could occur would be in the creation of packages by the Athletics Office that would be intended to attract groups of athletes, such as cross country team being involved in the creation of special incentives for Kenyans, when there was no academic initiation of such a program and no campus life or academic goals that would be furthered by such a program
 
Re: Utica sanctioned by NCAA for FA Violations

One process which makes sense to my mind would be financial aid process in which athletic Q
and extra-curricular status is invisible, and the only information that the FA people have are the academic records, family financial information from the FAFSA, and any extenuating family circumstances. Even names would be withheld. It would be a violation if the athletic dept was involved in any way in helping the student apply for FA. Kind of like a double blind clinical trial. Nobody would know what the outcome would be until the application was processed. By definition, there would be no advantage or disadvantage in the process for any group of students. The place where violations could occur would be in the creation of packages by the Athletics Office that would be intended to attract groups of athletes, such as cross country team being involved in the creation of special incentives for Kenyans, when there was no academic initiation of such a program and no campus life or academic goals that would be furthered by such a program

This sounds equitable, but do you really think it is feasible? If you don't offer de-facto scholarships through financial aid, SAs will go to places that do offer it. I admit to ignorance on how prevalent this is in division III, but for the ivies in division I, FA is the only way they can field an even remotely competitive team against schools with scholarship players.
 
Re: Utica sanctioned by NCAA for FA Violations

One process which makes sense to my mind would be financial aid process in which athletic Q
and extra-curricular status is invisible, and the only information that the FA people have are the academic records, family financial information from the FAFSA, and any extenuating family circumstances. Even names would be withheld. It would be a violation if the athletic dept was involved in any way in helping the student apply for FA. Kind of like a double blind clinical trial. Nobody would know what the outcome would be until the application was processed. By definition, there would be no advantage or disadvantage in the process for any group of students. The place where violations could occur would be in the creation of packages by the Athletics Office that would be intended to attract groups of athletes, such as cross country team being involved in the creation of special incentives for Kenyans, when there was no academic initiation of such a program and no campus life or academic goals that would be furthered by such a program

I just looked at Cortland's Cross Country and Track teams, 0 from Kenya. How many of those foreign runners come over and become US citizens before college? I'm going to let Prez handle this one, as he ran in DIII but I just looked at Cortland and they have 0 from Kenya. (No idea who is good in X-Country but Cortland is good at everything so why not).

Second, you're right, there are plenty of loopholes and will always be, to give athletes more $$ off their bill to come to DIII. However I dissagree with your process. A school like Plattsburgh has a large international program, other schools do too. I don't care if teams give them out as long as there are two things followed.

A. Just like the NCAA says, have MORE NON ATHLETES
and
B. There needs to be a % cap, period (private vs public)

When SUNY School A is giving $5,000 off a $15,000 bill and SUNY School B is giving $5,000 off a $10,000 bill.....but yet Private School C is giving $15,000 off a $25,000 bill.

To me is should be a % off and thats it. SUNY school A can give 9% off, B 9% off, and Private School C 9% off. If SUNY School C can not afford to give their foreign students 9%, thats on them.

Hockeyfan,

While I do agree with what you said about not knowing, that's why I put in the other thread that there is a differece between 51% Athletes / 49% Non-Athletes to the Neumann 115 grants handed out to athletes out of the 118 total grants. Then again that's like signing 4,000 autographs for free for sport collectors and not taking any money....right...and then sit out a half against Rice....lol Yet have a dinner with an NFL star, sit 10 games....
 
Re: Utica sanctioned by NCAA for FA Violations

I wish they would throw out all these half-baked recruiting rules and bring back the old days when the best players got the best deals and if the other teams didn't like it ... tough !! Something tells me those days aren't coming back. I know on my recruiting trips in the late '70's, I heard tales from the other players how good they had it. At least everyone knew how it worked back then and there was no misunderstandings. Today's recruiting is ultra transparent and teams still get in hot water. >
 
Back
Top