The NCAA Student-Athlete Reinstatement Process: Say What?

There is a loud, indefatigable, and breathtakingly broad cacophony of critics chanting that the NCAA is unfair to student-athletes. The NCAA regularly is criticized for its impact on student-athletes who have no voice in creating the bylaws that affect them and, it is argued, no alternative to the NCAA if they want to attend college and also compete in varsity athletics. Chief among the complaints is how student-athlete violations are handled. Most often the critics ignore or fail to appreciate the magnitude of potential student-athlete violations. Almost always the reinstatement process is assumed, wrongly, to mirror the Committee on Infractions process, with NCAA investigations, adversarial presentations, and Committee fact findings.Instead, a student-athlete’s university – not the Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee or its staff – investigates student-athlete violations, develops the relevant facts, and concludes that violations were committed. The exclusive role of the Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee and its staff is to assure that a university provides a fully developed factual record, to assess the degree of student-athlete culpability based on the facts reported by a university, and to decide whether and under what conditions a student-athlete may be reinstated to competition eligibility.The reinstatement process is practical reflection of the magnitude of potential student-athlete eligibility cases and the need for quick resolution. Student-athletes have only four years of competition eligibility and only a five-year window in which to compete. Most of their violations are admitted to by them. Often their violations are not serious and the competition consequences are minimal. In the great bulk of student-athlete reinstatement cases the current process not only works well for overall bylaw administration and enforcement, but it also advances student-athlete interests.The Article shines a spotlight on the reinstatement process to explain how it works, highlight where and why it differs from the enforcement/infractions process; and describe the deferential judicial standard of review accorded student-athlete eligibility decisions. The Article proposes reforms to provide student-athletes a greater voice in cases that carry substantial eligibility consequences. The Article also advances reforms to enhance transparency in student-athlete reinstatement decisions, cross-case consistency, and cross-institutional confidence in reinstatement decisions.