11 spRUhoops HINDASH.JPG

Former Rutgers basketball player Mike Poole, who transferred out of the school after last season, was granted a waiver by the NCAA and will be allowed to play right away, without sitting out a year as is normal for transfers.

(Saed Hindash/The Star-Ledger)

Among the many intricacies of the NCAA’s vast rulebook is the way in which players that choose to transfer between schools can receive the ability to play immediately. It is a little-known process — and inconsistent to some — in which the college sport’s ruling body determines whether a player must sit out the first season with his or her new school, as usually made mandatory by the NCAA.

That process gained a new level of intrigue last week when Kerwin Okoro, a basketball player transferring from Iowa State to Rutgers, was denied the ability to play immediately. Okoro had applied for a waiver to do so after moving back nearer to his New York City home after losing his father and brother in a span of two months this winter.

In contrast to Mike Poole, Derrick Randall and Vincent Garrett, players who transferred from Rutgers to other schools this spring and were awarded the immediate right, it raised questions of how the NCAA works in this regard. Eli Carter, another transfer from Rutgers, is expected to attain a waiver as well, according to an SNY report.

To understand how the process works, The Star-Ledger spoke with two members of the NCAA’s Membership Affairs group. Because Okoro’s waiver request is under appeal, the NCAA would not speak about specific and ongoing cases. Rutgers did not comment out of deference to the ongoing process.

"It’s not a formula. It’s not a math problem," NCAA spokesman Christopher Radford said. "The guidelines evolve and we see different circumstances and scenarios, and the guidelines evolve with that to make the process better and more efficient."

To begin, the request to play immediately, though often called a hardship waiver, is actually named the legislative relief waiver — and asks for the NCAA’s clearance to override a current rule because of some extenuating circumstance such as illnesses to immediate family, deaths in the family or financial valleys. A hardship waiver is for scenarios in which a player is hoping to regain a year of eligibility after he has suffered an injury that cuts short one of his seasons.

The process itself is three-pronged.

Once the school decides it wants to seek the waiver, it works with a liaison from the NCAA’s 15-person legislative relief team. That liaison works with the school, most often its compliance department, to assist it in making the best argument about why the player is worthy of the right to play right away. During this step, it is incumbent on the school and the player to provide succinct documentation for a case.

And insufficient documentation can doom a case because the NCAA will not just take a claim at its word.

In the case of ill family members, the player must get proof from physicians to document the illness, how serious it is and when the diagnosis was made. When a family member dies, one example provided was documentation of a mental health issue to the student-athlete or a family member that shows why he or she needed to move closer to home.

"Depending on the reason, that drives the documentation that we ask for," said Kelly Brooks, one of the two NCAA officials.

Once all evidence has been provided, the liaison will present it to that group — acting as a case manager and advocate.

Then comes the vote, where a simple majority rules and the liaison votes as well.

The guidelines for a decision are ever-changing, based on the recommendations of the Division 1 Legislative Council Subcommittee for Legislative Relief — and can be adjusted semi-annually. The group is a subcommittee of the larger Legislative Council and is made up of five members of conference and school officials that empower the 15-member NCAA staff.

"The way those guidelines get developed is eventually after they see people keep doing the same thing over and over, they try to box it in," said John Infante, a former compliance officer at Colorado State and who now runs the Bylaw Blog at athleticscholarships.net. "The goal is to make it more consistent, more predictable."

This whole process, however, could all change in the future. The NCAA is currently reviewing its transfer legislation. If changes are made there, then subsequent changes for the waiver request process could come as well.

In November 2012, the subcommittee made four amendments to the guidelines in response to the "belief among the membership that waiver decisions were not consistent from case to case," according to the NCAA’s website.

It directed the NCAA to consider relief when a school presents documentation that an immediate family member has a "debilitating" injury or illness that demands ongoing care. Previously, the NCAA had needed proof of "life-threatening" illness or injury. And that the athlete can show he will be providing "ongoing caregiving responsibilities" and will be within a 100-mile radius of that family member’s home. The final change was that the new school must submit an affidavit from the athletic director and faculty athletics representative affirming that the player "will be relieved of responsibilities to the team in order to care for the injured or ill family member" and that his coaches will back that leave.

But whether the staff is presented with an athlete who has lost his mother or sees a family member become ill, the question it evaluates is the same.

"What is the necessity to transfer to the location that you’re transferring to?" Brooks said.

The entire process can take anywhere from two days to four weeks — depending on how quickly the school acts and the number of reviews at any given moment. According to the NCAA, it receives 1,500-1,600 requests annually across all Division I sports.

There is also always one last option for a denied request, and that is appealing the decision. The Legislative Council Subcommittee hears the appeal and has more leeway than the NCAA staff. It may not even be burdened by the guidelines it has set for the NCAA staff.

"The subcommittee essentially can make whatever decision they think is the appropriate decision as a representative of the membership," Brooks said.

Or as Infante, said: "They can disavow their guidelines because it’s their guidelines. They were the ones who made it up. They’re the members who made the rule."

That process, Infante said, can take a prolonged period of time because of the infrequency with which the subcommittee meets, and it can take several weeks for an appeal to appear before the group.

In the case of Okoro and Rutgers, Infante believes Rutgers will have a better chance on appeal because their cases seem to fall outside of the prescribed guidelines.

"It definitely is the type of the thing that I think you would see get a better shot to be approved by the committee," he said. "Because they are not going to be worried by the fact that it’s outside the guidelines because they are the ones who are supposed to be setting the precedent and setting the guidelines."

Mike Vorkunov: mvorkunov@starledger.com

