You are here: Home / 2011 / Archives for April 2011

Basketball Recruiting Model Discussion Gaining Steam

April 28, 2011 by

Everyone remembers way back in October when the Conference Commissioners Association voted to recommend that July basketball recruiting, the last bastion of in-person recruiting at AAU events by Division I men’s basketball coaches, be eliminated? And how the National Association of Basketball Coaches disagreed? And how the NCAA Division I Board of Directors declined to enact or sponsor legislation at that time, but instead ordered the Leadership Council to begin a study of the men’s basketball recruiting model?

Well that study is beginning to bear fruit. Head to the Pac-10 Compliance Corner website and you’ll find the agenda of the NCAA Board of Directors meeting on April 28, 2011. Within that agenda is the report of the Division I Leadership Council. And within that report are two possible alternatives to the NCAA’s current recruiting model. One is primarily championed and developed by the Big Ten, Big XII, Pac-10, ACC, and Big East. The other is an alternate proposal offered by the SEC.

The two plans are more similar than they are different. For starters, both would dramatically deregulate recruiting correspondence. Any form of communication (fax, text, email, phone calls, IM, etc.) would be permissible starting August 1 prior to a prospect’s junior year in high school. And there would be no limits on the frequency of such contact. This would combat the unlimited access to prospects that “third parties” presently enjoy.

Both models would also permit actual tryouts during official visits. Tryouts would be closed to the public, last up to two hours, and include a medical exam before any physical activity. Competition against the current team would be permitted as well. These regulations close track current Division II legislation, which permits tryouts.

Both groups propose a new critical date in the recruiting process: April 15 of a prospect’s junior year in high school. Starting on that date, off-campus contact and official visits would be permitted, currently prohibited prior to July 1 after a prospect’s junior year and the start of a prospect’s senior year respectively. April 15 might strike you as familar: it’s the opening of the football spring evaluation period.

The two plans diverge when it comes to evaluations. As an aside, it’s important to note what is **not** altered, specifically the fundamentals of the basketball recruiting calendar. It’s still 130 recruiting person-days during the academic year, and unless otherwise stated, nonscholastic (a.k.a. AAU) evaluations are prohibited.

Both plans would begin by replacing the two 10-day July evaluation periods with evaluations during the last three weekends in July. The move to weekends is to facilitate Proposal 2010-58-C, which would allow basketball coaches to work student-athletes out during the summer.

The model offered by the Group of Five would return coaches to the stands of AAU events in the spring, specifically during two weekends in late April. As is currently the rule in women’s basketball, if an SAT or ACT testing date fell on one of those weekends, the calendar should shift to accomodate.

The SEC’s model would not provide for April evaluations at all, scholastic or not. The spring evaluation period would be converted into strictly a contact period. One contact would be allowed at a prospect’s school, with another permitted at some other location. This mirrors football’s two permitted evaluations during the spring evaluation period.

While most of this seems major, aside from the SEC’s April contact-only period, much of it has been floated before. The revolutionary concept is the development of evaluation camps. The camps would be operated by USA Basketball and funded (including all participant expenses) by the NCAA and member conferences. Division I coaches would even work the camps, rotating to ensure fairness.

The SEC is bullish on these camps, with the model making them the only permissible nonscholastic evaluation events after a three-year period, eliminating AAU evaluations entirely. The other conferences see them as a pilot program, with no concrete plans to use them as a replacement for the AAU circuit. The NCAA, through iHoops, is already in this business with the Unsigned Prospects Program, but Division I coaches are currently prohibited from attending.

One of my pet peeves is when an NCAA initiative or idea is rejected for not being perfect. Either plan would be a major step forward, especially the deregulation of contacts and allowing official visits during the summer. Increasing the NCAA’s presence in nonscholastic basketball is a plus as well, especially by giving the NCAA and its coaches another role (event funder and camp employee).

Not everything is perfect — I’m not sold on tryouts, for instance — but I would hope the membership does not continue the “buffet” approach when a group offers a cohesive model. Weigh the good, weigh the bad, and take it or leave it. Either model, I would take.

But I disagree with the SEC that we would transition to an evaluation camp model. In fact, I believe either evaluation model should be the transition to something further from the current model. To do that, we need a legitimate competitor to grassroots AAU.

The AAU circuit currently allows a prospect to play year-round basketball. There are events virtually every weekend and during the week when AAU reaches its peak in July. I have trouble seeing how evaluation camps would be more than an addition or supplement to a prospect’s current options rather than a bona fide alternative.

Prospects want to get better. They want to earn a scholarship, make it to the league. That’s one of the reasons the ban on evaluating at AAU tournaments in April has been ineffective. Prospects are getting games in, getting experience. They’re getting better.

There’s a significant amount of debate over how much prospects have to play to get better. Some say any game is better than practice, other philosophies limit competition in favor of training and skill development. Quality vs. quantity of competition will be a never ending debate.

The evaluation camps outlined in the two models include plenty of scrimmages. But scrimmages between teams thrown together in short order, plus the pressure to impress with individual talent heightened by the camp atmosphere is a suspect example of elite competition.

Prospects clearly want year-round competition. To achieve the drastic change necessary in the recruiting environment, an alternative to the current bottom-up, grassroots AAU structure needs to be developed. Simply offering camps or expecting prospects to limit themselves to high school basketball will not be enough.

Building a viable alternative to AAU basketball will be an ambitious effort. It will likely require the input and support of USA Basketball, the NBA, and the NCAA. It will almost certainly be financed by Nike and adidas. And it will require thinking about not just where prospects will play basketball from April to September, but the entire way a prospect progresses, if lucky enough, from middle school basketball to the NBA.

This means what appears to be just a recruiting problem is also something of an amateurism problem. Right now, the NCAA is seen as at best a rest stop and at worst a roadblock on the way to the NBA. Create a path where youth basketball and the NCAA are more landmarks that speed bumps (to keep the road metaphor going) and it will attract prospects.

That doesn’t mean paying players. It means thinking about withdrawal dates. It means encouraging a professional league to invest in the development of its own prospects. And it means figuring out a better way to leverage the NCAA’s greatest strength for professional leagues: the only 18-23 year-old developmental league in the world, provided free of charge. And do it all with as little damage to the NCAA as possible.

The ultimate goal is not to figure out what set of complicated regulations should exist forever in order to keep a rein on a sport. Rather, the end goal is to help move toward a structure where all those rules aren’t needed and basketball could live under the same rules as all the other sports.

The proposals offered by the big conferences are an excellent first step. And something fairly close to one of those models should be implemented with some haste, presented to the membership next year if possible. That would put a new model in place as soon the 2012-2013 academic year.

Because it’s only one step and the clock is ticking. Not so much on basketball. There’s really nowhere to go but up in basketball. But there’s a world of possibilities in football. Someone is going to figure out nonscholastic football. Not 7-on-7. Real football, with pads and helmets, linemen and tackling. The faster the NCAA figures out nonscholastic basketball, the better chance that someone will be the NCAA.

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office.

About John Infante

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office. If you’re a coach, do not attempt to contact the author looking for a second opinion. If you’re a parent, don’t attempt to contact the author looking for a first opinion. Compliance professionals are by their nature helpful people generally dedicated to getting to the truth. Coaches should have a bit of faith in their own, and parents should talk to one directly.

Filed Under: Bylaw Blog, Feature Tagged With: , ,

Caught Being Good: Georgetown’s Deidra Sanders

April 27, 2011 by

Georgetown senior Deidra Sanders is leading a grassroots effort to touch the lives of Washington, D.C., middle school students. According to its website, The Grassroot Project educates at-risk youth about HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention by using student-athletes as role models.

As managing director for The Grassroot Project, she manages and facilitates three Grassroot programs based in D.C.: Grassroot Bison (Howard), Grassroot Colonials (George Washington) and Grassroot Hoyas (Georgetown). Sanders said she is involved in every aspect of the organization from recruiting and training new athletes, communicating with the schools, finance, fundraising, as well as monitoring and evaluation of all programs.

“The Grassroot Project is designed to allow student-athletes to give a little of their time and do a lot of good,” Sanders said of the nearly 200 student-athletes who reach almost that many middle school students each semester through the peer education program.

Sanders’ involvement began in August 2009 after hearing about The Grassroot Project from women’s basketball student-athlete and good friend Monica McNutt. Sanders said she went to the first training session and “fell in love” with the program, founded by former Georgetown student-athlete Tyler Spencer.

 Sanders said the most rewarding aspect of her involvement is watching students learn.

“We work with really hyper and exciting middle school students, and it may seem that they do not care or they are not learning everything that we are teaching them,” she said. “But our students remember everything we teach them on how they can live a healthy life.

“Every semester I am privileged to work with students that have been affected by this disease in some way and are glad to have someone to talk to about their experience.” 

 Her most rewarding experience came last semester, when Grassroot Hoyas and Grassroot Colonials partnered together to work with a group of students who were either infected or whose lives were dramatically affected by HIV/AIDS.

“They were so happy that we were there to talk to them and let them know that they can be whatever they want to be in life,” Sanders said. “From only one session, I felt like we were really helping and showed that this disease is real and is hurting the D.C. community.” 

 

Sanders’ philanthropic leanings began at age 15 through a tutoring and mentoring program in Memphis called Peer Power, which taught her the value of giving back. She still volunteers with the organization when she returns to her hometown.

Finding time to give back is a priority for the busy Sanders, an international political economy major.

Last month, Sanders ran the 400-meter leg of the Hoyas’ distance medley relay that earned seventh place at the 2011 NCAA Indoor Track & Field National Championships, earning its members first team All-America accolades. She also serves as secretary of the Georgetown Student-Athlete Advisory Committee.

While it is a challenge to balance academics, athletics and The Grassroot Project, Sanders has found a support system at Georgetown. The academic support staff, coaches and School of Foreign Service Dean (Bryan Kasper) have worked to create an environment where she can do it all.

“Life is still hectic even with all of the support, and all the Grassroot volunteers are always there to help in any way to help us reach as many students as possible,” said Sanders

Sanders will be graduating in May and said she already has job offers from the FBI as well as Apple. While she would like to work with The Grassroot Project full-time and expand its programming to the three other universities in the D.C. metro area, Sanders said the funding is not available.

About Kristen Porter

Filed Under: Caught Being Good, Feature

In the news: April 26

April 27, 2011 by

It’s good that media outlets report on the finances of college sports; it’s bad that they occasionally mislead or misinform readers in the process.

A recent example occurred in the Reno Gazette-Journal as part of a story about the Utah attorney general’s antitrust lawsuit against the Bowl Championship Series.

Actually, the story from writer Chris Murray (which acknowledged drawing some content from an Associated Press article) was fine.

The problem came with some accompanying content in the printed version of the paper.

There, someone had inserted list of high points, including the following:

“The NCAA makes $125 annually on its TV deal for the BCS football games.”

No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Media founder more on the subject of finances than in any other area of college sports coverage. Usually, the problem involves the failure to distinguish the NCAA from the individual schools or from other related organizations.

In this case, it’s the latter. Although the Bowl Championship Series is made up of NCAA member conferences, the finances are administered outside the NCAA itself. So, it’s the BCS that’s making $125 million off postseason football, not the NCAA.

Another highlight for the same story said: the “NCAA makes $771 million annually on its TV deal for the NCAA (basketball) tournament.”

That part is true, but it begs for amplification. About 60 percent of that money (roughly $462 million) will be distributed directly to Division I conferences and institutions. Much of the rest of it will go to administer 88 championships in 23 sports in all three membership divisions. The money also supports various other important programs, like catastrophic-injury insurance (and other insurance); championship and year-round drug testing; and postgraduate scholarships, degree-completion grants and internships.

In other words, there’s not a safe in the basement packed with $771 million.

About Dave Pickle

Filed Under: NCAA Insider

In the news: April 21

April 22, 2011 by

NCAA membership classification issues are often poorly understood, as shown by a recent development in New Orleans.

A New Orleans Times-Picayune story detailed how city officials are pressuring the University of New Orleans about its decision to reclassify from Division I to Division II.

The athletics program at New Orleans has struggled for years, both from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and then from the economic downturn over the last three or so years. University administrators first considered moving from Division I to Division III, but upon further consideration, they concluded that a move to Division II’s Gulf South Conference might be a better fit. University officials concluded that the Division II approach would be best not only for the athletics program (plans are to add football in five or so years) but also for the university in general as a means of boosting paid enrollment through Division II’s partial-scholarship model.

No doubt the city officials mean well, but their pressure is misguided. The real question facing the university is this: Is it better for an institution to pursue a strong Division II (or III) program or is it better for an institution to bet, against long odds, that its athletics program can eventually prosper at the Division I level?

The New Orleans program has survived at the Division I level since 2005 only because of a waiver of minimum sports-sponsorship requirements that were issued in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. It does not currently have a football program, let alone a revenue-generating one. The circumstances all but scream for the rational decision that university leaders have made. The consequence of continued failure isn’t merely a noncompetitive athletics program; the consequence is nonexistence.

Just as Division I membership is not somehow inherently “big time,” Division II and III affiliation is not necessarily minor-league. In all cases, the experience is what the institution, the administrators, the coaches, the student-athletes and the fans make of it.

In this case, city of New Orleans officials should get out of the way and let University of New Orleans officials do what they do best: Make well-informed decisions about the future of their institution.

About Dave Pickle

Filed Under: NCAA Insider

In the news: April 19

April 20, 2011 by

It’s tough to deal with all the incoming fire these days, but Gene Wojciechowski deserves a response to Monday’s column that appeared on ESPN.com.

Here’s the gist of what he had to say:

“It’s time for the NCAA to make a stand. Either pour real money and real resources into its investigative department (and I’m not talking about simply increasing the head count with rookie investigators), or hire an outside agency with the chops to make a difference. There’s a line in the movie “The Untouchables,” when Sean Connery the Chicago cop asks Kevin Costner the federal agent how far he’s willing to go to catch and convict mobster Al Capone.

“I want to get Capone!” says Costner’s Eliot Ness. “I don’t know how to do it.”

“You want to know how to get Capone?” says Connery’s Jim Malone. “They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That’s the Chicago way! And that’s how you get Capone. Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?”

Wojciechowski then offers a checklist of what should be done “to restructure the way the good guys do business.” The checklist is in italics, followed by a few responses:

  • Blow up the rules manual. Egyptian hieroglyphics are easier to understand than full pages of NCAA bylaws. And here’s who I’d hire to rewrite it: Bob Knight, Dick Tomey, Bill Curry and C.M. Newton. That’s nearly two centuries’ worth of real-world coaching and administrative experience. Coaches currently are in the enviable position of being able to complain about the rules without being responsible for actually writing them (let alone being accountable for interpreting and enforcing them). Wojciechowski’s Solons would discover that life is lonely at the top of the rules-making world.
  • Blow up the NCAA hypocrisy. Its members say they don’t want an FBS playoff because the season would last too long and academics would be compromised. Yet, UConn’s men’s team played half of an NBA schedule (41 games) and five UCLA players took their winter quarter final exams in a Tampa-area hotel conference room during the NCAA tournament. How many people really cite academics as the reason for not having a major-level football playoff? Somebody occasionally mentions it as a reason for not having a top-level playoff, but most people realize that time away from class (including occasionally during finals) is a necessary evil of national-championship competition. As for the UCLA observation, it’s hard to tell whether Wojciechowski believes taking final exams in Tampa was good or bad. Personally, I think he’s trying to have it both ways (zing the NCAA for taking basketball athletes out of class for extended periods; zing the NCAA on the straw-man time-away-from-finals football argument).
  • Blow up the one-and-dones. Two words: Josh Selby. Four words: It’s an NBA rule.
  • Blow up the Academic Progress Rate (APR) and devise a better methodology to measure academic commitment. And then do as Secretary of Education Arne Duncan says: Impose a postseason ban on programs whose graduation rates are tracking toward a sub-50 percent rate. Arne Duncan himself demonstrated why the APR is necessary when he cited six-year graduation rates in making his case a year ago. When Wojciechowski wants to ban programs “whose graduation rates are tracking toward a sub-50 percent rate,” he’s describing the need for a real-time metric. And that metric is APR.
  • Blow up the no-player-stipend policy. As Wojciechowski surely knows, NCAA President Mark Emmert has encouraged discussion of providing full cost of attendance under certain conditions. Whether the membership will support such a concept is not known at this time.

For what it’s worth, “The Untouchables” winds up with Eliot Ness giving in to his dark side by pushing Frank Nitti to his death and then manipulating the legal system by lying to a corrupt judge to convict Al Capone. That makes for a happy ending, but only in the movies.

About Dave Pickle

Filed Under: NCAA Insider

NCAA Rules That Could Have Been

April 18, 2011 by

The NCAA Division I Manual takes a lot of criticism for being a large and unwieldy beast full of esoteric and confusing rules. The size is a bit overstated, and much more complicated legal codes can be found. But the best way to defend what’s in the Manual is to point out what isn’t in the Manual.

Every year, about a hundred or so proposals are offered. Many tend to be adopted. And most are approved without much debate or controversy. But between the tendency of NCAA committees to go wherever the data points them and 31 conferences with their own ideas, sometimes proposals can go off the reservation. So here’s the 10 craziest NCAA rules of the last decade that never made it over the hump into the Manual.

#10: 2008-27

In women’s lacrosse, to specify that an institution’s athletics department staff member shall not arrange lodging for a prospective student-athlete on an unofficial visit in an enrolled student-athlete’s residence (e.g., dormitory room, apartment) until August 1 following the prospective student-athlete’s junior year in high school.

2008 began a series of innovative recruiting proposals that lead to a through review of the entire recruiting model that started in 2009 and continues to this day. Part of the impetus for that review was a series of proposals by the Ivy League in women’s lacrosse designed to test different recruiting reforms. The proposal even expressly stated that the concepts could be a pilot program in women’s lacrosse, then expanded to other sports.

The most specific among them was 2008-27, which sought to eliminate the unofficial official visit, where a junior prospect stays overnight, gets free tickets to games, but pays for her own food, transportation, and entertainment. All of the sport-specific legislation was defeated, although many of the concepts were combined in another proposal on the list the following year.

#9: 2010-76

In women’s basketball, to reduce the annual limit on the number of counters at each institution from 15 to 13.

The most recent proposal on the list, offered by the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference, sought to reduce women’s basketball’s scholarships to the same level as men’s basketball.

The proposal is noteworthy for two reasons. First, it is the only reduction in financial aid for a sport that has been proposed since 2000. Even men’s sports have gotten proposals seeking to increasing scholarship limits. And secondly was the MAAC’s “use it or lose it” rationale, pointing out that the average number of women’s basketball scholarships used was 13.08.

#8: 2007-23-A

In tennis, to specify that, prior to full-time collegiate enrollment, an individual may accept prize money based on his or her place finish or performance in open athletics events, not to exceed $10,000 per calendar year; further, to specify that once the individual has reached the $10,000 limit, he or she may receive additional prize money on a per event basis, provided such prize money does not exceed his or her actual and necessary expenses for participation in the event.

Division I has always struggled with regulating the amateur activities of prospective student-athletes, who often don’t know the rules but who are equally likely to be attempting to manipulate them. No where is that no prevalent or more highly regulated than tennis. But in 2007, tennis almost went off the deep end of deregulation.

2007-23-A would have allowed for a tennis prospect to pocket $10,000 per year in prize money and then continue to accept prize money, provided it was only for actual and necessary expenses in each event. The rationale was that tennis is exceedingly expensive to play at the elite level, and the $10,000 per year often just covers unitemized expenses. Sponsored by the Ivy League, both 2007-23-A and an alternative allowing $10,000 total were both defeated.

#7: 2003-69

To eliminate the requirement that each Division I member institution, at least once every 10 years, complete an institutional self-study, verified and evaluated through external peer review.

Certification is built into the fabric of Division I athletics at this point. Every 10 years a school studies itself, submits itself to a peer review, evaluates its progress over the last decade, and offers a plan for growing over the next 10 years.

Following the first cycle of certification and as the second cycle ramped up, the Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference decided the exercise had reached its conclusion. Claiming second cycle certification had produced “few tangible benefits,” the MAAC proposed to do away with continued certification of athletic departments, and proposed ongoing review of topical areas conducted by conferences. After drawing a sharp rebuke from the Committee on Athletic Certification, the MAAC withdrew the proposal.

#6: 2005-162

To specify that an individual who officially registers, enrolls and attends classes at one of the three national service academy official preparatory schools (i.e., Army, Navy, Air Force) prior to initial full-time collegiate enrollment shall not be subject to the contact limitations in Bylaw 13 and shall be considered a student-athlete for purposes of contact by athletics staff members at other Division I institutions.

Proposed by the Patriot League, home of Navy and Army, 2005-162 would have essentially turned into student-athletes anyone who enrolled at one of the official military prep schools. That means recruiting restrictions would not have applied, and anyone from another school seeking to recruit this prospects would have had to get permission to contact these high schoolers.

The rationale was that the United States Military was already investing substantial resources in these prospects, and thus they should be treated like student-athletes. While our service academies get a number of breaks in the NCAA legislation, a de facto farm system went too far and was seen as too much of a competitive advantage. Thus it was defeated.

#5: 2009-28-A

In women’s soccer, to revise or establish restrictions related to contacts, telephone calls official and unofficial visits, offers of financial aid and involvement in nonscholastic-based soccer programs, as specified.

There has been a lot of talk of recruiting models and comprehensive recruiting reform. But no single proposal capture an entire recruiting model quite like 2009-28-A. “As specified” meant no contact prior to August 1 before a prospect’s senior year in high school. That meant no unofficial visits, no phone calls made or received, no off-campus contacts, and no club coaching by college coaches, although official visits were moved up to August 1, allowing them to be taken before school started for prospects.

Proposed by the SEC, the fear amongst the membership was that August 1 would be a feeding frenzy of coaches who would pressure student-athletes to make a decision quickly to fill a recruiting class they were used to being finished with up to two years prior. Both this proposal and a companion offered by the Ivy League proposing many of the same restrictions for all sports were both defeated.

#4: 2004-121

In men’s basketball, to specify that the head men’s coach must annually develop an individual personal growth plan with each student-athlete using community and institutional resources; further, to require the coach to periodically meet with each student-athlete to ensure that appropriate progress is being made toward the objectives set forth in the student-athlete’s personal growth plan.

Offered as part of a package developed by the NABC, this proposal would have required the creation of a mentioning plan between head coaches and student-athletes in men’s basketball. It’s a far cry from the NABC’s recent stance of deregulating most men’s basketball activities outside of money funneling.

The unanswered question is how this would ever be monitored. Sure, plans could be created and filed. And meetings could be scheduled and tracked. But how would you ever know if a student-athlete was progressing along his personal growth plan? Sadly we’ll never know. The proposal was defeated, resoundingly so, by a vote of 41-4.

#3: 2001-69

To specify that there shall be no simultaneous telecasting or cablecasting of regular season intercollegiate football games on Friday nights.

There’s college football televised on almost every night. But back in 2001, the Atlantic Coast Conference proposed leaving Friday Night Lights for high school only. There was one catch though: a Friday game could be broadcast live if it finished by 7:00 PM everywhere it was broadcast. So had the ACC not withdrawn the proposal after it was introduced, perhaps college might have seen the Friday Night Dusk.

#2: 2002-97, 2006-86

To establish an NCAA Division I Nonscholarship Football Championship.

Twice since 2000, the Football Championship Subdivision teams that do not provide scholarships have asked for the NCAA’s assistance in creating their own national championship. Conference of nonscholarship FCS schools are not eligible for automatic bids and the individual schools are rarely, if ever, selected as at-large participants. On two separate occasions, the schools have tried to carve out their own unique niche.

2002-97 was to create an official NCAA championship for Division I FCS (I-AA at the time) nonscholaship football. 2006-96 asked to allow schools to exempt the games in a non-NCAA championship event for nonscholarship football programs. As the calls for a major college playoff get louder and louder, we almost had two Division I playoffs without including the big boys.

#1: 2000-103

To permit a student-athlete to obtain a loan (not to exceed $20,000) based on future earnings potential from a centralized lending institution, as specified.

First the particulars: it wasn’t all student-athletes. Only student-athletes that had qualified for the NCAA’s disability insurance for elite student-athletes. Currently, that would apply to student-athletes who are projected to be drafted in the first round of the NBA, MLB, or WNBA Draft or first three rounds of the NFL or NHL Draft. And it wasn’t a loan from just anyone but from a real bank.

The Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet sponsored the proposal through the Management Council, the predecessor to the Legislative Council. The Board of Directors did not yet have authority to sponsor legislation, so 2000-103 came from as close to the top as it could back then.

And the proposal was never actually defeated in an up and down vote. It was tabled and forgotten until 2008 when the shift to the current governance structure finally killed the proposal. It may not be paying athletes exactly, but it’s the most surprising rule that could have been from the last 10 years.

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office.

About John Infante

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office. If you’re a coach, do not attempt to contact the author looking for a second opinion. If you’re a parent, don’t attempt to contact the author looking for a first opinion. Compliance professionals are by their nature helpful people generally dedicated to getting to the truth. Coaches should have a bit of faith in their own, and parents should talk to one directly.

Filed Under: Bylaw Blog Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Transfer Market Coming to Football?

April 14, 2011 by

With NCAA proposals, the law of unintended consequences is always at play. For example, if you toughen academic standards, there’s always the possibility that rather than more studying and better academic support, you get more academic fraud. Deregulate behavior that seems fairly uncommon and you might end up with more of it than you bargained for.

When three NCAA proposals with seemingly different objectives happen to be pointing at the same spot, the effect is magnified. And when they are all passed and become effective at the same time, the ripples can continue for quite a while. That’s what could happen with three pieces of football legislation that was proposed this year. To understand the combined effect, you must understand each proposal.

(Note: At the time of this writing, no formal announcement has been made regarding whether Proposal 2010-52 had been passed. Proposal 2010-78 was passed in January and 2010-59-C is awaiting board approval.)

Proposal 2010-52

Proposal 2010-52 is another attempt to codify a transfer exception for graduate students in football, basketball, baseball, and ice hockey. The previous attempt, Proposal 2005-54, lived a brief but exciting life in 2006-2007 before falling to an override vote. The intent of 2005-54 was revived as a waiver process shortly there after. Under the proposal, a student-athlete in these sports can transfer and be immediately eligible for competition without seeking a waiver if:

  • The student-athlete has not previously
  • He/she graduates from the first institution;
  • He/she enrolls in a graduate program not offered at the first institution;
  • His/her athletic scholarship is not renewed for the following year; and
  • The first institution does not object to allowing the student-athlete to compete immediately.

The intended result is that if a student-athlete has graduated and is no longer wanted on the team, they will be able to play immediately. The student-athlete will need to get permission to play immediately elsewhere, much as they need to get permission to contact other schools when transferring already. The unintended result is that any student-athlete who graduates could potentially negotiate a free transfer by having the institution nonrenew his or her scholarship.

Proposal 2010-59-C

Proposal 2010-59-C was designed to improve football’s APR scores and graduation rates by requiring football student-athletes to earn 9 credits (8 for quarter schools) in the fall term. This is up from the usual 6-credit hour requirement. If a student-athlete fails to earn 9 credits, he will be ineligible for the first four contests the following year. If the student-athlete then earns 27 credits (40 at quarter schools) by the start of the following fall, he is only ineligible for the first two contests. And once during his career, a student-athlete can use the new 27 credit exception to regain eligibility for all contests.

This is intended to get student-athletes started on the right foot each year. By earning 9 credits during the fall, the hope is that football student-athletes are not scrapping by during the spring and summer to stay eligible. A higher credit hour requirement in the fall is also designed to put more student-athletes on a 3.5 year graduation track, so football student-athletes have their degree in hand when their eligibility is up.

Proposal 2010-78

If a football team has used all 85 scholarships for the year, it is allowed to replace a student-athlete who graduates or has already graduated and finishes his eligibility in the middle of the year with an incoming prospect (or walk-on who earns a scholarship). Previously, that student-athlete had to count against the limit of 25 initial counters in the following academic year. Proposal 2010-78 now gives a school the option to count against the current year’s limit if the institution has not yet used all 25 initial counters.

This allows institutions to maximize financial aid provided to football student-athletes. Now the incoming recruiting class does not “block” an institution from using midyear replacements on walk-ons and early enrollees, provided the institution has not used all its initial counters for that year.

All Together Now

Proposal 2010-59-C is intended to lead to more football student-athletes graduating in 3 or 3.5 years. Proposal 2010-52 allows student-athletes in football who graduated increased opportunities to transfer and play immediately. And Proposal 2010-78 increases the ability to use initial counters while rewarding institutions more for graduating football student-athletes.

The end result could be increased transfer movement in football. If the higher academic standards really take hold, it may become the norm for football student-athletes to graduate in 3-3.5 years. That means more student-athletes eligible to transfer and play immediately, and more student-athletes eligible to be replaced at the midyear with incoming prospects. That could mean a lively market for experienced student-athletes with one or two years of eligibility left who are no longer in the plans for their current football program.

Call it a kindler, gentler version of oversigning since these student-athletes will have degrees and the opportunity to play somewhere else. Call it a retention non-crisis since they will have earned full APR points by graduating and improve the APR scores of the new school as well.

It’s a debate that if it arises will be more about sports than education. How important is the opportunity to participate on the team you selected if the school has already paid for a degree? Do we want to avoid expanded free agency and player movement in college sports if there isn’t an academic casualty as well?

All these rules are generally considered “good” by themselves. Few would argue with increased academic standards. Fewer still would object to maximizing financial aid to football student-athletes and rewarding graduation. And only a tiny minority would not want expanded opportunities for student-athletes who will not be receiving a scholarship next year.

But it’s at the intersection of these rules that we may see an unintended consequence that has much less support than any of the three proposal do individually. And as the Division I membership contemplates changes to the legislative process, it’s unintended consequences and the interaction between rules that must be monitored carefully no matter what the process eventually looks like.

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office.

About John Infante

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office. If you’re a coach, do not attempt to contact the author looking for a second opinion. If you’re a parent, don’t attempt to contact the author looking for a first opinion. Compliance professionals are by their nature helpful people generally dedicated to getting to the truth. Coaches should have a bit of faith in their own, and parents should talk to one directly.

Filed Under: Bylaw Blog, Feature

In the news: April 12

April 13, 2011 by

Gerald Gurney’s appeal for higher minimum requirements for Division I student-athletes is seductive, but is it right?

Gurney, senior associate athletic director for academics and student life and an assistant professor of adult and higher education at the University of Oklahoma, has made it his personal cause to call attention to what he believes to be insufficient Division I initial-eligibility standards. After making the case in the March 10 edition of Inside Higher Ed, he was back with a warmed-over version of the same thing this week in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Gurney noted that the NCAA has strengthened and relaxed academic standards for the last 50 years. That much is true. The effort to find the fairest and most effective approach has been a process. The answers weren’t clear in the 1960s and 1970s as rules were liberalized, and they weren’t always clear in the 1980s and 1990s as rules were made more conservative.

The last wholesale change was in 1992 when Division I approved Prop 16, which substantially strengthened the provisions of 1983’s Prop 48. The major change since then has been to strengthen the requirement by adding more core courses. Those interested in more information on this subject may want to read my story from the winter 2008 issue of NCAA Champion magazine.

Despite the long-term trend of stronger requirements, Gurney is almost singularly focused on the elimination of the standardized-test cut score. That change was made after the NCAA was sued for the disparate effect that Prop 16 standards had on minorities and after NCAA researchers, experts from member institutions, representatives from the testing companies and paid consultants concluded that the test-score cut was not scientifically defensible.

Only one year of data on the overall (that is, graduation) success of those admitted after the elimination of the cut score  are available, so it is premature to pronounce their success or failure. Still, the outcomes for the 2003 cohort in the Graduation Success Rate are promising when considered in the light of the twin goals of academic reform − which were to maximize graduation rates while minimizing adverse impacts on low-income and minority student-athletes. Specifically, looking at the 2003 GSR cohort, there were 400 more African-American student-athletes and 300 more African-American graduates than were in the 2002 cohort (or any previous cohort since the advent of Prop 16). The single-year GSRs for African-American student-athletes in the high-profile sports increased significantly from 2002 to 2003 – by three points in men’s basketball and five points in football. 

Ultimately, Gurney’s pitch grossly misrepresents the purpose of the NCAA requirements in this area. They are nothing more than a nationally agreed-to minimum standard at which prospects are considered to be capable of doing college-level work. They must fit every Division I member – all the way from Harvard to the most economically disadvantaged, open-admission institution.

Despite the absence of any evidence that the post-cut-score cohort has adversely affected graduation rates (and some evidence to the contrary) and despite considerable evidence that high school grade-point averages are a far more reliable predictor of college success, Gurney continues to pound away. “Those students possess inadequate skills to manage college academics, creating a greater need for academic-support services at institutions already struggling with strained budgets, staffs, and faculties,” he wrote in the Chronicle.

Emphasizing the financial angle, he adds: “My own university spends more than $2 million annually for academic services for athletes, employing learning specialists, reading specialists, and tutors to ensure their success in the classroom.”

There is, of course, an answer to this: Institutions can be as selective as they like in their admissions. Just because the minimum standards permit a kid with a 450 SAT and a 4.0 GPA to be eligible doesn’t mean that a school has to take him. In fact, many places don’t.

Division I has chosen to keep opportunity open for as many young people as possible, but it has firmed up accountability through the Academic Performance Program. The new reality is that if institutions want to take chances, they need to follow through.

That may involve a complex evaluation of costs (time and money) and risks.  They can manage those matters as they see fit, but institutional personnel should not blame the NCAA when their schools choose to get aggressive.

About Dave Pickle

Filed Under: Feature, NCAA Insider

Rivals Decision Reveals Deeper Issues in Recruiting Rules

April 9, 2011 by

The interpretation received by schools today that they are no longer permitted to subscribe to Rivals.com seems on the face of it like a relatively minor decision. In the realm of recruiting and scouting services, Rivals and similar services like Scout.com and ESPN are not the giants they may seem. The fact is if even a diehard college football or basketball fan knows about a set of recruiting rankings or analysis, it likely doesn’t move the needle for coaches.

That’s even is you take into account the owners of team-specific sites passing recruiting information to coaching staffs. I was unaware this was widespread, but it is certainly a concern.

The smaller reason this interpretation is important is that a well-intentioned rule has gotten away from the membership and the staff. The original incarnation of the recruiting and scouting services rule was focused on a single contagion in the recruiting process.

In the sport of men’s basketball, coaches and boosters were buying multiple copies of sham recruiting services for thousands of dollars a piece from AAU coaches and handlers. In exchange for thousands or tens of thousands of dollars, coaches would get names, height and weight, and generic rankings or ratings like stars or “high major.” And more importantly, they got access to the AAU coach or handler’s prospects.

That rule was then extended to all sports, a notable recent trend in NCAA legislation. Part is the accurate acknowledgement that many sports are seeing the same trends that men’s basketball saw. And part is a dislike of sport specific legislation cluttering a rulebook that could stand to trim some fat.

This pulled in a number of other services in nonrevenue sports that are critical to coaches who do not have the recruiting budgets of major men’s basketball and football programs. Designed to serve the specific needs of the sport, they were held to a set of requirements that was initially tailored to eliminate a certain type of recruiting service in a different sport. That lead to a fan-centric service being evaluated under that same standard.

The minor issue could be solved by expressly prohibiting the undesirable conduct. Institutions should not be permitted to subscribe to recruiting services controlled by individuals associated with a prospect. This prevents the need for distinguishing between a legitimate or illegitimate business, and doesn’t set a set of requirements that could potentially be met by someone still selling access to prospects as the primary product.

But it’s the reason Rivals is not a permissible service that shows the deeper underlying problem with the current recruiting regulations. It is not permissible to subscribe to a recruiting or scouting service that provides videos of prospects in non-scholastic competition, unless the videos are free and available to the general public.

The NCAA and its members have fought the growth of non-scholastic youth sports vigorously. Subscribing to video of non-scholastic contests is prohibited. In basketball, going to watch AAU events is tightly restricted. In football, coaches are prohibited from going to any non-scholastic event.

This has resulted in two things: the steady, continued growth of AAU basketball, 7-on-7 football, and all other club sports, and diminished NCAA influence in this area. By removing college coaches from many AAU gyms and football camps, it has become the lawless wild west that the restrictions sought to avoid.

There is a success story though: the July evaluation periods. With so many coaches in the same gym with NCAA enforcement staff, it has become a structured, almost business-like period. Coaches go and watch games, go back to the hotel and record their evaluations, sleep, and then get up and watch more games. There’s no reason that a summer evaluation period in football couldn’t be similar.

The NCAA should let go of high school athletics as the primary way prospects prepare themselves for intercollegiate competition. The entire of Bylaw 13 should be scrapped and rebuilt, reflecting the new reality that non-scholastic sports have overtaken high school sports in recruiting. This includes rethinking recruiting calendars to the non-scholastic schedule, changing contact rules to counter the influence of third parties, and altering inducement regulations to reflect the payoffs and under the table deals prevalent in club sports.

And by focusing on non-scholastic sports, the NCAA can become a force to improve them. Preference in recruiting calendars could be given to leagues and organizations that operate according to certain standards. iHoops could spawn a rival to the AAU circuit for talent and development that surpasses it in transparency. And 7-on-7 football could be built in the image of what the NCAA would prefer and what college coaches need, not in image of grassroots organizers and investors.

Every Division I institution being banned from using a recruiting service on the tip of every fan’s tongue is a big story. But the bigger story is just how entangled one specific rule was in the philosophy that underpins recruiting. It’s a philosophy that has become an uphill battle, one we should stop fighting before we lose the war.

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office.

About John Infante

The opinions expressed on this blog are the author’s and the author’s alone, and are not endorsed by the NCAA or any NCAA member institution or conference. This blog is not a substitute for a compliance office. If you’re a coach, do not attempt to contact the author looking for a second opinion. If you’re a parent, don’t attempt to contact the author looking for a first opinion. Compliance professionals are by their nature helpful people generally dedicated to getting to the truth. Coaches should have a bit of faith in their own, and parents should talk to one directly.

Filed Under: Bylaw Blog, Feature Tagged With: , ,

In the news: April 6

April 7, 2011 by

So many commentators recently have used their corporate-powered megaphones to frame the case for pay-for-play that readers might wonder if another perspective existed. At last, however, some pushback has appeared.

The entire Division I Men’s Basketball Championship seemed to become a giant hook from which writers could hang their the-system-is-corrupt, why-don’t-you-just-pay-the-players observations. The latest came from ESPN.com’s Jemele Hill, a commentator who has demonstrated a flair for hyperbole over the years. On Tuesday, she called for student-athletes to boycott competition at some point.

“If college athletes want to see wholesale changes, someone needs to step up and be Norma Rae,” wrote Hill. “…Instead of allowing coaches and middlemen to use them for short-term gains, college athletes should unite to break the system that is oppressing them.”

Is the NCAA the textile mill owner to Norma Rae’s student-athlete?

I say no, but you would probably expect that coming from an NCAA employee.

Let’s go to some other sources.

First, there’s The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait, who provided a strong counter in “The Incoherent Case For Paying Student-Athletes.” Chait was especially effective in challenging the concept of “mandatory amateurism.”

“First of all, there’s no ‘mandatory amateurism,’ ” wrote Chait. “There’s nothing stopping anybody from starting a football or basketball minor league that attracts talented 18 year olds, paying its players, and then having some of those players go on to make greater sums in the NFL or the NBA. Why doesn’t such a league exist? Because there’s no demand for it.”

Responding to fellow writer Matthew Yglesias, Chait continued:

“The truth is that most college athletics programs lose money and are subsidized by the university. A handful of very successful programs, mostly football and men’s basketball, do make money, but they use that money to fund money-losing athletics programs, and therefore avoid (or minimize) having to get subsidies from the rest of the university.

“I’ve never been clear on exactly what Yglesias is proposing. Is he saying that only athletes in revenue-generating sports should be paid? Or is he saying that all college athletes should be paid? If it’s the latter − and Yglesias focuses his argument entirely on the merits of paying student-athletes at revenue-generating sports − I don’t know what his reason is. The women’s cross country team at Connecticut works just as hard as the men’s basketball team. The difference between the two are: (1) The men’s basketball team gets to play on television and be famous; (2) the proceeds from the television contract subsidize sports like women’s cross country, and (3) the men’s basketball players have a higher chance to become professional athletes.”

On Monday, The Washington Times included a column from Deron Snyder with the following observations:

“The NCAA administers 88 championships in 23 sports, but let’s be honest. All this talk is really about football and men’s basketball, the ‘revenue’ sports that foot the athletic department’s bills at most schools. (But be careful if you’re the one who tells UConn’s women’s basketball players that they won’t get a check while the football players will.)

“Fine, you say? Just men’s hoops and football, because between the tournament and the BCS bowls, there should be plenty of loot left for the athletes?

“OK. But even if you elect to forsake non-revenue sports (what, other athletes don’t work as hard or need money as much as point guards and tailbacks?) every school isn’t a Texas or Ohio State, with athletic departments that produce nine-figure incomes easier than media guides. Do you really pay the basketball and football players at Texas, but not Texas Southern? Don’t the players at Ohio State and Ohio University have more similarities than differences?

“If you insist on proceeding, more problems persist. Kemba Walker and the last man on UConn’s bench commit equal time and effort during the week. Auburn’s third-string tackle is part of the team as much as Cam Newton. Would you really pay some teammates and not others, or pay stars and reserves an equal wage? That’s goes against the American way. And would refunds be in order if a program goes into the red?”

The public got into the act at the Indianapolis Star. Reader Roger Howard took on the paper’s editorial board, which had recently editorialized for a light version of pay for play. Wrote Howard: “Why pay student-athletes who do something they love and not student government leaders who also selflessly devote time and energy in helping create and maintain meaningful campus life experiences?”

You get the idea. Commentators who want to professionalize college sports have routinely oversimplified the issue, often linking the enterprise with “sweatshops,” “indentured servitude” and even “slavery.”

The system definitely has its excesses and some adjustments are needed. But these overheated comparisons simply aren’t credible. It’s good to see thoughtful challenges starting to emerge.

About Dave Pickle

Filed Under: Feature, NCAA Insider
«Older Posts

Copyright �© 2010-2012 NCAA �·