2011-12 POPL Review: Personnel and Amateurism

The 2011-12 Legislative Cycle kicked off with the release of the Publication of Proposed Legislation (affectionately known as the POPL). If the Division I Manual gets a hard time for being over 400 pages, the POPL is no less weighty. 81 proposed changes to the Division I Bylaws cover 136 pages. Over the rest of the week, I’ll give my thoughts on all of them. That’s just the start though. A number of proposals linger from last year. And in October and January the results of the Presidential Retreat and men’s basketball recruiting model may push the total number of new proposals over 100.

Today are personnel and amateurism. Personnel proposals often look a lot like recruiting proposals because who recruits is often as important as how you recruit. Both the personnel and amateurism proposals have a strong deregulatory bent, although it is more a mixed bag in personnel. What seems like a small change could be presented as a test case for a major rewrite. That’s one reason a lot of small, common sense changes fail to make it through. But before we get on with those two big areas, we start by number the days for an entire 22-page bylaw.

2011-11: Removal of Bylaw 21

Sponsor: NCAA Division I Administration Cabinet

Intent: To specify that the Administration Cabinet shall oversee the administrative functions related to the management of the Division I governance structure and Division I representation on Association-wide and common committees; further, to remove Bylaw 21 from the Division I Manual and specify that policies and procedures related to selection, composition, duties, term of office and operation of committees and cabinets shall be published on the NCAA website.

Analysis: This will certainly lighten the Division I Manual a bit. Bylaw 21 is just over 20 pages long, although plans are in the works to only publish select rules in the actual Manual, thinning the book itself further. There are two issues. First, the Admin Cabinet does not include a representative from every conference. And second, this makes changes to the NCAA’s governance structure, which can affect championship selection, more opaque. If the Admin cabinet expanded itself as a “third branch” alongside the Legislative and Leadership Councils, some of these fears would be soothed.

2011-12: Personnel – Graduate Assistant Coach – Basketball

Sponsor: Big East

Intent: In basketball, to permit an institution to employ one graduate assistant coach.

Analysis: Basketball has not been able to use two of the special categories, primary around concerns that volunteer or graduate assistant coaches would not be substantially different than countable coaches, and squad size does not require them. But with limits potentially coming to non coaching staff, adding the relatively inexpensive graduate assistant coach is a good compromise. Even if running camps will provide them with a decent chunk of change.

2011-13: Personnel – Graduate Assistant Coach – No Previous FBS or Professional Coaching Experience

Sponsor: Big East

Intent: In bowl subdivision football, to specify that a graduate assistant coach must have either received his or her first baccalaureate degree or have exhausted athletics eligibility (whichever occurs later) within the previous seven years; or the individual must not have not previously served as a coach (either on a salaried or volunteer basis) at a Football Bowl Subdivision institution or in a professional football league.

Analysis: The graduate assistant coach in football was limited recently to individuals who received their bachelors degree or exhausted their eligibility within the last seven years. This proposal would provide an exception to that limit for coaches who meet the spirit of a graduate assistant coach: those looking for their first job to break into the ranks. Even if a 10-year NFL career takes a former player out of the seven-year window.

2011-14: Personnel – Graduate Assistant Coach – No Previous Collegiate or Professional Coaching Experience

Sponsors: Pac-12, Big Ten, MAC

Intent: In bowl subdivision football, to specify that a graduate assistant coach shall have no previous professional or collegiate football coaching experience as a head or assistant coach.

Analysis: You are forgiven if you believe you are seeing double. This proposal is different from the Big East’s in two respects. First, it replaces the seven-year limit rather than adds an exception to it. And second, it requires no collegiate or professional experience rather than just no FBS or pro experience. Between the two I prefer this one since it cuts the total number of rules in the book.

2011-15: Personnel – Student Assistant Coach – Full-Time Graduate Student Within Five-Year Period of Eligibility

Sponsor: Southeastern Conference

Intent: To permit a full-time graduate student within his or her five-year period of eligibility to serve as a student assistant coach, provided he or she meets additional criteria, as specified.

Analysis: The student assistant coach was originally a position for student-athletes who played their first four years, but had a fifth year on their five-year clock remaining. It was expanded to include any athlete still working toward their first degree, but at the expense of student-athletes who graduated in four years and started a graduate degree. The SEC’s proposal neatly fixes this oversight.

2011-16: Personnel – Student Assistant Coach – Football Nonparticipant

Sponsor: Southern Conference

Intent: To specify that in football, an individual who has neither engaged in intercollegiate football competition for the certifying institution nor engaged in other countable athletically related activities in intercollegiate football beyond a 14-consecutive-day period at the certifying institution may serve as an undergraduate student assistant coach, provided the individual meets the remaining criteria applicable to an undergraduate student assistant coach, as specified.

Analysis: When the student assistant coach was expanded a couple years ago, there was debate about how to handle students who were not good enough to stay on the team long enough to exhaust their eligibility but who still wanted to get into coaching. One idea to allow athletes to give up their eligibility in exchange for a coaching spot, but fears of running athletes off killed the idea. The SOCON is giving it another shot, with the idea being that students who failed to stick with the team after a tryout or would rather try coaching should have that opportunity.

2011-17: Personnel – Outside Income – Part-Time or Volunteer Staff with Sport Specific Responsibilities

Sponsor: Big XII Conference

Intent: To specify that contractual agreements between a part-time or volunteer athletics department staff member with sport-specific responsibilities and an institution shall include the stipulation that the staff member is required to provide a written detailed account annually to the president or chancellor for all athletically related income and benefits from sources outside the institution.

Analysis: As athletics administration has expanded, more and more staff are helping out as part-time or volunteers both with coaching staffs and with central administration. Who needs to report outside athletically-related income has gotten a bit fractured. This resets the requirement to all full-time staff members and any part-time or volunteer staff member who is working directly with a team, like a director of ops. or video coordinator. A decent compromise.

2011-18: Recruiting – Receipt of Calls from Prospects

Sponsor: Southeastern Conference

Intent: To eliminate the restriction on the receipt of telephone calls from prospective student-athletes (or prospective student-athletes’ parents, legal guardians or coaches) that requires such calls to be received by the head coach or one or more of the assistant coaches who count toward the numerical limitations.

Analysis: As difficult as the monitoring of coaches calling prospects is, prospects calling staff is even worse. Most cell phone records do not show who an incoming call came from. So it’s certainly a major monitoring win, while not allowing more people to call prospects. But the proposal comes from one of the big boys. And it would allow coaching staffs to pass some of the recruiting of lower-level prospects to non coaching staff, since these prospects are typically more eager. More worrisome might be boosters and former student-athletes becoming “volunteer recruiting coordinators,” now able to receive calls from student-athletes.

But this is not a significant competitive equity issue. If a coach passes a recruit off to a noncoaching staff member, that leaves an opening for other schools to show greater interest by maintain contact through the coaching staff. And prospects still need to want to make the calls, so there is not a major student-athlete welfare issue. Hopefully this proposal goes through, especially given some of the other phone call legislation in the cycle.

2011-19: Personnel – Limits on Number of Off-Campus Recruiters – Spring Football Evaluation Period

Sponsor: Southeastern Conference

Intent: In bowl subdivision football, to specify that all nine assistant coaches may evaluate prospective student-athletes at any one time during the spring evaluation period; further, in championship subdivision football, to specify that all 11 coaches may evaluate prospective student-athletes at any one time during the spring evaluation period.

2011-20: Personnel – Limits on Number of Off-Campus Recruiters – Women’s Basketball Spring Nonscholastic Evaluations

Sponsor: Big East

Intent: In women’s basketball, to specify that four coaches may evaluate prospective student- athletes at any one time at nonscholastic events during the spring evaluation period.

Analysis: 2011-19 and 2011-20 are the same concept applies to different sports. Women’s basketball gets one weekend in the academic year to evaluate at AAU events, so allowing a fourth coach out for those four days makes sense. And both football and women’s basketball have limits on how many person-days coaches can be out recruiting, either during the year or during specific evaluation periods. This could be the first step to eliminating the limit on the number of off-campus recruiters in favor of tighter recruiting calendars or person-day limits.

However, there’s a cost. Allowing all the coaches to recruit at once means all the coaches could be off campus at once. For 2011-20 and women’s basketball, one weekend is not a major concern. But football could have all of its assistants gone for and entire work week. And with no limit on off-campus recruiters, there is no need to replace them and have coaches return to campus for a breather. We could see a spring evaluation period where coaches remain off-campus for weeks or even the entire month and a half, with finals smack in the middle. This must be addressed, even if programs should have more freedom to use their limited recruiting resources how they see fit.

2011-21: Personnel – Football – No Return to Campus During Contact Periods

Sponsors: Big East and Big XII

Intent: In football, to specify that during a contact period, a replaced coach is not required to return to the institution’s campus before engaging in additional recruiting activities, provided not more than seven coaches engage in off-campus recruiting activities each day.

Analysis: 2011-21 attempts to bring the concept of not requiring coaches to “touch home” when they switch who is recruiting to the academic year for football. But again, the most important contact period for football is smack in the middle of finals, meaning all the coaches could be gone at once.

2011-22: Personnel – Men’s Basketball Bench Personnel

Sponsor: West Coast Conference

Intent: In men’s basketball, to specify that during a contest against outside competition, institutional bench personnel shall be limited to four coaches, one director of basketball operations (or similar position) and two additional individuals (e.g., athletic trainer, team physician, manager).

Analysis: If being a coach means anything, it means getting to sit on the bench and help athletes win a game. So if you are not a coach, your usefulness on the bench is debatable. Instead of limits on who an institution can employ, limiting who gets to act like a coach during games is a good alternative. I just wonder if we’ll start to see front rows of “fans” in suits holding clipboards relaying stats and consulting with coaches during games.

2011-23: Amateurism – Definition of an Agent

Sponsor: NCAA Division I Amateur Cabinet

Intent: To specify that an agent is any individual who, directly or indirectly, represents or attempts to represent an individual for the purpose of marketing his or her athletics ability or reputation for financial gain, or seeks to obtain any type of financial gain or benefit from securing a prospective student-athlete’s enrollment at an educational institution or from a student-athlete’s potential earnings as a professional athlete.

Analysis: This proposal has already picked up the names of any number of individuals. It is a good start to defining the type of conduct we want to prohibit. But it does not solve all the problems in a case like the Cam Newton case, such as what the appropriate penalties are when there is no proof a prospect or student-athlete knew they had an agent or if there is no proof of financial gain by the athlete or anyone else.

2011-24: Amateurism – Expenses from Sponsors

Sponsor: NCAA Division I Amateurism Cabinet

Intent: In individual sports, to specify that, prior to full-time collegiate enrollment, a prospective student-athlete may accept up to actual and necessary expenses associated with an athletics event and practice immediately preceding the event, from a sponsor (e.g, neighbor, business) other than an agent, a member institution or a representative of an institution’s athletics interests.

Analysis: This is one of those proposals (along with 2011-25) that will get everyone on both sides of the amateurism debate fired up. Proponents of the NCAA’s definition of amateurism will point to this proposal to show just how fair amateurism can be and how much student-athletes and prospects can get under it. Opponents will point out how allowing sponsorship robs amateurism of principle. Having seen kids have to repay a lot of money from their neighbors and local community, I’m a fan.

2011-25: Amateurism – Tennis – $10,000 Prize Money Per Year Prior to Enrollment

Sponsor: NCAA Division I Amateurism Cabinet

Intent: 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.

Analysis: Like 2011-24, this proposal will launch a philosophical debate about amateurism. But it will also draw a bit of fire for being what appears to be an arbitrary number. Given the NCAA’s track record, there is bound to have been a lot of research and calculation done to come up with that number. Either it is well below what Division I tennis prospects spend on their sport, or anyone who earns more than $10,000 per year professionalizes themselves in other ways (has an agent, signs endorsements, etc.). This was proposed back in 2007 before, but was withdrawn.

2011-26: Amateurism – World University Games

Sponsor: NCAA Division I Championships/Sports Management Cabinet

Intent: To include the World University Championships in all bylaws that apply to the World University Games.

Analysis: Not to much to say about this one other than its a no-brainer for the NCAA to expand international experiences for athletes. It is notable mostly because it may be the first fruit of a stronger relationship between the NCAA and the USOC, so stay tuned.

2011-27: Amateurism – Sponsorship By Professional Sports Organizations

Sponsor: NCAA Division I Championships/Sports Management Cabinet

Intent: To specify that a professional sports organization may serve as a financial sponsor of an intercollegiate competition event, including regular season and postseason events, provided the organization is not publicly identified as such; and that a professional sports organization may serve as a financial sponsor of an activity or promotion that is ancillary to the competition event and may be publicly identified as such; further, to eliminate the prohibition on professional sports organizations or personnel as acceptable advertisers in conjunction with NCAA championships.

Analysis: This is likely to be one of the most hotly debated and misunderstood proposals of the cycle. Coming on the heels of 2010-26, expanding sponsorship and promotional activities in the midst of a reform movement is bound to draw scrutiny. The proposal does not allow for professional leagues or teams to begin filling the coffers of athletic departments. The idea seems to be more marketing of the Pac-12 Basketball Tournament during Lakers games, as one example. But whether the effects of the proposal can be explained to everyone’s satisfaction is the big question.

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.