2011-12 POPL Review: Recruiting

The review of the 2011-12 proposed legislation continues with recruiting proposals. The proposed recruiting legislation, by and large, is about deregulation. There are some notable exceptions, but if everything was adopted, coaches would be able to do more recruiting than they currently can. For those watching the size of the rule book, it would be a wash. Some of the deregulation in what we can do involves adding exceptions to the Manual.

Recruiting is also the largest section, with over 30 proposals, as is normally the case. So let’s jump back in.

2011-28: Recruiting – Parents of Enrolled Student-Athletes

Sponsor: Southeastern Conference

Intent: To specify that on-campus contacts between a prospective student-athlete or the prospective student-athlete’s parents (or legal guardians) and the parents (or legal guardians) of an enrolled student-athlete that occur on the day of a regularly scheduled on-campus athletics event shall be permissible.

Analysis: Parents are technically boosters and are prohibited from contact with recruits. That means a host of monitoring challenges: separate seating sections, having to follow prospects around, and splitting meals up (like tailgates). Parents of athletes are probably the most honest recruiters you’ll find though, especially when discussing the school with other parents. It is too much work to keep them apart and too much good information will flow from parents of student-athletes to recruits.

2011-29: Recruiting – Student-Athlete Contact Off-Campus Contact During an Unofficial Visit

Sponsor: Southeastern Conference

Intent: To specify that off-campus, in-person contacts between enrolled student-athletes and a prospective student-athlete are permissible if such contacts do not occur at the direction of a coaching staff member and the prospective student-athlete has notified the institution that he or she is making an unofficial visit.

Analysis: Along a similar vein, student-athletes cannot have contact with prospects off-campus except on official visits. This rule often comes into play when a prospect visits a campus and wants to go out for a meal with student-athletes. Like keeping parents away, confining student-athletes to campus once the prospect is already visiting is too much work and harms the decision-making of the prospect.

2011-30: Recruiting – Telephone Calls – No Limits After First Permissible Date

Sponsor: Big East Conference

Intent: To deregulate the restrictions on telephone calls and electronically transmitted correspondence, as specified.

2011-31: Recruiting – Telephone Calls – No Limits After First Permissible Date

Sponsor: NCAA Division I Recruiting and Athletics Personnel Issues Cabinet

Intent: To eliminate the limitations on the number and frequency of telephone calls to prospective student-athletes, as specified.

Analysis: The biggest difference between the Big East Conference and the Recruiting Cabinet’s two proposals is that the Big East seeks to deregulating text messaging and other electronic communication along with phone calls. There appears to be enough momentum behind this idea that it might actually get done. There is just one issue with deregulating text messaging: if a coach can text message a prospect and ask him to call him as a junior, why not just let coaches call juniors?

2011-32: Recruiting – Telephone Calls – Compliance Administrators

Sponsor: NCAA Division I Recruiting and Athletics Personnel Issues Cabinet

Intent: To permit compliance administrators to make telephone calls to or receive telephone calls from a prospective student-athlete (or the prospective student-athlete’s parents or legal guardians) with no limit on the timing or number of such calls, provided the calls relate only to compliance issues.

Analysis: Having to wait for a prospect to call or for a coach to get a prospect to call the compliance office can be a pain. It hampers investigations and prevents the compliance office from properly advising prospects on initial eligibility. If ideas like yearly progress toward initial eligibility take root, this will not just be a good idea, it will be necessary.

2011-33: Recruiting – Limits on Contacts and Evaluations

Sponsor: NCAA Division I Recruiting and Athletics Personnel Issues Cabinet

Intent: In women’s basketball, women’s sand volleyball and women’s volleyball, to eliminate the limitation on the number of evaluations per prospective student-athlete.

Analysis: During the academic year, there is a limit on the number of times a coach can contact or evaluate a prospect off-campus. These three women’s sports have small teams and limited evaluation days, thus negating the need to limit coaches from evaluating an individual prospect. Coaches may feel the pressure to babysit though, spending recruiting days being visible to committed prospects rather than scouting for new talent.

2011-34: Recruiting – Women’s Basketball Evaluations

Sponsor: NCAA Division I Recruiting and Athletics Personnel Issues Cabinet

Intent: In women’s basketball, to specify that evaluations of live athletics activities during the academic year evaluation periods (other than permissible nonscholastic events) shall be limited to regularly scheduled high school, preparatory school and two-year college contests/tournaments and practices; and regular scholastic activities involving prospective student-athletes enrolled only at the institution at which the regular scholastic activities occur.

Analysis: The July evaluation periods get a bad rap, especially in men’s basketball. It’s at these unorganized and unpublicized events where rule breaking is most likely to take place. There’s nothing to stop rule breaking at regularly scheduled practices, but at least there is some structure there rather than college coaches hanging out at pick-up games.

2011-35: Recruiting – Recruiting Materials

Sponsor: Big South Conference

Intent: In sports other than men’s basketball and men’s ice hockey, to specify that an institution shall not provide recruiting materials, including general correspondence related to athletics, to an individual (or his or her parents or legal guardians) until June 15 at the conclusion of his or her sophomore year in high school.

Analysis: This proposal would unify the starting date to send recruiting materials (which include email and text messages (assuming they are deregulated) as well as letters) to June 15 after the sophomore year. It makes no sense to have multiple rules for this. The only question is whether to move two sports back to September 1 or move every other sport up to June 15 (or some other date).

2011-36: Recruiting – Electronic Correspondence

Sponsor: West Coast Conference

Intent: To specify that an institution shall not send electronic correspondence (e.g., email, chat, instant messages, text messages) to an individual (or his or her parents or legal guardians) until September 1 at the beginning of his or her junior year in high school.

2011-37: Recruiting – Electronic Correspondence

Sponsor: NCAA Division I Recruiting and Athletics Personnel Issues Cabinet

Intent: To specify that electronic correspondence (e.g., email, instant messages, facsimiles, text messages) may be sent to a prospective student-athlete (or the prospective student-athlete’s parents or legal guardians), provided the correspondence is sent directly to the prospective student-athlete (or his or her parents or legal guardians) and is private between only the sender and recipient (e.g., no use of chat rooms, message boards, posts to “walls”).

Analysis: Both proposals seek to deregulating electronic correspondence, namely text messages. The major difference is that the cabinet defines what types of transmissions are permitted, while the WCC proposal is a little more open-ended. Which one you support likely rests on how fast you think technology moves, and whether social media sites and cellphone makes will blur the lines between private and public or direct and indirect.

2011-38: Recruiting – Automated Notifications

Sponsor: Southeastern Conference

Intent: To specify that electronic correspondence (e.g., email, instant messages, facsimiles, text messages) may be sent to a prospective student-athlete (or the prospective student-athlete’s parents or legal guardians), provided the correspondence is sent directly to the prospective student-athlete (or his or her parents or legal guardians) and is private between only the sender and recipient (e.g., no use of chat rooms, message boards, posts to “walls”).

Analysis: In the absence of the proposals that go further in deregulation, this would be a very common sense exception to the rule because a coach has no control sometimes over how a prospect is notified of events on a social media platform. But with the opportunity to attack the entire rule, there’s no need for an exception.

2011-39: Recruiting Camp Brochures at Event Venue

Sponsor: Southern Conference

Intent: To specify that an institution may make institutional camp or clinic brochures available at the venue of an athletics event involving prospective student-athletes.

2011-48: Recruiting – Recruiting at Sports Camps

Sponsor: Big South Conference

Intent: In sports other than men’s basketball, to specify that it is permissible for an institution’s coaches to engage in recruiting conversations with prospective student-athletes during the institution’s camps or clinics.

Analysis: If camps were not already a major part of recruiting, they will be soon. Camps are the only way for coaches to run a tryout for most sports. And with a proposal on the table now for coaches to recruit at their camps and with coaches able to do some silent promotion of their camps at prospects’ games, it could become the center of recruiting. Gather as many elite prospects to your camps and then pitch them after they sleep in the dorms and see your coaching. The restrictions on men’s basketball elite camps could spread sooner rather than later.

2011-40: Recruiting – Entertainment Allowance

Sponsor: Big East Conference

Intent: To increase, from $30 to $40, the allowance that an institution may provide a student host for each day of a prospective student-athlete’s official visit to cover all actual costs of entertaining the student host(s) and the prospective student-athlete; further, to increase, from $15 to $20, the additional allowance an institution may provide the student host per day for each additional prospective student-athlete the host entertains.

Analysis: $30 for entertainment on an official visit is one of the most well-known recruiting rules. Maybe because it has been set at $30 since 1996. The Big East did the math and found that $43 dollars now buys what $30 bought back then, and rounded it down to $40. A minimal increase given that an official visit usually means a school has already paid to bring a prospect to campus, house them, and feed them for a couple days.

2011-41: Recruiting – First Opportunity for Unofficial Visit

Sponsor: Big South Conference

Intent: To specify that a prospective student-athlete may not make an athletically-related unofficial visit (e.g., no contact with coaching staff, no athletics-specific tour) before June 15th at the conclusion of the prospective student-athlete’s freshman year of high school.

Analysis: The last time a ban or start date for unofficial visits was contemplated, it was for women’s soccer only and the start date was August 1 prior to a prospect’s senior year. Unofficial visits are hard to regulate though, requiring a coach to turn away prospects who show up on campus. This also codifies a progression that does not make sense, allowing a visit and in-person contact before allowing the sending of a letter.

2011-42: Recruiting – Entertainment of Nonathletics Personnel

Sponsor: Big East Conference

Intent: To permit an institutional department outside the athletics department (e.g., president’s office, admissions) to host nonathletics high school, preparatory school or two-year college personnel (e.g., guidance counselors, principals) at a home intercollegiate athletics event and may provide such individuals food, refreshments, room expenses and a nominal gift, provided the visit is not related to athletics recruiting and there is no involvement by the institution’s athletics department in the arrangements for the visit, other than providing (in accordance with established policy) free admissions to an athletics event.

Analysis: It makes sense to allow an institution to host individuals who have a good reason to be there even if they are connected to prospects in some roundabout way. But there’s a lot of rules added to achieve that fact. It is an example of a rule that has plagued the Manual: a good idea that adds rules and complexity to the manual.

2011-43: Recruiting – Limitation on Number of Football Signings

Sponsor: Southeastern Conference

Intent: In bowl subdivision football, to specify that there shall be an annual signing limit of 25 on the number of prospective student-athletes who may sign a National Letter of Intent or institutional offer of financial aid from December 1 through May 31; further to specify that a prospective student-athlete who signs a National Letter of Intent or an institutional offer of financial aid and becomes an initial counter for the same academic year in which the signing occurred (e.g., midyear enrollee) shall not count toward the annual limit on signings.

Analysis: This is one part of the SEC’s over signing proposals. It drops the limit to 25 and expands it to include midyear enrollees that will take up initial counter spots the following year. I suspect this proposal will not simply get an up-and-down vote though, given the national debate and attention. Expect many modifications and alternatives to be offered.

2011-44: Recruiting – Submission of Transcript to Eligibility Center Before Signing

Sponsor: NCAA Division I Academic Cabinet

Intent: To specify that an institution shall not permit a high school prospective student-athlete (other than a prospective student-athlete who attends a secondary school in a foreign country or a home-schooled prospective student-athlete) to sign a National Letter of Intent or an institution’s written offer of financial aid until the NCAA Eligibility Center has received an official high school transcript for each high school the prospective student-athlete has attended through his or her sixth semester (or equivalent) of enrollment.

Analysis: The idea that an institution must evaluate a prospect’s academic status prior to signing them is not a new one, but it has taken time to take hold in Division I. This goes one step further, requiring all transcripts to be at the Eligibility Center. If this passes, expect a whole new flurry of activity around signing days.

2011-45: Recruiting – Nonscholastic Women’s Basketball Competition

Sponsor: NCAA Division I Recruiting and Athletics Personnel Issues Cabinet

Intent: In women’s basketball, to specify that an institution [including any institutional department (e.g., athletics, recreational/intramural)] shall not host, sponsor or conduct a nonscholastic basketball practice or competition in which women’s basketball prospective student-athletes participate on its campus or at an off-campus facility regularly used by the institution for practice and/or competition by any of the institution’s sport programs, and to establish limited exceptions, as specified; further, to specify that the use of an institution’s facilities for noninstitutional camps is limited to the months of June, July and August; finally, to prohibit evaluations at noninstitutional events, camps or clinics that occur on a Division I campus during evaluation periods.

2011-46: Recruiting – Nonscholastic Football Camps or Competition

Sponsor: Southeastern Conference

Intent: In football, to specify that an institution [including any institutional department (e.g., athletics, recreational/intramural)] shall not host, sponsor or conduct a nonscholastic football practice or competition (e.g., seven-on-seven events) in which football prospective student-athletes participate on its campus or at an off-campus facility regularly used by the institution for practice and/or competition by any of the institution’s sport programs; further, to limit the use of institutional facilities for noninstitutional camps or clinics that include prospect-aged participants to June and July in bowl subdivision football and to June, July and August in championship subdivision football.

Analysis: These rules actually make more sense for women’s basketball and football. Without the same type of money from shoe companies as found in men’s basketball, getting a sweetheart deal from a school is a bigger deal. But it raises the same issue as the men’s basketball ban, up for an override vote this January: is the best way to control these events to move them further away from colleges?

2011-47: Recruiting – Local Sports Clubs – Football

Sponsor: Southeastern Conference

Intent: In football, to prohibit a coach or a noncoaching staff member with football-specific responsibilities from being involved in any capacity in a football club that includes prospective student-athletes.

Analysis: When working with local sports clubs was banned for basketball, football was overlooked because football did not have clubs. Now with 7-on-7 growing, it makes sense to treat football and basketball the same. Maybe though a ban is not the best way to treat either.

2011-49: Recruiting – Volunteer Work at Nonprofit Camp

Sponsor: Mid-American Conference

Intent: In bowl subdivision football, to specify that an institution’s head coach may participate as a volunteer (e.g. counselor, guest lecturer, consultant) on one day in June or July outside the designated two periods of 15 consecutive days at a charitable or nonprofit camp or clinic, as specified.

Analysis: Volunteering for a nonprofit camp sounds like a noble enterprise. The issue is whether what nonprofit means in football camps will be the same as what nonprofit means in men’s basketball recruiting: a way to gather money to support a nonscholastic team. This would expressly permit something that has been prohibited in men’s basketball.

2011-50: Recruiting – Recruiting Services – Criteria for Subscription

Sponsor: Big East Conference, Conference USA, and Mountain West

Intent: In sports other than basketball and football, to specify that an institution may subscribe to a recruiting or scouting service involving prospective student-athletes, provided the service is made available to all institutions desiring to subscribe and at the same fee rate for all subscribers; further, to specify that an institution is permitted to subscribe to a service that provides scholastic and/or nonscholastic video. In basketball and football, to eliminate the restriction on subscribing to a service that includes access to nonscholastic video.

2011-51: Recruiting – Recruiting Services – Criteria for Subscription

Sponsor: Pac-12 Conference

Intent: In sports other than basketball and football, to specify that an institution may subscribe to a recruiting or scouting service involving prospective student-athletes, provided the service is made available to all institutions desiring to subscribe and at the same fee rate for all subscribers; further, to specify that an institution is permitted to subscribe to a service that provides scholastic and/or nonscholastic video.

Analysis: The major difference between these two proposals is that the first, 2011-50, would allow basketball and football programs to subscribe to recruiting services that provide video of nonscholastic video along with all other sports. 2011-51 would keep that prohibition in place for football and men’s basketball. The toothpaste is out of the tube with AAU basketball and 7-on-7 football, so it makes sense to allow coaches to use those events to make better evaluations in a cost-effective manner.

2011-52: Recruiting – Recruiting Services – NCAA Approval

Sponsor: Southeastern Conference

Intent: In basketball and football, to specify that an institution shall not subscribe to a recruiting or scouting service unless the service has been approved by the NCAA pursuant to an annual approval process.

Analysis: This sounds great, but there are two problems. First, the NCAA approval process was originally designed for men’s basketball, has not started yet, and could potentially be expanded to football right off the bat. Second, it does not solve the critical problem with how scouting services are regulated. If someone creates a permissible scouting service, they can still use it a front business to sell access to prospects.

2011-53: Recruiting – Donation of Athletics Equipment

Sponsor: West Coast Conference

Intent: To eliminate the restriction that precludes an institution from donating athletics equipment to a bona fide youth organization outside a 30-mile radius of the institution’s campus.

Analysis: More than eliminating the 30-mile radius, this is an area ripe for more deregulation. It is worth it to ask if a donation of used pads and footballs is enough to get a coach to swing his prospects toward a particular college.

2011-54: Recruiting – Women’s Basketball – July Evaluation and Dead Periods

Sponsor: Atlantic Coast Conference

Intent: In women’s basketball, to specify that during the time period of July 6-31, the recruiting calendar shall consist of, consecutively, a seven-day evaluation period, a 10-day dead period, a seven-day evaluation period and a two-day dead period.

Analysis: The ACC jumped the gun and offered for women’s basketball one of the ideas for a reworked July evaluation period that is being discussed for men’s basketball. This drops the number of days from 20 to 14, with a longer dead period in the middle. It does highlight the difference in the two approaches for the men. One (this one) is just about less recruiting days in July. The other (long weekends only) is more about changing the overall pattern of what coaches are doing during July.

2011-55: Recruiting – Football – January Dead Period

Sponsor: NCAA Division I Recruiting and Athletics Personnel Cabinet

Intent: In bowl subdivision football, to revise the recruiting calendar to specify that January 4 through the Sunday during the week of the annual convention of the American Football Coaches Association shall be a dead period.

Analysis:

2011-56: Recruiting – Fencing Recruiting Calendar

Sponsor: NCAA Division I Recruiting and Athletics Personnel Cabinet

Intent: In fencing, to establish recruiting-person days and a recruiting calendar, as specified.

2011-57: Recruiting – Field Hockey Recruiting Calendar

Sponsor: NCAA Division I Recruiting and Athletics Personnel Cabinet

Intent: In field hockey, to establish recruiting-person days and a recruiting calendar, as specified.

2011-58: Recruiting – Women’s Gymnastics Recruiting Calendars

Sponsor: NCAA Division I Recruiting and Athletics Personnel Cabinet

Intent: In women’s gymnastics, to establish a recruiting calendar, as specified.

2011-59: Recruiting – Men’s Ice Hockey Recruiting Calendar

Sponsor: NCAA Division I Recruiting and Athletics Personnel Cabinet

Intent: In men’s ice hockey, to establish a recruiting calendar, as specified.

2011-60: Recruiting – Wrestling Recruiting Calendar

Sponsor: NCAA Division I Recruiting and Athletics Personnel Cabinet

Intent: In wrestling, to establish a recruiting calendar, as specified.

Analysis: A host of sports are asking for recruiting calendars, and two (fencing and field hockey) are asking for recruiting person-day limitations as well. It is reasonable to question if these sports need limits, but the fact that the proposals come from the coaches associations is in their favor. It is also reasonable to ask if creating a recruiting calendar is being done at least partly to get unlimited phone calls during contact periods, currently only for sports with defined recruiting periods.

2011-61: Recruiting – Women’s Basketball Event Certification

Sponsor: Atlantic Coast Conference

Intent: In women’s basketball, to specify that a certified event shall not employ (either on a salaried or a volunteer basis) a current women’s basketball student-athlete.

Analysis: Just like moving nonscholastic events off-campus, it is worth asking if having student-athletes work these events is a positive influence. I would like to see the statistics on how powerful the effect of being around student-athletes is when it comes to camps. If camps are that strong in recruiting, this might make sense.

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.