You are here: Home / Archives for deregulation

Tip of the Iceberg

February 25, 2012 by

When it comes to the complexity of NCAA rules, the 400-odd page Division I Manual is not the problem. True, the Manual could use a little bit of work. It’s been getting face lifts and tummy tucks over the past couple of years as the NCAA staff has reorganized some bylaws. The Manual is due for a bit of major surgery next year as only the most important bylaws will be in the dead tree edition. Overnight, the size of the Manual and the frequency of phone book comparison could be halved.

But the Manual is just the start of the “NCAA rules”. When the book does not have the answers, compliance officers turn to the Legislative Services Database (commonly known as LSDBi). LSDBi has and will continue to have all 4005 current and future bylaws. But it also has 7138 interpretations of those bylaws issued by either the NCAA staff or the Legislative Review and Interpretations Committee. Some of those are archived, but even archived interps can be useful for the more specific questions.

Beyond interpretations, the NCAA also issues education columns, explanations of NCAA rules. They can offer critical insights into applying NCAA rules, periodic reminders of bylaws that require extra attention and Q&A’s to clear up confusion about bylaws and proposals. While they are not “law” in the way interpretations or bylaws are, they cannot be ignored. And there are 2269 of them.

Then comes the case law. Most people know about the 681 major infractions cases since 1953. And many people know that secondary infractions occur all the time. And all of the time means all of the time. Over 17,500 in Division I in the last five years alone (and the database doesn’t go back further).

In addition to the violations, there are waivers. In the database, waivers are divided into three different categories: initial eligibility, progress-toward-degree, and legislative release waivers. And a lot of those have been filed over the years:

  • Almost 6,000 initial eligibility waivers;
  • Close to 3,000 progress-toward-degree waivers;
  • Over 3,500 legislative relief waivers (last five years only).

The end result is that when a question is asked, there are over 40,000 places to look for an answer.

The current review by the Rules Working Group is not plastic surgery. The rule book that comes out will be the Six Million Dollar Man of rule books. But the effect is bigger than shaving pages off the rule book. Each rule that ends up on the cutting room floor could mean dozens of interps and hundreds of violations and waivers can get filed away. Then comes the really hard part: keeping things that way.

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: ,

Second Annual New Year, New Rules

December 28, 2011 by

Last year, in response to ESPN the Magazine inexplicably publishing an issue about new rules that included not one NCAA regulation, I came up with six tweaks that would have an outsized impact on college athletics, one for each working bylaw in the NCAA Manual. ESPN’s gimmick is gone, but I kept it. This year I expanded it to seven rules, splitting Bylaw 15 (financial aid) and Bylaw 16 (awards and benefits) which were combined last year. So here is the Second Annual List of New Rules for the New Year.

Bylaw 11 (Athletics Personnel) – Dump the Test
The coaches recruiting certification exam is an annual rite of passage at NCAA institutions. The test used to be 40 questions over 80 minutes and was recently cut down to 30 questions over 60 minutes. It is open book (i.e. the NCAA Manual) and it includes mostly recruiting rules but sometimes rules about eligibility or financial aid as well. Coaches have to score an 80% on the exam. Fail to do so, and a coach may not recruit until he or she passes the exam, which they cannot do for another month.

But the most important function of the test is what surrounds it. Coaches gather for a rules review with the Compliance Office where they go over new legislation, get a refresher in the trickier recruiting rules, and have an opportunity to ask questions. It is that rules review which is more helpful than the actual test itself. The test just provides a convenient reason to get everyone in a room together.

If you read the certification requirement, the recruiting exam is just one required part of being certified to recruited off-campus. Instead, the education session (say four hours for coaches new to college athletics and two hours as continuing education) should be the greater emphasis. And if conferences or institutions wish to continue developing an exam, they can assume the expense to do so.

Bylaw 12 (Amateurism) – Competition with Professionals
Most people at this point are familiar with Proposal 2009–22, which permitted a prospect to compete on professional teams prior to his or her initial enrollment in college. But 2009–22 is just an exception to the more basic rule, that competition on a professional team ends an athlete’s collegiate eligibility. And the definition of a professional team remains very broad, covering any team where even one individual receives compensation above he or her expenses.

Competing with a professional team, at least during vacation periods outside of the traditional season, does not pass the litmus test for an amateurism rule. It does necessarily mean an athlete has received pay. And it is not strong enough evidence that a student-athlete has decided to leave college (unlike hiring an agent or skipping out on class to play on a pro team). Allowing competition with professional teams during the time when outside competition is currently allowed also allows better opportunities to be developed for current athletes (like an NBA college summer league for example).

Bylaw 13 (Recruiting) – Only Kids Get in Free
Much of the talk in recruiting regulation has been about relationships. Coaches need fewer recruiting regulations to build relationships with athletes that combat the influences of the dreaded “third party”. But Bylaw 13.8.1 promotes coaches developing relationships with these third parties by allowing high school coaches, AAU or 7-on–7 coaches, and junior college coaches to receive two free tickets to a regular season home game.

If relationships with prospects are the key to combating third party influence and cutting down on transfer rates, no one connected to a prospect should get a free ticket to a game without bringing the prospect. The regulations on official and/or unofficial visits could be loosened to give a prospect an extra ticket to bring a coach. But the recruiting regulations should allow the entertaining of people who have influence over a prospect if the prospect is nowhere to be found.

Bylaw 14 (Eligibility) – Degree Progress Get Out of Jail Free Card
Fulfilling progress towards degree rules requires a student-athlete keep up with three different regulations:

The first and third requirements are typically duplicative. The six and 18 credits an athlete must earn each semester or academic year keeps them on track to meet the 40/60/80% degree requirements. Except when the percentage of degree gets out of line with the credit hour requirements, which happens when an athlete gets ahead. Then they might be unable to complete the credit hour requirements because they ran out of credits to take, requiring a waiver. Or the credit hour requirements keep them from exploring electives.

Completing a percentage of your degree is the more important rule, so it should trump the credit hour requirements. If an athlete is ahead by a certain percentage and meeting (or beating by some amount) the GPA requirement, they should be exempt from the credit hour requirement. This way student-athletes who went above and beyond early in their academic careers gain more freedom to take what they want later on.

Bylaw 15 (Financial Aid) – End the Recruited/Not Recruited Distinction
Recruiting is a funny word. It has a formal definition that sounds exactly like what you expect a definition to sound like in a legal code:

Recruiting is any solicitation of a prospective student-athlete or a prospective student-athlete’s relatives (or legal guardians) by an institutional staff member or by a representative of the institution’s athletics interests for the purpose of securing the prospective student-athlete’s enrollment and ultimate participation in the institution’s intercollegiate athletics program.

But for practical purposes, that definition is trumped by three other, more technical requirements. There is the definition of a recruited prospect in Bylaw 13. There is the definition of a recruited prospect for men’s basketball camp purposes. And there is the definition a recruited prospect in Bylaw 15. That status attaches when ever a school:

  • Provides an official visit to a prospect;
  • Has in-person, off-campus contact with a prospect; or
  • Makes a written offer of financial aid to a prospect.

Once a prospect becomes recruited, how they count in financial aid limits changes. For example, if they are a football or basketball player, they may not receive any institutional financial aid without counting against the team’s limits. However, a coach can evaluate a prospect numerous times, call them as much as the rules allow, and offer them free tickets to any home event on an unlimited number of unofficial visits. Those activities would definitely meet the NCAA’s more fundamental definition.

If the distinction is meaningful, the technical definitions of a recruited student-athlete need to match the NCAA’s core definition. That would mean a definition that looks like the men’s basketball camp definition, which means an athlete would need to show up on campus with essentially no prior contact with the athletics department. And if the distinction is not meaningful anymore, it should be removed in favor of a rule which more precisely addresses using the financial aid office to get around scholarship limits.

Bylaw 16 (Awards and Benefits) – Let Student-Athletes Catch a Game
When athletes are on the road or required to stay over a break, schools are allowed to keep them occupied. Entertainment is allowed during both road trips and vacation breaks during the season. There is one meaningful difference though: during a vacation break, that entertainment cannot be tickets to a professional sports contest. That means no NBA games for athletes during winter break, or no baseball games for baseball players after school gets out in the summer.

There are already enough controls on entertainment generally (within a certain distance) and controls on professional sports tickets during road games (must come from the institution) to prevent it from being abused during these relatively short times when athletes are stuck on an empty campus. And while it is an advantage to schools near professional teams, the fact that tickets cannot be used in the recruiting process or given during the academic year limits that advantage.

Bylaw 17 (Playing and Practice Seasons) – Basketball Alumni Games
In sports other than football and basketball, alumni contests are a common occurrence. They typically occur during the exhibition season (like during fall baseball) or as a preseason meet before the championship season starts. They are exempt from the limit on the total number of games, and the NCAA recently began allowing athletes to participate in an alumni game and still redshirt that year.

Basketball’s preseason is a bit of a mess right now. One problem was well known: the strict limits on which athletes could play in exhibition games and still redshirt. Another did not pop up until this year as a result of the NBA lockout. NBA players wanted to workout with their old college teams and even play against them, but the NCAA does not exempt alumni games in basketball from the maximum number of competitions or first permissible start date like exhibitions against lower division opponents or closed-door scrimmages.

A framework is there though. Basketball teams get two games that do not count between the first day of practice and the first real game. What those two games can be should expand and whether they count as using a season of competition should be simplified. But an excellent start would be to allow schools that have alumni willing to suit up to use an alumni game as one of their two exhibitions.

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: , ,

How A Ban Can Be Deregulation

December 9, 2011 by

One of the under-the-radar issues still bubbling along in the NCAA is Proposal 2009–100-A. The proposal (2009–100 for simplicity’s sake, the “B” version is long gone) bans Division I institutions from hosting most nonscholastic boys basketball competitions and camps. The proposal, which was adopted last year, is currently receiving comment from each individual member school, after which the schools will vote. A five-eighths majority is required to overturn the new rule.

The rule got more public over the last couple of weeks when more people learned how far the definition of “nonscholastic” actually stretched. A number of events, like this one, had to be moved from Division I arenas. While they were between high school teams, they were sponsored by nonscholastic organizations, like visitors bureaus and event promoters. The reason the ban extends so far is to both prevent third parties (whoever they may be) from turning into event promoters to cash in from a college recruiting their prospects, and so Division I schools are not contributing directly to having even more basketball games during the high school season.

Banning these events, many of which have been around for a long time and are completely on the up-and-up, is seen by many as an example of the type of regulation that the NCAA needs to get rid of. “Deregulation” is a common cry. Why waste time on who holds an event in the school’s arena, the argument goes, when there are more pressing issues.

The reason is that Proposal 2009–100 is trying to save compliance offices time rather than increasing their burden. When the Division I Board of Directors issued its interpretation back in October 2009, the Board touched specifically on boys basketball camps:

It is not permissible for a men’s basketball staff member or a representative of the institution’s athletics interests to be involved in any way in the operation or planning of a men’s basketball nonscholastic event on its campus.

If Proposal 2009–100 survives, monitoring boys basketball events on campus is relatively easy. Who are the teams and who is sponsoring the event? If 2009–100 is ultimately defeated, the monitoring burden goes up significantly since an institution might be called on to prove that their men’s basketball staff was not involved in setting up an AAU tournament on campus. That might mean practices like monitoring phone records and email of coaches to look for communication with event operators, or ensuring that only certain people in the athletic department or university are involved with setting up the event. Pricing and amenities offered to these events may also have to be monitored.

A lot of the deregulation talk recently has focused on removing things from the Division I Manual that are not worth worrying about. But there’s a flip side to “deregulation” that should be seriously considered. Some activities require so much monitoring to be done fairly and ethically that they are not worth the benefit. In that case, it is in the interest of deregulation to ban Division I institutions from wasting their time with the activity so they can focus on more important things.

Do AAU basketball events on campus fall into that category? Enough of Division I thought so at one point to pass the rule, but it remains to be seen if they still feel that way. NIRSA, the National Intramural-Recreation Sport Association certainly feels the extra trouble is worth it, given the significant revenue that recreational sport departments see from AAU events. “Saving people from themselves” is always a tricky proposition. But that does not mean there is only one way to focus athletic departments on what is important.

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: , , ,

Defeat of Phone Call Proposal Makes NCAA Clean Up Harder

July 18, 2011 by

Proposal 2010-30 was supposed to the start of major deregulation of the recruiting rules. It wasn’t supposed to be about what the actual phone call rules were. Rather, it was about the fact that there are currently seven different regulations for when and how often a coach can call a prospect and their parents. The new rule would have cut that to three. Still not ideal, but a massive improvement over the current system.

After Proposal 2010-30 was passed with overwhelming support, coaches and administrators balked. Many of the comments on the 106 override requests opposed a move toward earlier recruiting and thought the increased workload would give an advantage to schools with larger coaching (and noncoaching) staffs.

Fewer rules slims down the Manual and cuts down on the cost of monitoring since you spend less time training staff on numerous rules. It also sets a baseline rule that could then be tweaked rather than creating a new rule on a sport-by-sport basis. A lot of inertia on basic recruiting rules would have been broken.

Instead we’ll keep the current set of rules. And more importantly, a bigger proposal coming this year that removes limits on the frequency of calls now looks much less likely to pass. That proposal will cut down dramatically on monitoring costs since schools would only need to check that coaches are not calling prospects too early. Proactive monitoring systems would also become much more affordable and accessible for smaller schools.

It’s an issue of priorities. The membership has reiterated that early recruiting and competitive equity are still major priorities. But if extra benefits, agent activity, and pay-for-play are also priorities, that means something has to give, in this case having a smaller, simpler rule book which requires less administrative overhead to maintain and enforce. It also means more resources have to be spent on compliance rather than something else, which is good or bad depending on where you sit.

There’s talk now that just about every rule is becoming untenable. Amateurism, initial eligibility, recruiting regulations, financial aid limits, and staff limitations have come under fire. It’s likely only a matter of time before the concept of eligibility itself is challenged. If we’re going to declare rules failed though, we should start with the little ones that take a lot of time and effort first, rather than jumping straight to core values.

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: , ,

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: , , , , , , , ,

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: , ,

Headcounts Are Nader’s Problem, Not Scholarships

March 25, 2011 by

Ralph Nader’s proposal to replace athletic scholarships with need-based financial aid is a crackpot idea. Mostly because it would be totally ineffective. The cottage industry parents use to get a college scholarship would shift to also help parents maximize financial need. And a financial aid office unprepared for this transition would be raided by college coaches seeking to maximize their scholarship dollars.

But Nader has a point. The problem is he attacks the entire athletic scholarship rather than the more specific problem: the headcount.

NCAA sports have two financial aid models: headcount and equivalency. In a headcount sport, the limit is on the number of counters: student-athletes on the team who receive any athletically-related financial aid. $1 counts the same as a full scholarship, so typically only full grant-in-aids are awarded. In equivalency sports, the limit is on the total amount of athletically-related aid awarded. This limit is expressed as a number of equivalent full grant-in-aid awards, like the 4.5 allowed in men’s golf. There are also hybrid models in sports like FCS football and baseball where there are limits on both counters and equivalencies.

In a headcount sport, the coach has a binary decision: to offer aid or not. Ability to pay and academic merit count, but can quickly be overwhelmed by athletic concerns and are only baselines. Either a prospect can pay or not. A prospect can either keep up academically at the school or not. That’s something of an oversimplification, but the basic point remains.

In equivalency sports, financial need and academic merit matter much more. If a coach is recruiting two prospects of equal athletic ability and one could get half their schooling paid for through academic or need-based grants, that prospect is more valuable than the other. He or she frees up half a scholarship to get another student-athlete.

If headcounts were eliminated, particularly in the revenue sports of men’s basketball and FBS football, the recruiting process would be forced to focus more on academics and financial need. A coach who awards aid irrespective of the other financial aid a student-athlete would be out of a job quickly because the team wouldn’t be competitive. Academically gift or needy prospects would become more valuable in the recruiting process.

Under current rules, the effect would be limited due to the in ability to mix athletic aid with other forms of institutional aid, particularly need-based aid. In lieu of developing best practices for managing the relationship between financial aid and athletics, using institutional aid to augment an athletic scholarship is largely prohibited. The rules would need to be changed to exempt all non-athletically related aid, replacing those regulations with a system for ensuring athletics stays out of the awarding of non-athletically related aid.

Deregulation in this area would more closely align the goals of the athletics department and the university. To field the most competitive team, a coach would need to recruit prospects that will be offered the most non-athletically related aid. In a modern financial aid system, that means the students the admissions office, with the help of the financial aid office, is seeking to attract. Coaches would even be motivated to assist with fundraising for the general student body, since it would mean better financial aid packages for their prospects.

Student-athletes are just that: students and athletes. Ralph Nader is correct that in recruiting for revenue sports, the athlete part has overwhelmed the student part. But it is not the rewarding of athletic merit that is the problem. The problem is requiring coaches to award this aid in such a blunt and simplistic manner. More flexibilit would not just allow but essentially require football and basketball coaches to focus more on which students deserve and need a scholarship rather than just which athletes they need.

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: , ,

Copyright �© 2010-2012 NCAA �·