You are here: Home / Archives for legislation

A $2,000 Tail Wagging a $30 Million Dog

February 13, 2012 by

Size is always relative. For example, right now Apple could be called the only big business in the technology sector. That’s not to say that Microsoft and Google are small, but when one company has a larger market capitalization that both its main competitors and almost $100 billion in the bank, the rest of the industry has so little weight to throw around they must come up with new ways to compete.

There’s a constant refrain that athletics is and/or should be big business. Except the entirety of college sports is barely as big as the NFL’s TV contracts. More importantly, an athletic department is often attached to a university with a budget that might be so much larger that athletics could be lumped in under “Miscellaneous”. Texas’ $150 million in athletics revenue looks impressive until measured against the university’s $2.2 billion operating budget.

The newest idea to provide up to $2,000 in additional financial aid to student-athletes is another example of how athletic departments still do not have nearly the financial weight that a university does. The new proposal is based on financial need, with student-athletes only being eligible for the grant if their athletic scholarship, other grants and scholarships, and Expected Family Contribution is less than the cost of attendance.

Still missing from the new concept is part of the original proposal which was normally overlooked by the public: an almost total deregulation of non-athletics aid. In equivalency sports, once a student-athlete receives any athletics aid at all and becomes a counter, all financial aid he or she is receiving from the institution is also included when determining how much the student-athlete counts against team financial aid limits, subject to some exceptions.

This is not the first time this idea has come up. In 2009 and 2010, Division I discussed the idea as part of a comprehensive review of the financial aid rules. The cabinet decided not to move forward with the concept, instead going ahead with more limited deregulation of state and federal financial aid.

When you look at the financial muscle of a university, it is easy to see why schools are wary of removing all regulations in this area. Stanford recently completed a $6.2 billion fundraising campaign which created $250 million in new need-based financial aid. That’s three times Stanford’s total athletics budget. If Stanford’s student-athletes received a proportional amount of this new financial aid (they represent 12% of the student population), $30 million in additional financial aid would flow to athletes, almost twice what Stanford spends on athletic scholarships.

It is reasonable to ask why having more money in your athletic department is considered a fair advantage but having a bigger and better financial aid office across campus is a threat to competitive equity. The impact though is not debatable. Look at the success of the Ivy League, which neatly bypasses non-athletics aid limits by not giving athletic scholarships (something to consider in the debate over whether they should start). Ivy student-athletes are free to accept all the financial aid they can get their hands on, and as the Ancient Eight expands aid available to the middle class, results are translating to the fields, courts, rinks, and pools.

If major deregulation of these limits ever happens, coaches would not need to bully financial aid offices for it to be a gamechanger. Financial need and academic merit would become just as important as athletic talent, if not more so. Coaches whose recruiting lines up with the institution’s larger efforts to attract students would be at a tremendous advantage. And if a mega booster gives $20 million to endow scholarships that might help the baseball team, is that so bad if the vast majority of the aid just goes to needy students in general?

None of this will happen though unless institutions realize and accept the true size of an athletic department, especially financially. When classes are cancelled to accommodate the crowd for a home game, it might seem like athletics dominates the university. Expanding athletics aid by $2,000 even just for needy students is a significant addition to an athletics budget. When it comes to finances though, it’s clear who is the tail and who is the dog. What’s not clear is who should be wagging whom.

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: , ,

Consolidation of Powers

January 16, 2012 by

Back in October, the Board of Directors took unprecedented action when they adopted new initial eligibility standards, a $2,000 miscellaneous expense allowance, multi-year scholarships, and a new men’s basketball recruiting model. It was so unprecedented that the membership pushed back with overrides of both the expense allowance and multi-year scholarships, going so far as to suspend the $2,000 stipend for the time being.

By comparison, the actions of the Board of Directors at the 2012 NCAA Convention were relatively mundane. The Board refused to implement a few of the ideas suggested by the Resource Allocation Working Group, including scholarship cuts to football and women’s basketball and the end of foreign tours. The Board adopted a moratorium on increases in the length of seasons and the number of games and ordered a study on appropriate limits, with a special focus on basketball. And they completed the work of the Leadership Council by adopting a model for on-campus tryouts and summer practice in men’s basketball.

The group missing from all this action is the Legislative Council. Bold new ideas were adopted without passing them through the primary lawmaking body of the NCAA. In addition, at the request of one working group, the Legislative Council tabled 50 of the 82 active proposals. The Legislative Council will spend another year on the sidelines as well, after the Board of Directors agreed to suspend the legislative process to allow the Rules Working Group to complete their work of picking apart and putting back together the NCAA Division I Manual.[1]

Freezing the Legislative Council out is responsible for a significant amount of the backlash against the Presidential Retreat initiatives. The reason is simple. On the Legislative Council, all 31 Division I conferences have a representative.[2] On the Board of Directors, all 11 FBS conferences have a representative, but the other 20 FCS and non-football conferences share 7 representatives. In addition, none of the Presidential Retreat working groups have representation from all conferences and some conferences have no representatives on any of the groups.

Since 2010, there has been a push by FCS and non-football leagues to expand the Board of Directors to include all conferences, lead by the Northeast Conference and Big South Conference. That would create a more representative 31-member board, potentially one which would have the same type of weighted voting as the Legislative Council.[3] But that creates an unwieldy and parallel legislative process where a proposal has to pass through two bodies representing the same group of institutions, one populated by presidents and the other populated by athletic administrators, who are expected to be working at the direction of their presidents.

The solution then is to get rid of the Legislative Council and expand the Board of Directors to include all conferences. Voting could be weighted or not. The Student-Athlete Advisory Committee could be given a representative for a nice, even 32. Individual schools still have a chance to be heard through the override process.

This would be the most visible symbol of the push toward presidential control of college athletics. The primary law-making body would be composed of presidents. The legislative cycle could even be disbanded or tweaked to allow issues to be addressed more quickly. And the override process gives athletic administrators the chance to pitch their individual president (who controls the requests and the vote) on that school’s objections to a proposal.

The other chief benefit would come after the new Division I Manual is introduced to the world about 18 months from now. The challenge is not to make a new manual that is easier to understand and only focuses on serious issues. The hard part is to keep the manual that way. Presidents are more likely to only take up serious issues of national importance. You would expect the Board of Directors to adopt fewer proposals that address purely competitive equity issues brought up by only a few conferences.

The downside is the lack of an expert body to vet legislation, since the Legislative Council is composed mostly of athletic administrators with a compliance background and the occasional faculty athletics representative. But the Leadership Council (composed mostly of athletic directors) would still exist. And the National Association for Athletics Compliance (NAAC) or some new NCAA committee could act in an advisory capacity for the presidents on the board.[4]

The presidential retreat initiatives are asking NCAA members not to just to accept some changes, but to accept a new way of doing business. Since the work of fixing and improving college athletics is an ongoing process, that change should be manifested in changes to way NCAA rules are made. If so, the current appetite for reform has a chance to gather enough momentum to stop being a movement and start being the new business as usual.

  1. Insert Six Million Dollar Man reference here. “We can rebuild it. We have the technology. We can make it better than it was before. Better, thinner, clearer.”  ↩

  2. The Pioneer Football League also has a representative who votes on FCS issues only.  ↩

  3. The conferences with BCS automatic qualification and Conference USA get three votes. The other FBS conferences get 1.5 votes. All other conferences get 1.2 votes.  ↩

  4. The Collegiate Model-Rules Working Group has already stated an intention to work with NAAC in crafting the new manual.  ↩

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: , ,

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: , ,

Funding Reform

December 15, 2011 by

Unfunded mandates are always controversial. When one government requires another government to spend money it may not have, there is bound to be tension. Proposal 2011–96, which allows schools to provide up to $2,000 beyond the current grant-in-aid limits, is not an unfunded mandate. The key word is allows. The proposal requires schools to do nothing, just permits them to.

But many schools are struggling to see a choice. 2011–96 (and 2011–97, the multi-year grant proposal) allow, in the views of many administrators and coaches in Division I, something so powerful that it must be provided. The fear with competitive equity is not that winning is easier for some schools than others because of money. The fear is that winning will become impossible for some schools based on money. Increased money to student-athletes is expected to be one of the things with that sort of competitive impact. That fear has been turned into enough override requests to suspend 2011–96 at least until the Board of Directors takes another look at the proposal.

The simplest way to address the issues with an unfunded mandate is often to fund it. However, that is often impossible since funding the program (i.e. raising taxes) is often as unpopular as the program might be necessary. But in this case, the Board of Directors could kill not just two but six birds with one stone. Because the mechanism for funding a large grant-in-aid increase is the creation of an FBS football playoff.

Not just any playoff. This would be an NCAA Division I FBS Football Tournament. That means a selection committee. It probably means an RPI of some kind. It could mean a large bracket, although it does not have to. But most importantly, it means the revenue from such a tournament would be distributed by the NCAA.

Only about 40% of the revenue the NCAA distributes to Division I schools is distributed based on competitive success (i.e. winning games in the men’s basketball tournament). The rest is distributed equally (sometimes with strings attached) or based on the number of scholarships a school offers or how many student-athletes receive Pell Grants. Not to mention that the Division I revenue distribution takes up only 60% of the NCAA’s total operating revenue, with the rest spent on the NCAA’s championships, membership services, distributions to Divisions II and III and administrative expenses.

If an FBS tournament generated similar revenue to the Division I Men’s Basketball Tournament, there would be to match or even exceed existing Bowl Championship Series payouts while leaving plenty left over to fund the additional scholarship costs. In fact, it would be able to fund the most expensive version of that proposal, where the expense allowance is equal to the full cost-of-attendance and student-athletes on partial scholarships receive an equivalent portion of the stipend.

A funded scholarship increase could potentially solve the following problems:

  • Criticism that the increased aid is not to the full cost-of-attendance. The allowance could more easily be increased to that number without imposing additional costs on cash-strapped universities. Plus mandated reporting through the NCAA’s revenue distribution system allays concerns that the cost-of-attendance calculation might be manipulated.
  • Title IX concerns. If the proposal is broadened to include partial scholarship athletes, then the proportion of aid available to men and women does not change, and football’s 85 full scholarship no longer create a significant Title IX hurdle.
  • Creation of a football playoff. No need for explanation here.
  • Competitive equity impact. In the short term, there is no competitive equity impact, since the scholarship increase is funded for everyone.
  • A new model of competitive equity. In the long term, the existence of an NCAA tournament in football and greater targeted funding of specific costs makes the Board of Directors’ new approach to competitive equity more palatable. In all sports schools would compete against their conference peers to get into a national tournament where they get their shot against the rest of the country.

It also makes a football playoff significantly more likely. Instead of the weighted voting of the Legislative Council, FBS schools would receive one vote each. FBS specific legislation requires 25 requests to start the override process, 50 to suspend legislation, and 75 votes against a proposal if it ultimately comes to that. At that point, the only way an FBS football playoff would not occur would be if a significant majority of schools did not want one.

If this sounds too good to be true, it is admittedly a little oversimplified. It would be hard to tie the existing financial aid proposal to an FBS-only playoff proposal, so you would have two separate proposals. Everything would go back to another override process where the success of one proposal hinges on the success of the other and with only a subset of schools voting on one of the proposals. But the idea solves too many problems to not get at least a “what if” when the Board of Directors meets in January to continue the path to reform.

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: , , , ,

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: , , ,

Crime and Punishment

November 11, 2011 by

When bad things happen in athletic departments, the natural inclination is that the NCAA will step in. The NCAA legislates standards for athletic departments and regulates compliance with those standards. When anything goes wrong, either in athletic facilities or with the people involved in college athletics, the first look is often to Indianapolis for the NCAA’s response.

That instinct can be wrong in some cases. The NCAA is an organization based on athletics and education. What the NCAA can do is thus limited. The NCAA can only enforce the bylaws that its members make. As a private organization rather than part of the government, the NCAA’s powers are also limited. And there is the issue of what rules are appropriate for the NCAA to be overseeing.

Sometimes real crimes intersect with NCAA rules. The ability of the NCAA to punish an athletic department for criminal activity that occurs within the athletic department is tied directly to whether NCAA bylaws were violated as part of the crime. But there is a role for the NCAA to have consequences for criminal activity that occurs within an athletic department, and two changes in particular would provide the organization with the necessary tools.

NCAA as Accomplice

Very generally, the membership could make it an NCAA violation for the people NCAA rules cover (athletic department and university employees, student-athletes, boosters, etc.) to use college athletics in the commission of a crime. A simplistic example would be a coach who goes on recruiting trips abroad to bring drugs into the country. The recruiting trips might be permissible, but the activity surrounding the trips is illegal.

The NCAA would need to piggy back on the criminal investigation. But the facts that are proven with the power and processes of a government investigation might show that college athletics became an unwitting accomplice to the crime. At that point, the NCAA has an interest in punishing people and organizations who abuse college athletics without breaking any of the NCAA’s rules.

Clery Act Violations

Campus safety is regulated by the Clery Act, which is actually a section of Title IX. The Clery Act requires that colleges and universities who receive federal funding must compile and report accurate statistics regarding crimes that occur on- or near campus or involving students. The Clery Act also requires that institutions have policies for reporting and responding to accusations of crime on campus, with a special emphasis on sex crimes, violent crime, and hate crimes.

When the Department of Education finds a school guilty of a Clery Act violation, there are already significant penalties, including fines of up to $27,500 per violation and suspension from federal financial aid programs. A single incident can produce multiple violations, such as at Eastern Michigan University, where failure to warn students about a murder that had occurred on campus resulted in a record fine of $357,000.

Part of the NCAA’s mission is to provide for student-athlete welfare. Safety and security of student-athletes and staff is fundamental to that welfare. The membership could create a rule that requires institutions to report Clery Act violations involving the athletic department to the NCAA, which could then impose penalties. This would include failures of athletic department employees to report crimes, crimes against student-athletes, or crimes committed by student-athletes. It is not the criminal act that is being punished, rather it is the failure of the institution to respond to it and protect victims and other student-athletes.

As idyllic as college campuses may seem, they are part of the real world. Real world crimes happen on campuses and involve athletic departments. The NCAA has neither the expertise nor the authority to become another general police force. But when crimes are sufficiently intertwined with college athletics and the NCAA can use the results of investigations by the proper authorities, it makes sense to create consequences for actions that might not violate NCAA bylaws, but which make no one feel good about college athletics.

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:

2011-12 POPL Review: Eligibility

August 29, 2011 by

The amateurism and recruiting proposals in this year’s legislative cycle had a clear overall move toward deregulation. But every year has a few ideas that are a little out there. It’s a combination of good “outside the box” thinking and throwing proposals out more to generate conversation than to actually be passed.

This year most of those proposals are in the eligibility category. There’s a recycling of an idea that comes up every few years (five seasons of competition) and a brand new proposal that potentially changes how we think about acceptable academics.

2011-62 – International Eligibility Form

Sponsor: Big East Conference

Intent: To eliminate the requirement that the eligibility of an international student-athlete shall be certified on an international student-athlete eligibility form.

Analysis: The General Eligibility Form for International and Select Student-Athletes is duplicative and a burden. The trouble is that international student-athletes are often instructed by their coaches on how to slip through the Eligibility Center without being checked. The international form is completed when a student-athlete arrives on campus, so the chances for deception are reduced. If the form goes away, the Eligibility Center needs to alter who is automatically cleared by the computer.

2011-63 – Graduate Student After Final Term

Sponsor: Pac-12 Conference

Intent: To specify that a student-athlete who is eligible during the term in which degree work is completed (or is eligible as a graduate) remains eligible for any postseason event that begins within 60 days after the end of the term in which the student completes the requirements for the degree (or graduate eligibility).

Analysis: This proposal is the codification of a waiver that was issued for 2010-11 that allows a student-athlete to compete after graduate not just in the NCAA Championships, NIT, or a bowl game, but in any postseason event. So this cover events like the College Basketball Invitational, or the Dad Vail Regatta. Makes sense to treat all postseason events equally.

2011-64 – Five Seasons of Football Eligibility

Sponsor: Colonial Athletic Association

Intent: In football, to specify that a student-athlete shall not engage in more than five seasons of intercollegiate competition and may only engage in a fifth season at an institution at which the student-athlete previously used a season of competition.

Analysis: Originally thought to be an FCS-only proposal, FBS will vote on five years of eligibility for football players. I see three major issues that need to be sorted out before this proposal is passed:

  1. If the proposal no longer applies to just FCS, why is there still the transfer restriction (i.e. that a student-athlete cannot transfer to use his fifth year of eligibility)? Especially given that restrictions on transfers in the last year of eligibility for student-athletes who graduate were recently loosened.
  2. What happens when a coach has committed and/or signed a class, and suddenly in January or April his seniors all have another year of eligibility? It’s the oversigning problem to end all oversigning problems.
  3. Is it not a major Title IX issue to allow one group of male athletes to play five seasons, but to allow all female athletes to play only four?

I also suspect that this proposal will not stay football only. Some major conference will offer an alternative to include men’s basketball, while a smaller conference may offer another alternate covering all sports.

2011-65 – Year of Academic Readiness

Sponsor: NCAA Division I Academic Cabinet

Intent: To establish a year of academic readiness for two-year college transfers, as specified.

Analysis: This proposal basically allows nonqualifiers to enroll for a year at a junior college, practice, and receive financial aid, but not use a year on their five-year clock if they don’t compete. To qualify they have to stay longer at the junior college (five semesters instead of three) and may only play two seasons in any sport once they show up at a Division I school. The move makes sense, but it also presents the first major threat to the five-year clock. That clock is the most important rule in Division I, and if exceptions swallow it, it would change the face of Division I.

2011-65 – Softball – Minimum Amount of Competition

Sponsor: Big 12 Conference

Intent: In softball, to permit a student-athlete to compete in an institution’s non-championship segment without using a season of competition, as specified.

Analysis: In fall sports like soccer or volleyball, a student-athlete can compete during the spring exhibition season without using a season of competition. The Big 12 is seeking to flip that rule for softball, a spring sport. It will allow for extended tryouts that include exhibition games. But if an athlete is put through such a tryout and is cut, it makes sense to not charge with a whole season of competition. Big question: how long until baseball asks for the same exception?

2011-67 – Advanced Placement – International Certification

Sponsor: West Coast Conference

Intent: To specify that for purposes of fulfilling the advanced placement requirements for initial eligibility, “similar proficiency examination,” must be an advanced or higher level, nationally administered proficiency exam with a uniform grading scale that is taken after high school graduation; further, to specify that an institution shall use the NCAA Eligibility Center to determine the initial eligibility of an international student-athlete pursuant to the advanced placement criteria.

Analysis: There is a little-known rule that says if a university awards a student-athlete a full-year of advanced placement credit, they do not have to go through the Eligibility Center’s academic certification. So for international students from exam-based educational systems, you simply must be willing to award a full-year of credit and you can skip half of the certification process. This sets standards for what exams count, and requires the credentials for those exams to pass through the Eligibility Center.

2011-68 – Football Nine-Hour Rule – Exception for Team Academic Performance

Sponsor: Big East Conference

Intent: In football, to specify that a student-athlete shall not be subject to the eligibility penalty for failure to successfully complete at least nine-semester hours or eight-quarter hours of academic credit during the fall term and earn the Academic Progress Rate eligibility point for the fall term, provided the institution’s Academic Progress Rate for football is 965 or higher as of the first day of classes of the fall term in which the penalty would otherwise apply.

Analysis: This proposal is the example of what appears to be a simple and logical exception but which asks a fundamental question. What should be the standard that schools are held to when it comes to educating their student-athletes? Should they be judged on their ability to generally educate student-athletes? Or should they (and the student-athletes) be held accountable for the academic performance of each student-athlete?

The other trouble with this proposal is the delay. If a school knows it will miss some student-athletes for the first four games, it has a whole term to manipulate the APR if it is close enough to earn a 965 multi-year rate.

2011-69 – 2-4 and 4-2-4 Transfer Requirements

Sponsor: NCAA Division I Academic Cabinet

Intent: To revise the two-year college and 4-2-4 college transfer requirements, as specified.

Analysis: This proposal has been in the works before the Presidential Retreat, but it was one piece of the reform that the presidents suggested. It would raise the required GPA to 2.500, and add a physical science credit requirement. And the research suggests the proposal is still a little generous. To predict a graduation rate equal to student-athletes who never enroll at a two-year college, you need a GPA even higher than 2.500.

2011-70 – Progress Toward Degree Waivers Committee

Sponsor: NCAA Division I Academic Cabinet

Intent: To increase, from eight to 14, the number of members of the NCAA Division I Progress- Toward-Degree Waivers Committee; further, to specify that the duties of the Progress-Toward- Degree Waivers Committee shall include oversight of the process for reviewing requests for waivers of the 2-4 and 4-2-4 transfer requirements.

Analysis: 2-4 and 4-2-4 transfer waivers are currently heard like all transfer waivers, by the waiver staff and the Subcommittee for Legislative Relief. But the waivers are almost always related to academics. This proposal puts those waivers in the hands of a committee who specializes in academic requirements and expands that committee to handle the load.

2011-71 – One-Time Transfer Exception – Women’s Ice Hockey

Sponsor: Big Ten Conference

Intent: To specify that the one-time transfer exception to the four-year transfer residence requirement shall not be applicable to student-athletes in women’s ice hockey.

Analysis: Along with football, basketball, and baseball, men’s ice hockey may not use the one-time transfer exception. This would add women’s ice hockey to the list as well. Women’s ice hockey is the first sport possibly added to the list since volleyball coaches requested they be added a couple years ago, an effort that failed. The same hurdle exists here: if rising transfer rates are the justification for eliminating the exception, why have the one-time transfer exception for any sport?

2011-72 – Outside Competition – USA Fencing National Championship

Sponsor: The Ivy League

Intent: In fencing, to specify that a student-athlete may compete during the academic year as a member of a USA Fencing member club team at the USA Fencing National Championships.

Analysis: Competing in national and international championships is a standard exception of the prohibition on outside competition. USA Fencing moved their championship from July to April, so it makes sense to establish an exception for fencers to participate.

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: ,

2011-12 POPL Review: Recruiting

August 22, 2011 by

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.

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: ,

2011-12 POPL Review: Personnel and Amateurism

August 16, 2011 by

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.

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: ,

Now Comes The Hard Part

August 11, 2011 by

The results of the NCAA’s Presidential Retreat exceeded even my wildest expectations. I expected clear topics to study with deadlines for proposals around this time next year. I never expected actual solutions to emerge, and the deadlines to flesh those solutions out into NCAA legislation beginning as soon as October.

Presidential initatives have a mixed history of success because once the presidents start down a path, most of the work is left to athletics administrators. They have their own mix of short- and long-term distractions, and hear more of the objections coming from coaches and boosters. Many a grandiose vision has failed to be reduced to a new group of words in the Division I Manual.

One of the main reasons the NCAA members struggle with this is that the governing of college athletics is mostly a part-time job. In fact, given that administrators and coaches who serve on NCAA committees are not paid for their service, calling it a hobby would not be too far off. This slows down processes of reform. It also means an athletic director who just listened to his football coach complain about losing recruits may show up and decide the fate of phone call deregulation.

In order to better seize moments like this when the NCAA members are geared up for reform and to great more of them, it’s time for the governing of college athletics to become a full-time job. To put it another way, the NCAA needs politicians.

Conferences would select someone to go live in Indianapolis and represent the conference full-time. That person would be paid by the NCAA and would serve a fixed term, maybe three or four years. The conference would need the NCAA’s approval to remove the legislator. This grants them a bit of independence.

These NCAA politicans would fulfill most of the functions currently carried out by staff members of NCAA member schools. They would vote on legislation, serve on committees, provide guidance to NCAA staff members, and hear appeals. They, along with outside members, would form the Committee on Infractions and Infractions Appeals Committee.

Instead of committees meeting three or four times a year in person, they could meet monthly, or even weekly. When urgent issues such as the preceived loophole in the Cam Newton case arise, they could be addressed in a matter of weeks, rather than having to wait roughly a year.

Two current groups in the rule-making structure would likely remain: an expanded Board of Directors including a president from every conference and the Leadership Council. But their jobs would no longer be to study issues and propose actual legislation. Their mission would be to give direction to Diviison I’s new congress. And all of the sport-specific committees would likely still remain.

The presidents have repaired a bit of the NCAA’s image, for now at least, by articulating a more detailed reform plan. Imagine the gains that could be made if everyone knew that representatives of those presidents were ready to tackle these issues full-time starting on Monday, rather than somewhat sporadically over the coming months.

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: , , , ,
«Older Posts

Copyright �© 2010-2012 NCAA �·