You are here: Home / Archives for legislation

Now That’s a Model

August 8, 2011 by

The NCAA’s governance structure often gets the deserved criticism of taking too long. Multiple committees, subcommittees, working groups, and blue ribbon panels have come and gone without producing much. It’s the byproduct of any legislative process that includes as many different people and institution’s as the NCAA does. It’s also the result of legislating part-time.

So for the Leadership Council’s top-to-bottom review of the men’s basketball recruiting model to wrap up within a year is a small victory for Division I’s governance structure. The results of that review are even more encouraging.

A recruiting model should think about two things: how coaches evaluate and select new student-athletes, and how they convince them to attend a particular school. The Leadership Council split into two subcommittees somewhat along those lines and came up with recommendations for both.

To evaluate prospects, the Leadership Council has recommended the return of evaluations at AAU events in April. Coaches would have two weekends, which would move if they interfere with the SAT or ACT. The July evaluation period would be shortened, either to three four-day weekends or two seven-day periods. But the biggest change is allowing tryouts, or “on-campus evaluations.”

One option is Division II’s tryout rules, which allow each school to tryout each prospect. A better option is the NABC’s proposal from 2004, which give each prospect six on-campus evaluations and each institution 18. Tryouts would be centered around the official visit, with a prospect needing to be on an official visit for a tryout until after a prospect’s senior season.

This ties into changes in how contact recruits. Official visits would be allowed starting April of a prospect’s junior year. Contact would be allowed during September and April of a prospect’s junior year as well. Phone calls and text messages would be unlimited starting August of a prospect’s junior year.

When the entire model is put together, it looks something like this:

  • Coaches would use the April and July evaluation periods of a prospect’s sophomore year to pick the members of that class they will target.
  • Starting that August, coaches would establish communication with prospects to gauge interest. Interested prospects would meet coaches in person in September.
  • Over the junior year, coaches confirm their evaluations, and secure commitments with in-home visits, official visits, and a final evaluation on campus that spring.

The model, with the NABC’s limited tryout rule, would greatly favor coaching staffs who can make good evaluations during the spring and summer before a prospect’s junior year. It also gives prospects additional bargaining power if they hold onto official visits and tryouts into their senior year.

There’s still work to be done. The July evaluation period and tryout model are still not set. And the entire exercise could be derailed by tacking on a summer practice rule to a recruiting proposal, especially as the debate over required summer school continues.

The biggest danger to any model, be it recruiting or summer school or financial aid, is to keep it in one piece when it goes in front of the membership. It’s easy to see coaches argue for April AAU evaluations, unlimited tryouts, no change to July, and no change to the contact rules, while administrators fight for reducing the July evaluation periods, deregulating contact, and passing on April AAU events and tryouts.

There’s a glimmer of hope though. The Leadership Council has gone for consensus in putting together the model. And all 31 Division I conferences are represented in that group. When the final proposal goes to the Board of Directors in October, the whole of Division I will have blessed its contents. Then it is up to the individuals on the Leadership Council to see that their vision stays intact.

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: , ,

The Problem with an NCAA Split

July 9, 2011 by

The debate about the next generation of NCAA rules has started to heat up. I’m not talking about what proposals might be offered during the upcoming legislative cycle. Rather, what the overall structure of college athletics will look like five, ten, or twenty years from now.

One of the fundamental questions going forward is how important competitive equity is. That is, should the NCAA membership pass rules that promote student-athlete welfare if they give an overwhelming advantage to schools with larger budgets?

That debate is coming to a head over full cost-of-attendance scholarships, outside income, recruiting rules, and access to agents. All of these would hand a major advantage to schools in the BCS automatic qualifying conferences at the expense of mid-major schools.

Personally, I’d like to decide to do something irrespective of competitive equity and then decide the most equitable way to do it. So full cost-of-attendance scholarships should be allowed, but we should look for ways to help fund the increased financial aid across the board.

The major conference schools could have a trump card though. In any negotiation, the party willing to walk away has the most bargaining power. And while it involves quite a bit of reading between the lines, there are subtle signs the big boys are prepared to play that card if they need to.

The problem with a major Division I split is that it limits who can win college athletics biggest prizes. We want schools competing at the highest level to be able to provide a proper experience for their athletes and do so in a fiscally sound way. But being able to compete at the highest level in 2030 shouldn’t be determined by your ability to do it in 2012.

If major conferences were to create a new division or a new organization, they could set the rules about who can join. There is no level playing field right now, but there is possibility and hope. A split that simply creates an exclusive club kills that hope.

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: , ,

Oversigning and NCAA Federalism

June 13, 2011 by

One of the core tenets of the American political system is the idea of federalism. Among other definitions, federalism means:

A system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces).

In the United States, federalism exists due to the enumerated powers of the federal government. That is, the Constitution includes a list of subjects on which the federal government may legislate. Anything not on that list cannot be regulated on the national level, but must instead must be legislated by the individual states. There’s a rich debate to be had over whether this still exists in practice, but the theory is important here.

The NCAA has this basic setup. There is a federal government (the national association and office) and a set of 30 states (the conferences). The conferences select representatives to various national groups (Legislative Council, Leadership Council, Board of Directors, etc.) who then are charged with defending their interests while keeping in mind the needs of the national association.

The major difference between the United States and the NCAA is that the NCAA does not have enumerated powers. Any topic can be (and it seems always is) regulated at the national level. The conferences legislate on topics that either the members haven’t gotten around to legislating nationally, or because a conference wants a stricter rule than the national one.

This has come to a head with the SEC’s decision to limit oversigning in football. The SEC chose to base their oversigning limits on the annual limit of 25 initial counters. This is in contrast to the Big Ten, which focuses on the annual limit of 85 overall counters.

Opponents of oversigning have jumped on this conflict and the SEC’s decision to propose national oversigning rules as an opportunity to move the entire debate to the national level:

The NCAA has an obligation to create national rules on oversigning that make it clear that hoarding players and playing games with the numbers to gain a competitive advantage through highly unethical behavior has no place in the sport they regulate, that every recruit and current player IN EVERY CONFERENCE will be protected from forced attrition, and that every conference competing for BCS bowl spots and the money that comes with it will be on equal footing when it comes to the number of players they can recruit and sign.

To the extent that there is a baseline student-athlete welfare issue with national impact, the issue demands legislation on the national level. In my opinion, that issue surrounds the limit on 25 initial counters.

Why? Because when a coach signs the 26th prospect to a scholarship for the upcoming academic year, he has promised the prospect something it is impossible for him to provide. The coach either must yank the rug out from under one of those 26 young men or the balance between what a prospect promises and what the coach/institution promises (already an issue of intense debate), tilts exclusively in the coach’s favor.

When a coach signs the expected 86th prospect/student-athlete for the upcoming year, he has promised something that he may be able to provide without impacting student-athlete welfare. Even if a program is expected to return all 85 scholarship student-athletes, theoretically it could sign 25 players and enroll them all without doing anything nefarious. In practice, that is unlikely to be the case.

This disconnect between theory and practice is better legislated at the conference level. Far from ensuring the SEC maintains a competitive advantage, it offers a chance for conferences to create their own competitive advantages. While some may call it negative recruiting, there’s nothing morally wrong or impermissible about informing prospects and their parents/guardians that one conference offers more protections to student-athletes than another.

If that idea gained traction, it could turn around the race to the bottom. Imagine if conferences got creative:

  • A rule that allowed for an appeal to the conference office when a scholarship is cancelled or not renewed.
  • A rule requiring conference schools to renew scholarships within the first week of school, almost creating two-year scholarships.
  • A rule limiting the ability of conference schools to refuse permission to contact other schools under certain conditions

If every change is quickly reduced to a national rule, there is no way for conferences to differentiate themselves. And with the passage of Connecticut House Bill 5145 to go along with California’s AB 2079, we’re getting close to providing prospects with the tools necessary to make an informed choice between these different options.

We don’t find it to be a problem if one state has lower taxes but another state has cheaper health care and better roads. Both are taking different approaches to the same goal: attracting people and businesses. Solve the baseline national problem, and then give conferences the incentive to develop more student-athlete friendly rules.

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: , ,

Student-Athlete Suffrage

June 8, 2011 by

It is conventional wisdom in college athletics that student-athletes as essentially forced to accept what’s offered to them. To a degree, that’s true. Agreements like the National Letter of Intent can’t be renegotiated. Amateurism and extra benefit rules prevent student-athletes from accepting that which others are more than willing to offer them. And student-athletes can’t vote on legislation that affects them.

That’s not to say that student-athletes have no voice in the NCAA. The national Student-Athlete Advisory Committee (SAAC) comments on legislation affecting student-athletes. The Legislative Council and Board of Directors gives those comments more credit that you might think.

That was clearly evident in January when the Division I National SAAC scored a major, albeit temporary victory in the legislative process. Proposal 2010-12, which removes the requirement that override votes occur at the NCAA Convention, was opposed by SAAC, since the Convention was the best place for SAAC to make their views on these votes known.

The Legislative Council passed the legislation by an overwhelming margin, with over 90% voting to approve the proposal. But the Board of Directors tabled the proposal, allowing for more discussion amongst the university presidents before finalizing the proposal in April.

But what if SAAC had a vote on the Legislative Council. SAAC could be able to give not just an opinion, but cast a vote on any issue directly affecting student-athletes. Those would include:

  • Any Bylaw 10 (ethical conduct) issue affecting student-athletes;
  • All of Bylaw 12 (amateurism);
  • All of Bylaw 13 (recruiting);
  • All of Bylaw 14 (eligibility);
  • All of Bylaw 15 (financial aid);
  • All of Bylaw 16 (awards and benefits); and
  • All of Bylaw 17 (playing and practice seasons).

That would mean student-athletes generally aren’t voting on issues involving athletics personnel, and administrative or procedural matters. As a national cabinet, SAAC would still have the opportunity to comment on these proposals. And as a voting member of the legislative coucil, SAAC could be given the same power to propose legislation that conferences have.

The practical affect of giving student-athletes a vote would be dependent on how many votes they are given. The Legislative Council is organized by conference with weighted voting. BCS conferences and Conference USA have three votes. The other FBS conferences have 1.5 votes. And the other Division I conferences have 1.2 votes.

If the Division I SAAC was given three votes, which would be logical given the group represents over 150,000 athletes, it could upset the balance of power in Division I. Currently there are 51 votes in the Legislative Council, and 27 of them are controlled by FBS conferences. This means if the 11 FBS conferences vote as a bloc, they control a slim majority. If SAAC had three votes and voted with the other conferences, it would result in a 27-27 tie.

But the conferences rarely vote in such strict patterns, so it’s hard to predict whether SAAC would have such a powerful impact on legislation. In fact during the April Legislative Council meeting, the only issues that were decided by three votes or less were FCS-only issues. In the January voting session, which is a little more complicated, three SAAC votes might have sway a proposal between adoption or distribution for membership review in some cases.

There’s two arguments for not giving student-athletes a seat the legislative table. First is that if the constituent groups in the Legislative Council are expanded beyond conferences, expect other groups to demand a seat. Coaches associations, groups like NAAC and N4A, and public groups will begin agitating for a seat. This will turn what is still a relatively flexible legislative body into something very large and unwieldy.

Second, what happened with Proposal 2010-12 is unlikely to happen again if student-athletes are represented in the voting. Because they are disenfranchised in the governance structure, the Board of Directors gave their objections extra weight. Student-athletes with the vote will likely have to accept the result of votes.

Neither of those objections are reason not to explore adding SAAC to the Legislative Council. Lines need to be drawn somewhere. And if Division I SAAC believes its interests are better represented without a vote, that’s a decision for the student-athletes to make.

Oddly enough, the Legislative Council would be the ones to decide whether to add student-athletes to their ranks, and a conference or cabinet would need to introduce the proposal in the first place. But just like the Board of Directors did with Proposal 2010-12, the Legislative Council is known to surprise when trying to predict what they’ll do based on conventional wisdom.

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: , ,

Fail Better

May 13, 2011 by

The NCAA’s Enforcement Experience seems to have been a big success. If the intent was to open up the infractions process enough that we can move beyond problems that aren’t actually there to the ones that are, job well done. Already you can see it in the quality and specificity of some of the recommendations made by the attendees. Mike DeCourcy recommends penalties carefully crafted to the sport to improve effectiveness. Stuart Mandel approved of President Emmert’s suggestion of new divisions between the types of violations, and offered the idea of a “czar of discipline”

Everyone has ideas about how enforcement should work, ideas that are hopefully better now after the NCAA offered a glimpse into how it works right now. But I’m not interested in how enforcement works. I’m interested in what happens when it doesn’t.

Consider the criminal justice system. The American criminal justice system is based on a few bedrock principles, one of which is that someone accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty. That doesn’t mean much when the criminal justice system works. Given good police work, diligent prosecutors, competent defense, and a fair judge and jury, the truth generally comes out.

The presumption of innocence comes into play at the margins, where the system breaks down. When a prosecutor can’t prove conclusively that someone committed a crime, nor can the defense prove conclusively that the defendant is innocent. In those cases, the presumption of innocence says the defendant walks. If a defendant can find a technicality, he or she walks. If a defendant chooses to put up no proof of their innocence and the prosecutor cannot prove guilt, the defendant walks.

A lot of NCAA reform ideas focus on how enforcement (or student-athlete reinstatement, amateurism, academic eligibility, financial aid, etc.) should work when it’s working. And certainly there are areas of the NCAA that were poorly designed. Or to put it another way, even when they are working properly, they don’t work the way we want them too. But more often than not NCAA regulations and processes silently do what they were designed to do.

It’s when NCAA enforcement breaks that you hear about. When an investigation takes too long, when a penalty seems too severe or too lenient, when one school is treated differently than another school. And that’s where the toughest questions are when talking about improving the enforcement process. Whether you think about this as an engineering challenge or a philosophical problem, this is the toughest hurdle a reform idea has to get over.
Take for instance the cases where the circumstantial evidence is strong, but the witness is unreliable and there’s no smoking gun. When there’s a tie like this, the system is going to have to pick a winner.

This is not a binary choice. You could create a lesser charge, almost like an appearance or impropriety. Or you could continue the current practice: entrust a group of people to use their best judgement. By this point it is clear that many people have a problem with that sort of system.

But it’s not that such a system always fails or never works. Just what when it fails, it fails spectacularly. The engine seizes up, smoke billows out, and major repairs are necessary. Instead of shrugging it off as one of those things that happens, it becomes a major catasrophe.

The surest bet I can make about the NCAA’s enforcement procedure, no matter what reforms or improvements are made, is that it will break. The second surest bet I can make is that the closer to perfect we think the process is, the more shocking that failure will be. Unless we’re ready for it and we know what’s going to happen when enforcement breaks down.

That involves making hard choices. It may mean saying “If you can break this, you win” or “If this breaks, tough luck, you lose.” But failure has to be the starting point, not the afterthought. Before you explain how the NCAA enforcement process should work, you first have to explain how to get through the times when it doesn’t.

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: , ,

Basketball Recruiting Model Discussion Gaining Steam

April 28, 2011 by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About John Infante

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

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

NCAA Rules That Could Have Been

April 18, 2011 by

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

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

#10: 2008-27

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

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

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

#9: 2010-76

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

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

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

#8: 2007-23-A

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

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

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

#7: 2003-69

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

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

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

#6: 2005-162

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

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

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

#5: 2009-28-A

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

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

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

#4: 2004-121

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

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

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

#3: 2001-69

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

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

#2: 2002-97, 2006-86

To establish an NCAA Division I Nonscholarship Football Championship.

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

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

#1: 2000-103

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

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

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

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

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

About John Infante

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

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

Rivals Decision Reveals Deeper Issues in Recruiting Rules

April 9, 2011 by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About John Infante

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

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

Improving the NLI

February 2, 2011 by

In terms of pound-for-pound controversy, the National Letter of Intent might be the undisputed champ in college athletics. The NCAA’s Division I manual attracts more complaints, but it’s hundreds of pages vs. the three that make up the NLI. And while the Division I manual attracts constructive criticism and recommendations, more people are of the opinion that the NLI simply sucks.

The NLI is useful because it offers the pinnacle of ending a prospective student-athlete’s recruitment. And the core of the NLI’s bargain, at least in theory, is sound. In exchange for committing to attend a school for one academic year and give it a fair shake, the student-athlete receives at least some financial assistance to attend the school. But the devil is in the details and it’s the details that threaten the NLIs relevancy.

1. Bring the NLI under the NCAA’s umbrella.
Right now if you wanted to change the NLI, you have to go through something of a guessing game to know who you need to talk to. The Conference Commissioners Association controls the terms of the agreement. The NCAA Eligibility Center administers the NLI program. And the NCAA members can pass legislation that changes what happens when an NLI is signed.

The NLI should be brought under one roof and be run by the NCAA. The terms of the agreement could be handled by the Recruiting Cabinet, which is also the source of most of the legislation related to the NLI already. And the Eligibility Center could continue in its role as the administrator of the program.

2. Provide more options to formally end recruitment.
Right now a prospect has many ways to informally or unofficially end their recruitment. Verbal commitments and signing an athletic scholarship agreement are considered the end of recruiting in some cases, but not all. In these situations, the prospect and the institution are not always in agreement that recruiting is over.

A fix would be to split the two primary functions of the NLI, the recruiting ban and the NLI penalty, into two separate agreements. That would create a written commitment, so to speak. I’d make it a nonbinding agreement between prospect and institution which allows the institution to contact the prospect without restriction and prevents other schools from hassling the prospect, but which can be cancelled at any time. That allows the NLI itself to be simply about the financial commitment to a prospect and the prospect’s obligation.

3. Expand Section 7-f.
Section 7-f of the NLI states:

Recruiting Rules Violation. If eligibility reinstatement by the NCAA student-athlete reinstatement staff is necessary due to NCAA and/or conference recruiting rules violations, the institution must notify me that I have an option to have the NLI declared null and void due to the rules violation. It is my decision to have the NLI remain valid or to have the NLI declared null and void, permitting me to be recruited and not be subject to NLI penalties.

That clause could be used in a variety of ways to provide outs for prospects in certain scenarios. The best example might be in instances where a school have oversigned. Programs who have oversigned could be required to offer a release to prospects from the NLI, allowing them to be recruited again while still holding a binding scholarship offer from the first school.

4. Provide more benefits for signing the NLI.
Right now, a prospect gains relatively little for signing the NLI vs. signing just an athletic scholarship. In exchange for committing to the institution for a year, the prospect could receive something a little more.

One idea that has been thrown out is that prospects who sign NLIs could receive scholarships for longer than one year. Maybe not a six-year guaranteed scholarship that can be extended for grad school, but anything from two years through the first bachelor’s degree would be in the realm of possibility if the NCAA allowed (or was required to allow) multi-year scholarships.

Another idea would be increased support prior to enrollment for prospects who sign. Perhaps prospects who sign could receive expenses to enroll at the institution, or the institution could pay for some educational expenses like SAT or ACT registration, currently prohibited by Bylaw 12.1.2.1.3.2. Or in other words, the institution that commits to the prospect has the tools to help them get eligible and enrolled.

5. Provide prospects with rewards for completing the NLI.
Right now, the sole incentive for a prospect to comply with a signed NLI is a stick: the NLI’s Basic Penalty:

Basic Penalty. I understand that if I do not attend the institution named in this document for one full academic year and I enroll in another institution participating in the NLI program, I may not compete in intercollegiate athletics until I have completed one full academic year in residence at the latter institution. Further, I understand I shall be charged with the loss of one season of intercollegiate athletics competition in all sports. This is in addition to any seasons of competition expended at any institution.

How about adding a carrot as well? For instance, in sports that cannot use the one-time transfer exception (basketball, football, ice hockey and baseball), student-athletes who satisfy the NLI by attending the school for one academic year could use the provision that allows for free transfers in other sports. The student-athlete has given the school a fair chance, and could be allowed to leave and compete immediately somewhere else.

Another possibility would be to limit the ability of an institution to withhold permission to contact or use of the one-time transfer exception from a student-athlete. Less drastic would be to give NLI signees an appeal outside of the institution if either of the “releases” are denied or if the scholarship is cancelled. The logic for the former is the same as above. The reason for the latter is that when a prospect signs an NLI, institutional discretion is given up, and that could be extended further into the agreement.

The goal of all these reforms would be to create a system that can respond more quickly to change, and would create a more fluid market. With different options like a written commitment, athletic scholarship, and the current NLI, institutions and prospects would need to negotiate down to a specific agreement rather than just accepting the standard scholarship and NLI then sorting it out down the road.

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: , ,

On Consistency

December 31, 2010 by

Consistency. It’s the current buzzword regarding how the NCAA regulates college athletics. All anyone wants is consistency in the NCAA’s decisions.

Let’s ignore for a moment that consistency can easily be used as a substitute for “do what I want you to do.” Someone takes two decisions with different outcomes, and demands consistency, but often suggesting one is right and the other is incorrect. If consistency was most important, either decision could be “correct” as long as both are the same.

But consistency can mean many things. A simple demand of the NCAA to be more consistent is no different then simply demanding that the NCAA “do better” with no other direction. So let’s refine our demands for consistency.

The most important consistency is consistency with the rules
Decisions should be based on rules and processes. If your options are to have two similar decisions or have two decisions that are based in the rules, the latter is always better. That means technicalities happen. That means that different rules produce different outcomes even from seemingly (but not quite) similar situations.

Take the recently announced Ohio State suspensions, derided as inconsistent. Say what you will about the decision, but the NCAA followed its own rules:

  • The student-athletes were given withholding conditions in line with the reinstatement guidelines;
  • Some student-athletes were given additional withholdings based on a published bylaw;
  • And the student-athletes met the requirements in a policies and procedures manual to have the withholdings delayed.

If you disagree with the process that produced that decision, that’s fair. But that doesn’t mean the process should be abandoned in a given case to reach the desired result.

The second most important consistency is consistency across facts
Assuming the processes are followed, we would like to know that similar situations produce similar results. The exact same situation should always produce the exact same result under the rule above. But the more similar two sets of facts are, the more similar the decisions should be.

Consider Enes Kanter and Josh Selby. The cases are similar because the two took impermissible benefits or compensation prior to enrolling in college. But there’s also two differences in the cases:

  • The source of the benefit; and
  • The amount of the benefit.

If you agree that the NCAA should follow their own rules, those rules state that those two differences matter. We can debate how much they should matter, if at all. But because the facts are different in some material way (according to the current rules), different decisions in the two cases would not necessarily be inconsistent.

The third most important consistency is consistency with morality
Which is worse behavior? A father attempting but failing to secure hundreds of thousands of dollars for his son to attend a specific school? Or a coach mistakenly providing money to someone with influence over a prospect? The NCAA regulations said the latter. Public opinion appears to be the former.

Prior to this year, that would have been a great theoretical debate. Now it’s two actual decisions that lead (or didn’t) to actual penalties.

Here’s where the greatest criticism of the NCAA regulations can be levied. Behavior that appears in some cases to not be “as bad” leads to more penalties than behavior that appears to be “worse”.

I’m not confirming some big conspiracy theory though. That’s a common result of trying to corral as many consituencies over as many years as the NCAA regulations have been growing. As someone who participates in the NCAA’s legislative process, I’m as frustrated as anyone else when we deregulate part of one area but not the entire concept. Or increase regulation in one area but deregulate in what appears to be a similar area.

But the NCAA membership cannot fix these problems by adopting this bylaw:

Bylaw 4.01.1.1 – No Conspiracies
The Association shall not operate in a manner that appears to be similar to a cartel, cabal, or other shadowy organization (Adopted: 12/30/10)

The idea of a sort of constitutional convention has merit. It would be a lot more productive but a lot less exciting than an inquisition.

Consistency doesn’t equal perfection
Any sort of system of regulation that seeks to produce decisions that are consistent with its rules and based on facts is going to get it wrong sometimes. If the attitude is “student-athlete friendly,” some wrongdoers are going to get off easy. If the goal is to clean up a sport or area of the rules, someone who just made a mistake might get caught on a technicality.

Whether the NCAA membership goes to one extreme or the other or somewhere in the middle, there’s a trade-off. We can’t have blanket rules without the blanket covering people it shouldn’t. And we can’t have a million exceptions without creating loopholes for ne’er-do-wells.

The charge is that far from being perfect, the NCAA is more often than not wrong. This year at least, that judgment is being made based on comparing the same set of five or six cases over and over against each other. But since August 1, 2010, the NCAA has issued over 1500 decisions in secondary violation and/or student-athlete reinstatement cases.

It’s a combination of small sample size and what’s available to be compared. The cases that get talked about are unusual or controversial decisions in two of the NCAA’s 30+ sports. Assuming the other 1490-odd cases are “right,” the attention and the difficulties are all focused on the same place: at the margins. This isn’t a fundamental failure of the NCAA model. It’s a debate about how to handle the most difficult and exceptional cases.

Say what you mean
The truest thing to say about consistency in the NCAA is that there’s more consistency in the decisions than people think and less consistency in the rules than anyone would say is ideal. But as long as the criticism is vague demands for “consistency” or “fairness”, it’s hard for any change to occur.

If your demand is for more consistency, narrow it down. Does the NCAA not follow its own rules? Are the rules focused on the wrong priorities? Is the enforcement/reinstatement process not good enough at determining relevant facts? Those are all things that can be improved, measures that can be used to determine success or failure. A simple demand for “consistency” isn’t likely to lead to anything.

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
Newer Posts»

Copyright �© 2010-2012 NCAA �·