You are here: Home / Archives for legislation

Six New Rules for the New Year

December 28, 2010 by

ESPN the Magazine’s “New Year, New Rules” piece is a great read for anyone interested in how sports are regulated, on or off the field. Amazingly there was not a single NCAA regulation in the list. Considering the goal of a magazine is to sell issues and nothing about rules in sports gathers eyeballs as fast as the NCAA, it seems like a bit of an oversight.

It’s not like big ideas weren’t part of the story, which included a proposal to play the World Cup every three years. And it’s not like minor tweaks were overlooked either, like the idea to literally draw a line in the sand on pickoff moves.

So to make up for it, here’s six tweaks that could have outsized impact on how college athletics are played. One each for Bylaws 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16, and 17. Most are obscure, most are relatively minor tweaks, and none of these proposals are currently active in the legislative cycle.

Bylaw 11 (Athletics Personnel) – Give Basketball a Volunteer
Every sport except for men’s and women’s basketball can employ a volunteer coach. Volunteer coaches are just like regular coaches except they cannot recruit off-campus and cannot be paid by the athletic department. It was long thought that a volunteer coach would be a farce in basketball, since they could easily make a decent salary on camps alone.

But with expanding noncoaching staffs, it’s clear that keeping a volunteer away from basketball hasn’t contained costs at all. So instead of simply taking away the armies of not-quite coaches, replace them with someone who must be focused just on teaching and who doesn’t (directly at least) cost the university money.

Bylaw 12 (Amateurism) – Prize Money Year-Round
A rule change last year allows athletes in individual sports like tennis to accept prize money without jeopardizing their eligibility, provided the prize money was less than expenses. But there’s one additional caveat: it can only happen during the summer.

If accepting prize money less than expenses is ok, why is it ok during the summer only? Allow student-athletes to accept prize money to cover costs of outside competition year-round. There would still be all the normal limits on outside competition (vacation periods only, during the offseason, etc.).

Bylaw 13 (Recruiting) – Grades Before Money
Few people would argue that Division II is more highly regulated than Division I. But Division II requires at least one thing Division I doesn’t: a prospect has to provide a transcript before a grant-in-aid agreement or NLI can be sent.

Division I should require the same thing and up the ante by requiring a test score. It addresses directly what the oversigning limit in football (more on that below) takes an end around at: encouraging coaches to take academics into account in the recruiting process.

Bylaw 14 (Eligibility) – Get to the Heart of APR
The transfer exception for the APR has only been around since 2008, but it has caused the NCAA a heap of trouble. Supporters of the APR (myself include) point out how it much easier it is for a school to meet the minimums. Critics of the APR (i.e. basketball coaches) see it as a stepping stone to avoiding responsibility for retaining student-athletes altogether.

If the transfer exception is going to stick around, make sure it gets to the heart of what the retention point is focused on: losing credit due to transfer. Remove the 2.600 GPA requirement and replace it with one that requires the student-athlete to retain enough credit to be academically eligible at the new institution, remaining on the mandated five-year graduation track.

Bylaw 15 & 16 (Financial Aid & Benefits) – Requirements for Reductions/Nonrenewals

Oversigning and running off student-athletes are getting more and more attention. Oversigning limits have been the first response, but either haven’t gotten traction or aren’t real oversigning limits.

Instead of focusing on the recruits coming in, focus on the student-athletes going out. Right now, a grant-in-aid can be nonrenewed or reduced between academic years for any reason. Establish limits like the limits between terms or extend California’s financial aid disclosures to the entire country.

Bylaw 17 (Playing and Practice Seasons) – All the Skill Instruction You Can Eat
During the offseason, student-athletes are limited to eight hours of practice per week. But there’s a second limit: only two hours of skill instruction is allowed. That means only two hours with bats, balls, sticks, and goals. Not to mention that during the beginning and end of an academic year, only four student-athletes can be involved in skill instruction at once.

Let’s give coaches eight hours per week and let them slice it and dice it however they want. As long as they keep giving two days off as well.

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:

Closing the Cam Newton Loophole

December 7, 2010 by

The decision of the NCAA Student-Athlete Reinstatement Staff to reinstate Cam Newton’s eligibility with no penalty produced a response that was loud and clear. Not one, not two, but four commissioners of major conferences have spoken out. All disagreed with the decision itself and/or expressed worry about the potential impact of the decision going forward. That has prompted a response from NCAA President Mark Emmert stating that the NCAA membership will review the recruiting rules.

I don’t share some of the doom and gloom regarding the impact of the decision going forward. Case precedent, NCAA or otherwise, extends only as far as its facts. And here, the facts are that no money changed hands, the student-athlete did not know about the activity, and the student-athlete did not enroll at the institution where the solicitation occurred. Case precedent can always be extended to logically similar cases, but that takes additional decisions, each of which is a chance to stop a trip down the slippery slope.

There appears to be an unstoppable momentum behind some change though. That change could take one of three forms.

New Reinstatement Guidelines
It’s important to note that a violation was committed and it did impact Newton’s eligibility. It just did not impact his eligibility as much as some wanted. The Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement (which oversees the NCAA staff that made the decision) could establish stricter penalties, which would likely include a requirement that the student-athlete be withheld from at least some competition.

Slight Legislative Change
Legislation could be proposed that would address the exact situation in the case. Specifically, Bylaw 12.3.3, the bylaw cited by the SAR staff, could be editted to read something like this:

12.3.3 – Athletics Scholarship Agent.
Any individual, agency or organization that represents a prospective student-athlete or his or her parent(s), guardian(s), or immediate family for compensation in placing the prospective student-athlete in a collegiate institution as a recipient of institutional financial aid shall be considered an agent or organization marketing the individual’s athletics ability or reputation. (additions in bold)

Major Legislative Change
An alternate new version of Bylaw 12.3.3 may read very similarly, but would have a much greater impact:

12.3.3 – Athletics Scholarship Agent.
Any individual, agency or organization that represents a prospective student-athlete or an individual associated with a prospective student-athlete for compensation in placing the prospective student-athlete in a collegiate institution as a recipient of institutional financial aid shall be considered an agent or organization marketing the individual’s athletics ability or reputation.(additions in bold)

The phrase “individual associated with a prospective student-athlete” has a defined meaning, in men’s basketball at least, from the interpretations issued by the Division I Board of Directors in November 2009. It includes parents, guardians, family members, coaches and anyone who is associated with the prospect as a result of their athletics ability or reputation, or participation in men’s basketball.

Along with the amendment to the bylaw, that portion of the interpretation could be removed and placed in a separate interpretation (or incorporated into an actual bylaw) applicable to all sports. It would not however expand the new men’s basketball recruiting regulations to all sports, since they still mention men’s basketball in the interpretation and the relevant legislation.

None of these are mutually exclusive, and all three exist on a continuum with many other options in between. I have no idea what the Legislative Council, Board of Directors, or Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement will do. What I do know is that it would be foolish to act hastily.

The Board of Directors is empowered to propose and adopt legislation that is of an “emergency” or “noncontroversial” nature. An emergency exists when:

  • Significant values or harm are at stake; and
  • The use of the regular legislative cycle is likely to cause undue hardship to the Association or the Division I membership because of the delay in its effective date.

While preventing pay-for-play is a significant value in the NCAA rules, it’s hard to see the undue hardship that is suffered between now and January 2012, the next opportunity to pass brand new legislation if it travels through the regular legislative cycle. Especially if we’re talking only about the limited issue of not suspending student-athletes who didn’t know that an institution they didn’t go to did not give their parents any money.

Legislation is noncontroversial if it meets the following criteria:

  • Broader consultation and debate are unlikely to improve the proposal in any substantial way.
  • Significant disagreement or alternative points of view will not be generated.
  • Such proposals do not have a significant impact (unanticipated consequences, undesirable precedent) on existing legislation or proposed legislation.

Considering the options for dealing with this issue, there’s strong evidence that more debate will lead to a better decision and there are more alternatives than even the ones above. And considering the proposal is designed to strength penalties in cases where a prospect or student-athlete might not even know a violation is occurring, it seems unlikely that all consequences will be anticipated in such a short time.

For instance, imagine if a high school coach could harm a student-athlete’s eligibility at every institution just by discussing a pay-for-pay plan with a booster at one school, regardless of whether the prospect knows about it. Third parties gain a valuable tool to dictate where prospects enroll, and gain allies in boosters who have control of a stick, in addition to the existing carrots, to entice prospects to enroll at their favorite institution.

The idea of a student-athlete being shopped to colleges by parents, coaches, or anyone else is certainly outrageous, to use President Emmert’s words. And the notion of significant punishment for even attempted violations of the recruiting and amateurism legislation has merit. But just like the July recruiting period in men’s basketball, there are too many moving parts in this area to use a blunt object. Another year-long study with legislation to be voted on over a year from now won’t please many commentators. But it’s the best way to close a loophole without opening another.

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: , , ,

Abusing the unabusable

November 23, 2010 by

A few months back, Eamonn Brennan looked at the proposed men’s basketball summer school rule. The rule, as embodied in Proposal 2010-58, has a couple of major components:

  • An assessment of every incoming or continuing men’s basketball student-athlete to decide if they need summer school;
  • The opportunity for coaches to have eight hours per week of required athletic activity, with no more than two of those hours devoted to skill instruction for an eight week period in the summer;
  • A requirement that any student-athlete involved in those activities enroll in six credits during the summer and pass six credits (three for incoming freshmen); and
  • A requirement that schools offer summer school aid to walk-ons who fail the assessment.

After looking at the rule, Brennan could find nothing wrong with it and issued a challenge:

Please, college coaches: Abuse this system. I’m having a hard time finding anything wrong with it.

Brennan’s point was that even if a coach attempts to abuse this rule by prioritizing athletics over academics, academics still wins. It doesn’t matter if you’re bringing freshman in early or keeping returners over the summer for basketball or books, books still get a fair share of attention.

And it is tough to poke holes in the rule. Georgia Tech head coach Paul Hewitt objected to the potential for a prospective student-athlete to become eligible then fall ineligible:

“I am somewhat concerned about the double jeopardy you’re putting a kid in,” said Hewitt, a member of the National Association of Basketball Coaches board. “If a young man goes to summer school and for whatever reason—maybe a family emergency—if he did not pass his hours, you could be putting him in jeopardy of being ineligible.

Hewitt’s example is flawed because in the case of a family emergency, the student-athlete would have an excellent chance of being granted a progress-toward-degree waiver to take the court in the fall. But Brennan is incorrect that the rule cannot be abused. Because once you get past the freshman year, there doesn’t need to be any double jeopardy.

Bylaw 14, covering eligibility, along with Bylaw 12 (amateurism) form the heart of the NCAA Manual. Those two sections dictate who can and cannot take the practice field or compete for an NCAA institution. Boiled down to its essence, Bylaw 14 establishes the following requirements for a continuing student-athlete to be academically eligible:

  • Enroll as a full-time student (usually 12 credits);
  • Pass six credits every term;
  • Pass 18 credits (27 at quarter schools) during each academic year (no summer school);
  • Pass 24 credits (36 at quarter schools) before the start of the sophomore year;
  • Declare a major by the start of the junior year;
  • Have completed 40% of your degree by the start of the junior year followed by 60% at the start of the senior year and 80% before the fifth year; and
  • Stay at or near the required GPA for graduation at the school (usually 2.0).

If a student-athlete is at a semester school in a 120 unit degree program (one of the most common situations), those degree progress percentages translate to 24 credits every year, just like freshmen. It’s at the intersection of the 18-unit rule (sticking with the semester rules from here on out), the degree progress requirements, and the new summer school requirement that the rule can be abused.

Simply put, the new summer school requirement does not require a men’s basketball student-athlete to earn any additional credits. Assuming that a freshman men’s basketball student-athlete passes 18 units during the academic year and six units during the spring, they can be eligible by passing six units over the summer. If they participate in summer practice, they can be eligible in the fall by passing the same six units.

This has the effect of reducing the incentive for a coach to promote sufficient academic progress during the academic year. Say a coach intends to have every returning student-athlete participate in practice over the summer. Every player on the team will need to pass six units in the summer to be eligible. What incentive does the coach have to promote passing all 24 units (on average) that a student-athlete needs to stay eligible during the academic year if they’re just going to have to pass six more in the summer?

The difference between 24 units and 30 is a big deal, because it’s the difference between a four- and five-year graduation track. Throw in the summer bridge program for freshman and a couple of extra classes here and there and we can get to the ideal: a 3.5 year graduation track that means student-athletes who drop out of school after their senior season to prepare for the draft have already graduated (still hurts the APR though).

The solution would be to allow only student-athletes who have achieved eligibility for the following fall at the conclusion of the academic year to participate in summer practice. That would provide a real competitive advantage to programs that promote greater academic achievement in the fall and spring. Plus it would make all the credits earned in the summer “new credits,” not previously required. The trade-off is that some coaches may dissuade student-athletes from taking summer school if they feel the risk of losing eligibility for the fall is too great.

Every rule can be abused. Every rule is going to be picked over by people looking to gain an advantage, or in this case get something (summer practice) for nothing (extra academic achievement). The challenge is not to make rules that have no loopholes. The challenge is to make rules with loopholes that we can live with.

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 Foreign Policy Helps Domestic Issues

November 4, 2010 by

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.

When the NCAA membership enacted Proposal 2009-22 last year, the reactions to the proposal sounded like responses to a new advertising initiative. The move was seen as the NCAA opening new markets for international recruiting particularly European basketball prospects.

That opinion misses the mark on two small fronts and one big front. First, international prospects generally and European basketball prospects specifically had been enrolling and competing for Division I institutions for years. The proposal just allows a broader range of prospective student-athletes to compete in Division I without penalty. Second, solving some of the issues 2009-22 addresses could have been accomplished with a smaller legislative change or changes by the Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement to the guidelines for reinstating these prospects.

The bigger error is that Proposal 2009-22 did not start international recruiting, rather it exists because of the growing success of international recruiting. If NCAA institutions were not successfully recruiting international prospects, clubs would not have begun moving athletes around different levels of the organization (i.e. youth players up to the professional team or professional players down to the youth team) for the purpose of jeopardizing the eligibility of their youth players.

While the idea of teams moving athletes around to keep them out of college seems like something that could never happen in the United States, it was relatively close to happening in at least one sport.

In 2007, the United States Soccer Federation launched the Development Academy system. Designed to combat a lack of skill development and training in the existing structure of club soccer, the USSF created a system where elite young athletes get more practice and repetitions, along with fewer games against higher quality opposition.

The MLS bought into the idea wholesale, requiring teams to field youth teams. Every American franchise now fields teams in the Academy, while Toronto FC fields teams in the Canadian Soccer League. The youth teams are generally free or have minimal fees, and employ full-time coaches.

The movement began to reach its logical conclusion this summer when Real Salt Lake launched the first residential academy in Casa Grande, AZ. Ultimately housing 80 players, RSL’s academy is akin to youth teams around the world where young players live, train, and sometimes attend class while training to see if they can break into the senior professional team. And Proposal 2009-22 helped make this possible:

Prior to RSL’s landmark academy, IMG has run a residential program in Bradenton, Florida, which supports the U-17 U.S. National Team, but until this summer NCAA regulations restricted young athletes from most interactions with the professional game. With those recent changes allowing young players to compete and train with professionals without losing amateur status, MLS clubs are able to more closely develop U.S. players according to worldwide standards while still preparing them for the college.

The MLS watched the NCAA’s deregulation of competition with professional teams carefully, and it was not until this summer that the MLS allowed athletes to move between the Academy and senior teams. Still, it’s hard to imagine that the MLS would have held off creating a youth development structure simply because it did not fit with the NCAA’s regulations. Had Proposal 2009-22 not passed, there eventually would have been a competition for top prospects between the systems that would develop them for college (high school, club, and non-MLS Academy teams) and the MLS Academies, which would develop them for professional athletics and potentially jeopardize their eligibility.

One question now could be how the effects of 2009-22 and the rise of youth teams attached to professional clubs in the United States could help other areas. Is there a place for USA Basketball and the NBA to work together to create a more controlled, top-down development system as an alternative to the bottom-up structure of grassroots basketball? There would be a number of issues, such as how to reward clubs for developing players, how the clubs interact with the NBA’s age limit, where a USA Basketball/NBA developmental league might fit in the men’s basketball recruiting calendar, not to mention who pays for all this. But none of these are insurmountable problems.

Proposal 2009-22 was intended to solve international problems. But it solved at least one impending domestic issue that threatened to kill off a collegiate sport. And it provides new tools the NCAA, national governing bodies, professional sports leagues, and existing youth development programs can use to work together to solve issues in the current recruiting and development environment. That could be where 2009-22 makes the greatest impact.

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: ,

Cut Out The Middlemen, Not July

October 27, 2010 by

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.

Somewhere along the way, the two July evaluation periods became the epitome of everything that was wrong with college basketball recruiting. Perhaps it was the anecdotes of coaches signing 11 month leases on apartments and then spending an entire month on the road recruiting. Perhaps it’s the fact that the entire evaluation period is solely focused on AAU basketball, which gets the somewhat negative moniker of “nonscholastic” in the NCAA Manual. Whatever the reason, the popular image of July is that it’s the Wild West, an unregulated feeding frenzy of coaches looking for players and any number of people looking to profit off that fact.

In reality, the July evaluation periods in men’s basketball are the most structured and heavily regulated periods in the entire recruiting landscape. While college coaches may attend open gyms at high schools, the vast majority of evaluation takes place at certified events. Certified events must register with the NCAA and meet the lengthy list of 17 requirements in NCAA Bylaw 13.18 covering topics from the price of event packets to when games can start. Not to mention they are some of the only recruiting periods that is monitored in person by members of the enforcement staff, who are making their presence felt:

“We have the NCAA gestapettes around here like World Cup officials,” one coach said, referring to the NCAA representatives — most of whom are women — who monitor the summer circuit. “You smile at a kid, they give you a yellow card. Do it twice, it’s a red card and you’re off the road.”

While that comment shows that the Basketball Focus Group has a great deal of work to do in their primary goal (building a healthy respect for the enforcement process), it’s a start that would not be possible during any of the other recruiting periods on the men’s basketball calendar.

The impetus behind ending July recruiting has little to do with what actually happens in July (largely a bunch of coaches cordoned off in little pens watching games for 12 hours a day) and more what the rising importance of the July recruiting period represents: the growing influence in the recruiting process of third parties not tied to educational institutions.

It may seem counterintuitive, but the best way to reduce the influence of corrupt AAU coaches, agents, handlers, trainers, runners, and other intermediaries is to provide coaches with more direct access to these events. The best evaluations are ones untainted by someone else’s subjective opinions or underhanded motives. Prevent coaches from evaluating first hand at July events and the events will still go on, the evaluations will just be placed in the hands of the same people above whose power in the recruiting process the Collegiate Commissioners Association is looking to reduce.

The same goes for contacts and communication. I’m not a college basketball recruiting expert but I have to believe that one of the most valuable opportunities a coach can get is a chance to sell a prospect on his program without another voice whispering in the prospect’s ear.

The trouble with the basketball recruiting model as it stands now is that it exists in limbo between the tightly controlled football recruiting rules and the looser rules that apply to other sports. Rather than crafting a new model, the basketball recruiting calendar seems to be an evolution of the other sports, with fewer contact/evaluation periods and a second limit (recruiting person-days) imposed to contain costs. To that was later added a ban on attending nonscholastic events during the academic year.

If you start with the premise that the July recruiting period works rather than fails, the path to a new basketball recruiting model seems clear. Three major evaluation periods (roughly late-September/early-October, mid-April, and July) outside of the basketball season where attendance at nonscholastic events is permitted. A smaller number of evaluation days for use during the season to scout high school games. And removal of off-campus contacts from counting against the use of off-campus recruiting days.

Such a model would move most of the in-person evaluation of prospects to outside of the periods where coaches are needed on campus most (finals and the basketball season). It would provide coaches with increased direct contact with prospects. It would give coaches direct access to cost-effective AAU tournaments that have continued to exist despite the lack of college coaches in attendance. And it would expand the opportunity for in-person monitoring by the Basketball Focus Group during periods of intense recruiting.

While the model proposed by Santa Clara head coach Kerry Keating has merit, it would be a large step in the other direction. With expanded evaluation and contact periods and more freedom to use recruiting person-days, it would spread recruiting so wide and far that the ability of institutions and the NCAA to monitor what is happening in gyms would be severely reduced. Not to mention that it would be hurt by the idea floated by the recruiting cabinet in some potential recruiting models (pdf) to abolish the annual limit on evaluations of one prospect. It’s not hard to imagine burnt-out coaches spending a large chunk of their recruiting days evaluating—or more accurately babysitting—committed prospects.

The core of Coach Keating’s plan—evaluation of prospects based on institutional discretion—could be accomplished through a different bit of deregulation, allowing coaches to watch any video of a prospect they can get their hands on. Specifically, changing this interpretation from April 29, 2009:

The academic and membership affairs staff determined that it is not permissible for an institution to obtain video (e.g., live streaming video, recorded video) of any nonscholastic activities, including regular game and all-star competition, or any summer camp or clinic competition, through a subscription fee or other associated fee paid to a recruiting or scouting service.  Further, it is not permissible to obtain any nonscholastic video that is available only to a select group of individuals (e.g., coaches), even if there is no charge associated with such individuals accessing the video.

That would open up coaches to view any video of prospects playing in any sort of game at any time. There would be one issue to be sorted out: who would provide the video of prospects? Eliminating or changing this interpretation would create a market for another middleman. If that middleman is a legitimate business providing a needed service, there are few worries. However, if it became another tool for handlers of prospects to charge a price of admission for access to a prospect, it could exacerbate the current problems. Done right thought, it allows for more evaluation of prospects without the costs (both monetary and otherwise) of having coaches on the road throughout the year.

The problem with the July recruiting period has little to do with those 20 days themselves. Rather, the problem is what the focus on those 20 days allows to happen during the other 345. The idea of eliminating the July recruiting period is not without merit, especially as the membership considers the possibility of summer practice in men’s basketball. But it’s just as likely to exacerbate the problems in men’s basketball recruiting as it is to solve any of them.

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: , , ,
Newer Posts»

Copyright �© 2010-2012 NCAA �·