SoCalHoops Recruiting News

NCAA D-I Recruiting: New Rules
Portend Big Changes--(Sept. 23, 2001)

Please forgive us, but this is going to be a really, really long article.  But the subject of recruiting is a big subject.

We recently took a look at a press release issued by the NCAA in connection with the recent meeting (by teleconference) of the NCAA "Men's Basketball Issues Subcomittee."  Of course, what got the most attention in the media following that conference was the discussion about the 5/8 recruiting rule,  the one which was implemented last year which permits a D-I program to sign only 8 scholarship players in two years, and 5 in any one year.

But buried in the fine print and deep within those innocuous looking links contained in the release, was evidence of some very major changes about to take place in men's college basketball recruiting at the D-I level. Very major, indeed.  

Looking at the proposed rules changes,  which are numerous, it's really meaningless to talk about how many days college coaches will have in the summer to watch players.  That's suddenly the small stuff.  

The much bigger questions that need to be asked and answered are questions like, "Who will the college coaches be able to watch?"  "What events will they be permitted to attend?"  "Will there be any events for D-I coaches to attend"  and if so, "How anyone is going to get there?"  "Who will coach the kids?"  And many, many more questions. 

And the answers may surprise you.

The proposed new rules are amazing and sweeping in their breadth and scope, and the Basketball Issues Subcommittee has covered just about every potential subject and loophole that we've ever heard conceived when it comes to the questions about D-I recruiting.   

The proposed rules (which will be voted on by the general membership shortly after they proceed out of this committee) not only handcuff college coaches, they tie the hands of just about everyone else involved in recruiting.    They are designed to cut the heart out of the summer camps, tournaments, and spring leagues, as well as intent on driving the camp, event and tournament operators out of the recruiting business.   The proposed rules will have monumental impacts on the relationships which event operators are permitted to have with their own recruiting services, with others who "market" player's ability to colleges,  with college coaches, and with the club coaches.   They will impact players, parents, "boosters",  in short, everyone. 

If these rules are actually approved by the NCAA membership, it's a sure thing that kids who have little or no money, who live in impoverished areas,   and their club coaches,  won't be going anywhere next summer.  And you can forget about the spring, and fall too.  Club coaches are in trouble, tournaments are on the chopping blocks, and camps and summer events are also threatened with extinction.

To which the NCAA says, "Good. See, we told you we were going to do this." 

It's the NCAA's way of declaring war against everything that it views as wrong with basketball.  And rather than just throw out the dirty water, they're tossing the bathtub, and the baby too. 

We kid you not, these changes will be enormous.    Here's a brief summary of some of the changes which have been proposed, by our count, at least 25 separate and distinct rule changes. 

• All "academic" evaluation days are reduced from 70 to 40 (10 less than last year)
• All evaluations of a prospect during the "Academic Year" are limited in the kinds of activity which can be observed, i.e., they have to be under the supervision of the coach, or part of the "season" and thus approved or sanctioned by the high school.

When it comes to Summer Recruiting, the biggest changes are:

• Any evaluations are severely restricted as to time and place, and who is coaching. Surprisingly, unorganized pickup games are permitted for evaluations, but all organized events which are "noninstitutional" (i.e., camps, tournaments, etc which take place at other than a college-sponsored camp) must be "certified" which requires the following changes:

• Full financial disclosure is required of all event, tournament and camp operators (there's a mirror requirement of D-I schools to also make financial disclosure too--see below).

• Event operators can charge only one price for everyone involved in an event

• No D-I coaches can work at non-institutional events

• Event operators can no longer subsidize any travel for players.  Period.

• T-Shirts For Everyone!.  Shoes for no one (actually at retail only!)

• Event operators can only pay event staff the "going rate";  No gifts can be given to anyone, including parents of players!

• Instructional classes will be required at all non-institutional events, camps and tournaments

• No crooks are allowed to be event operators or coaches, i.e., but only if the crook has been convicted of sports bribery, fixing a game or point shaving

• An event operator can't be a "marketer" of athletes.

• An event operator can't receive money from "marketers", agents or boosters, to fund an event

• Travel team coaches must be "approved" by a sanctioning body to participate in the event

• All-Star team players all must live within 100 miles of the team's home base (This is HUGE). No more national all-star teams.

Other summer recruting changes (not specifically related to event certification requirements) include:

• All NCAA institutions will be required to make full public financial disclosures concerning any relationships they have with event operators, coaches, etc.  A school that provides inaccurate info or fails to provide info, will be banned from summer recruiting. (This is also HUGE).

• Unofficial visits will be prohibited entirely during during July.

• D-I coaches will be prohibited from having contact with not only players, but also their coaches and "anyone associated with the player."          

Fall Recruiting Changes:

• No more Fall Evaluations, except at a prospect's own high school

Spring Recruiting Changes

• Evaluations in April only;  Two Contacts for Juniors, Three For Seniors

• Evaluations can be conducted only at the prospect's high school, or if conducted off campus at an "approved" event, D-I coaches can only attend on weekends.

Year-Round Changes

• Coaches will be permitted to make phone calls to sophomores

• Official visits will be permitted one year earlier, for juniors

That's a total of at least 25 substantive changes, some of them the equivalent of sea changes, paradigm shifts, in short, huge movements away from the past.  For the most part, the fall and spring recruiting periods, at least as we've known them, have been eviscertated.  Also, the summer will now come down to just two separate 10 day periods, and any contact by a D-I coach with anyone who might even know the player and be familiar with him is verboten.   Players won't be able to participate on "national" level all-star teams,  traveling to and from events will be costly and hard to accomplish, and club coaches won't be permitted to participate unless they've been "approved" by a recognized governing sports body such as the AAU.

Either the NCAA is full of real geniuses, or this collection of proposed changes is among the most draconian we've ever seen.  Right now, we're not sure which it is.  But it's a change all right, and it will affect players, parents, and the business people who have built their lives around helping players get scholarships.

Why has the NCAA sought to impose the changes?  Well, in a nutshell, we won't recount the sordid details here of Myron Piggie, Jaron Rush, Cory Maggette, or other events like Nike's money being stuffed into shoeboxes for players....This is stuff at the outside fringe, but it strikes at the heart of the system, including the concept of amatuerism, which is a big item on the NCAA's list these days.   All of this has been well-documented and resulted in several indictments two years ago for Piggie (others barely escaped) and every time there's some "shady" news, the echoes reverberate over and over, like they did again this summer with the news that Amare Stoudamire's mother's pastor may have received some "incentive" which resulted in the mother's release from custody, which resulted in Amare suddenly deciding to attend Nike Camp instead of ABCD....and that's just the tip of the iceberg, at least so says the NCAA.

Suffice it to say that the NCAA appears to view club coaches, tournament operators, shoe companies (whose money they gladly take for sponsorship and product deals), and anyone else involved in recruiting who isn't the prospect himself or his high school coach, as a potential criminal.  And its not much of an overstatement to say that sometimes even the players are viewed as criminals.     The NCAA believes it has to save the game, that recruiting is "out of control" and they've appointed a "Basketball Issues" Subcommittee which has been studying the problems and trying to come up with solutions.

Most recently this past spring, the NCAA implemented Bylaw 13.1.8.1, a new rule which, among other things now restricts Division I coaches from attending any "nonscholastic" events during the fall or the spring, unless the events are "sanctioned, sponsored, approved or conducted" by the state high school association or the applicable two-year junior college association.  The stated rationale was to stress evaluations taking place in a "scholastic" environment, and to reduce the influence of "nonscholastic" elements, i.e., club coaches, shoe companies, and "others" who are a bad influence on the kids and the game.

In part, at least, the NCAA offered some trade-offs to D-I coaches (but not to prospects or to event and tournament operators):   Take away from coaches and players what had been the "traditional" fall and spring viewing periods (because most high school and JC associations won't sponsor or approve events taking place outside their regular season of sport, which isn't in the spring or fall), and increase the number of days that college coaches can be out evaluating prospects during the normal high school and JC season, increasing the days from 50 to 70.   Sounded logical. Many were sceptical (and still are), but at least the rules were somewhat logical and internally consistent.  Take a little, give a little....But these changes were just the tip of the iceberg, and the NCAA is really now in the "taking" mood...

What do the changes mean for players?  Well, we've never encouraged players to transfer schools before, and that was largely because it was possible, under the "old" recruiting model for players to get the best of both worlds, year round.  They could attend an "average" athletics school with outstanding academics, and allow their recruiting exposure to be supplemented by the opportunities available to them in the fall, spring and summer.  But no longer will this be the case.

We would therefore now urge players and parents to really consider your high school choices carefully. If you are a student who is thinking of attending (or who currently attends) a small high school, either for academic or religious reasons, or both,  (which covers about half the students in California), you'll have to now calculate the risk that a less than stellar athletic department might actually not be a neutral, but a negative, something that can't be overlooked.

We've been loathe to suggest this in the past, but the reality is that if you as a high school player don't attend the kind of high school that's likely to attract D-I coaches to your games, practices or workouts,  then you're likely to miss out on a lot of recruiting opportunities because there just won't be anywhere else you can get evaluated.  Travel for college coaches isn't easy.   It's time consuming, costly, and it takes away from the time the coaches can or should (or must) be with their own players and teams.  You'd better be a big time recruit in your own right to command the attention of a college coach at your high school under this new system.  As one coach put it to us just last week, "It's time consuming.  We can't afford to miss out on the big-schools who have multiple recruits to go see a game with only one or two players participating.  It's just not an efficient use of our resources."  

The Proposals  In Detail:

The NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Issues Subcommittee held its September meeting last week (September 17, 2001 by telephone conference) and what emerged was a picture of a completely different spring, summer, fall and even the high school season as it relates to recruiting. There is currently a "package" of five different, but interrelated proposals (Nos. 01-51, 01-52, 01-53, 01-54 and 01-55)   which the Subcommittee has devised, and which it has recommended for approval when the membership votes.  If approved, the proposals will take place this April, thus being effective for the spring and the summer, and indefinitely into the future.  We've provided the links to the proposals, and we've also printed them separately. 

There's only one proposal which is actually opposed by anyone at the NCAA, and that's 01-55, which would permit the "restricted coach" in men's basketball to also be out on the road recruiting, as a trade-off for reducing the number of evaluation days in the prospects regular season from 70 to 40.   The women's issues committee (which as far as we know isn't affected by any of these changes) opposes allowing the third coach out on the road, because (so they say) it may lead to a demand for higher salaries by the restricted coach because of increased duties. Enough said.  We're willing to predict that if the rest of this stuff gets approved, that 01-55 will also be approved too.

Let's look at the proposals in greater detail.

1.  Academic Evaluation Days Reduced from 70 to 40--Remember, the NCAA just passed legislation increasing the days from 50 to 70.   Now it's going to be cut to 10 days less than what we began with.(Proposal 01-51: --Amends Bylaw 13.1.8.4, page 97)

2.  All Evaluations During "Academic Year" Limited--  Evaluations during the acadmic year are limited to those supervised by "the high-school or two-year college coach" or only to events which "must be" approved, sanctioned sponsored or conducted by the high school or two-year college association. (Proposal 01-51 , supra).

3. Summer Recruiting Change: Evaluations Severely Restricted-- Summer evaluations (from July 8 through July 28, 2001)  will be severely restricted at camps, leagues and tournaments, and the events themselves will be severely impacted by very stringent requirements for "certification." (Proposal 01-51)  

Curiously though, one area in which the Summer Evaluation period has been completely relaxed is that coaches will be permitted to view "nonistitutional nonorganized" events such as pickup games.   Thus, if a group of high-profile players gets together for a "pickup game" D-I coaches can watch, whereas if a well organized, noninstitutional event such as a camp is run, but can't comply with the requirements for certification, coaches can't be there.....Go figure.

D-I coaches will only be permitted to attend noninstitutional organized events (e.g., camps, leagues, tournaments, and festivals) if the events are "certified" under the NCAA's new proposed rules.....and as we'll see, "certification" is going to get a whole lot tougher than it ever was in the past. (Proposal 01-51, Amends Bylaws 13.1.8.4 and 13.13.3).     

4.  New Summer Rrecruiting Model--This is where things start to get really different:

        a.  Summer Recruiting Change:  All events must be "certified"-- The requirement that events be certified  isn't new, but the way it threatens to be conducted, and the criteria which need to be met to gain certification may be impossible for many camp, tournament and event organizers to meet (which is just fine with the NCAA).

        b.  Certification will now require many changes.  These include::

            1.  Summer Recruiting Change:  Show Us The Money!

Even operators will have to provide "a comprehensive financial disclosure of information related to the operation of the event or tour" (Proposal 01-51, new bylaw 30.16(a))

This is not a new requirement, but the level of disclosure will certainly be painstaking and thorough.  It's going to be a complete audit procedure, except it will take place before the event occurs (or maybe after as well, to ensure compliance).  And if you want something to compare it to, just imagine what a full IRS "Compliance" audit must be like.  Painful and completely humiliating, with every minute detail of every transaction leading to potentially more pain for the event promoters.   

            2.  Summer Recruiting Change: One Price For Everyone!

Event operators will be required to insure "admissions fees charged to all event participants must be similar" (Proposal 01-51, new 30.16 (b)).

We assume that "admissions" fees means the fee charged to participate, not an admission fee charged at the door of an event to watch the players....This isn't really new, in the sense that certification has always required players to be charged the same fee, but it's never been stated quite this way before.   Previously, if an event or camp operator was going to give a participant a break in the price or "scholarship" a player, adequate paperwork had to be kept on hand in case the NCAA wanted to look to see that it was a bona fide case of financial hardship.   However, they rarely, if ever looked, and some operators abused the system, letting kids in for free with no paperwork at all, charging others, and thus creating a system where those able to afford it were charged fees which might have been unconscionable in order to subsidize others without the funds necessary.  Call it social justice through a free market, and maybe it had a good result (players who couldn't afford entry fees were still permitted to play), but the NCAA evidently has had enough of this.

What exactly does this new requirement of charging a "similiar" fee mean?  It evidently means the fees "charged" have to be "similar."  But the rule doesn't explain whether the participant actually has to pay it, perhaps still permitting some participants an opportunity to participate for free which others won't  have.  We know this isn't what the NCAA meant to do, but it's a possible with the rule stated the way its worded.  Likewise, what does the NCAA mean by "similar?"  Why not simply say they have to all be charged "the same" entry fee?   Is $10 similar to $100?  Both are printed by the U.S. Mint, they're on paper, green and black ink, and have pictures of dead presidents.....sounds similar enough...

            3. Summer Recruiting Status Quo: No D-I Coaches working non-institutional events.

"Noninstitutional events shall not employ any Division I coaches" (Proposal 01-51, new 30.16(c)).

This is not a new prohibition. It continues to reflect the current state of affairs.

            4. Summer Recruiting Change:  Get to a tournament, camp, or other event yourself, on your own nickel, or don't go at all.

Event operators must comply with this rule to gain certification:

"No air or ground transportation or other gifts or inducements shall be provided to the event participants or their coaches or relatives" (Proposal 01-51, 30.16 (d)).

This is a major departure from the current rules, which permitted an event operator, team organizer, etc., to pay "reasonable" and essential travel to and from the event.  The no gifts rule is not new, but the inclusion of gifts to parents and coaches is something that's not previously been reduced to writing, at least not with respect to club coaches (the onus has instead been on the players with respect to future loss of eligibility). 

As for the travel cost restriction, this is going to have major impacts throughout the recruiting world, because many players cannot afford to attend camps, tournaments, etc without some form of subsidy from the team operators who organize the teams on which the players play.  This rule will have major implications for the events, and may actually prohibit some events from attracting players.  And there will also be cries of racism, we're sure, not just with this rule, but with many of the others which restrict the ability of coaches who aren't "approved" from participating.  If travel can't be subsidized, then the most economically deprived kids won't be given the opportunity to get recruiting exposure.  At least that's the argument we're likely to hear, and there's probably a lot of validity to it.  Maybe Kool Aid Perry was right after all about the NCAA....

            5. Summer Recruiting Change:  T-Shirts For Everyone!.  Shoes at Retail Only!

"A prospective student-athlete who attends an NCAA certified event shall not retain any athletics equipment provided for his or her use at the event other than an event T-shirt. All other apparel (e.g., shoes or shorts) may be retained only if the prospect is charged the normal retail value of such items (as opposed to the event's cost in purchasing the items)" (Proposal 01-51,   30.16 (e)

This proposal is both new and old at the same time.    Prior rules permitted a player to keep uniforms and other apparel used in the event or tournament.  No more.  Get your wallet out if you want to keep those new Kobes or Jordans....

           6.    Summer Recruiting Change:  Pay your staff only the "going rate";  No Gifts Allowed!

"Compensation provided to event personnel shall be commensurate with the going rate for event personnel of like teaching ability and event experience" (Proposal 01-51,  30.16 (f))

For years the NCAA has been complaining that cagey event operators, wiley shoe companies, unscrupulous professional agents and "others" have been able to skirt rules which prohibit gifts and payment to players by hiring a player's relative or guardian to "coach" or "work" an event,   getting away with paying exorbitant fees which really are not commensurate with any real rendition of services.  This proposed rule seems designed to eliminate disguised employment fees and other "over-market-price" payments which are really money laundered to look like a real salary which is an impermissible inducement. No more $500,000 "consulting" deals to guys like Myron Piggie so he can "coach" a team of all-stars (the "All-Star" thing is taken care of separately below (a belt and suspenders approach if ever we've seen one). Event operators can still pay camp counselors, tournament officials, or coaches, but it's now got to be the "going rate".....And as we all know from the business world, the term "going rate" means that sum which is the least amount of money an employer can pay before his employee goes somewhere else to earn a decent wage...

            7.     Summer Recruiting Change:  Instructional classes will be required at all non-institutional events, camps and tournaments.

"The event or tour shall include a comprehensive educational session that contains a review of initial-eligibility standards" (Proposal 01-51, 30.16 (g))

"Class is not an option."   There has always (at least for the past 10 years) been a certification requirement that operators of camps conduct educational sessions about NCAA rules, but it's rarely, if ever been enforced by the NCAA.  But event operators are supposed to do it, and many have tried. For example, this year at ABCD Camp, there were SAT prep sessions and other classes offered to players before the games started, but the NCAA has said that it was not satisfied with the level of participation by the players, complaining that many slept through the classes.  We were even told that the NCAA enforcement people videotaped the sessions, and they believe the classes were poorly attended.   How the NCAA proposes to enforce attendance is a different matter, but evidently now the classes will have to be "comprehensive".....Whatever that means....

           8. Summer Recruiting Change:  No crooks allowed:

"An event operator, staff member of a league or member of any team may not participate if the individual has been found guilty or pleaded guilty in a court of law for having been involved in sports bribery, point shaving or game fixing " (Proposal 01-51, 30.16 (h))

    This is the "no criminals" rule.  It hardly requires comment, but it will place the onus on event and tournament operators who want certification to at least keep such individuals from working at their events or coaching a team.

            9.  Summer Recruiting Change: An operator can't be a "marketer" of athletes.

"The event or tour shall not be operated or managed by any individual or agency involved in the marketing of any individual's athletics reputation or ability" (Proposal 01-51 30.16 (i)

    We're not exactly certain what this means, but it seems to state that an operator who "markets" an individual's athletics reputation or ability can't conduct an event.  Whether this means that an operator who also publishes a recruiting newsletter which is "marketed" to college coaches can't get certification is something that remains to be seen.  Whether it means that an event operator who maintains a website which also then records information relative to the talents or abilities of players won't be able to get certification is an interesting, and open, question. We're guessing that it's targeted at pure "marketing" services such as those where a player pays a fee for making his "athletic profile" available to college coaches (who also pay a fee to get such information), but there's enough wiggle-room in the language to drive a Sherman tank through it.

        10.   Summer Recruiting Change: No money from "marketers" or agents to support an event, and no boosters...we mean it!.

The event or tour may not receive financial support from any individual or agency involved in marketing any individual's athletics reputation or ability or any representative of an NCAA member institution's athletics interests  (Proposal 01-51 30.16 (j)).

         The NCAA already has rules restricting the activities of "boosters" so one has to wonder why "representative[s] of an NCAA member institution's athletics interests" is mentioned here.  But combine this proposal with the proposal in paragraph #9 above, and you will see that not only can't those engaged in "marketing" conduct an event or tournament,  but likewise, they also can't contribute to it financially either.  No sports agents, no "boosters", no big-time fans of a school with money.  In short, this is just a variant of the "show us the money" rule (see above).  The NCAA is saying, "If we don't like the source of your money, we won't approve your event."  Period. 

        11.  Summer Recruiting Change:  Travel team coaches need to be "approved" by a sanctioning body

"Individuals involved in coaching activities must have been approved in accordance with guidelines established by an athletics organization involved in the oversight of prospective student-athletes (e.g., Amateur Athletics Union, National Federation of State High School Associations) Proposal 01-51 30.16(k).

       This is something that everyone's talked about for years, but like the weather, people complain, but they've never been able to figure out what to do about it.  The NCAA now wants high school coaches involved in the summer recruiting.  That much is plain.  They also don't want Myron Piggie or guys like him.  That much is also plain.  But what about the fathers who coach travel ball, the guys who coach at the high school level who aren't "approved" by any state association at all (indeed, the CIF doesn't "approve" coaches and has no sanctioning process in place).  So how this is going to work is anyone's guess. 

But however it workds, coaches will now have to be "approved" either by the high school association, the AAU, or some other "organization involved in the oversight of prospective student-athletes."     Of course, that other "association" might just be the NCAA itself if no one else steps up to the plate.  And in the meantime, if no one steps forward to "approve" a coach, he won't be able to participate, at least if the operator wants to have his event certified. This affects not only those coaches who aren't "approved", but also the event operators.  It means that the event operators will now have to police who is coaching the teams which participate in their events, otherwise the event won't receive certification.  At least that's the way it looks from where we're sitting.....

        12.  Summer Recruiting Change:  The "same state" rule---All-Star teams will have to have players who all live within 100 miles of each other.

"Participants on nonscholastic teams must reside either with in the state in which the team is located or within one hundred miles of the participant's residence if the team is located outside the state in which the participant is a resident."  (New 30.16 (l)).

What the heck, the NCAA has never been bothered by the U.S. Constitution or anti-trust laws before, why should they worry about a little thing like the right of a citizen to travel interstate, to live where he chooses, or the right of citizens to associate freely together..... This is going to be one of the most controversial rules, if it's adopted.   A player like LeBron James would not be permitted to play with the Oakland Soliders....And forget about Kool Aid's prep school guys all getting back together to play for him in the summer, and forget about the any of the other teams who combine players from all over the country in a single unit.   That's a thing of the past under these rules.

The NCAA's stated rationale for this new rule is as follows:

"The establishment of a standard related to the residence of participants on nonscholastic teams should deter the practice whereby teams "rent" elite-level prospects for brief periods of time, often providing them payment in excess of actual and necessary expenses."

        13.  Summer Recruiting Change: No Visits During July--At All!

This past summer there was some controvery generated about whether or not an unofficial visit could be made to a school during a tournament period.   Many of us were called upon to read some obscure portions of text in the rules which were, at best ambiguous, and which even trained lawyers disagreed about.  Well, the NCAA proposes to fix the rule by enacting the following clear language to Rule 3.8.1.1:

13.8.1.1 Exception—Men's Basketball. In the sport of men's basketball, a prospect may not make unofficial visits during the month of July.

Well, at least the rule is now clear.

        14. Summer Recruiting Change: No Contact Between D-I Coaches and Anyone (Well Almost Anyone)              

D-I coaches have historically be prohibited from making any contact with a prospect during the July evaluation period.  That's why it's called an "evaluation" period, and not a "contact" period.   So coaches were usually required to contact the players by dealing with the club coaches.   Well, no longer.  The NCAA proposes the following rule change to 13.1. 7.2 (f):

In men's basketball, contact shall not be made at any certified summer basketball event or tour with a prospect, the prospect's coach or any individual associated with the prospect as a result of the prospect's participation in basketball."

We especially like the language "or any individual associated with the prospect as a result of the prospect's participation in basketball."  Like we said, no contact with anyone.

Fall Recruiting Changes:

          15.   Fall Recruiting Change: No more Fall Evaluations, except at a prospect's own high school

If the NCAA could find a way to legislate a change to the real world calendar to eliminate September entirely from our system of counting days, they no doubt would.  But they can't,  so the next best thing is to eliminate Fall evaluations completely.

The period from September 9 through October 14 is designated as a "Contact" period, but the rules proposed by the Subcommittee will not permit evaluations at sites "other than the prospect's educational institution."    Of course, that eliminates evaluation for about 99% of the high school players in California, who don't do anything with a basketball at their high schools during September.

There's no question that the NCAA wants to end all off-campus fall evaluations that don't take place at the prospect's own institution, and these new rules do that quite clearly.  The rationale for the Subcommittee's new proposed rule is as follows:

"The prohibition against evaluations during the fall contact period also should deter event operators from organizing and conducting events during that time frame that previously were conducted during the summer evaluation period.         

This current fall "evaluation" period (i.e, 2001) was really just a teaser for what's to come.  There will be no evaluations anywhere, even if "sanctioned, approved, conducted or sponsored" by a state association, unless it occurs at the prospect's own high school.  Period. Of course, in Southern California, as well as other places around the country, this really means no evaluation at all (even on the prospect's own campus),  because there are no events that high school players can play in conducted by high schools during the fall.  Coaches can come out to watch a P.E. class (and maybe stay to watch an open after school), but the bottom line message being sent to recruits is this:   You'd better either be a big enough prospect on your own for college coaches to be making a trip to see you workout by yourself, or you'd better be playing at a big-time school with lots of talented players in your P.E. class, or no college .

Spring Recruiting Changes

        16. Spring Recruiting Change--April Only, Two Contacts for Juniors, Three For Seniors

April is still designated as a "Contact" Period, but there are many changes. The new proposals changes who can be viewed, how often, where, and when.  We'll try to take a look at each of these separately:

         Juniors:

The Subcommittee has proposed a new rule (13.1.1.1.2 below) which contains some special rules applicable to players who will still be in their junior year academically in April.  The new rules don't appear, at least in part, to apply to seniors. In short, during April's contact period, D-I coaches will be limited to two contacts with a player, and it counts against the limit of five such contacts (e.g., three during the season, and two during April). The reiteration below in this new rule of the "phone call" exceptions seems to be overkill, because there's a separate rule for it contained in two other bylaws.

"13.1.1.1.2 Exception—Men's Basketball. In the sport of men's basketball, it is permissible for an institution to make in-person, off-campus recruiting contact with a prospect or the prospect's parents or legal guardians during the April contact period of the prospect's junior year in high school. An institution is limited to not more than two contacts during the April contact period of the prospect's junior year and such contacts must be included in the limit of five permissible recruiting opportunities for the academic year. In addition, it is permissible for an institution to make telephone calls to a men's basketball prospect [or the prospect's parents or legal guardian(s)] on or after June 21 of the prospect's sophomore year in high school. The institution is limited to making one telephone call per month during the time period from June 21 of the prospect's sophomore year in high school through July 1 following completion of the prospect's junior year in high school. Further, only three telephone calls to a prospect [or the prospect's parents or legal guardian(s)] may be made during the month of July following the prospect's junior year in high school, with not more than one telephone call per week

The NCAA also proposes to amend 13.1.6 which defines the "Permissible Number of Contacts" to read as follows:

13.1.6 Permissible Number of Contacts..... In men's basketball, each institution shall be limited to five recruiting opportunities (contacts and evaluations combined) during the academic year per prospect, which may include not more than two contacts during the April contact period of the prospect's junior year in high school and not more than three contacts during the prospect's senior year."

           Seniors

The above rule, 13.1.6 for juniors, is repeated elsewhere and made applicable to seniors as well as (See also proposed 13.1.8, which contains identical language).  In short, it limits evaluations of seniors to no more than three contacts during a prospect's entire senior year....total.  

            17.  Spring Recruiting Change: Evaluations Only At the High School; Weekends Only (for the most part)

Where can events be held to have D-I coaches in attendance?   The short answer is that events will have to take place on the prospect's own high school or JUCO campus.  If it's elsewhere, it will have to be on a weekend in order for D-I coaches to attend.  That's the short answer.  Here's the actual text of the proposed new rule (additions are in blue, red is language being deleted):

"13.1.8.4 Evaluation Days—Basketball. In men's and women’s basketball, each institution is limited to 40 evaluation days, per Bylaw 13.02.6.2 during evaluation periods that occur during the academic year. In men’s basketball, each institution is limited to 70 evaluation days, per Bylaw 13.02.7. In men’s basketball, institutional coaching staff members are restricted to evaluating only basketball activities that are part of a prospect’s normal high-school, preparatory-school or two-year college season, and events that are approved, sanctioned, sponsored or conducted by the applicable state high-school association, National Federation of State High School Associations or the National Junior College Athletic Association evaluations at sites other than the prospect's educational institution are prohibited during the September contact period. Evaluations at a prospect's educational institution in conjunction with an off-campus contact remain permissible, but are not included in the 40 days. Evaluations during the April contact period are limited to events that are approved, sanctioned, sponsored or conducted by the applicable high-school or two-year college association, National Federation of High School Associations or the National Junior College Athletic Association and may occur at sites other than the prospect's educational institution only on weekends. Evaluations during the April contact period are not included in the 40 evaluation days."

What does this mean? It means that D-I coaches can go to a prospect's high school in September to conduct evaluations, but only the player's high school. Those evaluations in September won't count against the total of 40 days evaluation days during the "season of sport" (that's the CIF term). In April, only two events can be used for evaluation, and then those events must be "approved, sanctioned, sponsored or conducted" by the state or JUCO association.   If the event takes place anywhere other than the prospect's own high school campus, it can only be used by D-I coaches for evaluation on weekends. 

Year-Round Changes:

           18.  More Phone Calls, To Younger Players

The NCAA is going to let coaches call high school prospects earlier.  Well, sort of....The rules presently let players and their parents call coaches; they restrict the ability of coaches to place calls to players until after the prospect's junior season.  Pay attention to the language below as and where highlighted to see what we mean when we say "sort of".

In the sport of basketball, telephone calls shall not be made with a prospect or the prospect's relatives or legal guardians before June 21 following the prospect's sophomore year in high school and in-person, off-campus recruiting contacts shall not be made with a prospect or a prospect's relatives or legal guardians before April during the prospect's junior year in high school.

Presumably, this means that now a player or his parents can't call either or at least they can't speak with the coach until the player ends his sophomore year. Presently, parents can place calls to a college coach on their own nickel if the player is a freshman in high school.  This new language quoted above would seem to say that the coach can't take the call if the player isn't a rising junior.  (The rule amends Bylaw 13.01.6, at pages 85-86 per proposal 01-52).

The NCAA also has added an exception to the above rule by proposing a new rule:

13.01.6.2 Exception—Men's Basketball. In the sport of men’s basketball, an institution is permitted to make one telephone call per month to a prospect [or the prospects parents or legal guardian(s)] on or after June 21 of the prospect's sophomore year in high school through July 1 following completion of the prospect's junior year in high school. In addition, only three telephone calls to a prospect [or the prospect's parents or legal guardian(s)] may be made during the month of July following the prospect's junior year in high school, with not more than one telephone call per week..

So, coaches will be able to call as soon as a prospect's junior summer begins (instead of waiting a year later as is the case now), reaffirming the trend of getting on the kids and their parents earlier and earlier in the process.

            19.  All Seasons:  Official Visits Allowed One Year Earlier

Now here's a rule which actually makes some sense. The Subcommittee proposes that official visits be permitted as soon as a player enters his junior year.  The current rule is the first day of classes of the senior year. The new proposal reads:

"In the sport of men's basketball, a prospect may not be provided an expense-paid visit earlier than the opening day of classes of the prospect's junior year in high school."

This is one rule which actually makes sense: Recruits are committing earlier and earlier each year, based on less and less good, solid information about the schools that are recruiting them.  How can a player be expected to "commit" to a school when he's never really spent any time there.  The current rule doesn't help and leads to unhappy players, unhappy coaches, transfers (and with the 5/8 rule in place, that's really not a happy prospect).  This new rule will permit players to get a better feel for the school by taking an official, paid-for trip before the prospect's important summer between his junior and senior years. 

The "Rationale" stated in the Proposal 01-52 seems to support this view: "The ability to make telephone calls and off-campus contacts and allow official visits earlier in the recruiting process should assist coaches in establishing more solid relationships with prospects and provide ample time to assess their character, thus, resulting in more sound recruiting decisions."

        20. NCAA Institutional financial and relationship disclosures will be required if a school is to be eligible to recruit during the summer:

It's not just event operators who will be required to make disclosures if they want their events certified.  NCAA schools will be required to disclose publicly " information regarding financial relationships between the institution, corporations and prospects' coaches as it relates to basketball-related activities."

The types of disclosures will include all of the following:

The penalty for providing inaccurate info, failing to provide information, not cooperating, etc., is the equivalent of the summer "death penalty" for a college program:  No recruiting at any summer events:

"An institution that refuses to disclose such information or provides erroneous information to the national office shall not be eligible to engage in summer recruiting activities during the 20-day July evaluation period."

The actual text of each of the proposals at issue can be found on the NCAA's own website at these links:  01-51, 01-52, 01-53, 01-54 and 01-55.   For the sake of convenience, we've reproduced them below:

01-51
RECRUITING – BASKETBALL EVENT CERTIFICATION

01-52
RECRUITING CALENDAR – MEN'S BASKETBALL

01-53
RECRUITING – MEN'S BASKETBALL – SUMMER CONTACTS

01-54
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL – FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

©Copyright SoCal Hoops 1997-2001
All rights reserved
E-mail: jegesq@socalhoops.com