Those NCAA Proposals?
SoCalHoops Recruiting News
Last month we wrote what some called a rather exhaustive review of the new proposed NCAA bylaws, the new legislation proposed to the NCAA Management Council by the specially-appointed "Men's Basketball Issues Committee." We speculated that the legislation would be approved and if it was, it would change the landscape of recruiting, particularly for this spring.
Some of our friends with connections to the coaches on the Men's Basketball Issues Committee told us not to worry, that the Committee would soften the proposals before they were approved. They told us, "don't worry, there will still be spring recruiting as we know it."
Well, don't count on it.
Yesterday, the legislative proposals were submitted to the NCAA Division I Management Council. The Council did throw us all a bone, by approving a modification which it is recommending to the Division I Board of Directors (which has the final vote) to change the current 5/8 rule, to permit up to 9 initial grants (but still with no more than 5 in any one year) for the 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 academic years. And while this doesn't seem huge, for many D-I programs and D-I prospects in the class of 2002, it will be just enormous if approved.
So that's the good news. What else did the NCAA Division I Management Council do? Here's what they did:
They recommended to the Board of Directors that it approve all of the following:
1. Approve the legislation contained in Proposal 01-51. This is the legislation which tightens up the process for certifying summer basketball events which we wrote about earlier, which includes requirements for educational and "mentoring activities" (that's the NCAA's term) as well as disclosure of financial information about the sources of funds for the events and how they are allocated. It means coaches will have to be "certified," players can't be on a team which includes members who live more than 100 miles from where the team is based, etc. A very interesting proposal.
2. Approve the legislation contained in Proposal 01-52. This is the legislation which changes the summer recruiting period to two 10-day periods separated by a four-day dead period, allows one phone call during March of the junior year to a prospect, allows only one "contact" with a prospect during April of the junior year, allows official visits to begin in a prospect's junior year, reduces evaluations during the high school season from 70 to only 40, and, most importantly, eliminates any evaluations during the fall except those which take place at the prospect's high school or JC. It also restricts April events to only those events sponsored, sanctioned or approved by the high school association (i.e., CIF in California), JC association, or the National Federation of High Schools. In other words, unless the CIF decides to play ball, recruiting for the current crop of seniors in California will be dead, as in deader than a door nail, this spring.
3. Approve the legislation contained in Proposal 01-53. This is the legislation which prohibits D-I coaches from having any contact with a prospect's coach at a summer event, and also prohibits any unofficial visits during the entire month of July.
4. Approve the legislation contained in Proposal 01-54. This is the legislation which requires D-I colleges and university to make public disclosures about any financial relationships they might have with coaches of a prospect, including event organizers, AAU and club coaches and sponsors of those groups. Institutions that do not disclose the information will not be permitted to participate in the July evaluation period. This proposal is technically not listed as "recruiting" legislation, but is included in changes concerning "Institutional Control" legislation.
5. Approve the legislation contained in Proposal 01-55: This is the proposal which allows the "restricted" coach to be out on the road during the July evaluation period and throughout the academic year, but it does not increase the total number of coaches who can recruit off-campues at any one time. Remember, the NCAA giveth, and the NCAA taketh away.
The next step, as noted will be to have the NCAA Board of Directors vote on these proposals next week, i.e., on November 1. When that happens, according to the NCAA "Legislative Flow Chart" (you'll need Acrobat to read this) is that the Board will vote on the proposal and then will send a notice to the General Membership, which will have 60 days to call for an override of the Board's action (which requires a 5/8ths majority of the members to accomplish). . . .
Bottom line from where we're sitting: This is going to be a done deal, so get used to it. Hate to sound so pessimistic, but this particular set of legislation just knocks the heart out of the class of 2002, and for those who would normally wait until spring, it's going to have a very harsh impact. Of course time may prove us wrong on this one, but we're not betting on it.
The official NCAA Press Release on this subject can be found at this link, or in the separate article we've posted.
©Copyright SoCal Hoops 1997-2001
All rights reserved