Is the NCAA Starting to “Get It” on Recruiting?

Could the NCAA be ready to turn over a new leaf? A recent news release about discussions among the Division I Leadership Council suggests it might be possible. As refreshing as that would be, however, we shouldn’t get ahead of ourselves. Let’s remember that this is the NCAA that we’re talking about.

 

The NCAA has long wanted to regulate the world of grassroots basketball, and they have attained some measure of that in recent years. None of it has been good, though, and that’s true by just about any measure. They first took away the ability of Division I coaches to attend fall travel team events, then reduced the spring to only events sanctioned by state high school associations during the month of April. A couple of years ago, that went away, leaving coaches with just the month of July for seeing a large number of players in one setting. It wasn’t good for many coaches, and they weren’t alone.

“It puts so much pressure on the kids to perform in this one month,” said one travel team coach.

 

But that wasn’t enough for the NCAA. They now regulate scouting services, as the NCAA would deem it a violation to purchase/subscribe to a service that doesn’t have its blessing. Earlier this year, the use of Division I facilities for camps or travel team tournaments was banned permanently (a ban had been in effect since October of 2009 pending new legislation, which was finalized a few months ago). And in July, media members were not allowed to sit with college coaches at such events, after being allowed to do so for many years. The rationale, according to multiple sources, is that there have been “media” members who covered one school’s recruiting basically acting as a connector from coach to prospect, during a time where coaches are not allowed to have contact with recruits. Yet media members could talk to college coaches in a lobby or outside of the same gym.

 

And when you add in that there has been talk of the entire month of July being dead to Division I coaches in the future, one thing seems clear: the world of basketball prior to the professional ranks has been turning into a police state.

 

Earlier this month, a release on the NCAA’s official Web site indicated that the NCAA’s Division I Leadership Council has made a lot of progress on a model for the future of men’s basketball recruiting. The work is far from complete, but if the early returns are any indication, there is actually reason for some optimism. The Council reached consensus on several items, according to the release, with four standing out:

 

• A start date for official visits beginning after the men’s basketball championship in April of the junior year.
• Deregulating the type of communication between coaches and prospects (including text messaging and other forms of electronic communication).
• Allowing unlimited communication after Aug. 1 before the junior year in high school.
• Permitting evaluations at certified nonscholastic events on two weekends in April, with some restrictions.

 

The future of the summer recruiting period must be resolved, and given the NCAA’s track record, there is reason for cynicism. But the items noted above would all be refreshing changes if they go into effect.

 

The first item makes sense because nowadays, players make unofficial visits all the time from playing in travel team tournaments and camps. Even when those events are not played on Division I campuses, players often make a visit either in between games or they travel separately from their team so as to visit before or after the event. Whether or not many such visits will happen at schools that have football is not clear, as a key part of hosting recruits for many schools is to bring them to a football game and show them what the campus is like when an athletic event is held there.

 

The second and third items are very noteworthy because they represent a sea change in the current regulation on communication. It also makes a lot of sense: college coaches have had increasingly less access to players, yet save for the kids they have the most riding on this. Anything allowing the coaches more access to the players they are recruiting is a positive. For that matter, banning text messaging outright was a move that made little sense in the first place and makes less sense now, so a change would be welcome.

 

The last item addresses something noted earlier. The weekends in April should never have been taken away from college coaches in the first place, especially given the rationales cited for it. Among others was the oft-cited “influence of third parties”, which frustrates anyone who has a clue about what is going on for a simple reason: just about all of the legislation the NCAA has enacted with the goal of reducing said influence has only increased their role in this because college coaches get less access as a result.

 

April events were made dead to Division I coaches with the idea that the events would not go on without the college coaches, but anyone who knows that major events take place in May and June – which have long been dead to college coaches – knew that the games would go on, and they did. And while Division I coaches couldn’t be there in April, you can be sure that the “third parties” were.

 

If the weekends in April come back for Division I coaches, their lives will be easier. New head coaches will have a chance to see players they might sign as they scramble to fill out their roster for their first season. Current head coaches will be able to figure out who they need to track more closely when July comes around. And for once, the kids will be winners as well because they have more chances to be seen by coaches and recruited to the proper level.

 

The NCAA has a laudable goal of wanting to ensure a level playing field. But the kind of level playing field the NCAA seeks is simply impossible to attain. Every school is different for a variety of reasons, and those reasons include things like resources, facilities and past success that are often key selling points to recruits. The NCAA should understand this and realize that attempts at making schools with drastic differences look equally attractive to high school players is futile.

 

The NCAA has passed a lot of bad legislation on this front in recent years, and the current work is far from done. For once, the potential changes seem positive, however, so there is finally reason for some optimism. Let’s hope there still is at a later date.