ncaa report part 2

socalogo.gif (8739 bytes)
SoCalHoops Recruiting News

NCAA Report Part II: A Brief Analysis
Of The Proposals--(Aug. 30, 1999)

Everyone has read the recommendations of the NCAA Working Group on Men's Basketball Issues, at least as they pertain to recruiting. If you haven't here's the link. When you're finished come back and follow along. Or better yet, just follow along, because we'll make this easy to follow:

Let's do a brief analysis of the recommendations to see what's really going on and, at least preliminarily, what these proposed changes might mean to some of the local and national summer events if the recommendations are approved and implemented. The plans now are to implement them by the summer of 2000. So what can we expect? Here's our take:

Basketball Event "Certification Process": Everyone knows by now that in order for D-I coaches to be able to attend a tournament, camp, event or special clinic, the event must be "certified" by the NCAA, i.e., it must be approved. If it isn't, college coaches can't attend. Let's look at what the committee has recommended. If an event is certified, then coaches can attend, but only if the event takes place during an "evaluation" period. The NCAA is attempting to change two things: 1) How an event becomes "certified" and 2) the time periods when college coaches can attend such events. Currently, there is a calendar (posted at the NCAA's own website) which details when they can attend. Significantly, there is a "spring evaluation period" during late March and for most of April, which is filled locally by such leagues as Rockfish Spring League and other events.

But the NCAA's first proposal is to recommend that "All evaluations during the academic year shall be limited to regularly scheduled high-school and two-year college contests/tournaments, practices, pick-up games and open gyms conducted under the supervision of the high-school or two-year college coach."

There are several key phrases in this recommendation. The first is "academic year." Note that the committee did not just limit the evaluation of prospective athletes to the "season of sport" i.e., the high school basketball season, but instead chose to speak of the entire "academic year," which would be from the beginning of September (late August in some places) through June (this also begs the question where you have year-round schools; what is the "academic year?") Next, the recommendation is to limit evaluations to "regularly scheduled" high school (and JC) games and tournaments, or "practices, pick-up games, and open gyms," but importantly, the committee says that these would have to be "conducted under the supervision of the high-school (or JC) coach."

Let's think about this. If these events have to take place during the "academic year" this means that once school commences only those events conducted with a high school coach would be open for evaluation. Something is definitely missing here, at least in our view, and it just doesn't seem right for several reasons. First, it would signficantly limit evaluation to only December through February, because most high school coaches (at least in SoCal under CIF rules) can't even be in the gym coaching their players except during the late November through March period, and no one can even play games except immediately after Thanksgiving until a team is eliminated from the playoffs in late February or early March. Second, this would seem to unduly punish players who up till now have been willing to continue working on their games during the "off-season". Events such as the FullCourtPress "Fall Showcase" (which is an invitation-only exhibition event for players to play against others in their respective classes), the Rockfish Spring League, which occurs during a high school "dead period" but during an NCAA evaluation period, during a time when the high school coaches cannot coach their own teams (but those few who are dedicated to coaching club ball can and do) would be essentially gone, from a recruiting point of view. The events and leagues would, in our view, still take place because by and large, those who participate are the same kids who are working on their games year round. No different than the baseball players who play year round.

In our view, there should be further reconsideration and refinement of this particular proposed rule change. In our view the limitation on events which can be certified should be restricted to only those occurring during the "season of sport" involved, not the "academic year". The rule should be consistent with the CIF (and other state) definitions of "season of sport." We can't really dispute that during the high school season, no one wants to see disruption occuring with players participating in non-certified events or even in "certified" events with other teams besides their high school team (although this is the norm in other sections of CIF besides Southern and City, chiefly up North, where there is no restriction against playing club at the same time), and in fact CIF rules in SoCal already prohibit such activity anyway. But we remain troubled by the fact that the NCAA would try to justify attempting to place control of the recruiting process in the hands of high school coaches during a period of time (i.e., in the spring or fall evaluation periods) when the high school coaches are expressly prohibited by state and section regulations from participating in activities with their own players. This one needs another look before the NCAA jumps off the ledge.

While the next section of the report talks about taking into consideration the "variations in state high-school association requirements" such that the NCAA would need to "establish guidelines for the certification of scholastic and nonscholastic events at which Division I basketball coaches are permitted to evaluate" we don't know of a way to reconcile the two, at least in California, unless the CIF changes its own rules, and we just don't think that's likely to happen any time soon, and we also think that most high school coaches don't want to continue to be involved with their high school teams beyond the season of sport, at least not for purposes of recruiting evaluations. We know we don't speak for high school coaches, but our experience is that most coaches are concerned, caring and involved with their players year round, but they do not view the college recruiting process as something which they must, or indeed should occupy themselves. Most would rather not deal with it at all. Sure there are several top coaches and programs who, year in and year out, continue to stay involved with their kids even in the off-season and are active in their college recruiting (these are the same coaches who are also accused year in and year out of committing high school recruiting violations, or just being "bad guys"). Well, in our view, the bad guy moniker is probably not deserved with any of them (well, there are a few who shouldn't be coaching at all, who are truly "bad" guys, but they'll go nameless here), but these are the exception rather than the rule. There are more than 400 boys' programs just in CIF Southern Section. Can anyone name more than 50 or 60 boys' high school head coaches who are really involved year-round? Probably not. There are undoubtedly hundreds who just quietly go about their business, coaching summer league, putting in their time, teaching the lessons of the game and life that high school coaches are supposed to be teaching. The point though is that most high school coaches, at least the ones who've been at it a while and are committed to staying at the high school level, are probably not more interested in the recruiting process but would like to be involved in that aspect less. Again, the "good old days" where college coaches had their own "networks" of high school coaches (and several notorious programs paid for players) weren't such "good old days" after all. Again, we just don't see the hands of time being turned back because in many respects, the high school coaches are limited by their own set of regulations which precludes them from being involved in the recruiting process in ways which would really benefit the players outside the "season of sport" but during other times in the "academic year."

We think that the NCAA on the right track though to look at the "full financial disclosure of the operations" of certified events, to "ensure that there is no unauthorized financial support of the event (or teams) from agents or representatives of athletics interests of NCAA member institutions." Hard to argue with that. But as for the rest, well, it's a little like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Let's look at the summer camps/foreign tours changes proposed. There's really very little to object to when it comes to these proposals. Again, full-financial disclosure of all foreign travel teams and summer events, with information made public about how many teams are funded, how much the funding is, and for what purpose the funding is used, budgets, compensation reports and sources of revenue/funding, are all important, but we doubt, ultimately that the information gleaned will really be all that useful. Most summer travel team players are, for the most part, pretty much insulated from much of what goes on in terms of the actual organizing of the teams, obtaining travel accomodations, getting uniforms, shoes and tournament entry fees, and they just show up and play. For the most part, that's the way it should be, and that's probably what will continue to happen, whether the NCAA is there or not.

Finally, the issue of changing the recruiting calendar: This is the biggie, the most controversial of the proposed changes. The suggested modification would actually increase the fall exposure period, although not signficantly, to 18 days following Labor Day (right now it will run from September 9 through the 26th), but in conjunction with the rule change on certification, would create the catch-22 where high school coaches, by CIF regulation can't be with their teams or players (even for practice, which most get around by scheduling weight training or "conditioning" during the last period of the day), yet this would be during the "academic year" so the only evaluation which could be conducted in the fall would be with the high school coach at a tournament/practice or game. In other words, the fall evaluation period couldn't take place. Less is more? We think not. Bad change.

The changes would also allow for another "contact period" of nine days following the spring signing period, but again, this would be one of those times during the "academic year" so there could be no "evaluation" during this period, because the high school coaches are prohibited from being with their players. Again, who dreamed up this one? The high school coaches, who have been complaining for years that they want to be "back in control" of the recruiting? The college coaches, who just want to evaluate talent? It seems that no one thought about it, and like a lot of governmental regulation in general, the problems solved only create new ones. Re-think this one, please.

But the most controversial change would be to "reduce the current July evaluation period from 24 to 14 days." This is the big enchilada, the one that everyone has been worrying about, thinking about, complaining about. High school coaches don't like it; college coaches seem to enjoy the evaluating even if they don't much care for extended travel away from their families; players seem to enjoy it, but to many it takes on the proportions of a 24 day marathon, a kind of "They Shoot Basketball Players, Don't They" dance contest where only the strong survive. What's the solution? Well, on the surface, it might seem that the answer is "let's shorten the dance, make sure more are still standing at the end of the night." Reduce it from 24 to 14 days, right? That'll solve everything. Well some things. . . .

Take a look again at the wording of the proposed change. There's something very interesting : "The 14 days shall be selected at the discretion of the institution and designated in writing in the office of the director of athletics." (emphasis added).

So does this mean that an institution, looking at the current 24 day evaluation period just gets to select 14 days out of the month of July, at its discretion; any 14? So it would seem. Would this change the current three-week July period significantly? We doubt it, and here's why: Many have speculated that the "national" camps (ABCD, Nike Camp) would continue to receive the lion's share of the recruiting interest, as well as several of the local camps (West Coast All-Stars Second Session and Rim Rattler just to pick two) which run concurrently would still be popular, because in essence they allow a "two-for-one" where the institution picks the days, and then sends two or three of its coaches out. Or better yet, they utilize prospective graduate assistants (who are not hired until the end of the evaluation period) as an additional set of eyes and ears. In short, all of the usual camps and tournaments would still continue to get a decent turnout of coaches and players, because even D-I coaches realize that not all the talent pool in the country of potential prospects gets invited to the two national camps (each of which will probably be cutting their invitations back next summer to no more than 200 players each anyway). That still leaves a lot of other good potential D-I talent at the regional camps, so these events would probably not be much affected by the proposed change.

Also, if the schools get to pick which 14 days out of the month they want to use, not all schools will agree on the same days, which means that ABCD, Nike Camp, WC All-Stars, Rim Rattler, which only take up 4 days and run concurrently will still leave a lot of activity going for the rest of the month. In the additional twenty days left in the month of July, the wording of the recommendation specifically states "the 14 days shall be selected at the discretion of the institution." This would seem to mean that each D-I coach would have enough flexibility to select, at his option, how to spend those remaining 10 days, whether it be at the adidas Las Vegas Big Time Tournament (five days), the Pump Best of Summer (four days), the Slam N Jam NIT (four days)--and both of these run concurrently, so they're both still a "two-for-one", and ample time to attend other events such as the Nike Summer Championships, the Peach Jam, etc. As we see it, the proposed change really won't have that much affect on how the summer recruiting process occurs, and the camps, tournaments and exposure events will continue to take place throughout the month of July, and they'll continue to be important in the recruiting process. Will this end summer camps, summer tournaments or even limit them? Probably not.

The remaining recommendations for summer recruiting and the recruiting calendar in general seem laudable, but probably won't have much effect, except to allow D-I coaches additional time to be on the road. Increasing the evaluation days during the academic year evaluation period from 40 to 50 is nice, but the NCAA should realize that most high school coaches really only coach their players during December through the end of February (a period of approximately 88 days) and the college coaches are also coaching their own teams during this same period too. If the goal of reducing the summer and increasing the "academic year" evaluations is designed to get college coaches more in touch with high school coaches, someone again ought to re-think how the NCAA regulations will interact with CIF regulations concerning when and how high school coaches can have contact with their own players.

While the working group felt compelled evidently to include a specific statement "that serious problems exist related to the involvement of external influences in the recruitment of prospective basketball student-athletes during the summer" they never identified what those "external influences" are, and we are left to imagine what the NCAA committee had in mind. What are these "corrupting influences related to the summer recruiting environment?" Well, we can guess, but beyond guessing, rumor and idle speculation, from what we've seen of the recruiting process, shortening the summer period by 10 days, or even eliminating it, as the committee threatens to do if the proposed changes have no effect, is not going to eliminate "street agents" or those who will seek to take advantage of young players. We think, from what we've seen over several years, the NCAA is actually overstating the case for "serious problems." Just ask most D-I coaches whether they'd rather eliminate the summer recruiting period, and while most of them would rather be on a beach somewhere sipping Pina Coladas, most will also tell you that that events such as ABCD, Nike Camp, the Big Time, the Pump/Slam N Jam events, and the regional camps (Pump, Five Star, etc) which take place during the summer, is really the most practical and the best way to see talented division I prospects. Most college coaches would probably also tell you that other than a few notable characters (who are pretty easily identified) they don't believe there's a real "problem." These guys love basketball, at least they've made it their profession and given their lives to coaching it, and while Bobby Knight would rather be fishing, most of them, if given the opportunity to see top flight talent playing against other top flight talent (something which doesn't always happen when watching just high school teams play against each other) they'd be there in a minute. At least that's our sense for what the college coaches want based on our conversations with many of them.

Of course, the NCAA also is threatening to eliminate the summer period entirely if the proposals have no effect, which in our view, would be a huge mistake. The NCAA cannot turn back the hands of time any more than they can really hope to institute the old rules eliminating the dunk, or eliminating freshmen eligibility as in the days of Lew Alcindor. There has been a sea change, on an order of magnitude that really can't be and won't be stopped. And it's not just in basketball, because the the trend among high school players in all sports is towards developing their games year round. Just look at baseball, as an example: There's "fall ball", "winter league" then there's the spring high school season, followed by summer Pony leagues, American Legion Ball, all culminating (in SoCal) with the prestigious "Area Code" games; there are also countless baseball camps during the summer, instructional schools year round, coaching clinics and skills clinics, and the like. In football you have constant year round work, weight and strength conditioning, summer "combines", spring camps and exhibition games. All of this activity is geared towards allowing players to play sports that they enjoy, and, if possible, continue their athletic careers through college with a scholarship.

In our view, the issue of "undue" or "corrupt" influences, while real and affecting some of the most talented players at the top of the game, is something to be addressed, but the recommendations, even the recommendation of eliminating the summer evaluation period altogether, is going about it the wrong way. Financial disclosures for players and promoters, with clear consequences for players who violate NCAA recruiting regulations (provided there's a sufficient education process) is probably the best and easiest way to begin addressing the perceived problems. Anything less is probably going to be ineffective, and anything more is probably just overkill.

At least that's our view.