Proposed Changes To NCAA Recruiting

Call me ignorant - I thought they already had to wait until July 1st. If that date was just a "no contact until" rule, how have D1 programs been able to offer before then?

Recruits and their parents can contact a coach anytime and go on an unofficial visit. The coach can not return calls or initiate calls prior to july 1st of rising senior year.

College coaches can call the recruit's travel team or high school coach to initiate contact. Happens all the time.

Coaches may also write a letter or email after Sept 1 of the player's junior year. That letter may contain an offer, or ask the player to come visit.

Coaches can also speak with and even offer scholarships to students who attends their various summer and winter camps no matter what year in school the student is.

Not legally. Excerpted from 13.12.1.3:
However, an institutional staff member employed at any camp or clinic (e.g., counselor, director) is prohibited from recruiting any prospective student-athlete during the time period that the camp or clinic is conducted (from the time the prospective student-athlete reports to the camp or clinic until the conclusion of all camp activities). The prohibition against recruiting includes extending verbal or written offers offinancial aid to any prospective student-athlete during his or her attendance at the camp or clinic.

Thanks for the info 3FingeredGlove. I hear all the time about schools offering kids at their camps during their freshman and sophomore years. One in particular I heard about was this past fall when a high school sophomore verballed to a D1 here in Florida and I was told by the high school coach that the offer came from a camp the kid attended.

The verbage iin 13.12.1.3 is designed for the coach who is a paid instructor at a winter camp during the quiet period. It is not designed for camps held at the institution. The key phrase is "employed at any camp", which means, put on by a third party.

Coaches would be allowed to offer at camps at their schools in which they were not employed by the camp.

From a player's standpoint, none of this matters, since his eligibility is not affected by a coach's action.

And I'm sure that coaches would prefer the interpretation that they aren't employed at their own institution's camp. But it doesn't stand up to normal usage of the word.

There are some instances in which it would be legal. If Fred attends a tennis camp at college A, and the baseball coach makes an offer--no problem. And I suppose that one could construct a scenario in which a baseball coach really isn't involved with his own institution's camp, so that he could make an offer.

Of course I'm aware that offers are made at camps, both by the sponsoring institution's coaches and by other coaches.

Great changes. Long overdue. Hope they adopt them ASAP.

I thought the NCAA rules were for protecting the student athlete? I am having trouble seeing the problem or the harm done to the athlete by recieving an early offer.

What is the reason to limit such activity?

quote:

Originally posted by AL MA 08:
I thought the NCAA rules were for protecting the student athlete?

Nah, that's Little League.

Seriously, the NCAA has several groups of stakeholders, and the group of student-athletes is not powerful. While a number of rules have the effect of protecting players, most of these also benefit some other group.

However, early offers are, IMO, a disservice to players. The risk of a poor choice of schools is significantly increased when players commit early.

I guess I can see that. I have read on this site many times about coach from U school indicating that he needed an answer now or by such date. Put this into the early offer time frame and I can see kids being pressured into an early decision.

But any early offer today is not binding on either party. What's to keep coach from U school from still making "unofficial" offers before the july first date? Then still doing the "official" offer as prescribed.

quote:

Originally posted by 3FingeredGlove:

And I'm sure that coaches would prefer the interpretation that they aren't employed at their own institution's camp. But it doesn't stand up to normal usage of the word.

The big misunderstanding is that the quiet period is to protect the athlete...it is not. It is to limit coaches expenditures and time on the road. The whole "spirit" of the rule we are citing, was to allow those coaches the opportunity to make supplemental money from camps but still limit the recruiting. When "laws" are interpreted, they use the term, "spirit of the law", meaning, what is its intention. Its intention in this case, is purely to protect institutional spending, give the coaches a respite from recruiting, while not limiting their opportunity for ancillary income. This is the reason the rule reads "employed at any camp", and not "participating at any camp".

CPLZ,
So is it your contention that if a camp is held during a contact period, all of the coaches at the camp are allowed to make offers? Sounds like that would be within the "spirit of the rule", as you define it.

Let me take a different tack here. Consider an email containing something like "As discussed during our camp yesterday, we are offering you xx%".

Do you seriously expect any coach to send that email?

If the camp is held at his institution, yes. Because it is allowed. Got the email (very similar wording to your example), from two different schools after Junior attended their camps, a B10 and Big East school. Both camps occurred on their campuses.