The NCAA is attempting once again to cut down the recruiting calendar. Proposal 2007-30-C was adopted on April 25 and is now in a 60-day override period, and let’s just say that it would be a good thing if an override occurs. There is no shortage of practical reasons for this to not proceed, in addition to several flawed premises. And at the end of it all, the NCAA looks more like a grandstanding entity than anything else, which is not a first.
Before taking issue with the proposal, let’s get one thing established: the world of travel team basketball has plenty of issues. They have been talked about before, both here and in other outlets. But this legislation is not going to tackle any of those issues by a long shot.
Let’s start with what the final piece of legislation cites as its rationale for not allowing Division I coaches to evaluate players at April events. For starters, the legislation says that it is “intended to address concerns about the significant amount of class time missed by prospective student-athletes during key academic time periods in order to accommodate travel to and from events”. It all sounds noble, but the premise is flawed.
Clearly, those who put this together haven’t spent time at some of these events or looked at schedules. Tournament operators generally bend over backwards to accommodate teams coming from far away by not playing them on Friday night of a weekend event, or at least not until late in the day. Additionally, the events typically end no later than about 5 p.m. on Sundays, giving plenty of time for most teams to return home – especially since only two teams make the championship game, meaning the majority of teams can head home earlier. Plenty of teams don’t even make it to Sunday in the competition. It also has not been unheard of for teams to leave early and miss games because they have flights home at a certain time.
For good measure, travel teams often go to great lengths logistically to get their kids back home or to their prep schools after an event. Last year, a team that competed in an event it had to fly to was on the same flights to and from the event that I was on. When the return flight touched down at Boston Logan Airport, everything was set in motion, from kids who had parents meeting them there to one coach who had the task of driving a few kids back to their prep schools well outside of Boston. They all got back by the end of that Sunday night.
I haven’t even mentioned the reality of school vacations in April, as well as the years when Easter weekend is a live weekend, as was the case in 2007 and several other years. It’s further evidence that this proposal is reflective of an out-of-touch NCAA.
What also hurts this premise is that kids travel to events outside of live periods during the school year. The month of May has plenty of events that teams travel to just like in April, and events in April such as the Boo Williams Invitational have gone on without being live for college coaches for years. That means making all of these events dead to Division I coaches isn’t going to put an end to them. It is true that some kids will not go to events that would go if the event was live, but the number is quite small and not going to suddenly make these events die off. Similarly, kids have been known to miss live events due to school, especially those who attend prep schools. And lest the NCAA think kids are simply slaves to spring basketball events, some have even been known to pass them up – even live events – to attend their prom.
While it’s nice for the NCAA to appear overly concerned about class time and academics, this concern relative to the live period is interesting from another perspective. There are no live events for boys basketball held during the national SAT/ACT weekend in April. However, that same weekend last month, the Battle of the Best – a girls tournament – was a live event for women’s Division I coaches.
The legislation also mentions concern about “the increasing role of outside influences during the April contact period” among its rationales. As someone who is around the world of travel team basketball a good deal, I am aware of negative outside influences on the kids. However, not only is this often overstated and the grassroots world given an undeserved bum rap, but this legislation will only make things worse. Taking college coaches – whom the NCAA, in theory, would deem to be a good influence – out of the equation only allows those outside influences to become more prominent.
Taking college coaches out of the equation also hampers their ability to do their jobs. If you think the number of transfers every year is ridiculously high now, just imagine what it will be like if this legislation ultimately passes and coaches have even less to work with in evaluating kids. You will see more mistakes made on kids at all levels, meaning more will come in as freshmen and play very little, then opt to transfer to a place where they feel they will play.
What makes this even worse is that the Men’s Basketball Issues Committee, which wants this change, has athletic directors comprising half of its roster. Athletic directors are the same people who also give coaches the “win now” message that is ever-present in this sport (a message unfortunately ever-present in many sports, both college and pro).
One New England talent evaluator who used to be a college coach said he has a better feel for high school players now than he did when he was a coach. After mentioning it, he felt that comment alone said a lot. It’s not hard to believe; he is, after all, allowed to watch players now at times he could not have as a college coach.
College coaches already have a tough enough time evaluating kids. If April live weekends go away, it will not only increase the role of outside influences, but it will also make July that much more important for all involved – and coaching staffs are already taxed during that month, as are the kids. If anything, the NCAA should be going in the opposite direction and giving coaches more time in April by making Fridays live on these weekends. As it is, many coaches really only get Saturday and a little of Sunday, and it makes scheduling a tougher job for event operators since most try to play few, if any, 17-under teams on Friday nights. The NCAA should do anything it can to make July a little less stressful for everyone; this legislation won’t do it.
The month of July brings us to another problem with the legislation. The original legislation, 2007-30-A, states, “In men’s basketball, during the April contact period, coaches attend nonscholastic events sanctioned or sponsored by the applicable high school or junior college athletics association. However, high school and junior college athletics associations do not generally oversee nonscholastic basketball events.”
If the NCAA is unhappy with the oversight, or lack thereof, in these events, perhaps it could sanction them instead and provide its own oversight, as it does for events throughout July. It’s not as if the NCAA lacks the resources to do it; it makes $545 million per year just from its television contract with CBS Sports. Perhaps that’s why, according to a report in March, they are seeking a local and state tax exemption for when it hosts the Final Four in Indianapolis, with savings estimated to be about $300,000. That $300,000 savings could help them oversee live events in April to their satisfaction.
The original legislation also has something that seemed unbelievable when I first read it, especially against the backdrop of the NCAA seeking this tax exemption. It goes on to state, “The lack of oversight has permitted some event promoters to misrepresent the event’s status to coaches and to leverage prospective student-athletes and coaches to attend these events by declaring the need to be seen at the event.”
So now they want to disparage event operators for simply trying to run a business, in a piece of legislation no less! This is unbelievable. All the operators are doing is simply marketing their event, and if college coaches can attend and teams are going to bring top prospects, who is anyone to disparage them for marketing their event based on facts?
There are college coaches who will be hit particularly hard by this change if it goes through. New head coaches are the best example. One might take over a program in late March, with three or four scholarships available for next year, and maybe a player or two elects to transfer, increasing that total to between four and six. How is the coach going to fill those scholarships? Being able to attend events in April, which generally include current unsigned seniors, is an immense help. Without it, new head coaches would have an even more difficult time.
Most of all, the people who really matter in all of this – the kids – get the short end of the stick as well. Many kids already fall through the cracks, and if this legislation ultimately goes into effect, that will only get worse. It will be harder for kids to be seen by college coaches, especially those who have finished their high school careers and play during the spring as unsigned seniors or post-graduates. While the kids will still be seen by scouting services and other media who cover these events, there is simply no one who can identify a player who can fit his program the way a college coach can.
The legislation is bad enough on its own from a practical perspective, but there’s another aspect of this whole story that is also questionable. In recent weeks, Hoopville spoke to a number of college coaches, including ones who were out recruiting at some of these live April events. About half of the coaches were not aware of this until it was brought up. Even more telling, one source said that Baylor head coach Scott Drew did not know about it until it was mentioned to him at the Houston Kingwood Classic. Lest anyone forget, given what happened at Baylor before he got there, Drew needs to have a pretty good relationship with his compliance official.
If you were looking for a story in the news media about this proposal being adopted, good luck finding it. The proposal passed with barely a detectable mention in any outlet around April 25.
The proposal can be defeated if at least 30 school presidents go against it by June 23. Now is the time for coaches and athletic directors to talk to their presidents about this to ensure that it doesn’t pass. A large majority of the coaches Hoopville spoke to are hoping that this does not pass, so there is hope that by June 23, an override will occur.
