For any working relationship to be effective, trust must be prevalent.

The National Association of Basketball Coaches is aware of that fact, and members hope that their package of recruiting proposals is proof positive that coaches are prepared to walk the talk.

This year the NABC formed a Special Committee on Recruiting and Access, which was charged with developing a comprehensive plan to address recruiting and access for prospective and current student-athletes. The effort was in response to an unprecedented invitation from NCAA President Myles Brand for coaches to change the recruiting culture in the best interests of the sport.

Now that the proposals have been developed and introduced into the 2004-05 Division I legislative cycle, the NABC's job is to assure athletics administrators that coaches should be trusted to live up to the package's intent.

Many in the NABC say Brand's invitation in and of itself was a positive turning point in what had been a strained relationship with NCAA leadership at times in the past. While no promises were made, Brand's gesture at least created some dialogue.

"Maybe the greatest thing that has happened for coaches and our organization over the last 18 months has been the relationship and cooperation we've been able to establish with the NCAA, especially with Myles Brand and his staff,'' said Kelvin Sampson, the coach at the University of Oklahoma and a former president of the NABC. "It has been critical. We're trying to be more active. It all comes down to relationships and trust. That's something we have with President Brand that we haven't had before.''

Sampson pointed to a recent example of the environment in which trust was strained among coaches and NCAA rules-makers. Most basketball coaches strongly opposed the former "five-eight" rule that prohibited institutions from signing no more than five student-athletes to a scholarship in one year and no more than eight over a two-year period. The rule, which recently was rescinded, was designed to curb what administrators saw as a disturbingly high rate of transfers in basketball. The restrictions on initial counters was meant to encourage coaches to recruit more with retention in mind, but it only caused consternation in the coaching community.

"It wasn't discussed at our level,'' Sampson said of the way the rule was adopted. "The presidents and commissioners decided to pass it. It was like, 'Oh, by the way, here's your new rule.'

"Having more interaction and having a relationship with the NCAA provides a better chance that something like that does not happen again. We all want a recruiting model that works for everybody as much as possible. It can't be perfect for everybody, but it should be good for the game.''

On the other hand, scandals in several high-profile basketball programs over the past two years have exacerbated the trust gap from the opposite side as well. Those incidents have some presidents and administrators questioning whether coaches can in fact imbue the trust required to make their proposed less-restrictive recruiting environment work in the realistically ultra-competitive recruiting world.

Positive influence

In general, the NABC proposals increase the amount of contact coaches can have with the student-athletes in their program. For example, one recommendation calls for a prospective student-athlete who has signed a National Letter of Intent to be able to receive instruction and mentoring from the coaching staff before the student-athlete actually enrolls for classes at an institution.

Coaches believe that kind of contact with student-athletes helps build a bond, which in turn increases the likelihood of achieving the ultimate goals of retention, continuing eligibility and graduation. Those who are skeptical of the proposal see it as more opportunity for prospects to practice basketball skills before enrolling in college.

"When we talk about access, we're trying to help these kids,'' said Ron Hunter, a member of the NABC special committee and the coach at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis. "If you told me that you're going to limit a lot of the things I do to raise my own kids, I couldn't do an effective job at it. It's the same thing with my players.

"People need to trust that we are educators and that we're not just looking for more time to teach basketball. Prospects and student-athletes need to have more college professionals around them. That's what we are. We're not AAU coaches or agents; we are college professionals.''

The 15-member special committee did the majority of its work over the summer, and members praised the NABC for the composition of the group that allowed for more voices to be heard throughout the coaching community.

"We had Tubby Smith from Kentucky and Tom Izzo from Michigan State and other coaches at that level,'' said John Giannini, who was coaching the University of Maine, Orono, at the time and is now at La Salle University. "Coaches have a wonderful fraternity. I felt all of us wanted what was best for the student-athlete at large. It was a very cooperative spirit that everyone had. We discussed our differences and made the best decisions we could while being considerate of each other.''

Support based on trust

The diversity among programs makes it difficult to create a perfect set of recruiting and access rules that please everyone, but the special committee made sure members put their individual desires aside for the betterment of the game.

That required trust.

The NABC hopes to show presidents and administrators that coaches truly are interested in the academic development of their student-athletes.

Coaches acknowledge that bridging the trust gap may be an uphill battle in the wake of the turbulence of the last two years. But they also do not want Division I basketball to be overly generalized. They hope the NABC package is a sign of good will as much as anything else.

"There is so much of a cooperative spirit,'' said NABC President Pat Kennedy, the coach at Towson University. "If we as coaches turn off athletics administrators right away, we're wrong. But if administrators turn off coaches right away, they're wrong. What we've learned to do is listen to each other. What do the coaches want and why do they want it? What problems do the administrators have and why do they have them? We find a common ground to see how we can accomplish positive things. I think the whole trust issue has gotten much better over the last few years -- no doubt.''

Before the proposals started making the rounds in the NCAA governance structure, about 190 coaches approved of the recommendations at a July 7 session in Indianapolis. NABC Executive Director Jim Haney said that show of unanimity can't be understated.

Haney said he also is pleased with the reception the package has received so far within the governance structure. Haney has made in-person presentations to the Division I Management Council, the Division I-AA/I-AAA Presidential Advisory Group and the Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet, among others.

"At this point we've seen support,'' Haney said. "That support makes you feel good and you start to assume that those groups feel good about putting their name to the proposals, so it's a good reflection of how they will be received on a broader basis throughout Division I.''

That reception ultimately may be based on a matter of trust.