NCAA News Archive - 2004

« back to 2004 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index

Coaches propose plan to reshape basketball


Jul 19, 2004 4:16:19 PM

By Jack Copeland
The NCAA News

Men's basketball coaches are asking the Division I membership to consider what they describe as a "comprehensive plan" to reshape the recruiting process and encourage a closer relationship between coaches and currently enrolled student-athletes.

The plan recommends more than two dozen actual changes in current legislation, all regarded by coaches as integral parts of a plan to achieve three goals: improve graduation rates of Division I men's basketball student-athletes, maintain satisfactory progress toward a degree under the new standards recently adopted by the NCAA, and improve retention of enrolled student-athletes at institutions.

The plan was created by a special committee of the National Association of Basketball Coaches (NABC) and endorsed unanimously by Division I men's basketball coaches during a July 7 meeting in Indianapolis.

The Division I Management Council will receive a report of the plan at its July 19-20 meeting in Baltimore. If the Council agrees to submit the plan for consideration during the next annual legislative cycle, the proposals would be considered by Division I cabinets this fall, and would be a topic of discussion at a Division I legislative forum and receive initial consideration from the Management Council during the 2005 Convention.

The Council and Division I Board of Directors would give the plan final consideration in April 2005.

The plan represents the first effort by coaches to address recruitment of and access to basketball student-athletes in a comprehensive fashion, said NABC Executive Director Jim Haney, who chaired an 18-member Special Committee on Recruiting and Access that created the plan.

"This was an opportunity to start with a blank sheet of paper, and not just tweak the current system, but take an innovative, fresh approach," he said.

The plan specifically resulted from two events: an "ethics summit" last fall in Chicago where head coaches discussed challenges they face in relationships with prospective and current student-athletes, and a challenge to coaches from NCAA President Myles Brand to recommend changes in current regulations and policies that are complementary to NCAA goals of improving student-athletes' academic and social well-being.

The NABC followed up by forming the special committee in April. The proposed model is the product of seven conference calls and a two-day meeting in Chicago involving committee members, and then the July 7 meeting in Indianapolis.

"When it came time for the committee to meet, the charge was that any recommendation had to meet those goals of graduation, continuing progress and retention," Haney said.

He added that the committee also agreed on five principles -- including a principle addressing recruiting regulations that was adopted directly from NCAA Constitution 2.11 -- before agreeing on any actual legislative recommendations.

Those principles:

  • Recruiting regulations should promote equity among member institutions in their recruitment of prospective student-athletes and shield them from undue pressures that may interfere with the scholastic and athletics interests of the prospects or their educational institutions.

  • There should be increased attention to the well-being of the prospective and enrolled student-athlete by the teacher-coach, with appropriate balance placed on athletics participation and academic commitment.

  • Educational opportunities for current and future men's basketball student-athletes should be enhanced to increase the likelihood of academic success in accordance with recently approved academic-progress standards.

  • An environment that provides increased opportunities to foster the player/coach relationship both inside and outside the athletics arena should be encouraged.

  • Increased attention to the retention of student-athletes -- including informed, accurate evaluation of prospective student-athletes and support programs and services for student-athletes -- will assist and enhance the overall collegiate experience, and promote the development of positive coach/player relationships.

    The plan includes a number of recommendations that, if adopted, would break new ground, including proposals to permit five seasons of competition in five years, formalize coaches' mentoring responsibility to student-athletes, provide various benefits to help foster the relationship between coach and athlete, and permit more contact between coaches and student-athletes outside the playing season.

    The plan also proposes a rebalancing of recruiting activities, calling for reduced direct contact with prospective student-athletes but also seeking expanded and more flexible evaluative opportunities, including greater use of telephone contacts as well as an opportunity to conduct an on-campus tryout for each prospect.

    While several of the proposals represent significant change from current practice, Haney urges those who will consider the plan's merits to consider how those recommendations fit together, and also to consider how the plan was formed. That same line of thinking was encouraged when the Division I membership considered the academic-reform package that was adopted over the last two years.

    "A lot of times, we want to look at a specific recommendation, but in doing that, we lose the significance of the process," he said. "This particular process is important. To get a true appreciation of what the committee faced, and what the model successfully accomplishes, we had 327 institutions and 327 coaches, all who naturally look at any recommendations through the eyes of their own situation.

    "The committee faced coming up with a plan that would satisfy public/state institutions and private institutions; institutions on the quarter system and those on semester systems; those in metropolitan areas and those in rural areas; those that have athletics budgets of $30 million and those with $3 million; and those from conferences that are getting multiple teams in the tournament, and those whose only chance is through the automatic bid.

    "That's important to understand, because it means this plan is not perfect for anyone, nor should it be. If it was perfect, it would be biased to a specific institution or a group of institutions, and that was never the intent. I think our coaches have accepted that the whole of the plan is more important than any one part of the plan."

    The plan addresses three specific phases in the coach/student-athlete relationship: the recruiting process; the time period between signing a National Letter of Intent and initial, full-time enrollment; and the time period from initial, full-time enrollment to graduation.

    Recruiting process

    Proposals addressing the recruiting process seek a more flexible recruiting calendar that better accommodates the needs of Division I men's basketball programs; means of promoting better decision-making by coaches and student-athletes; earlier access by coaches to prospective student-athletes, but with minimal intrusion into their lives; and reduction of "outside influences" in the recruiting process.

    The specific recommendations include:

  • Establish a recruiting period between September 9 and April 30 during the academic year, and set contact and evaluation periods during that period in a manner that permits coaches flexibility to remain on campus and be accessible to currently enrolled student-athletes during key times, such as the beginning and end of the academic year.

  • Reduce current coaching staff off-campus recruiting "person days" during the academic year by one-fifth, to 120.

  • Permit seven recruiting opportunities, with not more than three of those being off-campus contacts.

  • Prohibit in-person, off-campus contact with a prospective student-athlete before September 9 of the prospect's senior year in high school.

  • Permit one telephone call per month to prospects beginning June 15 after the prospect's sophomore year in high school through July 31 after the junior year (telephone calls would be prohibited during the prospect's freshman and sophomore years).

  • Permit two telephone calls per week beginning August 1 before the beginning of the prospect's senior year.

  • Limit academic-year evaluations to scholastic practices and competition and regular scholastic activities involving student-athletes enrolled only at that institution.

  • Permit one on-campus tryout not to exceed two hours in length, with restrictions on when the tryout can be conducted.

  • Prohibit official visits during the junior year of high school, and reduce the number of official visits a prospect may take during the senior year from five to four.

    Haney said these proposals interact with each other, as well as with elements of the plan addressing the student-athlete experience after signing the National Letter of Intent and after initial enrollment. The special committee believes they will promote better evaluation of prospective student-athletes by coaches and better decision-making by prospects in deciding where to enroll.

    "The committee believes this will elevate the whole thought process in recruiting," Haney said. "Both the coach and the student-athlete will be very interested in making a thoughtful decision as to where the student-athlete will enroll, with the idea that the student-athlete isn't walking in thinking, 60 percent of me wants to go, 40 percent of me wants to transfer if it doesn't work out."

    Between signing and enrollment

    Proposals addressing the time period between signing the National Letter of Intent (or written offer of admission or financial aid for those institutions that do not subscribe to the NLI) and initial, full-time enrollment are designed to permit coaches to assist student-athletes in making the transition to the college environment, and begin building a relationship with the signee.

    Specific recommendations include:

  • Permit institutions to provide complimentary admission to signed prospects for one away-from-home game.

  • Permit contacts with a signed prospect during the dead period.

  • Permit an institution to meet with an academic official at the signed prospect's high school to discuss matters related specifically to the prospect's eligibility.

  • Permit an institution to treat incoming signees identical to current student-athletes during the summer before initial enrollment.

    Current student-athletes

    Proposals addressing the time period from initial, full-time enrollment until the completion of eligibility seek a more structured environment for basketball student-athletes, both on and off the court, to promote retention and support academic performance; greater access between coaches and student-athletes to foster a more positive relationship; greater responsibility by head coaches for development of a student-athlete as an individual; and adoption of regulations that promote graduation in a five-year time period.

    Specific recommendations include:

  • Mandatory mentoring activities, including a requirement that the head coach annually develop with each student-athlete a plan for personal growth using community and institutional resources, and periodic meetings between the coach and student-athlete.

  • Permit a student-athlete to engage in a maximum of eight hours of countable athletically related activities per week outside the playing season (including the summer vacation period), with no more than two hours per week devoted to individual or team skill-related instruction. Also, remove limitations on the number of student-athletes who may be involved in such activities, in order to make more efficient use of coaches and student-athletes' time and institutional facilities.

  • Permit coaches to observe their own team members in voluntary, informal athletically related activities (such as pick-up games) outside the playing season.

  • Permit student-athletes who meet satisfactory-progress requirements to engage in five seasons of competition in five years.

  • Permit student-athletes to participate in preseason exhibition games without loss of a season of eligibility, to permit evaluation of student-athletes' readiness for a season (this proposal would be rendered unnecessary by adoption of the five-years-of-competition recommendation).

  • Permit occasional benefits that help foster the coach/player relationship, including occasional snacks or meals related to mentoring activity, occasional meals for the student-athlete's family during a campus visit, complimentary admission and parking for family members at a home basketball event, "special needs" considerations during holidays and breaks (such as meals and housing); "special circumstances" gifts not to exceed $50 for events such as weddings, birthdays or the birth of a child; and expenses to assist a student-athlete's immediate family once a year to attend a specific game (such as senior night) or specific part of an event (such as one round of the NCAA tournament).

    The proposal to permit five seasons of competition would make Division I men's basketball the first NCAA sport in which student-athletes would be permitted more than four seasons of competition without receiving a hardship or seasons-of-competition waiver. A similar recommendation once was proposed but rejected for football.

    Haney points out that basketball differs from other sports, particularly football, because few participants in the sport take a "redshirt" year. Most students, as well as student-athletes, now take five years to graduate, he added, but basketball student-athletes typically complete their playing eligibility in four years, before compiling enough academic credits for graduation.

    Haney said the NABC special committee believes a fifth year of competition will provide incentive to student-athletes who successfully maintain satisfactory progress to remain on campus through graduation.

    "The feeling is, under this model, that a kid who has his eligibility going into the fifth year, 80 percent of his work is done, and he's going to graduate -- there's no question he's going to graduate," he said.

    "This is one of those things that appears to be win-win-win -- it's a win for graduation, it's a win for continuing progress, and it's a win for retention."

    As for the mentoring component of the plan, Haney said the committee seeks to involve coaches more personally in the development of student-athletes away from the basketball court, rather than limit institutional influence in that development to academic advising and assistance programs.

    "This model emphasizes the importance of the coach finding ways, creating ways, to show personal care for the welfare of student-athletes," he said, adding that the model should encourage restoring the teaching role of coaches, which has diminished in recent years.

    "A coach is a teacher, but one who teaches in a different environment, and one who is trying to teach character and values, things that aren't necessarily in a book but at the same time will have a positive impact on the people (student-athletes are) interacting with in life."

    Additional recommendations

    The plan also lists a variety of other recommendations not directly related to any of the three phases in the coach/student-athlete relationship, including:

  • Transfer administration of the National Letter of Intent program to the NCAA, with the goal of placing more authority behind the program.

  • Establish harsher penalties for what currently are secondary violations of "established, well-defined rules relating to contacting prospects." The NABC also anticipates establishing a peer-review process through which it might censure or otherwise discipline members for involvement in rules violations.

    Those and other proposals in this section of the plan are designed to enhance the public image of Division I men's basketball, in a manner that is consistent with the NCAA's increased emphasis on student-athlete well-being.

    Meeting the goals

    Although the NABC proposals are extensive and ambitious in nature, Haney emphasizes that all meet the special committee's test of promoting graduation, satisfactory progress and retention.

    For that reason, the special committee discarded several proposals, notably including one to increase the number of Division I men's basketball scholarships from 13 to 15.

    "There wasn't any thinking that it had a direct impact on graduation, nor continuing progress," Haney said about that proposal. "But, relating to retention, you now have more players in your program who aren't going to play, and so maybe it's setting up situations of discontent."

    Coaches believe they can effectively advocate the proposals that are included in the plan, because those proposals have been tested against desired goals and solid guidelines.

    "We're not expressing an emotional preference or opinion; we're talking about a plan that addresses the goals," Haney said. "We can articulate that."


    • © 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
    Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy