One of the front-burner issues in Division I men's basketball is a legislative proposal designed to release coaches from a perceived ethical bind. Over the last several years, coaches increasingly have been pressured to schedule exhibition games against "club" teams run by people with connections to high-school prospects.

Current rules allow Division I teams to play two exhibition contests against noncollegiate or lower-level collegiate teams. More and more, though, coaches are scheduling games against these touring club teams composed of former college players instead of the collegiate teams, and the practice is making many coaches increasingly uncomfortable.

"One of the alarming trends right now is for coaches to recruit from certain AAU programs that put together impromptu exhibition teams," said University of Oklahoma head coach Kelvin Sampson, who also is the current membership president of the National Association of Basketball Coaches (NABC).

That, Sampson said, puts coaches in an ethical dilemma. He said a typical scenario might be for the club program to say to a coach, "If you want to recruit this player then you're going to have to play my team. If you do that, then maybe we can facilitate getting you that player." Sampson said it's almost as if some club owners are holding coaches hostage.

"And don't think that it's not out there," he warned. "It's happening and it is increasing each year."

The Big Ten Conference proposed legislation last summer to preclude exhibition games against noncollegiate teams. The proposal, No. 03-92, has received initial approval from the Division I Management Council and could be adopted next month for implementation in August. Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany said league coaches were unanimous in supporting the legislative solution.

"Our coaches felt they were between a rock and hard place," Delany said, "If they went ahead and scheduled those teams, it would appear that they were doing so just to access prospects, and if they didn't schedule them either because they had other games already or because they didn't think it was appropriate, they felt they would be excluded from the recruitment process.

"At a minimum," Delany said, "there was an appearance of a conflict of interest."

The legislation as written is inclusive, which means that longstanding noncollegiate fund-raising programs such as Athletes in Action and Coaches vs. Cancer are swept into the restrictions. Delany said the legislation had to be structured that way.

"As we developed the proposal, we agreed that we couldn't single out any one group, so we were comfortable with the word 'noncollegiate,' because we don't recruit from collegiate institutions," Delany said.

Sampson agreed, saying a clean break was necessary.

"If you're not going to play one segment of exhibition teams," he said, "you can't discriminate against others -- you have to make a clean break and say you're not going to play any of them."

NABC Executive Director Jim Haney said the NABC board of directors was concerned that Athletes in Action, Coaches vs. Cancer and the Globetrotters, programs that he said have no affiliation with prospective student-athletes, would be affected, but that the concern did not supersede the reason for supporting the legislation.

"The concern over the complications arising -- being asked to play exhibitions against teams where there's a direct or indirect link to prospective student-athletes -- is paramount, and that takes precedence," Haney said.

NCAA General Counsel Elsa Cole said the proposal falls within the Association's purview to establish parameters around exhibition contests.

"The NCAA has a right and duty to set the length of the season, including the determination of whether exhibition games should be played and if so, how many and against whom," she said. "Thus, eliminating exhibition games against noncollegiate teams is within that right."

Coaches apparently are prepared to express their support. Haney cited an NABC survey in which a majority of respondents favored limiting the opponents in exhibitions.

Sampson said the legislation, if adopted, would provide one less thing for coaches to worry about.

Delany said if nothing else, the proposal would clear a cloudy perception.

"Right now," he said, "you're forced into the arrangement whether you like it or not. If you say no, there's a potential for at least perceived retribution, and if you say yes, there's a potential for someone to claim that you've scheduled this group in order to gain access.

"I don't really know that it's imperative anyway for colleges to be playing club teams that are sponsored by noncollegiate entities."

-- Gary T. Brown