Prospective student-athletes moved one step closer to being able to spend an entire school day free of text messages from college coaches when the Division I Academics/Eligibility/Compliance Cabinet supported legislation restricting computer-mediated communication.

The cabinet, which met September 6-8 in Indianapolis, sponsored legislation that would restrict the use of text messaging and other forms of electronic communication between coaches and prospective student-athletes.

The proposal limits the use of computer-mediated communication to between 4 p.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays (the times would be in the time zones where the prospect resides). Additionally, the legislation prohibits any such communication before September 1 of the prospect’s junior year — June 15 for prospective men’s basketball student-athletes. The legislation exempts e-mail from the restrictions.

Petrina Long, associate athletics director at the University of California, Los Angeles, chairs the cabinet’s subcommittee on recruiting, which developed the proposal.

"We are trying to contain the time when coaches are trying to reach (prospective student-athletes)," Long said. "We hope it will be less intrusive."

The subcommittee also considered the impact that text messaging has on coaches, paying particular attention to the issue of life-work balance. Members noted that without restrictions, coaches can spend significant time at odd hours sending text messages to recruits.

"We believe this will allow coaches a large window of time every day when they do not feel forced to keep up with everyone else," Long said. "They can focus on their current team and their personal life during their off-hours."

The subcommittee believes allowing text messaging with restrictions responds to the needs of prospective student-athletes, who often prefer to communicate using new technology such as text messaging and social network Web sites.

"These proposals are our continued response to ever-changing technology and how they relate to the recruiting process," said Jacqueline Blackett, cabinet chair and associate athletics director for student-athlete support services at Columbia University. "We want to stay current in these trends and even move ahead of the curve when possible."

In a related proposal, the cabinet declined to support a measure from the Ivy Group that would have eliminated all forms of computer-mediated communication between coaches and recruits with the exception of e-mail and facsimile. However, the group believed the proposal should go forward in order to receive proper feedback from the membership.

The recruiting subcommittee also discussed the use of social network Web sites such as MySpace.com and facebook.com in recruiting. Members will continue to monitor the climate and gather information about the sites before making any recommendations.

The cabinet also did not support other pieces of legislation governing the use of technology in recruiting, including one that would allow schools to provide other recruiting information posted online to prospects via regular mail as attachments to general correspondence or during official or unofficial visits. Another proposal concerning correspondence also was not supported; that legislation would permit schools to provide prospects with a single sheet of 8.5 by 11-inch white paper with black ink on on or both sides as an attachment to general correspondence.

The cabinet did support a proposal that would allow an institution to produce a computer recruiting presentation (such as a PowerPoint) to show a prospect during visits at his or her home or on campus. Members believed the legislation would make the recruiting process more efficient.

Other actions

The cabinet also did not support a proposal that would eliminate the use of advisors who also serve as agents, in part because the language in the legislation was too vague and did not properly define the term "advisor." Cabinet members also believe that the proposal might push some student-athletes to use advisors who are not well-versed in the issues surrounding professional league drafts, contracts and salaries. The legislation, sponsored by the Big East Conference, would render ineligible student-athletes who have agreements with advisors, often "financial advisors," who also serve as agents in any capacity.

• Supported a proposal that would allow institutions to provide supplemental financial assistance to recipients of NCAA degree-completion awards.
• Supported a proposal requiring institutions to certify that student-athletes have completed six semester or quarter hours of academic credit in the preceding regular academic term to be eligible for postseason competition between regular terms. Cabinet members discussed the burden the certification process could place on some institutions, particularly schools that operate on the quarter system. Occasionally, postseason competition in men’s and women’s basketball occurs between terms for quarter schools. However, cabinet members decided that the proposal enhances the integrity and spirit of the progress-toward-degree requirements.
• Did not support a proposal increasing the maximum number of contests or dates of competition in which a student-athlete can participate and still qualify for a hardship waiver.
• Did not support a proposal that would allow a transfer student-athlete to immediately qualify when his or her former institution cancels the sport for an entire playing and practice season or suspends the sport for an indefinite time.
• Did not support legislation that would require prospective student-athletes to register with the Initial-Eligibility Clearinghouse before an institution provides either an official visit or a written offer of athletically related financial aid. The cabinet suggested that the Division I Board of Directors, which sponsored the proposal, modify the legislation to require prospects to submit official high school or secondary school transcripts through the sixth semester to the Clearinghouse.