At its August 7 meeting, the Division I Board of Directors will reconsider legislation that supporters say helps protect the academic interests of prospective men’s basketball student-athletes and addresses some of the concerns regarding the increased nonscholastic influences in the lives of high school athletes.

Opponents, however, believe the new rule, which prohibits men’s basketball coaches from observing nonscholastic events in April, will increase costs of recruiting and prevent coaches from seeing top talent competing together.

The national office received 62 requests to override Proposal No. 2007-30-C. In addition to the nonscholastic events restriction, the legislation also shortens the April contact period by at least a week. It takes effect August 1.

The concept was first introduced by the Division I Men’s Basketball Issues Committee, which wanted to not only address concerns voiced by the Board that the nonscholastic environment in men’s basketball was becoming too muddled, but also reinforce the message that academic success of student-athletes – and prospective student-athletes – is a top priority of coaches and administrators.

The National Association of Basketball Coaches, which participated in some of the committee’s discussion and once proposed modifying the April contact period itself, surveyed its membership on the issue last fall, and 61 percent favored the legislation. However, NABC Executive Director Jim Haney said that as the economy has worsened over the past few months, minds may be changing.

Some of those who requested the override believe that limiting the ability to attend the nonscholastic events – which help give coaches a better picture of how the elite players compete against each other and the opportunity to see multiple top players at once – will be an encumbrance to coaches at programs that can’t afford to travel to multiple locations or are still recruiting for the upcoming season.

However, the tournaments, conducted all over the country and attracting prospects from different geographic locations, can infringe upon a high school student’s school week. One basketball coach told the committee that his son, an elite player, attended a tournament that required him to miss school on a Friday to attend. The son’s team did well in the tournament, and he did not arrive home until early Monday morning, requiring him to miss school Monday as well.

That coaches attend these tournaments, and consequently some prospects feel pressure to play in them, sends a mixed message, said committee member and Army Athletics Director Kevin Anderson, who is opposed to the override.

“We have to emphasize early and often that if we have an opportunity for people to take advantage academically, then that’s what they need to do. That’s the priority,” he said.

Anderson, despite knowing that his school would be one of those that would feel the financial burden of losing the “one-stop-shops” the nonscholastic tournaments in April provide, said that he still believes that the Association should stress the academic preparedness of its prospective student-athletes before the competitive elements of men’s basketball.

The bottom line for the basketball issues committee was academics – the committee wanted to underscore the importance of academic preparation, not only of current men’s basketball student-athletes, but also of prospects. Lee Fowler, athletics director at North Carolina State and chair of the committee, said the group wanted to be sure its recommendation was consistent with other work going on within the Association, including the efforts of the Basketball Academic Enhancement Working Group.

“If the coaches are all going to these things and the high school kids feel like they have to go, it was kind of like sending a double message,” Fowler said. “If we’re going to allow (the coaches) to (recruit at) these things then it’s hard for us to say that we really care about (prospects) getting good grades in high school and staying home and really finishing up strong.”

Academic achievement of student-athletes is also important to Phil Martelli, men’s basketball coach at Saint Joseph’s, but he’s not sure that this legislation will accomplish the goal of getting kids to focus in the classroom and not miss high school for basketball tournaments. Some of the responsibility for preparing the prospects for college should fall with parents, he argued, instead of simply eliminating coaches’ ability to recruit at the events.

Martelli said the rule could reduce opportunities for coaches to sign a high school senior who has not decided on a school or been offered a chance to play at college. Additionally, he said, the nonscholastic events and extended April contact period allow new head coaches the opportunity to establish themselves on the recruiting trail and begin developing relationships.

The rule could force coaches to take multiple trips away from their campus and current student-athletes to see one or two prospects at a time, he said.

“Some schools can’t afford for their head coach to – nor should their head coach – be away every night to see one or two prospects,” Martelli said. “To me, the gathering of a number of teams at one location certainly helps some schools financially. They can see 20 games over the course of a weekend as opposed to going to one high school and seeing six or seven kids.”

Allowing coaches to attend the events only one weekend in April would be a compromise Martelli would agree to, he said, and he suggested requiring the events to invite student-athletes from within a certain distance or educating parents about the events as other ways to accomplish the goals of the legislation.

Several coaches whose institutions requested the override believe that a compromise position could be reached – that eliminating the ability to attend the April events completely was not the best solution.

“I don’t know if there’s the perfect answer out there to address all of the different issues,” said Jeff Jones, head men’s basketball coach at American (another school that requested the override). “I think one weekend (in April) would potentially be a good solution or a good compromise.”

The proposal was one of several in the recent cycle that sought to get at the issue, including one that would have required certification of the April events and another that would reduce April observations to one weekend, but Fowler said neither option was attractive to the issues committee because they did not address what the committee saw to be the core issue – academics. Further, the committee believed that limiting observations to one weekend in April would create additional concerns regarding the health, safety and well-being of the participants and coaches.

Haney said that while most of the head coaches surveyed last fall supported the legislation, it was not an overwhelming majority. He believes the coaches at institutions seeking the override were likely in the opposition from the start.

“I hope that people understand that this isn’t personal against the NCAA, the Management Council or the Board of Directors,” he said. “This is personal to each coach, and the coach can’t submit his own override. It’s been discussed on campuses, with the athletics director and ultimately the president. … There’s a sense on individual campuses that this may negatively impact the coach’s ability to field the quality of team that they hope to put on the court.”

At its meeting August 7, the Board can decline to reconsider the legislation, which will send it to a vote of those present at the 2009 NCAA Convention in Washington, D.C. The Board members can also modify the proposal, which would then be subject to a second override period, or they can opt to overturn the legislation, which would be effective immediately.