The Division I Board of Directors will consider a set of recruiting restrictions in men’s basketball that would curb compensatory relationships with people associated with prospects and suspend coaches who violate those rules.

The package, backed by conference commissioners and basketball coaches, is intended to address escalating instances of money being funneled to people associated with prospective student-athletes. The proposals the Board will see at its October 29 meeting emerged after a year-long study from the NCAA enforcement staff’s Basketball Focus Group. That study found an increasing number of people involving themselves in the recruiting process and demanding some type of payment or benefit before allowing access to prospects.

The Board will be asked to adopt the recommendations effective immediately.

The proposals better define interaction with people associated with prospects and holds coaches accountable by suspending violators from NCAA postseason or even regular-season play, depending on the severity of the violation.

Southeastern Conference Commissioner Mike Slive, who along with a group of other conference commissioners will present the package to the Board, said the reforms will draw a “bright line” between what is and is not permissible.

“It has become evident that more individuals have inserted themselves into the recruiting process other than the families of the prospects in a way that is contrary to the spirit of the legislation,” he said. “These proposed changes make the spirit of the legislation the letter of the legislation in a way that has not been done in the past.”

The initial recommendations would affect:

• Employment relating to noncoaching staff positions
• Employment at camps and clinics
• Payment of consulting fees
• Subscriptions to recruiting services with limited value
• Donations to nonprofits
• 1-900 numbers for telephone contact with a recruit

An important component of the plan defines “an individual associated with a prospect” as any person who maintains (or directs others to maintain) contact with the prospect, the prospect’s relatives or legal guardians, or coaches at any point during the recruit’s participation in basketball. The “contact” also must be related to the prospect’s athletics skills or his being recruited by, or enrolling at, an NCAA institution. The definition would include parents, guardians, handlers, athletic trainers and coaches.

The proposal also includes sanctions for head coaches and assistant coaches that range from being unable to coach regular-season games to being withheld from coaching NCAA postseason contests. The NCAA enforcement staff and the Division I Committee on Infractions would be the adjudicating bodies in those instances. The proposal also includes tougher eligibility consequences for prospects or student-athletes involved in the violations.

In addition, a tighter definition of the term “recruited prospective student-athlete” (for the purposes of NCAA camps and clinics legislation) would include anyone who has received recruiting materials or had any recruiting contact with a coaching staff member, or was asked to attend an institutional camp or enroll at an institution.

The plan has received broad support from the men’s basketball community, including from the Conference Commissioners Association, which voted unanimously in September to endorse the package.

Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany said that the “chaos” in the men’s basketball recruiting environment required re-regulation.

“This is an attempt to ‘bright-line’ practices that are acceptable and consistent with what we’re trying to accomplish in pre-collegiate basketball,” Delany said. “If you starve the system of money, prospects will be free to make decisions on the basis of the right educational and athletics considerations, rather than because there’s a third-party adult who is influencing him as a result of benefits received.”

Coaches also support the plan. John Beilein, who chairs the NCAA’s Division I Men’s Basketball Ethics Coalition that was created this spring, said the group believes the package aligns with the issues it has been discussing.

“It’s a positive step toward a fair and level playing field,” he said. “Most coaches recruit within the spirit of the rules, but whenever someone has the opportunity to exploit gray areas in the legislation, those who abide by the intent and letter of the rules are left at a disadvantage.”

Jim Haney, executive director of the National Association of Basketball Coaches, said the plan is consistent with the message that his group’s board has been sending as well.

“There need to be some absolutes in terms of holding coaches accountable for their actions,” Haney said. “We’ve been concerned about the flow of money to third parties that could impact a prospective student-athlete. I don’t believe there’s a high propensity of this type of stuff, but we recognize that it does happen. For coaches who are doing this right already, these changes won’t affect them.”

If the Board approves the initial recommendations, proposals would be introduced in the 2009-10 legislative cycle that would target:

• Noncoaching staff hiring practices by prohibiting institutions from hiring as noncoaching personnel individuals associated with prospects two years before or after the prospect’s actual or anticipated enrollment. The legislation is intended to offer coaches a choice between recruiting the prospect and hiring the person associated with the prospect.
• Institutional camp/clinic employment by allowing institutions to hire only its own staff members or enrolled students at its camps and clinics.
• Institutional camp operation by allowing recruiting during institutional camps, and stating that prospects do not have to leave the locale to begin an unofficial visit.
• Nonscholastic events on campus by prohibiting Division I institutions from hosting, sponsoring or conducting nonscholastic men’s basketball events on campus or in facilities regularly used by the institution.
• Payment of consulting fees by prohibiting fees to individuals associated with a prospect.

If approved through the structure, the effective date for all the proposals would be May 1, 2010.

The package also recommends an extended review of men’s basketball recruiting concepts that could result in legislative proposals for the 2010-11 legislative cycle. Those areas include:

• Changes to the recruiting calendar
• Tryouts
• Provision of travel expenses to prospective student-athletes by individuals associated with the prospective student-athlete (other than parents or legal guardians
• Communication with prospects
• Student-athlete eligibility tied to cooperation in NCAA investigations by individuals associated with a prospect or an enrolled student-athlete.

The Division I Recruiting and Athletics Personnel Cabinet and the Men’s Basketball Issues Committee are expected to help with that review.