The Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee is opposing legislation that would deregulate telephone contact with prospects because the unlimited phone calls from coaches to recruits in all sports would be too intrusive.

Two proposals, Nos. 2009-32A and 2009-32B, in the current legislative cycle would deregulate phone contact. The initial proposal (32A) would take the action for all sports while 2009-32B would limit the proposal to sports with defined recruiting calendars (baseball, cross country, track and field, men’s and women’s lacrosse, softball, and women’s volleyball).

SAAC chair Matt Baysinger said that the group considers 32B “the lesser of two evils” but would prefer that the Legislative Council approve neither version.

“We understand that there are costs associated with monitoring telephone calls, not only in possible computer programs but also in the time it takes for compliance officials,” Baysinger said. “Even so, the idea of unlimited phone calls is just not right for a lot of sports.”

Advocates for the proposals argue that the model has worked in football, but Baysinger said that football’s restrictive contact periods make it possible. Most sports, especially Olympic sports, have wide-open contact periods, he said.

“We believe the opportunity to call prospects daily for a month-long period is not positive,” he said.

Advocates also contend that prospects can limit the intrusion factor by setting guidelines for when coaches can and can’t call, but Baysinger said that option is not realistic.

“For 17- and 18-year-old kids, it’s difficult to say no – to turn someone down,” he said. “We need to take a step back and look at recruiting periods for all sports. It’s a very muddled system right now. Prospects don’t know the rules and it’s confusing for coaches. We saw the pros and cons for both proposals, but it raises a greater point: We need to take a closer look at recruiting in general.”

Other proposals

The SAAC is strongly supporting Proposal No. 2009-29, which would set a specific timeline that institutions would have to follow when a student-athlete requests permission for another institution to contact him or her in conjunction with the one-time transfer exception. The proposal is a student-athlete well-being issue and would eliminate the fear among student-athletes who wish to transfer that they could be left hanging by their current institution.

“It’s really not fair for student-athletes who want to pursue other schools to not be sure they will have the opportunity to seek scholarships at other institutions,” Baysinger said. “It creates a definitive timeline and allows student-athletes – especially international student-athletes – to conduct the hearing over the phone. It eliminates the possibility of letting the process linger.”

In other positions, the SAAC is opposing a package modifying nonchampionship-competition rules (Proposal Nos. 2009-79A through D). The SAAC is especially opposed to 2009-79D, which eliminates outside competition during the nonchampionship segment in cross country, field hockey, soccer, women’s volleyball and men’s water polo.

Proposal No. 2009-79A would require that travel during the nonchampionship segment in cross country, field hockey, soccer, softball and volleyball be limited to ground transportation. Proposal No. 2009-79B allows an exception for the ground transportation rule if no Division I institutions are located within 400 miles of the institution, and 2009-79C creates an exception for institutions in Hawaii or for schools playing a team in Hawaii.

“We looked closely at these and spent time trying to best interpret the financial priorities of Division I student-athletes,” Baysinger said. “Our top priorities have not changed. We want the opportunity to compete, we want access to academic services and we want access to medical staff through athletic trainers.

“With that in mind, we think limiting the nonchampionship segment would be detrimental to student-athlete well-being. We know cuts should be made, but this is not where.”

Travel decisions and scheduling should be left to institutional discretion, he said, and the proposals could give a competitive advantage to East Coast schools with more competition close by.

All the legislation in the 2009-10 cycle will receive initial votes by the Division I Legislative Council at the 2010 NCAA Convention, January 13-16 in Atlanta. Vice chair Nick Fulton will represent the Division I SAAC. Student-athletes do not have a vote on legislation, but they do have the opportunity to voice their support or opposition for each proposal.