Indiana University Athletics
Compliance Question Of The Week
Compliance Question Of The Week
Question:
With dead week starting on Monday, and the holidays closing quickly, it's a good time to get a glimpse of what 2012 might have in store for us. In compliance, the second week of January always signals the start of the NCAA Convention, where all new rule proposals will be debated and labeled as adopted, defeated, moot or tabled. Since these proposals came out in August, several have been tweaked in ways that might be important to our programs, so here's a run-down of the final recruiting proposals which will be up for vote next month. Several concepts that were floated and failed last year (like earlier calls) are back in full force, with even earlier communications being proposed, so this information is being provided in an effort to get your feedback!
My comments are bracketed at the end of each description. Note that many of these proposals are likely to be tabled until the April Legislative Council meetings as we wait for the reform movement to play out further. (see last week's QoW for more details).
Answer:
Contacts: 2011-28-A: Would permit parents of current student-athletes to interact with prospects and their parents who are on campus for home athletics events. We could arrange these contacts and would no longer need to monitor discussions between parent groups.[Supported, and likely to be adopted. Preferred over 2011-28-B.]
2011-28-B: Same as version A, but allows those contacts between parents occurring on campus at any time. Does not require a home athletics event in order for parents to interact.[Less support for this idea, simply because most parents would arrive on-campus for events, and only a few would be affected by this more lenient rule change.]
2011-29-A: Would make it permissible for current student-athletes to have off-campus contact with prospects as long as they are not directed to do so by the coaching staff, and the prospect informs the coach that they are making an unofficial visit. Would essentially open the door for prospects to meet up with former classmates/teammates off campus and have a personal visit in conjunction with an unofficial visit, as long as the coaching staff isn't making the arrangements.
2011-29-B: Same as version A, but does not require the prospect to alert the coaching staff that they are making an unofficial visit to the campus. More relaxed, and follows the idea that if the contact between student-athlete and prospect is genuine, they would not need to notify coaches in advance.
2011-41: Would prohibit freshmen from making unofficial visits. Prospects could not have on-campus contact with a coach or athletics staff member, or receive an athletics tour prior to June 15 after the completion of their freshman year.[Preliminary opposition for this idea to curb early recruiting. Difficult to monitor, and unlikely to be adopted.]
Phone Calls:
2011-18: Would allow non-coaching staff members to receive calls from prospects or parents and speak with them on recruiting topics. [There is general support for this idea, but the proposal is likely to be tabled while the Collegiate Model Task Force determines how to best deregulate non-coaching roles.]
2011-30: Would permit coaches to send text messages or instant messages in addition to email, and would provide for unlimited calls to a prospect, all beginning on June 15 following the end of the prospect's sophomore year in high school.[This is the most liberal deregulation proposal, and this reflects an earlier call/text date than originally proposed. There is support for the deregulation of calls and texts, but this is likely to be tabled to secure more feedback from the Collegiate Model Task Force. Also listed below in recruiting materials section.]
2011-31: Would allow unlimited calls to all prospects as of the current start date for each sport (July 1 prior to senior year for most), regardless of recruiting period. No more weekly call limits.[There is general support for this proposal, which is the most mild of the call reform possibilities, but it is still likely to be tabled while the Collegiate Model Task Force works.]
Recruiting Materials/Texts:
2011-30: Would permit coaches to send text messages or instant messages in addition to email, and would provide for unlimited calls to a prospect, all beginning on June 15 following the end of the prospect's sophomore year in high school.[This is the most liberal deregulation proposal, and this reflects an earlier call/text date than originally proposed. There is support for the deregulation of calls and texts, but this is likely to be tabled to secure more feedback from the Collegiate Model Task Force.]
2011-35: Would allow coaches to send all currently permissible recruiting materials (letters or email) starting on June 15th following a prospect's sophomore year in high school.[Moderate change to start date for sending mailings, to allow mailings over the summer prior to start of junior year.]
2011-36: Would add text messages, instant messages and private chat services to the list of permissible forms of communication with prospects, starting September 1 at the start of their junior year.[No change to start date, just a content change to allow texting.]
2011-37: Would allow for any electronic correspondence that can be sent privately between a coach and prospect or parent (includes text, chat, instant messaging - but not Facebook wall posts, message boards), beginning on July 1 following the end of the prospect's sophomore year.[Similar to 2011-30 for early texts, but tries to incorporate a consistent start date for communications by using July 1, which is also the same date you would be eligible to call seniors. This idea is generally supported, but likely to be tabled for more feedback.]
Question:
With dead week starting on Monday, and the holidays closing quickly, it's a good time to get a glimpse of what 2012 might have in store for us. In compliance, the second week of January always signals the start of the NCAA Convention, where all new rule proposals will be debated and labeled as adopted, defeated, moot or tabled. Since these proposals came out in August, several have been tweaked in ways that might be important to our programs, so here's a run-down of the final recruiting proposals which will be up for vote next month. Several concepts that were floated and failed last year (like earlier calls) are back in full force, with even earlier communications being proposed, so this information is being provided in an effort to get your feedback!
My comments are bracketed at the end of each description. Note that many of these proposals are likely to be tabled until the April Legislative Council meetings as we wait for the reform movement to play out further. (see last week's QoW for more details).
Answer:
Contacts: 2011-28-A: Would permit parents of current student-athletes to interact with prospects and their parents who are on campus for home athletics events. We could arrange these contacts and would no longer need to monitor discussions between parent groups.[Supported, and likely to be adopted. Preferred over 2011-28-B.]
2011-28-B: Same as version A, but allows those contacts between parents occurring on campus at any time. Does not require a home athletics event in order for parents to interact.[Less support for this idea, simply because most parents would arrive on-campus for events, and only a few would be affected by this more lenient rule change.]
2011-29-A: Would make it permissible for current student-athletes to have off-campus contact with prospects as long as they are not directed to do so by the coaching staff, and the prospect informs the coach that they are making an unofficial visit. Would essentially open the door for prospects to meet up with former classmates/teammates off campus and have a personal visit in conjunction with an unofficial visit, as long as the coaching staff isn't making the arrangements.
2011-29-B: Same as version A, but does not require the prospect to alert the coaching staff that they are making an unofficial visit to the campus. More relaxed, and follows the idea that if the contact between student-athlete and prospect is genuine, they would not need to notify coaches in advance.
2011-41: Would prohibit freshmen from making unofficial visits. Prospects could not have on-campus contact with a coach or athletics staff member, or receive an athletics tour prior to June 15 after the completion of their freshman year.[Preliminary opposition for this idea to curb early recruiting. Difficult to monitor, and unlikely to be adopted.]
Phone Calls:
2011-18: Would allow non-coaching staff members to receive calls from prospects or parents and speak with them on recruiting topics. [There is general support for this idea, but the proposal is likely to be tabled while the Collegiate Model Task Force determines how to best deregulate non-coaching roles.]
2011-30: Would permit coaches to send text messages or instant messages in addition to email, and would provide for unlimited calls to a prospect, all beginning on June 15 following the end of the prospect's sophomore year in high school.[This is the most liberal deregulation proposal, and this reflects an earlier call/text date than originally proposed. There is support for the deregulation of calls and texts, but this is likely to be tabled to secure more feedback from the Collegiate Model Task Force. Also listed below in recruiting materials section.]
2011-31: Would allow unlimited calls to all prospects as of the current start date for each sport (July 1 prior to senior year for most), regardless of recruiting period. No more weekly call limits.[There is general support for this proposal, which is the most mild of the call reform possibilities, but it is still likely to be tabled while the Collegiate Model Task Force works.]
Recruiting Materials/Texts:
2011-30: Would permit coaches to send text messages or instant messages in addition to email, and would provide for unlimited calls to a prospect, all beginning on June 15 following the end of the prospect's sophomore year in high school.[This is the most liberal deregulation proposal, and this reflects an earlier call/text date than originally proposed. There is support for the deregulation of calls and texts, but this is likely to be tabled to secure more feedback from the Collegiate Model Task Force.]
2011-35: Would allow coaches to send all currently permissible recruiting materials (letters or email) starting on June 15th following a prospect's sophomore year in high school.[Moderate change to start date for sending mailings, to allow mailings over the summer prior to start of junior year.]
2011-36: Would add text messages, instant messages and private chat services to the list of permissible forms of communication with prospects, starting September 1 at the start of their junior year.[No change to start date, just a content change to allow texting.]
2011-37: Would allow for any electronic correspondence that can be sent privately between a coach and prospect or parent (includes text, chat, instant messaging - but not Facebook wall posts, message boards), beginning on July 1 following the end of the prospect's sophomore year.[Similar to 2011-30 for early texts, but tries to incorporate a consistent start date for communications by using July 1, which is also the same date you would be eligible to call seniors. This idea is generally supported, but likely to be tabled for more feedback.]