Reply to lax culture from an insider

Forum Index » Sports General Discussion

Reply to "lax culture from an insider"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]I think you are wrong on that. There already is a rule; no contact with a recruit until Sept 1st of junior year. The ways around the rule have been to communicate with kids or families via third parties and on campus events for underclassmen. which you could argue are not 'contact' and are 'instructional camps' but that's a bridge too far considering they're called prospect days. This legislation simply states no formal or informal recruiting until Sept 1 of junior year. All that remains are the new definitions to the no contact rule in place to prohibit these indirect forms of direct recruiting.

Compliance costs won't change. NCAA required colleges to have a compliance director employed on their own dime. The NCAA has no 'feet in the street' so it also doesn't involve more manpower on the NCAA side. The NCAA brings direct manpower and resources in motion when rule violations are reported. That could happen when NCAA members self report or if a third party reports an infraction. The first would be a compliance director at an NCAA member reporting a violation. The second would be a tip from anyone else and if credible the NCAA has discretion to investigate and sanction. The NCAA isn't in the business of getting it's shoes on to investigate lacrosse programs. That is trusted to the compliance directors to self police for non revenue sports. To the NCAA the stakes are too low to bother, but this issue is too much a bother to keep humoring.

The compliance directors at these colleges deal with the minor sports coaches closely enough. The coaches are told to quarantine any emails or other written communications into a compliance folder if they have any reason to believe responding to them would lead to a rule infraction. The compliance director will review those to decide which correspondences the coach could respond to with or without qualifiers. If this rule passes the added burden will be a beefier email folder filled with notes from club guys, kids and dads until those groups get the hint they won't be responded to. I suppose the badlands would be coach at XYZ talking to Cabell or Trig or whomever else about juniors and seniors and the club guy starts going on about the young stars in the program. But with a little common sense that isn't a big deal at all. Listening to that before hanging up isn't engaging a process to solicit or communicate with the kids or their brokers, and I am reasonably certain that these NCAA lacrosse coaches will be trained by compliance to read the riot act out to club guys or other third parties who call and attempt to engage a rule violation. Club guys will clam up quick because it will be in their self interest do to so otherwise the coaches will stop taking their calls.

Anyone who thinks this rule proposal will not be adopted in some form is either misinformed or is getting their info from 'a club guy who knows a guy'. If you'd like to think those guys are credible or can be trusted, you're on an island as it were.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics