• The KillerFrogs

DI Cabinet Seeks Feedback On Recruiting Models

JimSwinkLives!

Active Member
[SIZE=14pt]This could be huge. If they desire to do so, the DI schools could radically change athletics recruiting in the new few years.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14pt][/SIZE]
DI cabinet seeks feedback on recruiting models



Apr 20, 2010 9:47:21 AM

By Michelle Brutlag Hosick
The NCAA News
The Division I Recruiting Cabinet is seeking feedback on a variety of approaches to a new recruiting model for Division I.

During every legislative cycle, more proposals aim to tweak recruiting rules than any other section of the Division I Manual. To address an obvious dissatisfaction with current policies, the cabinet embarked on an in-depth review of the recruiting model.

"The membership has made it clear that they are frustrated with the current state of the recruiting rules, and we recognize that by the number of different pieces of legislation that come forward annually," said chair Petrina Long, senior associate athletics director at UCLA. "Instead of continuing to treat this in a piecemeal fashion with a band-aid approach to specific small areas, the cabinet is evaluating the larger model."

The group built three separate models (restrictive, moderate and open) in four main areas of recruiting (evaluations, communications, campus visits and offers of aid). None of the proposals is fully developed, and all are intended to help determine the membership's comfort level with different approaches.

For example, the most restrictive model would not permit offers of aid until a prospect has submitted his or her six-semester high school academic record. A more open model would allow five total official visits per prospect, as long as the prospect is meeting minimum academic progress standards.

The theme of tying recruiting to academic progress is intertwined in many of the suggestions.

Each campus and conference is encouraged to discuss the models. After those discussions are complete, the Recruiting Cabinet asks that schools and conferences either endorse one complete model (restrictive, moderate or open) or match models with areas (for example, be more open with communications and more restrictive with offers of aid or vice versa).

Presenting the models in this way – with a range of options and the ability to "mix and match" between them – helps get all ideas on the table, Long said.

"We've gotten feedback in support of both extremes," she said. "This is an opportunity for people to say what they think is worth exploring and what needs to be taken off the table."

Honest feedback from the membership is vital to the future work of the cabinet, Long said. To ensure effective communication, each of the 21 cabinet members will go to spring and summer conference meetings to check the reaction to the presentation. The survey is due to the NCAA national office on May 28.

At its next meeting, the cabinet is expected to analyze the feedback. If overwhelming support is seen for any particular item, the group could sponsor legislation in the 2010-11 cycle.

"If we don't have (overwhelming support for one thing or another), we will have a direction to go," Long said. "Instead of us making decisions on behalf of the membership, we'd rather they have the opportunity to weigh in. Our role is to serve as a mechanism to get the membership engaged with the topic so we can sift through it and provide some options that will hopefully give us all relief in the end."

The Recruiting Cabinet meets June 8-9 in Indianapolis.

For more information or to provide feedback, contact Jeremiah Carter at [email protected].

Members of the DI Recruiting Cabinet are:

Petrina Long - UCLA
Dan Radakovich - Georgia Tech
Bob Stull - UTEP
Ian McCaw - Baylor
Matt Brewer - Colorado State
Michael Hamilton - Tennessee
Jana Doggett - Utah State
Stephanie Harvey-Vanderberg - Eastern Michigan
Miechelle Willis - Ohio State
C. Alan Verlander - Jacksonville University
Louis Perkins - Arkansas-Pine Bluff
Brian Hutchinson - Moorehead State
Jeff Barber - Liberty
Ron Prettyman - Indiana State
Bridget Martin - McNeese State
Shondell Reed - Colgate
Chris Peterson - Arkansas-Little Rock
Erin Kido - Xavier
Kathleen Maheen - St. John's
Alison Sexton - Fairfield
Nicholas Gannon - Drexel
Audrey Piotrowski - Cleveland State
 

froginaustin

Active Member
restrictive = anti-competitive. Tougher for the new competitor or outsider to break in. Tends to favor established competitors, and the kids that know the rules and how to play them.

open = competitive. It's possible for new competitors to appear, but also might be a lot more expensive to compete effectively. Obviously favors institutions with resources over those starved for cash, and it would tend to let more "hidden jewels" have shots at schollys.

Tough choice, from a selfish institutional point of view.
 

BABYFACE

Full Member
QUOTE(FeistyFrog @ Apr 20 2010, 11:12 AM) [snapback]547361[/snapback]
If they can't or are not willing to enforce the current rules they may as well just open the gates.


Exactly! Since they don't enforce the rules equally at the UT's and such anyway, might as well open the gates for TCU and others to have some of the same opportunities minus the athlete-loaner car program that see at some of the big state schools currently.
 

ShivasFrog

Active Member
Probably moot, because when the Big 64 (four 16-team mega-conferences) breaks away from the NCAA, they'll be writing their own recruiting rules. :ph34r:
 

BABYFACE

Full Member
QUOTE(ShivasFrog @ Apr 20 2010, 11:45 AM) [snapback]547390[/snapback]
Probably moot, because when the Big 64 (four 16-team mega-conferences) breaks away from the NCAA, they'll be writing their own recruiting rules. :ph34r:


Actually, if your school is not part of a dozen big state schools that can hand out 60-90 schollies per year, you schould be against the change of the 85- scholly limit. Only Michigan, UT, and the Ohio States types of the world will have the ability to take advantage of upping or doing away with the scholly limit. The other 52 schools of a supposedly superconference 64 would suffer immensly.
 

JimSwinkLives!

Active Member
It will be interesting to see what scenarios come from this, especially if they prefer to couple recruiting with academic progress. No verbal offers to PSAs until after they have completed six semesters of high school? Official visits determined by the academic progress of the PSA? That would alter recruiting strategies. I'd be interested to see what the membership suggests regarding communication with PSAs.
 

Gunner

Active Member
They enforce on the little guys, but not OU or USC. USC is so terrible, they may be forced to do something, just to hold down the screaming. But then USC will say "we need to get rid of the NCAA"...
 

JimSwinkLives!

Active Member
QUOTE(Gunner @ Apr 20 2010, 03:27 PM) [snapback]547577[/snapback]
They enforce on the little guys, but not OU or USC. USC is so terrible, they may be forced to do something, just to hold down the screaming. But then USC will say "we need to get rid of the NCAA"...



Off topic. Thanks. :wacko:
 
Top