Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Division I Athletics Personnel 2012 NCAA Regional Rules Seminars. Charnele Kemper Leeland Zeller. Agenda. New legislation. Individual associated with a prospective student-athlete – men’s basketball. NCAA Working Group on Collegiate Model – Bylaw 11 commitments and concepts. Other issues.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Division I Athletics Personnel2012 NCAA Regional Rules Seminars Charnele Kemper Leeland Zeller
Agenda • New legislation. • Individual associated with a prospective student-athlete – men’s basketball. • NCAA Working Group on Collegiate Model – Bylaw 11 commitments and concepts. • Other issues.
Session Goals • Understand the application of new athletics personnel concepts/legislation. • Provide feedback regarding NCAA Rules Working Group concepts.
Learning Objectives • Describe the legislative concepts/changes. • Apply the new legislation to specific scenarios on campus. • Recognize potential issues in the area of athletics personnel.
FBS – Weight or Strength Coaches – General Requirements • Noncountable coaches. • Permitted to conduct flexibility, warm-up and physical conditioning activities. • If a weight or strength coach engages in activities other than strength and conditioning – must count in limit for countable coaches.
FBS – Weight or Strength Coaches – New Legislation • NCAA Proposal No. 2010-19. • Limit of 5 strength coaches permitted to work with football. • Includes all workouts, practices and games. • Adopted January 15, 2011. • Effective August 1, 2012.
FBS – Weight or Strength Coach • Individuals who meet requirements to be in another coaching category are not included in limit (e.g., undergraduate student assistant). • Institutions with strength and conditioning programs as an academic discipline – students must count in limit if they work with football.
FBS – Weight or Strength Coach • If a weight or strength coach only works with football on a few occasions per year – still count toward limit (5/4/2012 staff determination). • May not rotate individuals during the academic year (5/13/1992 staff confirmation). • Temporary replacement permissible per Bylaw 184.108.40.206.1.2.
FBS – Number of Graduate Assistant Coaches – New Legislation • Proposal No. 2010-17. • Increases limit on the number of coaches from 2 to 4. • Adopted April 28, 2011. • Effective August 1, 2012.
FBS – Number of Graduate Assistant Coaches – New Legislation Reminders: • When may the additional graduate assistant coaches begin coaching activities? • August 1, 2012. • Appointment may be made before August 1 and logistical and administrative arrangements may be made (e.g., details of appointment, provide playbook, etc.).
FBS – Number of Graduate Assistant Coaches – New Legislation • May a graduate assistant coach receive additional compensation for coaching duties during preseason practice? • No, the limit on compensation for coaching is the value of a full grant-in-aid for the academic year. Staff interpretation 5/15/1991.
FBS – Number of Graduate Assistant Coaches – New Legislation • May an individual fill a different position (administrative assistant) and perform other duties (noncoaching) before August 1 and begin coaching duties August 1 as a graduate assistant? • Yes.
Recruiting Coordination Functions – Telephone Calls • Proposal No. 2011-18. • Permits an institutional staff member to receive calls from prospective student-athletes (PSAs). • Adopted April 26, 2012. • Effective immediately.
Recruiting Coordination Functions – Telephone Calls • Institutional staff members may receive telephone calls from PSAs made at their own expense at anytime. • No restrictions on content of conversation. • May include recruiting conversations.
Individual Associated with a Prospective Student-Athlete – Men’s Basketball
Transfer of Interpretive Authority • October 2009 – NCAA Board of Directors provided NCAA enforcement staff with interpretive authority for certain issues in men’s basketball. (Educational column 10/27/2011) • April 2012 – Board approved transfer of authority to NCAA academic and membership affairs (AMA). • Effective June 15, 2012.
Transfer of Interpretive Authority • In order to ensure consistency, AMA will: • Apply rationale supporting Board’s October 2009 actions; • Provide responses based on established precedent; and • Confer with enforcement on cases of first impression.
Individual Associated with a Prospective Student-Athlete – Men’s Basketball • Bylaw 11.4.2. • For a 2-year period before anticipated enrollment and 2-year period after actual enrollment. • No employment in any athletics department noncoaching staff position or in a strength and conditioning staff position.
Individual Associated with a PSA – Men’s Basketball Bylaw 13.02.17 Definition Part I • Any person who maintains or directs others to maintain contact* with a: • PSA; • PSA’s relatives or legal guardians; or • PSA’s coach. *Contact at any point during basketball participation.
Individual Associated with a PSA – Men’s Basketball Definition Part II • Whose contact is directly or indirectly related to the PSA’s: • Athletics skills and abilities; or • Recruitment by or enrollment at an NCAA institution.
Individual Associated with a PSA – Men’s Basketball • Individual Associated with a PSA (IAWP) could include (but is not limited to): • Parents; • Legal guardians; • Recruiting advisors (handlers); • Personal trainers; or • Coaches.
Individual Associated with a PSA – Men’s Basketball • Pre-existing relationship does not negate IAWP status or make actions permissible. • Pre-existing relationship nonfactor in violation analysis. • Pre-existing relationship may be considered mitigation in determining penalties.
Individual Associated with a PSA – Men’s Basketball • Classification and analysis of IAWP is prospect-specific. • Once classified, individuals retain IAWP status during PSA/SA enrollment. • May be considered IAWP for multiple PSAs.
Individual Associated with a PSA – Men’s Basketball • Institutions may be faced with a choice between the IAWP and a PSA.
Individual Associated with a PSA – Men’s Basketball • What is the result if an institution hires an IAWP and the PSA (with whom the IAWP is associated) enrolls at the institution within the prohibited time period? • The PSA would be permanently ineligible at the institution. • PSA could transfer and be immediately eligible through an SLR waiver.
Individual Associated with a PSA – Men’s Basketball • What is the result if a PSA with whom an IAWP is associated enrolls and the institution hires the IAWP a year later? • The SA would become permanently ineligible at the institution. • SA could transfer and be immediately eligible through an SLR waiver.
Individual Associated with a PSA – Men’s Basketball • May an institution avoid a violation by moving the IAWP from a noncoaching position to a coaching position or if the IAWP is fired? • No. The specified time period continues to apply based on when IAWP was hired in a noncoaching position.
Individual Associated with a PSA – Men’s Basketball • Does the legislation apply to college coaches? • Yes. Any PSAs (including 4-year transfer students) who are associated with the coach who enroll within the specified time period would be permanently ineligible. (Staff advisory 12/7/2011)
NCAA Bylaw 11 Rules Working Group Concepts
Concept No. 1 Concept No. 1: Eliminate the regulations governing contractual agreements and compensation from sources outside an institution. Rationale: The regulations governing contractual agreements between an institution and its athletics department staff members and the receipt of compensation from sources outside the institution are not of national significance. It should be each institution's responsibility to address these matters in accordance with its own policies and procedures.
Concept No. 1 Points to Consider: • Reduces administrative burden for compliance staff. • Athletics staff should be treated in the same manner as all institutional employees. • The significant increase in the number of athletics department staff members, especially part-time employees, makes the annual reporting process a significant undertaking.
Concept No. 1 Questions: 1. Do you support this concept? Why or why not? 2. Are institutional policies, if implemented, enough to maintain institutional control? Why or why not?
Concept No. 2 Concept No. 2: Eliminate the regulations defining recruiting coordination functions that must be performed by head or assistant coaches. Rationale: The regulations defining recruiting coordination functions that must be performed only by a head or assistant coach are not of national significance and, in many instances, present enforcement challenges. Each institution should be responsible for establishing its own policies and procedures related to the recruitment of prospective student-athletes, including the roles and responsibilities of all athletics department staff members. The current rules requiring off-campus recruitment to be performed only by countable coaches would remain applicable.
Concept No. 2 Points to Consider: • Eliminating such regulations would reduce compliance monitoring; countless hours are spent defining "recruiting coordination" and "clerical tasks." • Elimination of the recruiting coordination function restrictions could result in a proliferation in the number of noncoaching staff members employed by institutions. • Administrative personnel decisions should be left to institutional discretion, not regulated by legislation. • May alleviate some of the administrative burden on coaches and permit them to focus more attention on traditional coaching duties and the needs of current student-athletes.
Concept No. 2 Points to Consider (continued): • Valuable experience can be gained by individuals interested in pursuing a coaching career. • Potential increase in expenditures if institutions hire additional noncoaching administrative personnel. Question: • Do you support this concept? Why or why not?
Concept No. 3 Concept No. 3: Eliminate the annual certification requirement applicable to coaches involved in off-campus recruiting. Rationale: The annual certification requirement is not of national significance. Institutions and/or conferences, at their discretion, should be responsible for developing rules education materials/tests designed to ensure that coaches engaged in recruiting activities have a sufficient working knowledge of the recruiting rules.
Concept No. 3 Points to Consider: • Exam was instituted when many institutions did not have fully dedicated compliance departments in place. • Intent was to ensure athletics recruiters have sufficient understanding of NCAA recruiting rules before recruiting off campus. • Requires coaches to focus on rules and to interact with the compliance staff. • Passage rate at NCAA Division I for the last 3 years has been 97%. • Institutions could establish a more robust continuing education program with assistance from the NCAA national office.
Concept No. 3 Questions: 1. Do you support this concept? Why or why not? 2. Are there other more effective ways to conduct a certification program for coaches in order to ensure they are knowledgeable of the rules? Why or why not?
Concept No. 4 Concept No. 4: Eliminate the regulations governing scouting of opponents and permit live, in-person scouting or prohibit all live, in-person scouting in all sports, while retaining the current exceptions in Bylaw 11.6.1 (basketball, football and women's volleyball prohibition) through Bylaw 11.6.4 (cost of exchanging video). Rationale: The regulations governing scouting of opponents are not of national significance. Widespread availability of video would suggest minimal competitive advantage would be gained from in-person scouting and would be offset by the coach's diversion from other coaching responsibilities.
Concept No. 4 Points to Consider: • NCAA Division I Legislative Council did not support eliminating the scouting prohibition in its entirety, but instead preferred prohibiting live scouting in all sports, with exceptions for same-site competition activities. • Intent of original legislation was cost savings. • Some sports may not have extensive videos for exchange.
Concept No. 4 Questions: 1. Do you support the concept of eliminating the regulations governing scouting of opponents in its entirety and allow institutions to decide when and whom to scout at its discretion? Why or why not? 2. Do you support modifying the rule to prohibit all live in-person scouting of opponents, while maintaining current exceptions (e.g., scouting future opponents participating in same-site events)? Why or why not?
Concept No. 5 Concept No. 5: Eliminate coaching categories. Rationale: The elimination of coaching categories is designed to simplify/deregulate the coaching limitations without compromising the principle of fair competition.
Concept No. 5 Points to Consider: • This change would maintain a specific number of countable coaches in each sport. • Undergraduate/graduate student coaches in all sports who meet certain academic-based criteria and strength and conditioning coaches (in sports other than FBS) would be exempt from limitations. • Eliminates the volunteer coach category.
Concept No. 5 Points to Consider (continued): • Institutions should keep on file a list of countable coaches, but such a requirement would not be a national regulation. A conference, at its discretion, may request the list. • The issues related to noncoaching staff members in the sports of football and basketball continue to be discussed.
Concept No. 5 Questions: 1. Do you support this concept? Why or why not? 2. Do you support excluding graduate assistant coaches as countable coaches in all sports, provided the graduate student is enrolled full time, in good academic standing, and has no previous collegiate or professional coaching experience? Why or why not? • Does excluding all graduate assistant coaches as countable coaches equitably offset the 4 current graduate assistants permitted in FBS football? Should additional countable coaches be permitted in FBS?
Concept No. 5 Questions (continued): 3. Do you support the elimination of the volunteer coaching category? Why or why not? 4. If the volunteer coaching category is eliminated, would you support sports that currently include a volunteer coach being permitted to employ one additional countable coach to offset the elimination? Why or why not? 5. Should sports with multiple volunteer coaches be permitted to hire more than one additional countable coach? Why or why not?
Concept No. 5 Questions (continued): 6. Do you support establishing numbers of noncoaching staff members who may be involved in supporting football or basketball programs in any capacity? If not, please specify other, more effective ways (e.g., bench limitations) to control issues related to the proliferation of noncoaching staff members in football and basketball.
Concept No. 5 Questions (continued): 7. Do you support establishing specific criteria for determining a countable coach as set forth in revised Bylaw 11.3.1 (control of employment and salaries)? Why or why not? [Note: This would eliminate current legislation related to temporary consultants and noncoaching staff members.] • Is there concern that the recommended criteria will result in an increase of noncoaching staff members? Why or why not? 8. Do you support maintaining the current number (5) of strength and conditioning coaches in FBS? Why or why not?
Concept No. 6 Concept No. 6: Create additional regulations to prohibit the employment of coaches who remain employed in coaching PSAs who participate on nonscholastic teams/clubs. Rationale: Limits opportunities for third party involvement in institutional athletics programs, as well as eliminates unenforceable rules that require institutions to attempt to monitor recruiting conversations and conduct that occurs in the course of secondary employment.