Potential Changes to CFB and Recruiting Rules

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
The change I would like to see is a rollback of the scholarship cap to 100 to level the playing field. 25/100 and the schools that employ fuzzy math lose their advantage.

Interesting but not workable for ND with no JUCOs and rare transfers accepted.

The 25 is not adequate to replenish a base of 100 considering attrition to injury, academics, "I miss my girl friend", etc.


Former Tennessee head coach Johnny Majors was new at Pittsburgh in '73 and was the prime reason for the NCAA setting recruiting limits. He brought in about 100 freshman on scholarship with the prior approval of the school administration. Summer practices were tryouts as he separated the chaff from the wheat. Every position was contested. The practices and workouts were brutal. Quit or get cut and you were off scholarship.

PITT bought themselves a title in '76 on the backs of the 100 plus the legs of a RB named Dorsett who was one of the 100.

Majors made 10 in home visits to Dorsett's house. PITT ***'t coach Jackie Sherrill average 3 vists a week for 6 months to see Dorsett. Sherrill's mother baked Dorsett's favorite pie whenever Dorsett visited campus.

All of the above are NCAA violations today. The NCAA recruiting regs are extensive because coaches like Majors, Bryant, and Saban are constantly trying to circumvent them to get an edge.



Back to increasing the 85 to 100.

All the smaller schools/programs would fight this. The additional 15 players and the equipment, support staff, recruiting expense etc would add about a $1 million a year to their budgets. Most programs don't make money from football and for them the red ink would increase. At some that barely make a profit, non-revenue sports like LAX would take the hit. The Alabama's, Michigan's, etc would welcome the escalation in the Arms (and legs) Race. Outspend the competition!
 

Rhode Irish

Semi-retired
Messages
7,057
Reaction score
900
BGIF, I think the point is that you don't NEED 100 anyways. There is always going to be that attrition you're talking about, but with an 85 limit you could get caught with only 75 guys. If the limit were 100 and you lost the same 10 spots trough attrition, you'd still have more than enough guys to field a competitive team. With the limit at 85, it really only impacts teams like ND that won't oversign, grey shirt, cut players, etc., because the football factories will do that stuff to stay at 85. Obviously, you'd end with the same problem with respect to the 100 limit, but being at a 10 player disadvantage is less damaging when you have 90 guys as opposed to 75.

I don't know that it is a perfect solution, but at least I think that is the idea.
 

irish1958

Príomh comhairleoir
Messages
1,039
Reaction score
112
This would solve the problem overnight. Multiply the score by the real 4 year graduation rate of the fifty scholarship players who played the most minutes during the previous season, and round it down to the lowest whole number.
There would be no recruiting rules and no recruiting limits.
If your graduation rate is 67% a touchdown would be 4 points. A basket would be one point. And so forth.
 

phork

Raining On Your Parade
Messages
9,863
Reaction score
1,019
Base current years recruiting numbers on last years Grad Rates. 100% grad rate == you get to sign 35 kids, 40% grad rate you get to sign 10.

Also no contact with a recruit once they have committed, unless they contact you.
 

WakeUpEchoes

New member
Messages
2,574
Reaction score
101
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>The problem w/ NCAA recruiting rules is they try to apply to all sports. Football's $$, more coaches, more recruits = more potential abuse.</p>— Stewart Mandel (@slmandel) <a href="https://twitter.com/slmandel/status/301081394925412352">February 11, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

WakeUpEchoes

New member
Messages
2,574
Reaction score
101
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>But of course, the recruiting proposals passed w/ almost no input from people involved in football. <a href="http://t.co/IfkGoH6R" title="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130125/ncaa-rulebook-changes-recruiting/index.html">sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-footba…</a></p>— Stewart Mandel (@slmandel) <a href="https://twitter.com/slmandel/status/301081893414256640">February 11, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
Big Ten schools pushing to override NCAA recruiting rules - CBSSports.com

By Jeremy Fowler | College Football Insider
February 11, 2013 6:19 pm ET

Big Ten schools are in the process of sending official requests to override the NCAA's proposed ruling for unlimited communication with recruits, according to University of Nebraska faculty athletics rep Josephine Potuto.

The Big Ten on Monday announced the league's coaches and athletics directors are pushing back against a set of proposed NCAA rules, including:

*Proposal 11-2: Athletics Personnel -- Limitations on the Number and Duties of Coaches --Elimination of Recruiting Coordination Functions

Proposal 13-3: Recruiting -- Deregulation of Modes and Numerical Limitations on Communication
*Proposal 13-5-A: Recruiting -- Elimination of Printed Recruiting Materials and Video/Audio Legislation

...

Potuto said Big Ten athletics directors recently had a conference call to discuss how their schools were “particularly unhappy about the rules.”

As John Infante from athleticscholarships.net points out, proposals need 75 override requests to send back to the NCAA board of directors for reconsideration.

An assistant coach from a BCS school said such conference messages aren't surprising because he believes roughly 80 percent of the coaches don't like the proposed rule change.
 

GoldenIsThyFame

Well-known member
Messages
10,899
Reaction score
789
This is what we have come to

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>RT @<a href="https://twitter.com/jfowlercbs">jfowlercbs</a>: Head coach told me he heard from SEC school that's hiring staffers to do 1 thing: Text top recruits 100-150 times per day.</p>— Bruce Feldman (@BFeldmanCBS) <a href="https://twitter.com/BFeldmanCBS/status/309330724991930368">March 6, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Unlimited texts is not the recruiting rule that schools are freaking out about, it's unlimited recruiting staff. Arms race has already begun</p>— Stewart Mandel (@slmandel) <a href="https://twitter.com/slmandel/status/309334753897746433">March 6, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Last edited:
K

koonja

Guest
That's going to really annoy some recruits. I hope and expect that BK, staff, Jack, and whoever else is involved with recruiting is formulating a strategy that will be classy and informative.
 

PANDFAN

Look Down
Messages
16,770
Reaction score
2,278
That's going to really annoy some recruits. I hope and expect that BK, staff, Jack, and whoever else is involved with recruiting is formulating a strategy that will be classy and informative.

how are they supposed to focus on studying????

we here in the SEC care about our student athletes
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
These recruiting assistants are either going to be texting as themselves (in which case, who cares?) or as one of the coaches.

If I'm a top recruit and Nick Saban appears to be texting me hundreds of times per day... would anyone be stupid enough to believe it's really him? If so, I know a few Nigerian princes that would be interested in discussing a lucrative business opportunity with him.

Hopefully our staff can tell kids that when they get a text from one of them, it's really from them and not a twenty-something "recruiting analyst" pretending to be them.
 
Last edited:
K

koonja

Guest
These recruiting assistants are either going to be texting as themselves (in which case, who cares?) or as one of the coaches.

If I'm a top recruit and Nick Saban appears to be texting me hundreds of times per day... would anyone be stupid to believe it's really him? If so, I know a few Nigerian princes that would be interested in discussing a lucrative business opportunity with them.

Hopefully our staff can tell kids that when they get a text from one of them, it's really from them and not a twenty-something "recruiting analyst" pretending to be them.

Kids are going to get told so much **** that's not even true. I wish the NCAA could mandate a crash-course in cyphering through BS before a recruit is allowed to accept a scholarship.
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
You have it before the season. It forces schools to be upfront with players... so no more ditching someone if they get hurt, etc. or offering someone you expect to push out later for a better player. If you buy a line from a coach and sign and change your mind well then that's your fault. What you'll see is kids declaring later if they're not 110% sure and kids who ARE 110% sure getting the spot they deserve without some less ethical coaches being able to take it away.

You leave an out clause in early signing for coaches getting fired or sanctions.

So the school is on the hook, regardless of changing circumstances, but the kid can bolt if things change? I don't understand this thinking. Personally, I think that schools have an obligation to the kids they recruit, but the letter of intent is a contract. I don't understand why it would be ok for a kid to break the contract, if he isn't going to play for the coach who recruited him(regardless of whether or not the new coach is competent?), but it wouldn't be ok for the school to break the contract if the kid gets injured to the point where he may not be able to fulfill his terms of the contract, by playing football at a DI-A level?
 
K

koonja

Guest
So the school is on the hook, regardless of changing circumstances, but the kid can bolt if things change? I don't understand this thinking. Personally, I think that schools have an obligation to the kids they recruit, but the letter of intent is a contract. I don't understand why it would be ok for a kid to break the contract, if he isn't going to play for the coach who recruited him(regardless of whether or not the new coach is competent?), but it wouldn't be ok for the school to break the contract if the kid gets injured to the point where he may not be able to fulfill his terms of the contract, by playing football at a DI-A level?

Recruiting needs to quit putting coaches on the pedestal. If a kid commits to a school based on a coach being there, and that coach leaves, I have no problem with the kid having to stay even if he/she regrets their decision. It's there fault for having the wrong idea going into signing with said-school (coach). Your contract is to the school, not said-coach.
 

phork

Raining On Your Parade
Messages
9,863
Reaction score
1,019
There needs to be some rules to protect these kids. For instance, if I am a recruit and name my Top5 then everyone else better leave me alone. I could see harassment lawsuits coming out of this.

I can see the glamour of everyone wanting your ***, but at the same time I would rather just have it done with.
 

IrishinTN

Well-known member
Messages
1,894
Reaction score
340
What if the kid says "leave me alone, I'm on vacation." It's not as easy as turning your phone off to avoid them. Someone you care about may actually need you or you might get into a situation where you need help by cell phone. If my kid had 12 or more schools texting him triple digits a day, I'd probably throw the freaking phone in the trash.
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
There needs to be some rules to protect these kids. For instance, if I am a recruit and name my Top5 then everyone else better leave me alone. I could see harassment lawsuits coming out of this.

I can see the glamour of everyone wanting your ***, but at the same time I would rather just have it done with.


Note to the attorneys on the board:

Put together a "CFB recruit restraining order" package, sit back, and watch the money roll in.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,544
Reaction score
28,990
So the school is on the hook, regardless of changing circumstances, but the kid can bolt if things change? I don't understand this thinking.

It's actually quite simple. Coaching changes, sanctions, etc. are elective things that happen at the school. They are choosing to do them and it changes the total package for the kid who should be allowed then to re-evaluate all of his options.

Blowing out your knee is NOT elective. Schools would be allowed to drop a kid from his commitment for elective things like getting arrested, failing classes, etc. So the street goes both ways.

Personally, I think that schools have an obligation to the kids they recruit, but the letter of intent is a contract. I don't understand why it would be ok for a kid to break the contract, if he isn't going to play for the coach who recruited him(regardless of whether or not the new coach is competent?), but it wouldn't be ok for the school to break the contract if the kid gets injured to the point where he may not be able to fulfill his terms of the contract, by playing football at a DI-A level?

This actually isn't even very accurate under current rules. An associate of mine (definitely wouldn't go so far as to say "friend") in high school was McDonald's AA Scottie Reynolds. He signed his LOI to Oklahoma and then the coach bolted for Indiana... so he asked out of his LOI, and the school said sure. This was a 5:s: program changing recruit and they did the right thing. It's not nearly the "contract" people think it is... 9/10 if you ask out of your LOI for a legitimate reason the school says OK.

The premise that anything in college athletics is a "contract" is basically false. The only thing you ever sign is a LOI that grants you a scholarship (or partial scholarship, or just admittance) to a university for 1 year under the understanding that you will participate on their sports team. It's not a contract because:
1. There are no consequences to you opting to simply not show up at the school.
2. The school can cut your scholarship at any time for virtually any reason.

So no one is really locked in to anything at all. People are currently pushing more and more for schools to be "contractually" obligated (i.e. 4 year scholarships), and what I was proposing makes the kids more "contractually" obligated by giving more weight to an early commitment/LOI to keep the equation balanced. In doing so though you absolutely 100% have to have out clauses for BOTH sides if the situation noticeably changes by someone's volition. I simply didn't enumerate the ones from the college's side because I thought they were obvious and intuitive.
 

Kaneyoufeelit

Bowl Eligible
Messages
4,440
Reaction score
635
Here's an article which explains that the rule eliminating the size of recruiting staffs and the one that eliminated restrictions on printed recruiting materials have been put on hold and will be reworked in May. The quote is that this rule changes were "dead on arrival" in the hands of the larger membership.

edit: Discontent Puts Brakes on College Recruiting Rule Changes 
 
Last edited:

Kaneyoufeelit

Bowl Eligible
Messages
4,440
Reaction score
635
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-cards="hidden" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p>RT @<a href="https://twitter.com/john_infante">john_infante</a>: the Board of Directors suspends the unlimited phone calls and text message proposal: <a href="http://t.co/bctyTLTZ7f" title="http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/resources/latest+news/2013/april/board+suspends+changes+to+recruiting+communications+rules">ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connec…</a></p>— Bruce Feldman (@BFeldmanCBS) <a href="https://twitter.com/BFeldmanCBS/status/330075297112289282">May 2, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Board suspends changes to recruiting communications rules - NCAA.org
 

GoldenIsThyFame

Well-known member
Messages
10,899
Reaction score
789
Pretty big proposal, essentially if a kid transfers he will have to sit out a year but won't lose a year of eligibility.

DI to discuss recruiting, student welfare rules | NCAA Public Home Page - NCAA.org
In addition, the Leadership Council will consider a recommendation from the Transfer Issues Subcommittee that could allow qualified transferring student-athletes the opportunity to extend the traditional five-year period of eligibility by one year. This option would replace the ability for student-athletes to play immediately after transferring.
 
Last edited:

IrishLion

I am Beyonce, always.
Staff member
Messages
19,127
Reaction score
11,075
Pretty big proposal, essentially if a kid transfers he will have to sit out a year but won't lose a year of eligibility. No more hardship waiver processes.

DI to discuss recruiting, student welfare rules | NCAA Public Home Page - NCAA.org

I wonder how this would affect athletes with the potential to get a 6th year due to injury. If an athlete loses two years due to injury and also transfers, would they then have seven years to play four? Rather than 6 to play four?
 

tko

I am Legend
Messages
8,516
Reaction score
1,710
UCLA is exempt from any of this. Kids can play immediately there no matter what. A big reason Mora stayed there.
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
I would create a situation where:

(1) much more lenient contact rules with committed kids
(2) other schools get ZERO contact with a committed kid, UNLESS the kid reaches out to them first, in writing
(3) if a committed kid wants to contact another school in writing, he has to inform the school where he is committed first

Perhaps also...

(3) Two year scholarship minimums and
(4) Kids who do not maintain grades are automatically counted against the scholarship limit for two years or until they have enrolled in another school and are once again in good standing academically.

Someone will sue the NCAA, claiming that this rule in effect bars the other schools from even sending a congratulatory note to the kid, since many of the kids will be incapable of actually communicating in writing. Most of them are practically illiterate, ya know?
 

dublinirish

Everestt Gholstonson
Messages
27,314
Reaction score
13,087
UCLA is exempt from any of this. Kids can play immediately there no matter what. A big reason Mora stayed there.

a whole bunch of grandma's/parents/unborn babies are gonna be needing healthcare in the future...
 
Top