The “Showtime” Los Angeles Lakers have lost their mojo.

The storied organization that has won 16 NBA titles on the broad shoulders of some of the greatest players of all time, like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Magic Johnson, has quickly become one of the worst teams in the NBA. Over the last three years, the Lakers have finished dead last in their division each season.

The fall of the Lakers over the last few seasons has mirrored the decline of their superstar player Kobe Bryant, who recently retired. With Kobe no longer in the fold, the rabid fan base is pressuring ownership to find another franchise player and resurrect their winning ways.

The person ultimately tasked with this turnaround is team president Jeanie Buss. The obvious decision for her is to overhaul the front office; however, in order to shake things up, she’ll have to fire her brother.

The Lakers are a family organization

While Jeanie handles the team’s business affairs and deals with league matters, her brother, Jim, makes all the basketball decision as the vice president of basketball operations.

At issue with many fans is Jim’s timeline announced in April of 2014 when he threatened to resign if the Lakers were not competitive by the next season. As we know, the Lakers were continued to be irrelevant in 2015 and 2016 and Jim was not held to his word.

According to a recent NBA A to Z podcast with USA Today Sports.,

I think that (Jim Buss) was very sure of himself when he promised that timeline, and I think that he has everything he needs to fulfill that promise of getting the team back competitive. … (Jim and general manager Mitch Kupchak) have earned the right to take the time that they’ve needed to put together what they want to have on the court, and if they can’t do that then we have to reexamine how things are going.

It appears that Jim will have a very long leash to turn things around which likely angers fans who have another candidate to rebuild the franchise whom Jeanie knows very well.

Bring on the Zen Master

Since Jeanie Buss has been in a long-term relationship with the NBA coach with the most career titles, Phil Jackson, many fans hope that she will be able to convince the Zen Master to make a triumphant return to Los Angeles. That’d be a lot easier if he wasn’t already in the middle of a 5-year, $60 million as the president of the New York Knicks. Also, he has not exactly turned things around for the Knicks, another underachieving team with a storied history.

The fans of the Lakers are so used to winning that they have forgotten what it took to build the team that won five titles in the 2000s. The Lakers became a contender by picking a superstar in the draft, Kobe Bryant, and signing a marquee free agent, Shaquille O’Neal.

Since it only takes a couple of superstars to be a title contender in the NBA, the Lakers could conceivably make a fast turnaround. Last year, they picked D’Angelo Russell, who off-the-court problems aside has superstar potential, they have the second overall pick in the 2016 NBA Draft and Los Angeles remains an attractive destination for free agents.

So, Jeanie Buss’ patience might be a good lesson for all Lakers fans.

Alverno College Sports Recruiting.

Atlantic Cape Community College Sports Recruiting.

The post LA Lakers. Is Jeanie Buss Really Running Things appeared first on Athnet.

Intercollegiate rugby is not just a game played by bearded warriors with impossibly high pain thresholds. It’s now arguably America’s fastest growing sport for both men and women.

Participation has been in the rise for years and there are currently 1.2 million Americans playing, including 32,000 participants at 900 college programs, according to USA Today. Major television networks, like NBC, have started to broadcast live matches, and rugby will be featured in the 2016 Olympic Summer Games.

Rugby is approaching its tipping point in the States, so let’s get out there on the pitch and learn about footy.

Rugby vs. Football

Like football, the object of rugby is to get a  ball passed an opponent’s touch line or kick it between goal posts. Unlike football, rugby has 15 players per team on the pitch (not field) at any given time. There are no time stoppages outside of halftime.

Despite these differences, the games are similar in spirit with lots of contact and tough competitors. At the highest level, rugby stars resemble and even sometimes exceed NFL players in stature in speed. For example, rugby legend Jonah Lomu, who was pursued by Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones in the 1990s, stood 6-feet, 5-inches tall, weighed 262 pounds and had sprinter speed. Check out his highlights:

The history of college rugby

Intercollegiate rugby set the stage for modern American football back in the 19th century. Schools like Harvard, Yale, Columbia and Princeton competed against each other for years in rugby before Yale coach Walter Camp modified the rules, most importantly instituting four downs to gain 10 yards, to create an entirely new sport of football.
Camp’s modified game flourished during the 20th century while rugby became less popular.

In the 1960s, rugby had a bit of resurgence on college campuses and eventually the United States of America Rugby Football Union (what is now USA Rugby) was formed in 1976. By 1980, there were more than 1,000 rugby clubs nationwide. Over the last few years, these clubs have matured into varsity sports and some schools have begun to offer rugby scholarships for both men and women.

Intercollegiate rugby taps into international mass appeal

Other than a willingness to hit and be hit, rugby does not discriminate, as roughly one-quarter of club participants are female. In addition to being inclusive, rugby is non-stop action; there are no lulls in play or timeouts.
But, most importantly, rugby is about coming together and bonding with your teammates in the face of adversity. This camaraderie is seemingly the viral component of its appeal. Rugby coach Jay Day told USA Today:

“It’s a team sport. Everyone works together both on and off the field. Rugby isn’t always about winning either. It’s a chance to build fun and uplifting memories and to help develop lifelong skills of hard work, dedication and respect.”

The fraternal order of rugby players is on full display during a tradition called the “talk story,” where players and coaches from both teams come together to socialize after matches.

Evan Goodman. Pac 12 Breakout Star.

Avila University Sports recruiting.

The post College Rugby appeared first on Athnet.

No Contact Means No Interest

Rule number one, if a school hasn’t contacted you (or your coaches) in any way, don’t assume they are interested. Many people think a program might be interested in them, but isn’t showing interest yet because of the �첥��Ƶ contact rules. The truth is, if a college program wants you to know they like you, they will find a way and they won’t wait. There are several different types of interest from coaches and they all mean different things.

If a Coach Gives You Their Personal Contact Info, That is a Great Sign

College coaches guard their privacy and while you can often find an email address and phone number for them on the school website, their personal info isn’t listed there. If you are a high value recruit, a coach will give you their personal cell phone number. Additionally, some coaches have a personal email (not listed on the school website) and they might give you that as well, so you can easily contact them. If you are fortunate enough to get this info from a coach, use it and show interest by calling and emailing your with questions.

Personal Letters or Emails Saying “We Know Who You Are”

The next best level of contact to receive from a coach is a letter, email or phone call, letting you know they know who you are and they will be continuing to watch you. This usually means they have you ranked in the second tier of their recruiting class and your offer (whatever it will be) will need to wait until they know what is going to happen with their top ranked recruits. This is a great position to be in (most schools miss out on their top recruits). If you are getting this type of interest, you will have to be patient because your offer is going to be determined by the recruits they have ranked ahead of you.

Impersonal Letters Inviting You to Camps or to Fill Out a Recruiting Questionnaire

The introductory level of interest a college program will show you is sending generic letters inviting you to camps or asking you to fill out a recruiting questionnaire. While this is better than not receiving anything, many athletes take this to mean the program is seriously recruiting them and they don’t follow up properly. Think of this a request for a or upcoming schedule; these coaches are looking for the info they can use to make a preliminary evaluation and see if they want to follow up and watch you more. It is critical you respond to any school that shows interest and don’t stop until you are getting personalized letters or phone calls.

With the stress and anxiety of the recruiting process, it is easy to over think communications with college coaches. If a program is very interested in you they will show it. If you aren’t getting the “we are in love with you” vibe from a school, they are probably still interested, but you might not be the top recruit. Keep working at it and your options will begin to materialize.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us or create a recruiting profile to talk with a scout.

The post How to Know If a College Coach is Interested in You appeared first on Athnet.

Anytime you are getting recruiting advice, remember there are subtle differences depending on the sport you play. You can learn more about those nuances by visiting your sports specific recruiting page.

It Starts with Athletic Talent and Potential

The first thing any coach is looking at is, do they think you have the athletic potential to play at the DI level. Coaches need to make this snap judgment on thousands of recruits each year and in order to speed up this process, they use a couple key indicators:

• Do you have the general athleticism (size, skill, or speed) required? For sports like football this means they are looking at your height and weight. In sports like track or swimming, they are going to look at your times and see if you are even close to DI times. For sports with big club team communities, coaches look for athletes who are already playing at the top level and against elite competition.
• Do you have the potential to develop into a DI athlete? Coaches will look at your family’s athletic history and the size of your parents/relatives to see if you might develop into a DI athlete. In sports like track and swimming, they will be interested in you training history to see if you have a lot of room to improve with proper training.
• Are you the best on your team? Very rarely is a team deep enough that athletes with DI talent aren’t starting or playing significant minutes. Even at the top football and basketball high schools, almost every DI recruit is a starter. There can be a lot of politics that go into determining who plays/starts, but coaches don’t have time to try and understand that for each team. They use a rule of thumb you should be playing a lot for your current team to quickly identify potential DI recruits.

They Say No A Lot More Than Yes

D1 coaches are contacted by hundreds of recruits ever year and evaluate hundreds more. They say “no,” meaning they pass on the vast majority of recruits. This means you need to have something exceptional for them to say yes. Exceptional means different things to different coaches, but for recruits, that means you need to stand above your competition. Maybe you have exceptional academics and are a good athlete. You might be undersized but have blazing speed. Maybe you have a lot of room to improve once you focus on your sport year round. Whatever it is that make unique, make sure you highlight it when you are reaching out to coaches.

They Go to the Biggest Event and Only Look at the Best Players

When you are a DI program, you get the chance to recruit the best players in the country. This means they are going to the biggest showcases and tournaments in the country and looking at the best players. Don’t expect there to be a big contingent of DI programs at regional or local events unless there are going to be several confirmed DI recruits there.

They Are Going to be Very Aggressive in Recruiting

When you hear about athletes or sooner, those are DI programs. These coaches are racing one another to find the next best athletes and this has lead them to begin evaluating athletes before they are even in high school. This does not mean your chance of playing DI sports is over before high school, but you need to be prepared to be making the right recruiting moves by the time you are in your freshman year.

It is also these same coaches that are aggressively recruiting athletes who are verbally committed to another program. It used to be it was only Football and Basketball that openly recruited verbally committed athletes, but we are starting to see it happen in almost all sports. These types of aggressive recruiting tactics are not good for the athlete or the coach, but they are a reality at the DI level. DI coaches are recruiting every athlete they want right up to signing day and as a recruit, you need to keep the same perspective.

Make no mistake, DI recruiting is not a recruit/family friendly environment. If you want to play D1 sports, there is no avoiding the facts, you will need to show DI potential early, play against other elite athletes and be prepared to make high pressure decisions about your college future very early.

Augustana College-Illinois Sports Recruiting.

The post How do Division 1 Colleges Find Recruits? appeared first on Athnet.

Your Only Leverage is Other Scholarship Offers

Coaches up their scholarship offers for a few reasons, you improve significantly, they get more money available late or they think they are going to lose a recruit to another school. If we are talking about negotiating a better offer late in the recruiting process, they only thing you can really control to improve your offer is to have more schools interested. Too many athletes think that because they have a school show strong, early recruiting interest, the scholarship offer of their dreams will come their senior year, it probably won’t. You should have a minimum of five schools your senior year showing serious interest, any less and you risk being left with only one (or none) offers.

*It is tempting to scramble late in the recruiting process and reach out to schools after you have been committed to a school for several months and you didn’t get the scholarship offer you were hoping for, don’t do this. Coaches are willing to negotiate if an athlete has been regularly talking to several schools, but if you are opening up discussions only after a coach has made their offer, they know you are probably only doing this to try and play that school for more money.

Negotiate on Your Expected Contribution, Not Scholarship Size

Coaches are going to measure their scholarship offers based on how much the athlete will be expected to pay. For example, if two schools are offering a 50% scholarship, but one school costs $20,000 per year and the other costs $30,000, the coach at the cheaper schools is less likely to up their scholarship offer. Always base your scholarship discussions on how much attending that school is going to cost you after the scholarship. If a school is offering a smaller scholarship but will cost the least of all of the schools you are considering, don’t expect the coach to up the offer.

Establish a Timeline on Every Decision

You should leave every conversation with a coach with a clear understanding of what to do next and when it needs to be done. This is most important when it comes to discussing scholarships or financial aid offers. You should know exactly what it takes to get a full financial aid estimate and how long you have to decide on any offers made. Many times coaches are going to make unofficial offers before a school is going to be able to make an official review of an athlete’s financial aid opportunities. Coaches can provide you with a good idea of what kind of costs you will be looking at, but you can’t get an official review from the school until you have applied your senior year.

Trying to get a better scholarship offer is a delicate process where you need to balance not offending the coach making the offer and making sure you look at all of your options. In the end, there is no perfect answer to how to when to negotiate. As long as you have been open and honest with coaches and have been regularly communicating with several schools, you stand the best chance of being able to up your scholarship offer.

The post How to Negotiate a Better Athletic Scholarship Offer appeared first on Athnet.

Technically You Don’t Have Anything to Sign

If you are not going to be receiving an athletic scholarship (only available at NAIA, �첥��Ƶ DI and DII schools) then you technically don’t have to sign anything on signing day. There are two documents you sign on sign day: 1) Your national letter of intent (NLI) and 2) your financial aid agreement. Non-scholarship athletes do not need to sign an NLI, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have something there to celebrate their achievement.

Talk to Your Future Coach about Having Something for Signing Day

Ask any college coach and they will tell you a recruited walk-on or non-scholarship athlete is just as important to the running of a healthy program as anyone else. If your school is throwing a signing day celebration, your future college coach wants you involved and is usually more than willing to send over some documents for the athlete to sign on signing day. The best option if you are looking to have something to sign and wear on signing day is to talk to your future coach.

What if I Don’t Know Where I Will be Playing on Signing Day

Signing day gets all of the hype, because it is the first day athletes can sign the official paper work for their athletic scholarships. For many athletes, they might not yet know what school they will be attending on signing day, so what can they do on signing day? In this situation, there really isn’t anything you can do, you don’t yet have a school you are committed to. There are two common scenarios that lead a recruit to be in this position:

• It is the early signing period or not their signing day – Depending on the sport you play, your signing day might be different than “national signing day.” Make sure you know when you can/will be allowed to commit.
• You are still negotiating your scholarship deal – Unless you are one of the top recruits for a program, you are probably in the situation where you aren’t sure what/if you will be getting a scholarship until other athletes begin to sign.

Signing Day is a Celebration

Not every athlete is going to have the documents to sign and hats to choose from on signing day. For the majority of athletes (who aren’t on scholarships) signing day represents the end of a long and successful recruiting process. Athletes who might not be signing their scholarship should feel equally proud sitting next to their peers on signing day.

Do you have questions about signing day? Leave them in the comments below to create a free recruiting profile so our scouting team can contact you.

The post Do Walk-Ons Have Something to Sign on Signing Day? appeared first on Athnet.

Step 1: Determine How Good the Current Athletes Are

Your number one competition for any scholarship are the athletes currently on the team. It doesn’t matter if you are the 10^th best at your event in the country if the team has people who are better than you, it is going to be difficult to get a scholarship. Go to the team website and look at all of the athletes who are in your event(s). When you click on their bio’s, you are looking for four pieces of information

• What year will they be graduating?
• What are their best times/marks?
• Did they place/score points at the conference level?
• Did they compete/place at the national meet?

Step 2: Find Out What it Takes to Score Points at the Conference Level for Each School

Even if you might be the best athlete on a specific team, if you aren’t good enough to score points at the conference level, you might not get a scholarship. To determine what it takes to score points at the conference level, find the conference championship website and get the results for the last two or three years. Gathering the following information from the event(s) you compete in.

• What did time/mark did it take to finish top 10, top 3 and 1^st?
• How many of the top 10 athletes were from the school you are considering? Where did they place?
• What place did the school(s) you are considering finish?

Step 3: What Does it Take to Make it to Nationals and Place?

Depending on how competitive a program is, you might need to be able to score points at the national championship meet to get a significant scholarship. Find the results for the national championship for each division level you are considering. Look at the results of your event(s) for the past few years and note the following:

• What did it take to make it to the championship meet?
• What did it take to make the finals/score points?
• What did it take to finish top 5, 3 and win?

What to do With All of the Information

All of the data you’ve collected is intended to help you find the schools where you have the best chance of getting a scholarship. Your best chance for a scholarship is finding a school where you will be needed most and where you can score maximum points at the conference and national level.

• Best Scholarship Opportunity – You are looking for a school that is be graduating athletes in your events and where you can come in and be competitive at the conference and national level.
• Good Scholarship Opportunity – If you can find a school where you can be the best in your event but not competitive (yet) for a conference or national title, there might be an opportunity for a scholarship.
• Limited Opportunity for a Scholarship – If there are several athletes in your event and you don’t yet have the potential to score points at the conference or national level, it is going to be very unlikely you get a scholarship offer.

Are you having trouble getting recruited or finding schools? Leave your questions below or contacting our scouts by creating a free recruiting profile.

The post Am I Good Enough to Get a Track and Field Scholarship? appeared first on Athnet.

The Intent of the �첥��Ƶ Contact Rules

Here is the exact wording the �첥��Ƶ uses to describe their recruiting rules:

“�첥��Ƶ member schools have adopted rules to create an equitable recruiting environment that promotes student-athlete well-being. The rules define who may be involved in the recruiting process, when recruiting may occur and the conditions under which recruiting may be conducted. Recruiting rules seek, as much as possible, to control intrusions into the lives of student-athletes.”

The key to the above statement, is to “prevent intrusions into the lives of student-athletes.” The recruiting rules are written to prohibit when a college coach can contact an athlete but not when they communicate with them. The �첥��Ƶ considers a college coach calling you a potential “intrusion into your life” but if you initiate the contact, it is not an intrusion.

Coaches Can Talk to You, If You Call Them and They Answer

�첥��Ƶ rules might prohibit a college coach from calling a sophomore, but, if that sophomore athlete calls the college coach and the coach picks up the phone, they can talk to them about whatever they want *key point coaches can’t return your call if they miss it. This is how college coaches and recruits get around the �첥��Ƶ contact rules to talk with one another before an athletes junior year. Other ways to get around the contact rules are:

• College Coaches communicating with your High School or Club Team Coach
• Athletes making unofficial visits and talking to the coach on campus
• Recruits attending camps on campus and talking with the coach

It Is Not as Easy as Making a Phone Call

Even though you might not have known about this loophole for contacting coaches, thousands of athletes do and coaches are inundated by emails and phone calls. Below I share a process for how you can break through the noise and get their attention.

• Send a coach your resume/online recruiting profile and highlight/skills video – It is best to introduce yourself to a coach through an email or online profile where they can make their initial evaluation. The critical information you need to include is video, contact info for your coach(s) and a schedule of where you will be competing.
• Get your coach involved and ask them to follow up with coaches for you – Because a college coach can’t respond to your email and they won’t just be waiting around for your phone call, you need to use your club or high school coach or organize a time for you to call.
• If you get on the phone, set a time to connect again – If you are fortunate enough to talk to a coach, you need to be sure and leave each conversation with a clear date and time to connect again. Many times coaches and recruits will have a set day and time for the recruit to call each week.

What Happens if a Coach Doesn’t Respond?

There are a few reasons why a coach doesn’t respond to your email/phone calls. The most common reason is they don’t think you have the potential to play for their program (yet). The other reasons might be your coach isn’t relaying the information to you or they don’t have the proper contact info to contact your coach. Because college coaches can’t contact you directly, it is impossible to know why they aren’t returning your messages. All you can do is continue to reach out to more and a wider range of schools.

Alverno College Sports Recruiting.   Bowie State University Sports Recruiting.

Bowling Green State University Sports Scholarships.   Boyce College Sports Recruiting.

Bradley University Sports Recruiting.

Are you having trouble finding opportunities to play at the college level? Ask your questions below and we can answer them.

The post �첥��Ƶ Rules Loopholes for Contacting Coaches appeared first on Athnet.

College coaches are no longer only evaluating an athlete on their athletic and academic abilities, they are also looking to see what kind of a person you are. Coaches need to be sure an athlete will handle the transition to college well and having a high character recruit improves the likelihood of a recruit adjusting well. In this article we cover some of the scenarios during the recruiting process where coaches are evaluating character.

*Please note: This doesn’t mean that all athletes who don’t adjust well in college are low character. Sometimes an athlete and the school just aren’t the right fit. However, in order to avoid academic and off the field issues, coaches are are increasingly looking for high character recruits.

Who Handles the Difficult Conversations?

When discussing things like playing time and scholarships, it is easy for parents to what to jump in on behalf of their athlete. Our advice is to hold off and let the athlete handle the majority of the conversation. I like the 80/20 rule, where the athlete should ask 80% of the questions and parents 20%. As a parent you can help your athlete prepare by having pre-written questions they should ask the coach. When an athlete shows a willingness to handle difficult conversations, it shows a coach they will be able to handle the new challenges once they get to college.

Don’t Make a Coach Ask Twice

When coaches send out invites to camps, requests for transcripts or other forms of paper work, they are evaluating an athlete on their ability to do what’s asked. The worst thing you can do as an athlete is not respond to these request or miss the deadlines. Just like you would in the work place, acknowledge receipt of the request, then get the requested information as soon as possible. Coaches know if an athlete has problems handling simple tasks like getting transcripts, they are more likely to have problems taking care of their responsibilities once they are living on their own.

They Will Talk to Anyone for Character Evaluations

College coaches are going to talk to all sorts of people to get a sense for what kind of person the recruit is. Coaches want to know what kind of person you are and that doesn’t just mean on the field or in the gym. We’ve heard of coaches talking to school janitors or even random students in the hallway to find out what a recruit is really like. With the increasing pressure to have high character people in their programs, coaches have a lower tolerance for recruits who could be problems down the road.

Coaches Aren’t Looking for Perfect

This article isn’t intended to scare you into thing coaches are going to look at every little situation as a chance to stop recruiting you. Instead, think of it as an opportunity to show you are more qualified. Coaches understand they are dealing with 15 and 16 year old kids in the recruiting process and they don’t expect them to be able to do everything perfectly. What they are looking for is that an athlete is willing to handle their own responsibilities. Effort and a little bit of maturity can go a long way in impressing a college coach.

If you feel like you are stuck in the recruiting process or just not sure what to expect, feel free to write your questions in the comments below or contact us via email.

The post How Coaches Evaluate Character in the Recruiting Process appeared first on Athnet.

No. 1–1: Full-Time Enrollment Exception – Cooperative Educational Work Experience

Intent: “To allow student-athletes to participate in intercollegiate athletics while participating in cooperative educational work experiences regardless of whether such educational experiences are a required part of the academic programs.”

Analysis: Currently an athlete in Division III can participate while enrolled less than full-time in classes if they are enrolled in a co-op work program that the institution considers full-time only if the work experience is required for the degree program. This proposal would allow athletes to compete while enrolled in any co-op work program that the institution considers full-time enrollment, regardless of whether it is required.

No. 1–2: Reduction of Maximum Number of Contests

Intent: “To decrease traditional segment contest and dates of competition limits in selected sports by up to 10 percent.

Analysis: I’ve covered this proposal in more detail earlier, but some of the reductions are significant, more than 10%.

No. 1–3: Date of First Basketball Contest

Intent: “To permit an institution to conduct its first date of regular-season competition in basketball on November 15 or the preceding Friday if November 15 falls on a Saturday, Sunday or Monday.”

Analysis: Division II is considering a similar proposal for a number of sports other than basketball. In the rationale, the sponsors note that the proposal does not have a significant academic impact. From a health and safety standpoint, the sponsors also mention that basketball has the longest preseason of any sport, so players are prepared for the season to begin.

No. 1–4 – Date of First Football Contest

Intent: “In football to permit an institution to play its first permissible contest (game) on the Thursday preceding the weekend which is eleven weeks prior to the first round of the �첥��Ƶ Division III Championships.”

Analysis: The Division III football season starts on a Friday except when the opening weekend lands on Labor Day weekend, in which case institutions can play their first game on Thursday. This would allow institutions to play their first game on the Thursday preceding the weekend that allows for an 11-week regular season, regardless of whether it lands on Labor Day or not.

No. 1–5: Football – Nontraditional Segment

Intent: “To provide students participating in the sport of football with skill instruction and development opportunities equivalent to the opportunities provided student-athletes participating in other sports, while maintaining the health and safety of the student-athletes as a top priority.”

Analysis: This proposal would establish spring football in Division III. It would be based on the following format:

• A total of 14 days of required activity within a five week period;
• Four of the 14 days are “non-instruction” days limited to meetings, film study, fitness testing, and strength and conditioning;
• Of the remaining 10 days, a three-day acclimatization period is required where no contact is allow and helmets are the only equipment permitted;
• Seven days of contact, full-pads practice. Proper tackling form may be taught in all seven practices.
• Of the seven days of contact practice, three may include live tackling, defined as bringing the ball carrier to the ground.
• Two of the seven contact practices may be devoted to scrimmages.

During the five weeks, the 20-hour per week/4-hour per day limit is in effect. A football team is limited to three on-field practices plus one non-instruction day per week. This would replace D3 football’s current spring strength and conditioning segment.

No. 1–6: Out of Season Fundraising Activities – Use of Athletic Ability

Intent: To permit student-athletes to participate in institutional fundraising activities involving athletics ability provided that the student-athlete’s participation in the activity is voluntary.

Analysis: This would allow, for example, golfers to participate in the institution’s summer golf outing, so long as it was voluntary. The rationale for the proposal says these events do not include monitoring or assessment of an athlete’s ability and it would provide additional networking opportunities between athletes and alumni.

How much do college’s actually make from football programs?   Evan Goodman. Pac 12 Breakout Star.

Belmont University Sports Recruiting.   Bismarck State College Sports Recruiting.

Black Hawk College Sports Recruiting.   Black Hills State University Sports Recruiting.

Blackburn College Sports Recruiting.

The post Spring Football Highlights D3 Proposals appeared first on Athnet.

No. 1–1: Strength and Conditioning Personnel Designing and Conducting Workouts During Summer

Intent: “In fall championship sports (including golf and tennis, for those institutions that conduct the championship segment during the fall term), to specify that June 1 through the conclusion of an institution’s summer vacation period, strength and conditioning personnel may design and conduct workout programs for student-athletes, as specified.”

Analysis: Last year Division II allowed strength and conditioning staff to design and conduct voluntary workouts for football players. This proposal would expand that opportunity to all fall sports.

No. 1–2: Team Activities

Intent: “In sports other than football, to permit a student-athlete to participate in a maximum of two hours of team activities per week as part of the permissible eight hours of countable athletically related activities that may occur outside the playing season during the academic year.”

Analysis: Division II’s two hours per week of offseason skill instruction is a hodgepodge of regulations even more complicated that Division I’s with its different dates numbers. This proposal would unify all those rules and allow team activities (basically practice) during those two hours at any time offseason activities can be required.

No. 1–3: Spring Sports – First Date of Competition – Friday before February 1

Intent: “In baseball, golf, lacrosse, rowing, sand volleyball, softball and tennis, to specify that in years when February 1 falls on a Saturday, Sunday or Monday, a member institution shall not engage in its first contest or date of competition with outside competition in the championship segment before the Friday preceding February 1.”

Analysis: Currently the sports listed above may not start their championship segment prior to February 1. If February 1 will fall during a weekend or on a Monday, this proposal would allow competition to start the preceding Friday, since no or little additional class time will be missed. This is designed to give schools increased scheduling flexibility.

No. 1–4: Conference Challenge Events in Baseball, Softball, Soccer, and Women’s Volleyball

Intent: “In baseball, soccer, softball and women’s volleyball, to permit a maximum of two contests played as part of a conference challenge event to be exempted annually from the maximum number of contest limitations, as specified.”

Analysis: In Division II basketball now has an annual exemption for two games in a conference challenge event. This is essentially the closest thing Division II has to the qualifying regular season multiple-team event exemption in Division I basketball. This proposal would expand that exemption to the sports listed above. A conference challenge event must involve two conferences from the same region and both games must be played during the first full weekend after competition can start.

Allen County Community College Sports Recruiting.

Atlantic Cape Community College Sports Recruiting.

Bellarmine University Sports Recruiting.

The post Playing and Practice Seasons Dominate D2 Legislative Agenda appeared first on Athnet.

But the problem with the current way schools are providing this benefit to athletes is that the money is coming from the �첥��Ƶ’s Student Assistance Fund. In athletic departments that rake in and spend hundreds of millions of dollars per year, there is only a few hundred thousand dollars in their SAF distribution to go around. For one or two athletes, the $50,000+ premium is manageable with SAF, mostly because the schools were probably not spending SAF on something only SAF could pay for in the first place. But if it were even five athletes, that could easily be more than half the fund.

The solution would be to simply pay disability/loss-of-value insurance premiums out of a school’s budget. That may be something the power conferences take up early in their autonomous legislative process. But perhaps a school could do so right now.

The �첥��Ƶ’s new interpretations philosophy is designed to give institutions more flexibility especially in the area of benefits for athletes. Using the application chart for the new philosophy, insurance premiums would fall under the category of “expenses arising due to participation in athletics.” That’s the same justification conferences are using to allow schools to use SAF funds to pay these premiums. That puts this in the green category of more flexibility. This is the standard we have to meet:

Categories in the left-hand column are those areas that are outside the intended scope of the legislation or areas where the legislation has been deregulated. Institutions have discretion to take action that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in light of the applicable rule(s) and the relevant circumstances.

The application document also gives use eight questions to ask about the proposed action to help determine if institutional discretion is appropriate. Since we’re in the green category, we should approach these questions with more flexibility, with an eye toward why a school could pay insurance premiums rather than why not.

1. Do the circumstances at issue impact the immediate health or safety of a student-athlete? This is not an immediate health or safety issue.
2. Do the circumstances at issue impact student-athlete success generally (e.g., personal or academic well-being)? Yes, especially when you consider Texas A&M paying for Cedric Ogbuehi’s insurance enticed him to return to school.
3. Was the legislation intended to address the circumstances at issue? Perhaps, but there is no bylaw that explicitly says institutions cannot pay for disability/loss-of-value insurance, only the general rule on extra benefits.
4. Do the circumstances require a consistent national standard (e.g., recruiting, eligibility, financial aid)? No. The action is not part of those categories and the �첥��Ƶ will likely soon have different rules on benefits for athletes for different schools.
5. Is the proposed action associated with a recruiting initiative? Only in the sense that everything is related to recruiting. But not a “initiative”.
6. To what extent does the proposed action provide a recruiting, competitive or other advantage or benefit? Only to the extent that paying for the insurance helps an institution retain its best athletes and shows recruits it may be willing to do so for them.
7. Is the proposed action an isolated or limited occurrence? Not isolated but limited to a small fraction of an institution’s athletes annually.
8. Is there another way to accomplish the intended objective? Using SAF but that’s what we’re trying to avoid.

In the green category, this exercise seems to go in favor of paying for the insurance. Even if we say this action is in the yellow category because it provides more than a minimal benefit or advantage, the analysis still may end up in favor of allowing schools to pay the premiums if there is not an interp which expressly prohibits schools from paying these expenses for athletes. It is definitely not in the red category, so at least some flexibility should be allowed.

As this becomes more common, hopefully institutions will get more creative with paying for these expenses out of the general budget. SAF should be a last resort, especially when one athlete will use a significant chunk of the fund and a few might take up the majority of an institution’s distribution. If the new governance structure does not produce a bylaw explicitly allowing institutions to pay for these types of insurance, schools should make sure they are pushing the envelope as much as they can to leave SAF for the expenses that only SAF can pay.

Pac-12 breakout star. Carlos Strickland.   Bismarck State College Sports Recruiting.

Black Hawk College Sports Recruiting.   Black Hills State University Sports Recruiting.

Blackburn College Sports Recruiting.

The post Schools May Not Need SAF to Pay for Insurance appeared first on Athnet.

Evidence that students had submitted papers and homework that had been written for them by others was initially detected at the end of the summer session, and referred to the compliance office in athletics on July 29. The Office of General Counsel initiated an immediate investigation.

The conduct does not fall under the definition of “arranging fradulent credit or false transcripts” which the �첥��Ƶ defines like this:

This phrase refers to conduct such as altering or “doctoring” transcripts or arranging to receive credit for a course in which the prospective student-athlete or student-athlete did not enroll or he or she did not complete.

Therefore the process for Notre Dame deciding whether a violation has occurred should go like this:

1. Determine whether academic misconduct has occurred, i.e. whether the school’s Academic Code of Honor was violated.
2. If yes, determine that but for the academic misconduct, the athlete(s) would not have been academically eligible.
3. If yes, determine whether the athlete(s) competed while erroneously declared eligible.

Notre Dame’s statement suggests that the focus of the investigation at this point is the second step of that process:

That investigation is ongoing. If it determines that the student-athletes would have been ineligible during past competition, Notre Dame will voluntarily vacate any victories in which they participated.

Update: During the press conference Notre Dame made it clear it has not reached a conclusion on the first question, whether academic misconduct has occurred.

In addition to the academic questions, there is also the possible issue of impermissible benefits, i.e. an arrangement not available to other students, according to both the �첥��Ƶ Ed Column above and UNC’s recent major infractions case.

Athletic Scholarships at Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College.

Bay Path College Sports Recruiting

Bemidji State University Sports Recruiting.

The post Notre Dame Reports Potential Academic Violation to �첥��Ƶ appeared first on Athnet.

The 2014 POPL takes the prize for slimness though. It includes just six proposals and none affecting Bylaws 11 (personnel), 13 (recruiting), 14 (academic eligibility), 15 (financial aid), 16 (awards and benefits) or 17 (playing and practice seasons). There is just one amateurism proposal and it is relatively uncontroversial. The reason for this is governance reform. The power conferences will get their first shot at autonomous rule making in January while Division I’s shared governance is on hold for yet another year. So it will likely be these six proposals voted on in January, and they will likely be voted on by the existing Division I Legislative Council before the new Council takes over next year.

2014–3: Championships Access and Appointment of Cabinets

Intent: “To specify that members are guaranteed access to national championships (including the play-in structure in certain championships, sizes of championship fields and the number and ratio of automatic qualifying conferences) at least at the level provided as of August 1, 2014; further, to eliminate legislation that related to the appointment of cabinets under the previous governance structure.”

Analysis: As the intent states, this is enabling legislation to go with the proposal for the new governance structure, Proposal 2014–2. Proposal 2014–3 guarantees championship access at current levels and removes the cabinet appointment language. Removing that language enables the competency-based cabinet and committee appointments to the new Council substructure under the new governance system.

2014–5: Amateurism – Incentive Programs for International Athletes

Intent: “To specify that an international prospective student-athlete or international student-athlete may accept funds from his or her country’s national Olympic governing body (equivalent to the U.S. Olympic Committee) based on place finish in one event per year that is designated as the highest level of international competition for the year by the governing body.”

Analysis: This simply extends the exception for payments under the USOC’s Operation Gold Grant to similar programs operated by other countries. It is the latest in a series of proposals designed to provide the same amateurism exceptions for both American and international athletes.

2014–6: Women’s Sand Volleyball Championship

Intent: “In sand volleyball, to establish a National Collegiate Championship and to establish a six person sand volleyball committee.”

Analysis: Like it says on the tin, this would establish an �첥��Ƶ sand volleyball national championship. It would be a National Collegiate Championship, meaning one �첥��Ƶ champion would be crowned from all �첥��Ƶ members competing in sand volleyball rather than one from each division. Sand volleyball will also be removed from the emerging sports for women list since it will have achieved its goal of getting enough sponsorship to become a championship sport.

2014–7: Duration of Ineligibility – Banned Drug Classes Other Than Street Drugs

Intent: “To specify that the penalty for a student-athlete who tests positive for use of a banned substance other than a ”street drug“ shall include withholding from consecutive regular-season contests or dates of competition equivalent to the maximum number of contests or dates of competition permitted per Bylaw 17.”

Analysis: Last year the �첥��Ƶ reduced the penalty for street drugs (primarily marijuana) from the same one-year penalty as the other drug classes to 50% of a season. This would bring the other classes, all considered performance-enhancing, into a similar way of counting, making the penalty 100% of the maximum number of games in a season. In most cases, the length of the suspension should be about the same, although switching from 365 days to 100% of a season may cause some suspensions to be more or less than they would have been previously.

2014–8: Duties of the �첥��Ƶ Sport Science Institute

Intent: “To specify that the �첥��Ƶ Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports will work in conjunction with the �첥��Ƶ Sport Science Institute to fulfill its duties.”

Analysis: This simply establishes in the Division I Bylaws a closer relationship between CSMAS and the Sport Science Institute, which is the �첥��Ƶ’s research wing for health and safety issues.

Evan Goodman. Pac 12 Breakout Star.

2014–9: Banning of Gene Doping

Intent: “To specify that the practice of gene doping is prohibited and any evidence confirming use will be cause for action consistent with that taken for a positive drug test.”

Analysis: In addition to the �첥��Ƶ’s banned drug classes, some other drugs or procedures are also prohibited including blood doping, improper use of local anesthetics and and beta–2 agonists, and manipulation of urine samples. This proposal would add gene doping to the list which it defines as:

The non-therapeutic use of cells, genes, genetic element or of the modulation of gene expression, to improve athletic performance.

The proposal says that “any evidence” confirming use of gene doping is cause for actions consistent with a positive drug test, i.e. a one-year suspension. The rationale though indicates this is less about the �첥��Ƶ’s own fight against performance-enhancing drugs and techniques and more about other organizations:

This proposal allows the �첥��Ƶ to honor suspensions for gene doping issued by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Pursuant to current legislation, a student-athlete under a drug testing suspension from a national or international sports governing body that has adopted the WADA code shall not participate in �첥��Ƶ intercollegiate competition for the duration of the suspension. Such suspensions are only applicable to drugs and procedures that are also banned by the �첥��Ƶ.

Without this proposal, an athlete who was banned for gene doping by another governing body would still be eligible to compete in �첥��Ƶ athletics.

Did LSU payShaquille O’Neal?

Auburn University Sports Recruiting.

Averett University Sports Recruiting.

Avila University Sports recruiting.

The post Proposed Legislation for Division I Highlighted by Championships and Drug Testing appeared first on Athnet.

The biggest proposed reductions in terms of number of games are for baseball and softball where a reduction from 40 to 36 contests is proposed. The biggest percentage reduction is rugby where a maximum of 13 contests are proposed, down from 15 (13.3%) followed by skiing, swimming, and wrestling where reductions from 16 to 14 dates of competition are proposed (12.5%). Basketball has a reduction of one contest proposed, from 25 to 24.

Aside from cost concerns and reducing midweek games, the rationale for the proposal offers up a very different type of arms race than the ones commonly discussed in Division I:

When it comes to contest limits, over time, maximums have become minimums and increased competitive pressures from coaches have challenged institutions to “keep up with the Joneses.” In fact, most institutions already exceed the “maximum” as conference tournaments provide up to four additional exempt contests at the end of the regular season. A division-wide approach to contest reduction can provide institutional leadership the avenue it needs to better balance its sports offerings, regardless the motivation.

While Division I is considering moves to cut back on student-athlete time demands, contest reductions seem unlikely, especially in the revenue sports. Most of the plans in Division I involve establishing dead periods and cutting back on “volandatory” extra practice time.

Athletic Scholarships at Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College.

The post Division III Proposes Cutting Number of Games appeared first on Athnet.

Among the alleged violations were impermissible text messages sent to recruits, in violation of �첥��Ƶ rules.

While Gregory may have texted recruits, it seems unlikely that would be the type of violation that would result in him being pressured to resign. As of August 1, golf coaches are allowed to text seniors and can text juniors starting on September 1. Unless he was texting sophomores and freshmen in high school, text messages alone seem unlikely to have pushed Gregory out even if they were still violations that SMU would have to report to the �첥��Ƶ.

It seems likely that if �첥��Ƶ violations were the root of Gregory’s resignation, they were more serious than impermissible text messages.

Averett University Sports Recruiting.

The post SMU Golf Coach Resigns Over Alleged Recruiting Violations appeared first on Athnet.

As defined in 20 U.S.C. § 108711 and calculated by each school’s financial aid office applying the same standards, policies, and procedures for all students.

So that means existing COA calculations are a good benchmark of what athletes might be offered. As the numbers show, that will create some major problems.

A few notes on my methodology:
– I generally used out-of-state numbers for public schools. Travel allowances tended to be larger and the idea is these power conference schools are recruiting beyond state borders.
– I generally used entering freshmen numbers. Again, this is focused on the recruiting angle.
– This is not the full cost-of-attendance gap in many cases. I did not include books and supplies, nor did I include any loan fees or health insurance costs.
– The goal was to approximate how much “pocket money” per year a school might be able to offer a recruit. So only transportation/travel money and personal/miscellaneous expense allowances were included.
– Because school supplies are not included, you can add $250 to $500 to each of these. In many cases you can also add up to $2,000 one-time for purchase of a computer. Case-by-case adjustments are also permitted if the same adjustment is available to all students.

Here is each school’s annual personal and travel allowance (a.k.a. “pocket money”):

ACC
– Boston College: $2,200
– Clemson: $3,608
– Duke: $3,466
– Florida State: $5,356
– Georgia Tech: $1,600
– Louisville: $2,476
– Miami: $3,390
– North Carolina: $3,804
– NC State: $3,488
– Notre Dame: $1,950
– Pitt: $3,300
– Syracuse: $1,596
– Virginia: $3,770*
– Virginia Tech: $2,860
– Wake Forest: $2,400

*Virginia gives a range for transportation, I used the maximum.

Big Ten
– Illinois: $2,500
– Indiana: $3,036
– Iowa: $2,128
– Maryland: $3,824
– Michigan: $2,204
– Michigan State: $2,610
– Minnesota: $2,194
– Nebraska: $3,604
– Northwestern: $2,949*
– Ohio State: $3,346
– Penn State: $4,000
– Purdue: $1,910
– Rutgers: $2,747
– Wisconsin: $4,888

*Northwestern gave no travel cost except for commuter students, so that number was used.

Big 12
– Baylor: $3,882
– Iowa State: $2,430
– Kansas: $3,586
– Kansas State: $4,000
– Oklahoma: $4,500
– Oklahoma State: $4,560
– TCU: $2,700
– Texas: $4,310
– Texas Tech: $5,100
– West Virginia: $1,971*

*WVU forced me to use the Net Price Calculator to find out personal and travel expenses.

�ʲ���–12
– Arizona: $3,300
– Arizona State: $3,358
– California: $2,528
– Colorado: $2,992
– Oregon: $2,340
– Oregon State: $2,577
– Stanford: $2,550
– UCLA: $2,223
– USC: $1,580
– Utah: $5,094
– Washington: $2,679
– Washington State: $3,542

SEC
– Alabama: $3,298
– Arkansas: $4,002
– Auburn: $5,586
– Florida: $3,320
– Georgia: $1,798
– Kentucky: $3,536
– LSU: $3,680
– Mississippi: $4,500
– Mississippi State: $5,126
– Missouri: $3,664
– South Carolina: $4,151
– Tennessee: $5,666
– Texas A&M: $3,100
– Vanderbilt: $2,730

*Vanderbilt only gives “varies” for travel allowance so it was not included.

The takeaway is obvious here. There is no way this will fly. Not only do some schools offer more than others, but there is no rhyme or reason to why one is greater than the other. Why are travel, clothing, entertainment, and other personal expenses more than twice as expensive in Knoxville, TN as in Los Angeles, CA? Why an over $600 difference between the two Los Angeles schools.

But at the same time, the options for doing so are very limited. The power conferences have one way to normalize cost of attendance across all 65 schools: let every school go up to the highest cost of attendance figure, which in this case is Tennessee’s $5,666.

But that has its own set of problems. First, many schools would then be permitted to exceed cost of attendance, some by thousands of dollars. Not only is that philosophically troubling for the �첥��Ƶ, it also complicates matters with financial aid offices. If a portion of an athletic scholarship exceeds cost of attendance and is not paid through the financial aid office, what is but payment for services rendered?

Second, this would be massively more expensive than some schools were likely planning for. Tennessee’s number is almost twice as much as the �ʲ���–12’s average. A school like Iowa State, already worried about paying for COA scholarships would see the cost go up by more than $3,000 per full scholarship equivalency. At that point, the divide between the haves, the have-mores, and the real elite would begin to show quickly and clearly.

And finally, it does not solve the perceived imbalance of giving athletes the same living allowance across the country when the cost of living varies wildly among the cities where these 65 schools are located.

So the debate is now simple: stick with schools coming up with their own individual numbers or let everyone go to the maximum. But expect it to the vicious. It will pit the have-mores with low COA gaps (Georgia, Michigan, Notre Dame, Alabama, USC) against the haves with similarly small allowances (Wake, Syracuse, BC, Georgia Tech, Purdue, Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa State, WVU, Cal, Oregon State). What everyone in the middle decides will say a lot about just how unified and similar those 65 schools are.

Athletic recruiting web site reviews. NCSA. National Collegiate Scouting Association.

Atlantic Cape Community College Sports Recruiting.

Berkeley College Sports Recruiting

Berkeley College New York Sports Recruiting

Berry College Sports Recruiting

Bethany College Sports Recruiting

The post Wide Variance in COA Calculations with No Good Solution for Power Conferences appeared first on Athnet.

Here is the text of that portion of the injunction order:

Prohibit deferred compensation in an amount of $5,000 per year or less (in 2014 dollars) for the licensing or use of prospective, current, or former Division I men’s basketball and Football Bowl Subdivision football players’ names, images, and likeness through a trust fund payable upon expiration of athletic eligibility or graduation, whichever comes first.

It is important to keep in mind that the injunction order does not compel the �첥��Ƶ or its members to create or pay any amount into a trust fund. It merely says what the �첥��Ƶ may not prohibit or, to lose the double negative, what the �첥��Ƶ must allow. Under the order the �첥��Ƶ must allow two things:

Allow schools to pay at least $5,000 into a trust fund per year for each year a football or men’s basketball player is on the team; and
Allow schools to pay out the fund upon graduation or expiration of athletic eligibility, whichever comes first.

It seems safe to assume that in the interest of competitive balance, a continued defense of the collegiate model, and limiting the financial impact of the decision, the schools will enact �첥��Ƶ rules that limit the deferred compensation to the greatest extent allowed under the injunction.

The $5,000/year cap seems self explanatory although there seems to be suggestion that this means $5,000 per year an athlete is eligible. The remedy section of the ruling does not say this explicitly. The injunction order also does not mention academic eligibility. The most obvious reading of the injunction is that the �첥��Ƶ cannot enact a rule which says athletes only get money paid into the trust if they are academically eligible. I imagine this will be clarified or amended between now and the start of the deferred compensation plans.

The date of payout is trickier and raises more interesting questions. The biggest questions seem to be surrounding two groups: transfers and early draft entries.

Nothing in the injunction says how the trust fund(s) must be set up. The �첥��Ƶ could set up a trust for all Division I members. Conferences could each have their own. Or individual schools could each have one. If there each school has their own trust, can they all agree to not pay out if an athlete transfers? If an athlete fails to exhaust his or eligibility or graduate at a specific school, does he lose the money he would have been entitled to at that school?

Early draft entries may also lose out. The order says that the �첥��Ƶ must allow the “expiration” of athletic eligibility to be a payable event. In �첥��Ƶ-speak, that means exhausting or using up athletic eligibility by playing four seasons or running out your five-year clock. Joining the professional ranks results in “forfeiting” your eligibility. But it is not clear whether the judge is recognizing this distinction or using “expiration” to mean any point where an athlete’s eligibility is gone for any reason. And what of athletes who enter a draft before graduating then return to finish their degrees?

Like the academic eligibility question above, this will hopefully be resolved before the effective date of the injunction (also a question mark). But the payout event question is more complicated and has many possible solutions for the type of rule the �첥��Ƶ could enact:

1. Transferring or entering the draft early terminates an athlete’s interest in the trust fund;
2. Transferring or entering the draft early has no effect on the athlete’s interest in the trust fund;
3. Transferring or entering the draft early delays an athlete’s interest in the trust fund until graduation;
4. Transferring or entering the draft early must be payable events; or
5. Some combination of the above for the two events.

I doubt transferring will be made a payable event. That would be a disaster, giving athletes a $5,000 incentive to transfer every year. My guess would be that in response to a post-trial motion, the judge will rule that entering a draft early causes a payout and transferring has no effect, i.e. once an athlete graduates or exhausts his eligibility, he can go back to any school he played at and receive his deferred compensation.

But if transferring or entering a draft early either causes an athlete’s interest in the fund to be terminated or makes graduation the only payable event, it could have the effect of keeping athletes at the same school longer. Transferring both delays the end of athletic eligibility (by making an athlete redshirt) and graduation (because athletes tend to lose credits in the switch). And while athletes might eventually get their payout if the entry the draft early and come back to graduate, more might be willing to stick it out, especially if their professional prospects are extremely good (guaranteed first round NBA or first-second round NFL draft picks).

The post Will Transfers and Early Draft Entrees Lose Out Under O’Bannon? appeared first on Athnet.

The post O’Bannon Case Clears Up Cost of Attendance Debate appeared first on Athnet.

“Mr. Bobby Cremins coached for many years at the University of Georgia’s in-state rival, Georgia Tech, and his appointment presents the appearance of a conflict of interest that the University would like to avoid,” wrote UGA’s attorney, Mike Glazier, of Bond, Schoeneck & King. “Thus, the University respectfully request that Mr. Cremins be recused. Such a recusal will alleviate the concern that Georgia athletics supporters may perceive a conflict and a less partial review of the University’s case.”

The Bulldogs’ plea proved unnecessary.

On July 25, Cremins asked to be recused from the panel “because he and Coach Bauerle have a friend in common,” an �첥��Ƶ administrator replied. “In order to avoid either an actual conflict or the appearance of a potential conflict, Mr. Cremins believed recusal was necessary.”

Traditionally, the COI’s policy was to recuse any member who was part of the same conference as an involved school or individual. This policy is a bit limited and raised the appearance of other conflicts. One notable example was Notre Dame deputy director of athletics Missy Conboy hearing the USC/Reggie Bush case despite the two schools being traditional football rivals.

The old policy was limited partly out of necessity. The entire committee heard each case, so a recusal was removing a member of the group hearing the case, who were often replaced with former COI members. Now with a larger group where panels hear cases rather than the entire committee, it should be easier to take into account more actual and perceived conflicts while still putting together a panel of current COI members.

The post Cremins Recuses Himself from UGA Case appeared first on Athnet.

The subcommittee determined for-profit schools could participate as �첥��Ƶ members if: any financial benefits were received through their conferences and not directly from the �첥��Ƶ; and if they did not directly participate as individual institutions in the development of the rules that govern the Association, such as having staff members represent their schools on committees or cast votes at the �첥��Ƶ Convention.

The new classification distinguishes for-profit schools from non-profits in the �첥��Ƶ membership and allows them to qualify for all championships benefits — including the ability to host events — and remain bound by the same rules and policies that govern other �첥��Ƶ members.

The Executive Committee is still not done with for-profit institutions though, including Division I’s sole for-profit member, Grand Canyon. The committee is considering some other classification or rules for publicly traded for-profit institutions, who conceivably might be further limited. The Executive Committee’s classification must be implemented through legislation in the three divisions.

The �첥��Ƶ is almost certain to be sued over this action. For-profit institutions are unlikely to sit by idly while the �첥��Ƶ says they cannot vote on legislation or be represented on committees. And if the �첥��Ƶ further singles out publicly traded institutions like Grand Canyon, legal action from them will be even more likely.

The post �첥��Ƶ Sets Rules for For-Profit Schools appeared first on Athnet.

“It’s a new day for �첥��Ƶ athletes,” founder Mark Nelson stated. “We have discovered a viable way to compensate those athletes being exploited the most by the �첥��Ƶ, its partners, and the universities.” SODO’s plan will initially compensate college football players across the nation after their eligibility has expired, with proceeds coming from a fund SODO is establishing. “We expect to cut the first checks at the conclusion of the football season,” said Nelson.

SODO’s plan appears to be to launch a fund to pay former college football players with an initial donation and then add money to the fund by donating a portion of the sale of the companies baseball caps.

SODO’s plan is allowed by �첥��Ƶ rules since no money will be paid to athletes with remaining eligibility. Their name, image or likeness does not appear on SODO merchandise. SODO is also presumably not a booster of an �첥��Ƶ school; that would limit its ability to pay former college athletes.

Bethel College Kansas Sports Recruiting.

The post SODO Apparel Launches Fund to Pay Former College Football Players appeared first on Athnet.

But some of those votes might come from an unlikely source: the power conference schools that have pushed for autonomy. Because at the last minute, the Board of Directors slipped in a small change to the autonomy legislative process with big implications:

Any amendment is subject to approval by a five-conference presidential group before consideration by the full voting group.

Autonomy is the centerpiece of the new governance structure but another key goal was to put more power in the hands of day-to-day practitioners, particularly athletic directors. Because of this change, university presidents are even more directly involved in day-to-day legislative work than they were before. And that involvement is with the autonomy topics, where the power conferences were seeking as much flexibility and as smooth a process as possible.

Presidents have final say over a school’s override request and vote, so they may not be that willing to agree to further reduce their involvement in �첥��Ƶ legislation. But power conference athletic directors will definitely be pushing to get this new presidential group out of the autonomy legislation process. If enough can convince their president that an override is the way to do it, they could combine with enough of the rest of Division I to slow down or stop the proposal.

The post Small Addition Could Derail Governance Proposal appeared first on Athnet.

So I won’t use the H-word to describe what went down at the Big 12 forum on the “State of College Sports”. People can hold nuanced, even inconsistent views on the same issue at the same time. But two lines of reasoning expressed by collegiate athletics leaders at the forum deserve some scrutiny and more explanation.

One basic theme of the panel was Dr. Donna Lopiano, former women’s athletic director at Texas, attacking the autonomy portion of the new governance structure which will be voted on today. It was defended by Big 12 commissioner Bob Bowlsby, Kansas State athletic director John Currie, and Texas athletic director Steve Patterson as necessary because the power conferences “win most of the championships [and] have distinct needs driven by high resources”. Dr. Lopiano attacked one of the reasons for this divide:

“Why are we blaming the 365 that you won’t share money with?” said Lopiano, president of Sports Management Resources.

“Why should we share it if they are not generating it?” Patterson responded.

Keep that idea in mind. The power conferences need autonomy because they are different than the rest of Division I, at least in part because they refuse to share a greater portion of revenue with the rest of the division.

When the debate moved to professionalizing college athletics, the union decision at Northwestern, and creating an employer-employee relationship, Patterson and Bowlsby had a :

Bowlsby said he fears the National Labor Relations Board’s ruling that football and men’s basketball players at Northwestern University are employees could have ramifications that would result in massive reductions and even eliminations of various sports at schools nationwide, which would “have a devastating effect on our country.

“If we ever go down the path of creating an employer-employee relationship,” Bowlsby said, “we will have forever lost our way.”

Said Patterson, “If you go out and whack scholarships, that’s gonna be very bad for this country.”

In essence, what Patterson and Bowlsby are saying is you cannot pay athletes in the revenue sports a salary because, among other things, doing so would mean cutting scholarships in other sports (if not cutting the sports entirely). And this is not just bad for college athletics, it would be bad for the entire United States of America, devastating our society.

So let’s bring those two ideas back together. According to Big 12 leaders, athletes should have to share the revenue they generate for the school with other athletes for the good of the country. But institutions have no responsibility to share the revenue they generate with other institutions who are part of the same division within the same association. Despite the fact that the effect of further stratifying college athletics could be the same as paying athletes a salary: schools deciding to cut sports and scholarships.

This is not hypocrisy in the classic sense. I’m sure everyone at the Big 12 forum deeply and sincerely believed in the convictions for which they argued. But two ideas that create such dissonance (not to mention a fair perception of tone-deafness) being held by presumably smart people at the same time demands more nuance. It demands an explanation of why Texas football and basketball players must share what they generate for the good of the country while Texas has no duty to share what it generates for the same.

The post Disconnect and Inconsistency at Big 12 Forum appeared first on Athnet.

The purchase raises two questions. First, do �첥��Ƶ rules allow Florida State (et. al.) to do this and if so, how? Second, should Florida State do this?

As far as whether the �첥��Ƶ allows this, the short answer is yes, as long as the ACC says it is OK. The �첥��Ƶ national office distributes the SAF money to conferences and has a list of prohibited uses, which include:

• Salaries and Benefits.
• Grants-in-aid (other than summer school) for student-athletes with remaining eligibility.
• Capital improvements.
• Stipends.
• Athletic development opportunities.
  • Fees and other expenses associated with a student-athlete’s participation in a sports camp or clinic;
  • Fees and other expenses associated with private sports-related instruction provided to a student-athlete;
  • Fees for other athletic development experiences (e.g., greens fees, batting cage rental); and
  • Expenses associated with a student-athlete’s participation in a foreign tour.

That is the �첥��Ƶ’s entire involvement with the fund, other than gathering some reporting on the back end. Conferences handle all the rest including deciding how much individual schools get and what the approved uses are, so long as they are not on the prohibited list. You really have to stretch the definition of a “stipend” or “athletic development opportunity” to say disability or loss-of-value policies are prohibited.

Contrary to some claims, Winston’s insurance policy is well within the spirit of the Student Assistance Fund as well as the letter of its rules:

As a guiding principle, the fund shall be used to assist student-athletes in meeting financial needs that arise in conjunction with participation in intercollegiate athletics…

Winston’s participation in college athletics has generated the need for insurance to protect his future earnings. If he cannot afford those premiums, in steps the SAF.

That segues into whether Florida State should have used such a significant portion of its limited (albeit large) SAF disbursement on one athlete. The arguments tend to fall in one of two camps:

• Winston is the most valuable athlete to Florida State and therefore should receive the biggest benefits from Florida State, including SAF funds.
• The SAF is a limited resource that should be spread over as many athletes as possible. Using 10% or more of it on one athlete is improper.

Both of these arguments assume that Winston is receiving this benefit at the expense of other athletes, then making a value judgment about whether that is proper. But the premise, that Winston’s gain is another athlete’s loss, might be flawed.

This is a list of what Washington State budgeted for its SAF distribution in 2010–11. Around $300,000 was split up among 23 line items. Granted this is old information, but I believe WSU’s use of the fund is representative of how most power conference schools spent and still spend their SAF distribution, which has grown since 2010–11. Between 2011–12 and 2013–14 alone, the fund grew from around $66 million to over $75 million.

Washington State’s list includes a large number of items which could be funded through the general athletics budget, especially given recent deregulation. Using the �첥��Ƶ rules from 2014–15, only one line item on Washington State’s budget can only be funded by SAF: the $40,000 Student-Athlete Allowance. That is typically thought of as the core use of the Student Assistance Fund, paying for travel home, clothing, school supplies, etc. The food-related items alone on Washington State’s list total almost as much as the Student-Athlete Allowance.

I’ve been critical of how schools use the Student Assistance Fund in the past for things that could be covered by the athletics budget. I hope as Washington State’s revenue increased over the past few years, it shifted some of these expenses away from SAF.

But I’m willing to bet that Washington State, Florida State, and every other Division I school is still spending a significant amount of SAF money on items that could be funded another way. So it is not just possible, but actually likely, that Winston is not taking clothing away from a volleyball player on a Pell Grant but instead Florida State is buying computers, paying summer school tuition, and hosting banquets using operational funds rather than SAF.

If that is the case, paying Winston’s insurance premiums is a more appropriate use of the Student Assistance Fund than what Florida State was doing before. That doesn’t answer the question of whether one athlete should get such a big chunk of the SAF. But any improvement in how SAF is used is worth supporting and odds are this is one.

The post No Compliance Issue with Winston Insurance Purchase appeared first on Athnet.