New recruiting rule hurts Texas Longhorns - slow sports day

[AirbOUrne]

Not much else going on but I just read this on Dallasnews.com
New recruiting rule hurts Texas Longhorns
12:05 PM Wed, Feb 10, 2010 | Permalink | Yahoo! Buzz
Laken Litman/Texas Special Contributor Bio | E-mail | News tips

The NCAA has approved a new rule that limits coaches-in-waiting having direct contact with recruits. Assistant coaches are allowed more contact with recruits than a head coach, and now CIW's have been confined to the same limits as head coaches. The NCAA made this ruling for fear that schools with CIW's would have an upper hand in the recruiting process.

Texas just recently learned of this ruling, and needless to say, is not thrilled. Defensive coordinator Will Muschamp is one of the most aggressive recruiters for the Longhorns, and more importantly, he helps narrow the spectrum of which recruits Texas should really go after. Muschamp's opportunities to meet with recruits directly - especially during the spring evaluation period - will now be abridged.

About a year and half ago when Texas deemed Muschamp Mack Brown's successor, this rule had not been discussed at all. In 2009, the rule was proposed in the Big East conference and was implemented at the beginning of this year.

This new ruling only affects Texas and The University of Maryland, who also has a coach-in-waiting.

Click here to read the rule when it was proposed. Go to page 51 for details.

[SoonerInLubbock]

Time for texas to hire another Cessna. BANNER TIME!!

[OUDoc]

Although I find this funny in regards to Texas, the rule makes no sense to me.

[Leroy Lizard]

I don't think head coaches should be allowed to recruit at all. That would solve a lot of problems.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Although I find this funny in regards to Texas, the rule makes no sense to me.

seen from the paranoia of football coaches, it makes sense. head coaches are limited in their visits because of their star power and the effect it has on recruits. coaches could say that a CIW was basically the head coach and would be able to dazzle them with their star power.

however, i do agree that it should also include assistant head coaches as well.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I don't think head coaches should be allowed to recruit at all. That would solve a lot of problems.

well, they are only allowed one visit so they are pretty limited.

[ouduckhunter]

Ouch, take that Texas!!

Makes no sense, but I'm good with it!

[Jacie]

This rule will just kill having a coach-in-waiting or at least where a school makes a public announcement to that effect. Nothing the NCAA can do about under the table CIW's, however . . .

[rawlingsHOH]

Makes perfect sense.

[Herr Scholz]

I can see it from both sides. On one hand, how fair is it for our DC to be the only one not out on the road recruiting? Other assistants have unlimited access. On the other hand, I can see it as an advantage as far as Muschamp selling himself as the next HC and stressing the continuity of the staff.

Obviously the only fair thing to do is to grandfather in the 2 existing CIWs before the rule existed. ;)

[KantoSooner]

Scholz, that is probably the fair thing to do. Even though it pains me to say so.

But we're talking the NCAA here, so don't hold your breath.

[oudavid1]

Coach in waiting makes no sense

[Herr Scholz]

Yeah, they don't need to worry about closing the years long USC investigation or anything. This seems like better use of their time. What a worthless, do nothing organization.

And don't they espouse kids making informed decisions of where they go to school? Isn't it all about the kids? Apparently not. Apparently, they want kids getting the shaft from the likes of Brian Kelly and Lane Kiffin. Yeah, let's punish the schools with stability in their staffs. That makes a ton of sense.

[rawlingsHOH]

Obviously the only fair thing to do is to grandfather in the 2 existing CIWs before the rule existed. ;)

I'd agree with that.

[badger]

I think the NCAA is detecting the have-nots are starting to fall further behind the haves when it comes to recruiting and this is just one way to curb it.

Another way I saw discussed on ESPN the other day was limiting scholly signings to 28 during the early signing period, since a few schools were abusing the "25 arrive in the fall" rule.

[Herr Scholz]

I think the NCAA is detecting the have-nots are starting to fall further behind the haves when it comes to recruiting and this is just one way to curb it.
But don't you think it's an unenforceable rule? I mean, obviously no school is going to PUBLICLY name a CIW now but I can imagine deals being done behind the scenes and private conversations being held with recruits.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

But don't you think it's an unenforceable rule? I mean, obviously no school is going to PUBLICLY name a CIW now but I can imagine deals being done behind the scenes and private conversations being held with recruits.

yeah, and just like fran's email club, it would come out. and then an instititution would be guilty of LOIC

[rawlingsHOH]

I wouldn't neccessarily call the U of Texas, and U of Maryland, the "haves", in this case. Anybody could name a CIW.

[KantoSooner]

you're both right on that. And that's probably the point: more for the NCAA to do, more for them to penalize.
God. What whores.

[KantoSooner]

I was referring to Scholz and jkm

[badger]

But don't you think it's an unenforceable rule? I mean, obviously no school is going to PUBLICLY name a CIW now but I can imagine deals being done behind the scenes and private conversations being held with recruits.

I am not sure... I think publicly naming CIW provides legitimacy to that particular coach's status in the program, rather than just trying to tell recruits that such and so is the CIW in all but name. Recruits, even the most unintelligent ones (i.e. the ones that choose texas, haha, j/k), have to know that programs will say anything to get them to sign with their school, so is it easier to believe something that is out there in the public as common knowledge, or something that coaches tell you in private while they're trying to get your commitment?

[Scott D]

Seems to me that Texas is potentially being penalized for Florida State's recruiting this national signing day.

[Herr Scholz]

Whatever. Everyone knows the NCAA is worthless at this point. I wouldn't be surprised to see Dodds sue. They've painted us into a corner over this. We can't have our DC not able to go on the road and recruit.

[Leroy Lizard]

Obviously the only fair thing to do is to grandfather in the 2 existing CIWs before the rule existed.

That would be completely unfair.


But don't you think it's an unenforceable rule? I mean, obviously no school is going to PUBLICLY name a CIW now but I can imagine deals being done behind the scenes and private conversations being held with recruits.

And they would call those recruiting violations. So it is enforceable.

[OU_Sooners75]

Yeah, they don't need to worry about closing the years long USC investigation or anything. This seems like better use of their time. What a worthless, do nothing organization.



:confused:

First, let me agree, the NCAA is worthless!

However, the Infractions Committee is now handling the USC escapade.

The rules committee has nothing to do with violations anyway...so they basically did their job!

[OU_Sooners75]

But don't you think it's an unenforceable rule? I mean, obviously no school is going to PUBLICLY name a CIW now but I can imagine deals being done behind the scenes and private conversations being held with recruits.


They may not publicly address it now, however, if there is an agreement, surely they have it on paper. And in doing so, that paper trail can be found out thanks for the vast majority of the colleges being public unis.

[Tigeman]

So does * now try and remove the job title from Muschamp? And if so, it's obviously a cloak and dagger operation.... But they will have to prob. give him a pretty large raise or he might raise a stink. Even still, if they remove the title, how will the NCAA perceive it? And then, will it ruffle Muschamp's feathers?

This could fire off a $hit storm between * and the NCAA. Do they sue over it and try and say they were discriminated against? Do they have a case?

[OU_Sooners75]

So does * now try and remove the job title from Muschamp? And if so, it's obviously a cloak and dagger operation.... But they will have to prob. give him a pretty large raise or he might raise a stink. Even still, if they remove the title, how will the NCAA perceive it? And then, will it ruffle Muschamp's feathers?

This could fire off a $hit storm between * and the NCAA. Do they sue over it and try and say they were discriminated against? Do they have a case?


God I hope Texas sues the NCAA!

Ever since we spearheaded a lawsuit against the NCAA, we have had nothing but trouble from the NCAA. Would be nice to see Texass getting the treatment they deserve!

[John Kochtoston]

This rule is one of the dumbest the NCAA has ever fired out. God forbid we'd encourage consistency for programs AND a full picture for a recruit of what he is getting in to.

However, since this arbitrary and capricious rule negatively affects Texas, I'm all in favor of it.

[Leroy Lizard]

However, since this arbitrary and capricious rule negatively affects Texas, I'm all in favor of it.

I was worried about you there for a second.

[OU_Sooners75]

This rule is one of the dumbest the NCAA has ever fired out. God forbid we'd encourage consistency for programs AND a full picture for a recruit of what he is getting in to.

However, since this arbitrary and capricious rule negatively affects Texas, I'm all in favor of it.


I do not see it as a stupid rule, maybe a rule they did not need to add. But not stupid.

If a coach is designated as the Head Coach in waiting, it gives them a leg up in recruiting. It allows them to use the fact that there will be consistency at the program for years to come. That is something other recruiting coaches cannot say!

If actual head coaches are limited, then CIW must also be limited. Maybe not as much as the current head coach....but they should have limitations.

[Rock Hard Corn Frog]

Although I find this funny in regards to Texas, the rule makes no sense to me.

I think it is called the Charles Wittman rule......

......look you all thought it. I just said it:eek:

[Leroy Lizard]

Whitman?

[Tigeman]

Rather I agree with it or not, I am enjoying the meltdown on the * boards!

[Curly Bill]

I think it's a great rule! If a school want to slap a ghey title on someone such as Coach In Waiting, they should be punished.

[OK2LA]

"Obviously, since this legislation impacts only two programs in the country, we feel we are being singled out,"

Was I the only one who thought that this seemed strange?

If you're not the only university with this kind of situation - how can you be singled out?:confused:

[Tigeman]

B/C they don't ever see anyone else. There could be 20 other schools and they would say we're being singled out. * is always me me me. They've always been self absorbed!

[Leroy Lizard]

I think it's a great rule! If a school want to slap a ghey title on someone such as Coach In Waiting, they should be punished.

I think "Coach in Waiting" has medieval overtones.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mmBw3uzPnJI/SP-Z2Jf62oI/AAAAAAAAU0c/K7rjFsiQJ44/s400/Gothic_Dolls_01.jpg

[OUDoc]

Was I the only one who thought that this seemed strange?

If you're not the only university with this kind of situation - how can you be singled out?:confused:

I think it must be a quantum physics thing. You wouldn't understand. ;)

[Rock Hard Corn Frog]

Whitman?

Yes. Spelling malfunction. Yesterday I spelled Fitzgerald, Alexander. Spell check didn't catch it either....

[OUDoc]

Obviously the only fair thing to do is to grandfather in the 2 existing CIWs before the rule existed. ;)

I think the death sentence for those 2 programs. Then everyone can start with a clean slate.

[badger]

Are there any CIW's in basketball, or is this just a football rule?

[bluedogok]

I think it has less to do with recruiting and more to do with minority hiring, sort of bypassing an "implied" Rooney Rule that exists in college football. They probably think schools are using the "Coach-in-Waiting" to bypass the interview process and therefore avoid the pressure to interview minority candidates.

[Partial Qualifier]

I think it's a great rule! If a school want to slap a ghey title on someone such as Coach In Waiting, they should be punished.

get out of my head :D

[badger]

Here's a new thought: What if the NCAA is doing this to discourage the Coach-in-Waiting practice? I mean, how far away is the NCAA from trying to get a Rooney Rule in place, or some other incentive to hire more minority coaches in Division 1? Quite frankly, having CIW's is not exactly opening the doors for younger, less experienced coaches or minority coaches.

I know the Rooney Rule would be tough to dump on schools unlike the NFL having control over it's 32 teams and all, but I could see them trying to dictate how schools hire new coaches in the near future to encourage minority hires.

[Flagstaffsooner]

texass
http://lineout.thestranger.com/files/2007/11/crybaby.jpg

[John Kochtoston]

There's no Rooney Rule i college football, implied or otherwise. If that's the NCAA's goal, then they should get enough University presidents on board and implement one.

And, I'm sorry, but a coach-in-waiting is not a head coach, but instead is almost always going to be a coordinator. Taking a coordinator off the road is a huge disadvantage. The party line is that athletes commit to the school, not the coach, but in reality, that's not the case. Giving potential recruits a fuller picture of the long-term coaching picture helps an athlete make a more informed decision. That's why schools give coaches ridiculously-long contracts, whether or not the coach has done a damn thing.

If CIW's are such an unfair advantage, again, build a consensus among university presidents and ban the practice.

They also have drawbacks. The second Jimbo Fisher became FSU's CIW, the clamor for Bobby Bowden to step down started. While it hasn't been the same at Texas, Muschamp's CIW title has sparked some speculation that Mack will leave soon.

[Scott D]

I think it has less to do with recruiting and more to do with minority hiring, sort of bypassing an "implied" Rooney Rule that exists in college football. They probably think schools are using the "Coach-in-Waiting" to bypass the interview process and therefore avoid the pressure to interview minority candidates.

except there are such a ridiculously low fraction of schools using that title that it doesn't bypass anything.

From the NCAA's perspective, and it's a legitimate view. Schools using the "CIW" designation are creating an unfair recruiting advantage for themselves by allowing a de-facto Head Coach extra recruiting visits that aren't permitted under the rules.

Prove to me, using Florida State's recruiting class this NSD, that Jimbo Fisher having those extra opportunities to visit recruits as an "Assistant" while the entire world knew that he'd be the head coach once the final whistle sounded on the Gator Bowl, didn't benefit the class that Florida State pulled in.

Honestly, Congratulations Texas for being "punished" because of something Florida State did. Sucks doesn't it?

[Leroy Lizard]

If CIW's are such an unfair advantage, again, build a consensus among university presidents and ban the practice.

I doubt the NCAA has that power, even if the college presidents vote it in.

[John Kochtoston]

I doubt the NCAA has that power, even if the college presidents vote it in.

I guess it would come down to freedom of contract vs. voluntary membership in an association. College basketball assistants successfully challenged the NCAA of the restricted-earnings position a while back on a freedom of contract theory.

On the other hand, the NCAA has usually been found to be a voluntary association, at least for the member universities and colleges. Voluntary associations can generally require members to follow rules, as long as those rules don't violate a law or public policy. There's a public policy freedom of contract argument to be made, but public policy tolerates all kinds of restrictions on contracts, and often demands them.