Override Watch 2013: The Beginning

Now that the Big Ten has throw its hat into the ring as opposed to a number of the deregulation proposals, it seems worth it to start watching the override requests. Given the legislative process used by the Board of Directors, skipping the Legislative Council, this is really the only opportunity for schools to voice serious opposition to these proposals in a meaningful way.

A proposal needs to receive 75 override requests to trigger the override process. If the proposal receives 125 requests, it is stayed until the override process is over. Once a proposal receives 75 requests it will be sent back to the Board of Directors which has three options:

  1. Tweak the proposal, and adopt it again, which starts the process over.
  2. Accept defeat and go back to the drawing board.
  3. Leave the proposal as-is and send it back to the membership for an override vote.

If a proposal goes to an override vote, it must receive a 5/8th majority of voting schools to be defeated. So the fewer schools that support the proposal (and vote against the override), the easier it is for the override to succeed (which causes the proposal to fail) (yes, it is as confusing as it sounds).

RWG Proposal 11–2 – Noncoaching Staff May Recruit: 2 requests

This is one of the proposals the Big Ten opposed in its statement. It may also draw opposition from smaller schools.

RWG Proposal 11–3-B – Ban on Scouting Opponents: 2 requests

The biggest question is what the overriders want here. Do they just want to let the sports that could scout continue to scout? Or did they favor the alternative, 11–3-A, which would have expanded live scouting?

RWG Proposal 11–4 – Eliminate Off-Campus Recruiter Limits At Any One Time: 1 request

Opposition here could be from a student-athlete welfare perspective (all the coaches gone at once) or from a cost perspective, which could be misguided.

RWG Proposal 13–3 – Unlimited Calls and Texts: 2 requests

This is the second of the three proposals the Big Ten opposed. This will be one of the most watched proposals since opposition may gather serious steam.

RWG Proposal 13–5-A – Deregulated Recruiting Materials: 2 requests

This is the third of the three proposals the Big Ten opposed. The Big Ten may get some help here from smaller schools worried about cost.

RWG Proposal 13–8 – Deregulated Camp and Clinic Employment: 1 request

The opposition here will be focused on football, since the proposal allows football players to work camps and for incoming athletes to attend camp. The general ability to hire incoming freshman may also rub some people the wrong way.

RWG Proposal 16–3 – Academic and Other Support Services: 1 request

No, some school has not opposed spending money on academics. More likely, any override requests here will be related to how vague the proposal is, since it could allow schools to spend money on anything related to “academic support, career counseling, or personal development”.

RWG Proposal 16–4 – Medical Expenses: 1 request

Again, some school is probably not against medical spending. This proposal removes a list, and replaces it with institutional discretion. Like 16–3, it is very vague. Unlike 16–3, this proposal really does not change anything.

RWG Proposal 16–6 – Entertainment: 1 request

Not hard to see why a school might object to this proposal. Entertainment goes from road trips, vacation periods, and a movie the night before a game to any reasonable entertainment, with no guidance as to what is reasonable.

Last year, the NCAA’s override reports, which list the actual schools and their rationale for requesting an override were leaked. Now we wait to see if any of the proposals draw enough requests or until the report is leaked again to see why they were filed in the first place.

Posted on by John Infante
This entry was posted in Bylaw Blog, Headlines, NCAA Legislation. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Comment