"I would tell them the truth and tell them what I know, and just cooperate with them," McLemore said at the NBA's predraft combine. "Hopefully they'll cooperate with me and hear my side."

To be fair to Thomas, McLemore's comments sound much more specific than Thomas'. Thomas talked about "everything coming out" and hoping that information came out "in the right way." McLemore seems much more committed to cooperating with the NCAA, and has some additional motivation:

"My reaction was like, 'Wow,' " he said. "That was someone that I could trust, and I put a person in my circle that I felt comfortable with and I know a long time that I wanted to help me through this process [of selecting an agent]. And for him to say the things he did and put that out there like that, I wish it wasn't true … [Cobb] put me in jeopardy and my family in jeopardy."

Beyond clearing his name and Kansas's reputation, McLemore may talk to the NCAA to ensure that the record firmly reflects that Cobb was the bad guy. And since Cobb appears to be on a scorched earth campaign against Rodney Blackstock, McLemore may respond in kind.

But until McLemore actually talks with the NCAA, there is no guarantee he will. He is no longer obligated to cooperate with the NCAA, unless he is worried about his stats and records being vacated. But even if he does, Cobb is the more important witness for the NCAA.

Even if no violation comes out of this case, it offers the NCAA an opportunity to continue building its expertise and background knowledge of the shadier areas of the basketball world. McLemore might only tell them things they already know about the relationships and benefits provided between players and AAU coaches. The chance to detail the relationship between an agent/runner/recruiter and someone within a star player's inner circle is a much rarer and more valuable opportunity.

“Jermaine does get Pell Grant for his – service provided through the NCAA when you do have a child so there’s additional funds there, but obviously not the funds you need to support a girlfriend and a child and yourself,” head coach Pat Chambers said in the conference call.

So, if the NCAA provided the sufficient funds for student-athletes, would there be a chance that Marshall would return for his final year of eligibility?

“Yea, I think that’s why he made the decision,” Chambers added. “If the NCAA could help out in the situation where Jermaine has a son, if they could give more money, yeah, I mean yeah, I would be all for that. You know it’s unfortunate, but you know he has a son and his son is great, he’s a great kid. If the NCAA could give up some money I think he’d still be a Nittany Lion.”

Chambers's initial quote is a bit confusing. The NCAA does not provide Pell Grants, the federal government does. The NCAA has programs like the Student Assistance Fund plus a number of exceptions for athletes who have children. And there is always the possibility of a waiver.

The idea that the NCAA or a school could provide more for athletes with children is more workable than it sounds. One easy solution would be to allow a school (or the NCAA) to match an athlete's Pell Grant if they have a child. That could be further limited to only athletes who are the primary caregiver for the child. Free day-care at a university facility could also be a permissible extra benefit for athletes (although waiting lists for those are often very long).

Aside from simply providing money or services to athletes, schools and the NCAA could also help athletes help themselves. Ensuring that athletes get all the right tax breaks and credits would be as helpful as double Pell Grants and free day-care.

Yesterday Google announced that it was adding a new feature to its Google Wallet service: the ability to attach money to email. By simply clicking a button in Gmail, users will be able to send up to $10,000 to anyone in the world, so long as they have or are willing to sign up for a Google Wallet account. Like Burner, this seems to have taken an NCAA rule that was already hard to catch violators and removed many of the headaches of using cash.

Unfortunately, this is not that sort of innovation in impermissible payments to players. For starters, it is harder to send the money. Coaches (or boosters or anyone else who wants to funnel money to athletes) must convince players to set up a Google Wallet account and walk them through linking it to a bank account to easily access the money. Email is also inherently more traceable than an envelope mailed to a player.

But more importantly, both the coach and the player must at some point pass the money through an account linked to their identity. A credit report would give the NCAA enough information to find even accounts that a coach or recruit keeps separate just for this purpose. And in the case of a coach or athlete, the NCAA would be able to compel them to provide a credit report as part of an NCAA investigation.

It might be easier, but using Google Wallet to attach money to email is not untraceable enough to make it a good substitute for cash. Bitcoin might one day be the answer, but at the moment it suffers from wild fluctuations in value, is even more difficult to use, and the same core problem: passing the money through an account the NCAA can find. If you want the NCAA to throw up its hands and give up on extra benefit rules, we're still waiting for a game changer that might prompt that.

RWG-11-3-B simplifies the in-person scouting rules by banning in-person scouting of future opponents across the board. Currently scouting is prohibited in some sports and allowed in a select few. In most sports however, scouting is allowed, but coaches must finance it themselves; institutions cannot reimburse or pay expenses for coaches to scout future opponents in person.

There was an alternative proposal, RWG-11-3-A, which would have permitted in-person scouting of future opponents paid for by the institution. That proposal was not forwarded to the Board of Directors by the Rules Working Group, but could become an option if RWG-11-3-B is ultimately defeated.

But on the men’s side, the story is very different. In the same time period, no men’s sports have been added to the NCAA’s line-up. Men’s championships have, like the new Division III Men’s Volleyball tournament, but no entirely new men’s sports have achieved NCAA championship status.

There have been countless debates on whether or not the NCAA should add men’s sports, sometimes rational, sometimes very emotional. But not asked is whether the NCAA needs to add new men’s sports. Or put another way, does the NCAA’s lack of new sport offerings for men represent a threat or weakness to the Association?

The short answer (or at least shorter than the long answer) is no. The longer answer is that within the foreseeable future (15-20 years), it could be a decision the NCAA looks back on with regret.

The Short Answer

In simple terms, there is no demand from the membership for new men’s teams. Between 1981-82 and 2011-12, the average number of men’s teams sponsored by Division I institutions fell from 10.3 to 8.7, meaning schools discontinued 1.6 teams on average. Over the same period, women’s sports expanded from 7.3 to 10.3, and the total number of teams per campus grew from 17.5 to 19.

But the number of male athletes tells a different story. Starting with an average of 273.5 male athletes per campus in 1981-82, male participation grew to 318.2 in 1984-85, despite the average number of teams sponsored declining or staying flat. From there, male participation fell quickly back to 275.6 male athletes per school in 1987-86, and has then fluctuated between 260 and 280 since there. In 2011-12, all this movement resulted in an average of 273.8, almost identical to the numbers in 1981-82.

Participation in men’s sports has gotten more concentrated. Fewer teams now provide opportunities for the same number of athletes as were participating 30 years ago. There are a number of reasons and implications to be explored from this information, but the biggest is that Division I members have not been expanding their male sports offerings even within the options that the NCAA already provides.

Perhaps new sport offerings would generate or unleash pent up demand for male participants. But so long as schools seem uninterested in offering new or even more of the existing NCAA sports for men, it is not an issue that threatens the NCAA.

The Longer Answer

The fact that the NCAA has not added a sport does not mean the sport will not or cannot grow. Even sports that would be low down the list of those the NCAA might start sponsoring for men have experienced explosive growth over the last 20-30 years. This also includes sports that have support at the varsity level including rugby.

The NCAA enjoys a monopoly amongst its members when it comes to NCAA sports through Bylaw 3.2.4.5. That bylaw says that NCAA rules apply to all varsity sports in which the NCAA conducts a championship. In short, a school cannot have most of its sports as NCAA sports, but run its baseball team as a professional minor league team.

But Bylaw 3.2.4.5 is murkier when it comes to sports that are not NCAA championship or emerging sports. A school can count a non-NCAA sport for each gender as a varsity sport and apply NCAA rules, but it does not appear they have to. This presents an opportunity for experimentation. Non-NCAA sports could potentially be operated as varsity sports, but under a different set of rules. That could allow for experimentation with academic rules, amateurism vs. professionalization, financial aid models, or recruiting deregulation.

The threat to the NCAA from a possible competing organization is focused right at the top. If the new college football playoff grows an administrative or regulatory arm, it could eliminate some of the start-up costs and barriers to entry for an alternative to the NCAA. But it could also come from the bottom up.

Imagine a situation where schools create a competing multi-sport organization for sports the NCAA does not sponsor. An organization that sponsors men’s beach volleyball, men’s triathlon, archery, action sports, auto racing, or other endurance sports. Obviously this is not on the scale of the NCAA or College Football Playoff. It is a proof of concept: that schools, particularly the big schools, do not need to stick with the NCAA to operate tournaments or enforce rules, even across a variety of sports.

Combine the CFP and this theoretical organization and you have a real threat to the NCAA. A multi-sport organization that sponsors tournaments for non-revenue sports and oversees a major revenue-producing championship fulfills many of the functions for which schools currently rely on the NCAA. And many of the growing pains for an NCAA competitor could be sorted out with much lower stakes in sports like cycling, go-kart racing, and skateboarding.

Because of the shorter answer above, this is not an immediate threat to the NCAA. Until schools want to or are pushed to add sports the NCAA does not offer, creating a competing organization will be tough. Even an organization overseeing multiple club sports would not be considered a viable alternative to the NCAA. The threat is more existential, that areas where the NCAA is absent represent the possibility for the rise of a competitor.

Harris said his commitment to Michigan State last year was “halfhearted.” He said he first flirted with a career in music during his freshman year at Downingtown East.

“I’ve always had this in the back of my head, but never had the courage to tell my parents that this is what I want to do,” Harris said.

Coming so closely to wrestler Joel Bauman losing his eligibility over his music career, it is natural to draw comparisons between the two cases. But there are two critical differences.

First is that Harris appears willing to do something Bauman was not: perform under a stage name or alias. Bauman insisted on releasing his music under his own name, while Harris released his first video as Jay DatBull.

Second is the timing. The song which got Bauman in trouble was released during his collegiate career. Harris has started off his music career publicly before enrolling at Michigan State. That may qualify Harris to continue rapping and releasing music under NCAA Bylaw 12.5.1.3. This exception to the NCAA's amateurism rules allows for athletes to continue modeling or other non-athletically related promotional activities, provided they started prior to enrolling in school (and meet some other exceptions).

So Harris's decision is less like Bauman's and more like the case of Myles Crosby, the male model-turned football player who signed with Southern Methodist. While Harris and Crosby might have been allowed to continue their music/modeling careers while playing college football, they each appear to have chosen to focus on one, and came up with different results.

Head softball coach Lu Harris-Champer reported her team practiced for four hours and 15 minutes on March 5, which is a violation of NCAA's daily hour limitations. According to NCAA Bylaw 17.1.6.1, athletes are not permitted to practice for more than four hours a day.

For this violation, Harris-Champer received a letter of admonishment and the team received an extra day off during the week the violation occurred. It is always curious when a major athletic department falls below a one violation per month average, but normally these periods are just the coaches being extra careful and tend to even out over time to the school's historic average.

The recommendation from CWA is for athletes to participate in four to six triathlon meets per year. The competition format would be shorter than an Ironman triathlon and held in more spectator-friendly areas like doing the swimming in pools and the biking over a loop. Scholarship aid might be available right from the start, with 3.5 equivalency scholarships in 2014-15 rising to 6.5 in 2017-18.

12 schools from all over the country have signed on, including four schools in Colorado and a BCS school (Stanford). As an emerging sport, triathlon would have 10 years to get 40 schools to sponsor it and become an NCAA championship sport, or show steady progress toward that goal.

There are currently three emerging sports for women: equestrian, rugby, and sand volleyball. Sand volleyball was the most recent addition, after a bitter fight in 2009 and 2010. The success of emerging sports making it to championship status is mixed. Ice hockey, rowing, bowling, and water polo have become NCAA championships for women, and sand volleyball is well on its way. But archery, badminton, synchronized swimming, and team handball were removed from the list in 2009 and equestrian and rugby may need to show more growth soon.

The CWA is already pushing to avoid a repeat of the sand volleyball process, when the sport had to survive an override vote to make it onto the emerging sports list. Unlike sand volleyball, triathlon is not tied as closely to another sport; a sand program was seen as an obligation by many successful indoor volleyball programs. The fall schedule may also calm some fears that triathlon will be used as a general training program/extra scholarships for other sports as well.

Divisions II and III may sponsor the legislation immediately. Division I will be trickier as the Board of Directors still seems committed to only looking at Rules Working Group legislation in 2013-14. But an initiative from the Committee on Women's Athletics may break through and get consideration by the Division I membership.

The committee discussed a sixth year as a solution for fifth-year seniors who graduate and want to play immediately. One coach said that would mean a two-year commitment (and two years of a scholarship) for a player to compete for one season.

The rule would say something to the effect of that if a player graduates and decides to transfer, he will have a year added to his five-year clock. When the Leadership Council subcommittee was looking at big changes to the transfer model in the winter, that was part of the proposal; that athletes who were not eligible to play immediately upon transfer would have their clocks extended so they can use their full eligibility.

This is not designed to slow or smooth out graduate transfers. It is designed to prevent them:

Would coaches do that? Would they invest two seasons and two years of a scholarship for one player for one year? The answer is probably not, just as has been the case for the free agency of the fifth-year player. Graduating and being eligible to transfer immediately is critical for even the one-year players. It doesn’t happen if that doesn’t occur.

It is important to know why we are at where we are at with the graduate transfer rule. A coach (or more accurately someone in the athletic department) has the power to prevent a student-athlete who has graduate from transferring and playing immediately. They can deny permission to contact, deny use of the one-time transfer exception, or refuse to support a waiver.

But the public backlash is so great that coaches either choose not to exercise their power to frustrate a transfer or they are unable to make it stick when they do. The coaches’ proposed solution is to prevent graduate transfers for everyone. Similar ideas are well received: see for instance the public support for a “no waivers” transfer rule or the lack of outrage over intraconference transfer penalties.

That creates an odd set of competing ideas. Many are pushing for athletes to have more freedom in transferring, just like regular students who are rarely burdened by their previous school when they leave. But at the same time, another group, including many of the same people, support legislation which essentially allows more schools to interfere with a transfer. If an athlete graduates from Duke, wants to transfer to UCLA, and both UCLA and Duke are ok with this, why should USC, North Carolina, or any other school have a say in it?

If the idea comes out of the NABC and becomes a piece of legislation, it will likely get an academic rationale; a sixth year and attending the new school for two years gets athletes a graduate degree. But aside from not making sense (an athlete who wants a graduate degree will not be allowed to stay at their current school and redshirt again), it also misses the point of the graduate transfer exception.

The entire thrust of a number of NCAA rules is towards getting athletes bachelors degrees. After that, the NCAA enforces far less stringent requirements. Students who have graduated must only be enrolled full-time and pass 6 hours each semester to be eligible. No GPA requirements, no percentage of degree rules, not even annual credit hour requirements. Athletes who transfer are just asked to take on an extra challenge in exchange for not sitting out: enroll in a graduate program instead of a second undergrad degree.

The other issue that is not addressed by the coaches’s idea is cutting players. While frowned upon, basketball coaches have a lot more leeway than football coaches to run off players. But many objections drop away when an athlete has already graduated. The school has met their obligation to the athlete, so they can cut him. Under the current rules though, at least he can transfer more easily. Under the NABC’s idea, he would find his transfer options limited, if not eliminated, on top of the lack of sympathy that he can no longer play at his current school.

The current system of graduate transfers works fine. Perhaps there should not be an additional waiver for athletes who have already transferred twice or permission to contact can be tweaked. But the basic arrangement is solid. Athletes who have graduated playing for coaches who do not want them can leave and play immediately. If the coaches wants to keep the player, he can try, but will have a fight on his hands. And in the end, most of the disputes will be ended like disputes should be ended: two adults sitting down and hashing out an agreement.

The current graduate transfer system started with Proposal 2005-54, which allowed any student enrolled in a graduate program not offered at their original school to be eligible immediately. After a summer of virtual free agency for graduating seniors, the membership overrode and defeated 2005-54. But then-NCAA President Myles Brand liked the rule so much that it survived as a waiver.

So many waiver requests were filed and were being rubber-stamped that in 2010, the NCAA membership passed Proposal 2010-52. This created a graduate transfer exception. The difference between an exception and a waiver is that schools must apply for a waiver with the NCAA or a conference, while they can apply exceptions on campus without first getting approval. Now we have both an exception and a waiver, which have slightly different requirements and uses.

Graduate Transfer Exception

The graduate transfer exception builds off of the one-time transfer exception, the rule most often used by athletes in non-revenue sports to be eligible immediately after transferring. The one-time transfer exception requires the following:

• The athlete has never previously transferred;
• At the time of the transfer, the athlete would have been academically eligible had he or she remained; and
• The athlete's previous institution says it does not object to allowing the athlete to use the one-time transfer exception.

The sports of football, basketball, men's ice hockey and baseball cannot normally use the one-time transfer exception. But they can if they fulfill the additional requirements as graduate students, in addition to everything above:

• The athlete is enrolled in a specific graduate program;
• The previous school did not renew the athlete's athletic scholarship.

Most of this is a formality. The athlete still needs permission from his previous school to transfer and play immediately. If that permission is granted, the school will also often cancel or non-renew the athlete's grant-in-aid agreement to fulfill the graduate exception.

Graduate Transfer Waiver

Despite the creation of the graduate transfer exception, the waiver lives on. It is now primarily used by athletes who have already transferred once, and thus are not eligible for the one-time transfer exception. The waivers are reviewed by the NCAA staff. If they are denied by the staff, they are appealed to the Division I Subcommittee on Legislative Relief.

These are the requirements for a graduate transfer waiver:

• The athlete's former school does not object to the waiver;
• The athlete is enrolled in a graduate program not offered at the previous institution.

The school submits documentation that these requirements are met, along with a statement from the student-athlete. Generally any waiver that meets the requirements is granted. There is not reason to show "compelling mitigation" or anything quite so fuzzy.

Comparing the Two

So if a football, basketball, baseball, or men's hockey player has never transferred previously from one four-year school to another, her or she will likely use the graduate transfer exception. If he or she has previously transferred, the waiver will be necessary. And only under the waiver is the athlete required to enroll in a graduate program their previous school did not offer.

Student-athlete 1, the same athlete who received $150 towards her enrollment fee, had been prescribed an anti-inflammatory medication after a hip injury at a previous school. When the student-athlete needed a refill but the team's athletic trainer was out, the head coach took matters into her own hands:

While waiting for the refill, the former head coach supplied student-athlete 1 with seven to 10 prescription pain relief pills the former head coach possessed. They were left over from a prescription the former head coach had received following her own surgery in 2009. The former head coach was not licensed to prescribe or distribute prescription medication.

Aside from the NCAA rules and potentially laws that were broken, the report describes the athlete's medication as an "anti-inflammatory" and the coach's substitute as a "pain reliever". While those could be the same, we are not even sure she provided the same medication that the athlete was waiting for.

This is the second recent case where a DII coach was found guilty of NCAA violations involving medication. In 2009, University of Incarnate Word was cited for major infractions involving a coach who had provided eight athletes with prescription medication over a period of years.

As far as penalties, Wingate vacated all victories involving Student-Athlete 1 and paid a fine of $5,000. The head coach received a two-year show-cause order with two specific restrictions. If she is employed during that time, she must attend a Regional Rules Seminar each year and is not permitted to operate, manage, or participate in camps or clinics during the show-cause period.

Coaches have to use their scholarship money each year or they will lose it. For some schools this means coaches scramble to fill the roster and give away scholarship dollars. I’ve seen coaches who recruit at the beginning of the school year once students are back on campus. They are looking for anyone with experience, interested in playing their sport at the school. These coaches aren’t really recruiting high school students and they aren’t going to find you, you need to find them. Here’s how.

Know What You Are Getting Into

Whether it is a coach who isn’t working that hard, a school in the middle of nowhere, or just a program with a long tradition of losing, something just isn’t going right for the school and the athletic department. It might sound really unappealing to play for a terrible team or just an okay coach, but that’s the point. If a school has a lot of the other qualities you are looking for, playing for a losing team might be okay.

For certain sports I find these types of opportunities work out better than others. True team sports like football, basketball, volleyball and soccer, sports where you rely on your team within the game it’s self, being on a terrible team can be very frustrating. For sports like swimming, track, tennis and golf, sports where you are essentially competing by yourself and your performance is added together for the team, these opportunities are best. What you are getting is the chance to compete in college and earn a scholarship. As long as the score isn’t going to determine your happiness, then these types of programs might be right for you.

How to Find an Easy Opportunity

Find a school with a history of losing. Go to the conference championship website and look at the results of the last few years of the conference championship. If there is a team that is consistently showing up at the bottom, investigate that team some more. Maybe you really like the school and they have your major but the team might not be highly competitive. It can still be a great college experience.

Find an athletic program that has just moved to a new division level. When a program has just made a jump to a new division level, typically there are several teams that are lacking the athletes to be competitive. These types of schools can be great for an athlete looking to play at a higher division level then they might ordinarily be able to or an athlete looking for the best scholarship deal.

Go where other athletes don’t go. This is a generalization and not always the case, but the facts are there are hundreds of NAIA, DIII and DII programs across the south and mid-western parts of the US and not enough athletes for all of those schools. If you come from a highly populated state or region, it might seem like you aren’t good enough to play in college. But, your typical varsity starter at a competitive large high school can usually find opportunities at schools outside of their region or state.

Don’t Go Only For the Scholarship

I want to be very clear, I am not suggesting you go to a school only for a scholarship, because in the end you will be very unhappy and probably leave the school. What I am saying is, if you are someone who is looking for a balance of college and sports, is open to smaller schools, schools outside of larger states or just the opportunity to play in college, use the advice here to find better scholarship opportunities.

If you have questions about how to do this please feel free to leave them in the comments or contact me on Google+. 

When a New Coach Comes In

When a program brings in a new coaching staff there is almost always high turnover on the team. The new coaches are trying to bring in players to fit their style and are typically letting go of a lot of current players. This means there are more scholarships available in the first two years of a coaching change. Additionally, when a coaching change happens it is late in the recruiting process and they are scrambling for players.

As a recruit it is going to be very uncomfortable to have to wait late in the process and watch other athletes signing scholarships but late season coaching changes are great opportunities for the right recruit. The type of athletes these opportunities are best for are an athlete who might have an offer already and is looking to move up a division level.

When a Coach Recruiting You Leaves the School

The other side of coaching changes are the schools the coaches are leaving. These coaches are at a huge disadvantage at their new job because they have spent the whole year recruiting players for a school they are no longer working at. For a recruit, the advantages are the coach already knows who you are, they probably have a short list of recruits they are considering and most likely you are on that list. If you contact that coach and let them know you are interested in their new program, it is a quick way to move up the recruiting board and get good offers.

Look for Weaknesses in the Program

This involves a little more work, but can pay off huge. If you can find programs that have a specific weakness at a position you play or in an event you specialize in, chances are better you’ll find an opportunity there. You should look over rosters for undersized athletes, a poorly ranked defense or offense or maybe there are specific events (think Track & Field, Swimming, and Gymnastics) where a team isn’t getting any points. It’s all about finding the school that needs you and beginning with schools weak at your position is a great place to start.

Wait to See Who Hasn’t Signed Any Athletes

For every program that lands a top recruit, there are 10 schools that didn’t. This means there are 10 schools still looking for players at that position. If a school hasn’t filled their roster within the first couple weeks of signing day that means they are having trouble finding the right recruits and this is an opportunity for you. How do you find these opportunities? Almost every team has a small write up on the athletes they’ve signed on their team website. Research the schools you are interested in the days and weeks after signing day. If the school isn’t reporting any signings, contact the coaches and see if you would be right for their team.

Are you having trouble finding schools? Are you not sure where to begin when looking for a scholarship opportunity? Feel free to leave your questions in the comments below or contact me on Google+.

Coach Randy Bennett said he has filed a separate appeal of both the findings and penalties, but declined to provide further details.

Appeals of penalties from the Committee on Infractions are becoming more and more common. All sorts of penalties, including bowl bans, scholarship reductions, even vacation of wins has been in appeal in recent years. But appeals of the findings, challenging the determination that violations occurred and/or the violations were major are rare.

The NCAA already deferred one penalty, a ban on taking a foreign tour, for one year since Saint Mary's had already committed to taking one this year. Of all the appeals, at first glance the one with the best chance of being overturned is the ban on skill instruction. While practice reductions are not unheard of, this is a total ban on a certain type of practice for an extended period of time.

Matthew Thomas’s effort to get out of his National Letter of Intent is as good a time as any to take a look at the NLI. The NLI is roundly and in many cases rightly criticized. But it still serves an essential purpose and is so ingrained in the recruiting culture that fixing it rather than scraping it is easier, no matter how big its faults.

The basic problem is that a grant-in-aid agreement signed by a prospect is extremely advantageous to the prospect. As a result, schools developed the NLI to accompany the grant-in-aid agreement, making the NLI very advantageous to schools. A school loses so much by not having an NLI along with a scholarship agreement that if an NLI can be offered, it almost always is.

The changes I’ve made are designed to do two things. First, they make the NLI a bit more flexible, so that it can be used as a single way for an athlete to make a commitment to a school while adapting to different circumstances. And second, the changes attach a cost to a school for signing a prospect to an NLI. Combined this should cause the offering and signing of an NLI to provoke more thought by both the prospect and the school.

Attached here is a copy of an NLI which I converted from a PDF and edited with the changes. W

Summary of Changeshere each change occurred is indicated in the document. While I started with a 2011-12 NLI, the terms have not changed significantly since then. I’ve linked the 2011-12 NLI for comparison purposes.

1. Removed Signing Periods

No more signing day or signing periods. Prospects can sign an NLI at any time during the academic year in their senior year of high school and beyond. Signing in the summer would be limited to financial aid agreements only.

2. Added Four-Year Transfers

Now all athletes signing with a school could sign an NLI. This brings all recruits into the same system (or not, depending if they choose to sign an NLI).

3. Aid For Two Years

While the student-athlete is committing to the school for one year, the school’s commitment must be longer. So the aid agreement that accompanies the NLI must be at least two years long (a year and a half for midyear enrollees). If schools want to sign an athlete to just one year of aid, they may not use the NLI.

4. More Transfer Freedom

Offering an NLI to an athlete should be evidence of a strong commitment from the school. Adding an additional year of aid is one element. Another is to automatically grant athletes permission to contact other schools if aid is cancelled, reduced, or not renewed at any time during the athlete’s career.

5. Early Signing Period Penalties Removed

With no more signing periods, there are no longer any penalties for football athletes to sign in the early period.

6. Automatic Releases

The concept of an automatic release has been one pushed for a number of years, particularly in coaching changes. Instead of simply making the release automatic for all athletes, this concept would allow an automatic release to be negotiated between the athlete and the school. Three possible conditions are offered: a head or assistant coach(es) leave or the school receives a Notice of Allegations or probation for a major infraction. There is also space for athletes and schools to add in a fourth of their choosing.

7. Flexible Recruiting Ban

This would allow athletes to reopen their recruitment after signing an NLI by canceling the recruiting ban. This is to offset some of the very early signings we may see with no set signing periods other than at the start of the senior year of high school.

But unlike athletes who are “committed but taking visits” there is no middle ground here. Signees must formally cancel the recruiting ban (through an Eligibility Center website that would be developed). And there is a consequence: if a signee cancels the recruiting ban, the university may unilaterally cancel his or her athletic scholarship.

Practical Impact

Together, these changes create an NLI which is more student-athlete friendly, more flexible, but which still respects the needs of the institution in the recruiting process.

Schools must commit more financial aid to NLI signees. Athletes who finish the NLI obligation and who then have their scholarship reduced, cancelled or nonrenewed are then free to explore transfer options. Transfers from other NCAA schools are also brought under the same system and play by the same rules, at least to the greatest extent possible under the NCAA’s transfer regulations.

The document itself contains a section which must be negotiated: the automatic releases. This creates an opportunity for other terms of the grant-in-aid agreement to be discussed, like the length of the scholarship (which must be at least two years to fulfill the NLI requirements) and the amount of aid (if this is an equivalency sport). The automatic release if aid is reduced offer an incentive for coaches in equivalency sports who vary an athlete’s aid year-to-year to put the entire four- or five-year plan in writing.

Finally, between the automatic releases and the ability of the athlete to cancel the recruiting ban, the NLI is less ironclad than it is now. But once an athlete signs with a school, if the school does not trigger the automatic release conditions, the athlete cannot walk away from the NLI unilaterally. The athlete can reopen their recruitment, and the school could cancel the NLI and financial aid agreement. Or the school can attempt to enforce the NLI despite the athlete’s ability to look at other options.

Together with the lack of defined signing periods, the NLI is used more as a written commitment intended to be honored by both parties but which can be dissolved rather easily. While no signing periods means many athletes will sign as soon as possible, the more pro-athlete NLI and the need to negotiate some terms of the NLI and grant-in-aid agreement will counteract the push for earlier signings some.

“What happened was on Signing Day was I wasn’t sure who I wanted to sign with. I had issues with different schools. But when I told my mom I didn’t want to sign with anybody and wait and give it a few days she said I couldn’t do that. She said, ‘FSU is a good school – pick them. It’s close to home.’ I wasn’t agreeing with it. But I felt like I was being disrespectful to her if I didn’t sign. So I made her happy.”

Thomas says Florida State's coaches have not granted the release. Issues like this are relatively rare at this level of sport. Most NLI issues for top prospects involve midyear transfers. It is uncommon for highly recruited football players to have a fight over the NLI before arriving on campus, especially when there has been no coaching change.

The article says the decision rests with the Florida State staff but in the case of an NLI, that is not entirely true. Unlike an enrolled student-athlete's request for permission to contact other schools about a transfer, an NLI release can be appealed outside of the school.

NLI releases are administered by the NCAA Eligibility Center on behalf of the Conference Commissioners Association, which oversees the NLI program. When a school denies an athlete's request for a release, the athlete has 30 days to appeal the denial to the NLI Committee. Athletes even have a second appeal, to the NLI Appeals Committee, should they still not be granted a release.

So Thomas has a number of options available to push for a release. The big question is whether his reasoning will be good enough to convince one of the NLI committees to grant him his release. The easiest solution for Thomas would be for Florida State to change its mind about releasing him, which might happen after a face-to-face chat.

If Thomas does not get his release from Florida State, his appeals are not successful, and he still decides to go somewhere else, he will be subject to the NLI's basic penalty. He will lose one season of competition in all sports and be required to sit out his first year at the other institution. That would leave him with four years to play three seasons.

In theory, Thomas would still be able to receive a scholarship and practice during that year in residence. The problem is the NLI's recruiting ban, which would prevent him from seeking out and signing with a new school, at least until he enrolled there and potentially even longer.

The President's Council voted to accept the recommendations of the Academic Task Force, which was given the job of rethinking, top-to-bottom, Division II's academic standards. The potential changes, which will be drafted into legislation in June and first voted on next January cover all the major elements of academic eligibility including initial eligibility, continuing eligibility, and two-year transfers:

• Initial eligibility. Implementation of a sliding scale of test scores and grade-point averages, keyed to a GPA requirement of 2.2 to be a full qualifier. Student-athletes with GPAs between 2.0 and 2.2 would be partial qualifiers if they satisfy matching test score requirements, assuming other requirements are met.
• Progress toward degree. Student-athletes would be required to maintain a 2.0 GPA in degree-applicable courses at all times and also would be required to complete at least 27 semester hours annually and at least nine hours per term. Current restrictions on the number of summer school hours that can be earned would be eliminated.
• Two-year college transfers.  Any student-athlete earning an associate of arts degree would be considered a qualifier. Otherwise, the new standards would reflect a required number of transferrable hours based on the amount of time the student-athlete spent at the two-year college and a required GPA of 2.2 (similar to what is recommend for the initial-eligibility concept).

The changes will be released in more detail by the NCAA next week, but already some comparisons can be made with the Division I standards. Division II's initial eligibility standards continue to creep ever closer to Division I's. Starting this year, incoming freshmen in Division II will need 16 core courses, up from 14. The sliding scale and increased minimum GPA track changes Division I has already implemented.

Continuing eligibility will depart significantly from Division I's standards. Gone will be two of the bedrock rules of Division I and II eligibility, the requirement that athletes earn six hours every semester and 18 hours each fall and spring. In its place athletes will need nine hours each semester with 27 hours each year (fall, spring and summer), plus a more rigorous GPA requirement than Division I.

The standards for 2-4 transfers will also creep closer to DI standards with a 2.200 GPA required versus Division I's 2.500. But there will still be the major exception of earning an associate's degree. In Division I, the increased GPA is in addition to graduating from the two-year college for 2-4 nonqualifier and 4-2-4 transfers.

Not entirely clear is whether some other concepts in the original recommendations survived. One of the most innovative was to change how and when percentage of degree was tracked, giving athletes more flexibility to change majors while still enforcing some march toward a degree. Those details will likely come out either next week or when the legislative proposals are published in August.

The article is an excellent look at how individuals in every widening concentric circles around athletes try and attach themselves to gain influence for personal gain. Beyond that, Prisbell's piece raises the questions of possible NCAA violations and what the penalty for Kansas might be, since McLemore has declared for the draft and is beyond the NCAA's reach.

The starting point is Bylaw 12.3.1.2, which says that an athlete is ineligible if he or she or friends or relatives receives benefits from an agent. Under Bylaw 12.02.1, the NCAA's new and expansive definition of an agent (a.k.a. the Cam Newton rule), Blackstock almost certain can be classified as one. In fact, Cobb might fall in the category as well, which includes anyone who:

Seeks to obtain any type of financial gain or benefit from securing a prospective student-athlete's enrollment at an educational institution or from a student-athlete's potential earnings as a professional athlete.

If the NCAA goes this route, then not only might the alleged payments and gifts to Cobb and a cousin of McLemore's render the player ineligible, but the payments from Cobb to McLemore might be as well, provided they came after Cobb is tagged as an agent.

It seems open and shut. All the NCAA has to do is continue its longstanding trend in men's basketball to rope in third parties. But for anyone expecting or hoping for Kansas to get smacked down, there are two major barriers.

First, the NCAA has to investigate a number of people who are under zero obligation to talk to them. Blackstock, Cobb, even McLemore are beyond the reach of the NCAA now that McLemore is headed to the NBA. Unless Cobb decides to talk to the NCAA and provide documentation of these payments and gifts, the investigation could quickly run into a dead end.

Second, despite some differences, the McLemore allegations shares some common elements with Cam Newton's. In both cases, a individual with influence over a student-athlete is alleged to have received or requested money in exchange for using that influence, without clear evidence that the athlete knew what was going on. And under the Cam Newton rule, in both cases we might treat these individuals as agents because of the new definition.

But that still does not answer the question of how to handle an athlete's eligibility when the NCAA cannot prove the athlete even knew what was going on, much less consented to it or received anything themselves. Holding Cam Newton out of the SEC championship game when the NCAA could not prove he knew about or got any benefits would not have gone over well. Neither would stripping Kansas of a Big 12 title and Sweet Sixteen appearance under similar circumstances.

But if the NCAA does overcome those obstacles, KU will have additional questions to answer. Blackstock's appearance on McLemore's pass list for multiple games may lead to the NCAA to conclude that Kansas should have known he was in some way connected to McLemore. Kansas may then have to detail what monitoring they did of the individuals that basketball players added to the pass list, and why the school did not know about Blackstock's connections to agents. Failing to answer those questions would, if the case gets that far, raise Kansas' institutional culpability quite a bit.

Absent a major break in the case, there is unlikely to be a satisfactory outcome here. Perhaps the NCAA will be unable to substantiate the allegations or will not go the additional step further that it refused to take in the Newton case. Or the NCAA will punish Kansas after the fact for a violation that neither the school nor the athlete ruled ineligible knew was occurring. Either way, this case is likely to leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

via insidememphisbasketball.com

ESPN’s Andy Katz asked the NCAA about the Lance Thomas case. Specifically Katz asked why there was a difference between the Thomas case, where he refused to cooperate with the NCAA’s investigation into his jewelry purchase and Memphis’s 2009 major infractions case where Derrick Rose refused to discuss his potentially fraudulent SAT test.

The response from the NCAA’s Stacy Osburn leaves a lot be desired. Part of the problem is that the Memphis case presented tough questions to the Committee on Infractions which did not answer them well in the public report. But the explanation of the distinction, instead of clearing things up, contributes to the public’s confusion about the NCAA. Here is the quote from Osburn.

“You can’t tell someone you violated a rule if they’re not a member of the NCAA or if there is no other evidence to suggest a rule was broken. If there was a major violation there has to be evidence. It can’t just be he said/she said. If you have folks who have information and they haven’t said anything like an agent or a jeweler they don’t fall under NCAA rules. So they don’t have to talk to you. If they’re no longer a student athlete they don’t have to, either unless the school says it will disassociate you from the school. We don’t have the subpoena power so we can only do so much.”

First of all, he said/she said is evidence. Testimony of someone is evidence, even if it is not very good evidence. If the jeweler in the Thomas case had spoken to the NCAA and provided testimony that Thomas committed an NCAA violation, then the enforcement staff can go with that. They just (hopefully) run the risk of that testimony being shot down by the Committee on Infractions. But in the Thomas case, no one said anything.

The bigger problem with this explanation is revealed when Andy Katz boils it down:

Translate: The NCAA claims it had other evidence in the Rose-Memphis standardized test case (it ultimately forced Memphis to vacate the 2008 Final Four) without talking to Rose but didn’t have anything else in the Thomas case and never got Thomas to talk.

We know what the other evidence is, because it is in the Committee on Infraction’s report from the Memphis case. The NCAA retained a forensic handwriting expert to evaluate Rose’s SAT, who determined that it was “probably” not Rose’s work. So on that basis, Osburn’s explanation is technically correct.

But this is too simplistic and contributes to one of the NCAA’s biggest public relations issues. Any time two things happen in the NCAA, no matter how different, fans and the media will seize on any similarity to compare the two and demand an explanation of a different outcome. The Rose and Thomas cases are so different that they really cannot be compared at all.

The key fact is that we know Derrick Rose was ineligible at some point. When ETS cancelled his SAT in May 2008, he was at the very least ineligible at that time. It is true that the test score was invalidated and Rose was rendered ineligible based on his lack of response. But it was ETS that made that ruling, not the NCAA.

So the question before the Committee on Infractions was not whether Rose was ineligible. Rather, the question was given that Rose was not confirmed as ineligible until after the season, how should the COI handle it? There were three theories discussed or alluded to in the report:

1. Strict Liability: Because Rose’s test score was invalidated, he was never eligible, and Memphis is responsible for that no matter what.
2. Memphis’s Negligence: Memphis was alerted to the possibility of discrepancies in Rose’s academic record and did not investigate thoroughly enough.
3. Rose’s Culpability: There is enough evidence to prove that Rose cheated on the SAT and knew he cheated, rendering him ineligible when he lied by signing the Student-Athlete Statement.

But Theory #3 is out because while the report says the enforcement staff initially charged Rose with an unethical conduct violation, the Committee on Infractions never got to it:

Ultimately, the committee concluded that it did not need to make a determination as to whether student-athlete 1 engaged in unethical conduct as defined in NCAA Bylaw 10.1 with respect to the alleged fraudulent completion of his SAT.

The report then drops the strict liability language, which is supported by NCAA Bylaw 31.2.2.3. But then, confusingly, the Committee on Infractions did two things which back the theory that the Memphis case is not about strict liability. First, the portion of the hearing which the report quotes in support of strict liability suggests that the COI believed Memphis did know Rose was ineligible:

COMMITTEE MEMBER: Even if they had not known and his score was later cancelled, it will be the same problem. It is not about what they did or didn’t do. I am only saying they had some information that there could have been a problem, and they proceeded after the fact.

Second, the section of the report dealing with Rose’s SAT cites NCAA Bylaw 31.2.2.4, which says:

When an ineligible student-athlete participates in an NCAA championship and the student-athlete or the institution knew or had reason to know of the ineligibility, the NCAA Committee on Infractions may assess a financial penalty.

The report says this was a “‘strict liability’ situation”. But it uses for support a discussion about strict liability as only a hypothetical, then imposes on Memphis a penalty which they should only get if they knew or should have known Rose was ineligible.

All of this is not just to point out that the Memphis case report is a mess, which it is. It is in the service of explaining that the questions presented by Derrick Rose’s cancelled SAT score are fundamentally different than those presented by Lance Thomas’s jewelry purchase. One deals with an affirmative obligation of an athlete that it was determined he did not meet after the fact. The other involves deciding whether or not an athlete did something he should not have done, and how big of a leap the NCAA should be willing to make.

Reducing these cases to “the athlete refused to talk” oversimplifies both of them, but especially the Memphis case. And between the poor explanation in the Memphis report and this response from the NCAA to Andy Katz about the two cases, the NCAA is contributing to the problem rather than helping the public understand the nuances of NCAA rules and infractions.

A few months on, and the athletic directors on the Leadership Council have toned the potential changes down significantly. From the report of the Leadership Council's April 2013 meeting report:

Based on the fact that the number of four-year transfer student-athletes was not overly significant, the subcommittee noted that wholesale changes of the transfer rules do not appear to be necessary, nor does a change to the current residence requirement in football, basketball and baseball.

That means any changes coming will likely not include allowing athletes in the revenue sports to transfer without sitting out, even using the one-time transfer exception. The Leadership Council did endorse an academic nexus for changes to the transfer rules. The one-time transfer exception could eventually be tied to higher academic requirements (like a 2.600 GPA), even if it does not expand to football, basketball, and baseball.

What will go forward and receive more attention are possible changes to the permission to contact rules:

In addition, the subcommittee would like to further explore the effectiveness of the permission to contact requirement, as well as whether it is most appropriate to tie the rule to the ability to receive athletics aid at the next institution.

Tying permission to contact to something other than financial aid was part of the original principles the Leadership Council was working on in January. Studying the effectiveness of permission to contact itself is interesting and may lead to something like the Division III self-release.

Finally, the Leadership Council will look at waivers of the transfer residence requirement, specifically the guidelines for those waivers being granted and data on how often they are sought and granted. Given the lack of consensus about waivers (i.e. some say there are too many, some say there are too few), that review could go off in any direction.

There were a number of options in front of the Board of Directors, but it appears the group has gone all the way and eliminated the sliding scale.

NCAA DI Board: 2016 initial eligibility sliding scale has been stricken. 2013 scale will remain the standard #thechangehasbeenchangedback

— Baylor Compliance (@SicEmCompliance) May 2, 2013

The 2.3 GPA minimum and core course progression requiring 10 courses before the start of a prospect’s senior year in high school remain. It also appears that the new partial qualifier status, known as an “academic redshirt” will remain as well.

This means that instead of requiring a 1080 SAT or 93 ACT with a 2.300 GPA as the minimum to play, the NCAA will now require a 900 SAT or 75 ACT with the minimum 2.300 to play. Athletes with a 2.000-2.299 GPA who still meet the current sliding scale will be academic redshirts. Same for athletes who have less than 10 core courses prior to senior year or less than seven English, math, or natural science courses prior to the same point.

Kentucky coach John Calipari said a year ago that he had his players wait past the deadline to announce a decision to prove a point that the NBA deadline is the one that matters. And a number of players this year used just about every last day and hour until the NBA deadline to make their decision: Michigan State's Adreian Payne, Creighton's Doug McDermott, and Baylor's Isaiah Austin and Cory Jefferson decided to stay, and Colorado's Andre Roberson and Miami's Shane Larkin used the time to decide they would leave.

The problem appears to be that coaches believe that the NCAA's date is a deadline to enter the NBA draft. In reality, it is a deadline to withdraw from the NBA draft and return to school. As long as that deadline is before the NBA's deadline to enter, it is irrelevant.

Although NBA rules have a role as well. The NBA prohibits workouts of players prior to the NBA's predraft camp. So even if a player has declared for the draft, he cannot have the type of contact with a team that he and the team benefit the most from until June.

It really is irrelevant what college basketball coaches do with the draft date because the NBA can trump their decisions. The NBA could push the entry deadline back further, or allow workouts earlier and with players who have not entered the draft. Even more radical, the NBA could dump the idea of declaring for the draft, and simply place every eligible player into the draft pool like MLB and the NHL, which renders a host of NCAA rules obsolete.

In response, coaches would have to push for more restrictions on tryouts. Players can finance their own tryouts so long as they do not miss class. But even more important is that professional teams can pay the expenses for an athlete's tryout, so long as the athlete does not miss class and the tryout lasts no longer than 48 hours. Basically this is an official visit for the aspiring pro, and would be the first place college coaches would have to target to combat major changes to NBA draft rules.

That still does not solve the problem of uncertainty for coaches. Truth is, they have no certainty in their rosters anymore. For every player that ends up staying because they had a limited time to make a decision or could not go on tryouts, many more players are transferring. Coaches should just accept the smaller uncertainty of the draft, and not fiddle with the rules in a way that might trigger an NBA backlash.

Provides that coach at public university who intentionally or recklessly commits or causes to be committed major violation of rules of National Collegiate Athletic Association is liable for university’s actual damages and attorney fees. Applies to major violations committed before, on or after effective date. Declares emergency, effective on passage.

The article notes other reporting that Oregon's bills have topped $150,000 investigating the football program's use of recruiting services. That would be light compared to other major violations; total costs have routinely run into the millions of dollars.

The second to last sentence of the summary is the most intriguing. The bill's sponsor wants it to apply after the fact to violations committed prior to the bill's passage. That might mean not just an attempt by the state of the Oregon not to make coaches think twice, but to go after Chip Kelly in the current NCAA case. Under the proposed law, Oregon would have two years after the law is passed to start an action against Kelly for its legal fees.

Beyond a template for other state legislatures, this could end up being a new standard clause in employment contracts for major college coaches. At the very least, it could become a part of buyout clauses, specifically addressing instances where a coach leaves a program in the middle of an NCAA investigation or major infractions case.

All other items, including social media designations such as URL’s and hashtags, are prohibited.

So no hashtags. One problem: Rule 1-2-1-(f) is included in this heading:

Administrative rules that may be altered by game management without mutual consent include:
…
1-2-1-e-g, i and j

So you cannot have a hashtag on the field. Unless you are the home team and really want one.

And Rule 1-2-1-(h) cannot be changed by game management or mutual consent of the teams.

I apologize sincerely for the error.

Here is a listing of the legislation in the NCAA’s database which was drafted in conjunction with the AFCA or was supported by the AFCA before it was initially submitted.

1997-39 (adopted)

This proposal made changes to the spring practice schedule, increasing the number of practices with contact, while reducing the number that included tackling and scrimmages.

2004-29 (adopted)

Allowed football coaches to re-award an athletic scholarship when an athlete quits during fall camp prior to the start of school and the first game. Recipients of the scholarship must have been on the team for at least one year and not previously received an athletic scholarship.

2004-30 (adopted)

Prevented football teams from bringing midyear enrollees (both freshmen and transfers) to bowl games.

2004-31 (adopted)

Allowed teams to conduct one-hour walkthroughs during the five-day acclimatization period at the start of preseason football practice provided no pads, helmets, or other football equipment is used.

2004-32 (adopted)

Allowed football coaches to replace one another during a recruiting week. Previously the seven coaches who started a recruiting week were the only coaches who could recruit that week. Since this proposal was adopted, recruiting weeks have been replaced by evaluation days.

2004-33 (adopted)

Limited institutional football camps and clinics to two periods of 15 consecutive days during the months of June and July. Previously camps could be held at any time during June, July, and August.

2005-151 (adopted)

Prohibited football coaches from hosting or evaluating at combine events primarily devoted to “agility, flexibility, speed and strength tests”.

From this, we can see some of the trends. The big issues for the AFCA are quality of life for coaches and getting more access to players. A recruiting communication proposal from the AFCA is unlikely to include much more unlimited communication. There is less guidance about noncoaching staff limits.

And as far as the ongoing review of the football recruiting model, we have a good idea what the AFCA will think about the two big issues. They will likely not support deregulation of 7-on-7 recruiting or allowing coaches to evaluate at 7-on-7 events. And they will likely support as much summer conditioning and practice as the Leadership Council and Board of Directors will let them get away with.