nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Is the NCAA reviewing the practice of hiring high school coaches to gain an advantage in recruiting?

Reeldawg

I am thinking of the Markaviest Big Cat Bryant situation amongst others.

I believe Jim Harbaugh just did the same thing for a 2019 recruit.

To be fair, the coach is supposed to be pretty good. The ethical question; however, still persists.

I also believe that this is not his first time engaging in this practice.

Find more posts tagged with

Recruiting Rules

NCAA

Comments

Palm_City_Dawg

They are...and I believe they are ruling on it in April. Proposed penalty/remedy is 2 years of ineligibility for the player who was signed. Hopefully that will be harsh enough to discourage the practice!

Reeldawg

I wonder how the late Coach Bear Bryant would feel about the current status of college football recruiting.

RetiredRedcoat

@Palm_City_Dawg I hope that's not the case. THIS COACH GOT UNETHICAL BENEFITS! QUICK, LET'S PUNISH SOMEONE ELSE! If that's true then this is yet another case of coaches being allowed to benefit from doing things players aren't allowed to do with no consequence.

A coach can move schools at the drop of a hat with no repercussions, but the students he recruited to his old school lose a year of playing time if they follow him.

Oh, and coaches can get paid for the school making money by using their names and likenesses. There's also that.

This just doesn't have the ring of logic to me, and I don't know where you heard it. But who knows...it's the NCAA.

Reeldawg

@RetiredRedcoat said:
@Palm_City_Dawg I hope that's not the case. THIS COACH GOT UNETHICAL BENEFITS! QUICK, LET'S PUNISH SOMEONE ELSE! If that's true then this is yet another case of coaches being allowed to benefit from doing things players aren't allowed to do with no consequence.

A coach can move schools at the drop of a hat with no repercussions, but the students he recruited to his old school lose a year of playing time if they follow him.

Oh, and coaches can get paid for the school making money by using their names and likenesses. There's also that.

This just doesn't have the ring of logic to me, and I don't know where you heard it. But who knows...it's the NCAA

An institution that hires a high school coach just to get a few good players is unethical.

You are correct in that punishing the players is not right.

I do see some logic in the proposed rule that is different than the unsavory inequalities which you correctly pointed out.

This rule is meant to be an institutional deterrent. If the school can't use a player as soon they intended, they must make a choice.

Do they want the coach or the player.

There will be situations, where both coach and player may be simultaneously desired. If this is the case, why not allow the rule to take the player and make the coach wait two years. This is unlikely but food for thought.

Perhaps keep the rule as written but allow an appeals process where the institution must demonstrate that the need for the position was discussed prior to the recruitment of the player.

There is no perfect solution but something should be done.

If the practice continues, you have a situation where a person with trust and persuasion is going be highly paid. The thought they will guide their young players to a path that best fits the player's needs without being influenced by monetary gain seems naive.

Essentially, all the inequities with coaches and money in college trickles down to the high school level.

If coaches who make six figures can't find their moral compass, what is to be expected of a coach on a teachers salary.

levander

@Reeldog makes an excellent point... Let's say it is unethical to hire the coach... Why the hell would you punish the student for that?

And I'm pretty sure that's what they're talking about, because I remember Jeff and Brandon talking about it on the podcast. Well, can't play for two years at the school that hired the coach I think. But it was definitely a punishment to the student...

I just know if I were the coach in question in this situation,even if the NCAA doesn't make a rule, I'd be worried about the school firing my ass the day the kid graduates...

If you want to punish someone, you have to punish the school itself. I'd do something like take away a home game and make them play it on the road. That hits them in the wallet without really punishing the students. And it irks the fans (namely the season pass holders) who will then maybe yell at the school to follow the rules, etc.

JayDog

@Reeldawg said:

@RetiredRedcoat said:
@Palm_City_Dawg I hope that's not the case. THIS COACH GOT UNETHICAL BENEFITS! QUICK, LET'S PUNISH SOMEONE ELSE! If that's true then this is yet another case of coaches being allowed to benefit from doing things players aren't allowed to do with no consequence.

A coach can move schools at the drop of a hat with no repercussions, but the students he recruited to his old school lose a year of playing time if they follow him.

Oh, and coaches can get paid for the school making money by using their names and likenesses. There's also that.

This just doesn't have the ring of logic to me, and I don't know where you heard it. But who knows...it's the NCAA

An institution that hires a high school coach just to get a few good players is unethical.

I agree. But let's play devil's advocate here: Is it unethical if the rules allow it? Further, if the coach being hired knows (as I am sure anyone in that situation would) that he could be fired in a few years, would it still remain unethical? After all, the player would understand what's happening, as would the coach and school.

spradlin24

Punishing the student is not fair, but if a player knows he is going to lose 2 years of his time he will make a decision based on the best spot for him and not where his old coach is going.

Michigan hired the coach of #1 player last year Gary right after he signed and now has brought in this coach who has the #1 DT QB for 2019 now because he will be clear of the timeline that is being laid out for hiring without punishment. As with any rule there will be guidelines and coaches will walk that fine line to get kids they deem necessary.

donm

JayDog......for me ethical refers to what "should" be done, regardless of its legality. So I see a difference between the two. In the case you cited, the "ethical" thing to do (IMO) is for the hiring school to let the person being hired know that he is only being hired for a limited period of time. If, for whatever reason, the coach being hired is led to think he could be in a permanent situation, then I look at that as unethical - as in it "shouldn't be the case".

Reeldawg

Some of these students are just kids.

The reason that someone under the age of 18 cannot enter a contact is they lack capacity.

There seems to be an assumption, at least in part, that they are capable of making meaningful decisions on behalf of themselves and their coaches.

Many student athletes need a parent and coach to guide them through the recruiting process.

The hiring of the coach should not be on the mind of a 17 year old when choosing a college.

What if two universities get into negotiations for hiring the coach? Does the kid need to defer his decision until his coach has negotiated the best deal.

On its face, it doesn't seem right.

You can't pay the parent(s) and you shouldn't pay the coach.

These people have major influence over the student making a decision that should be based soley on what's best for the high school athlete.

The commitment process should not be a joint venture.

JayDog

@donm said:
JayDog......for me ethical refers to what "should" be done, regardless of its legality. So I see a difference between the two. In the case you cited, the "ethical" thing to do (IMO) is for the hiring school to let the person being hired know that he is only being hired for a limited period of time. If, for whatever reason, the coach being hired is led to think he could be in a permanent situation, then I look at that as unethical - as in it "shouldn't be the case".

I would agree with you. It is always an interesting question. The definition of ethical:
1. pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.
2. being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, especially the standards of a profession:
It was not considered ethical for physicians to advertise.(http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ethical)

So this practice, and even the pulling of scholarships, may or may not be ethical depending upon which, "principles of morality" you apply. Is it the moral thing to do? The deeper question then becomes, "who does it harm?" If the arrangement is entered into honestly, and is mutually beneficial for all parties, what standard of conduct is violated? We could get into the ethics of using power (the HS Coach) to influence a kid to choose a school so the coach gets a job. But that opens another can of worms.

Reeldawg

@JayDog......The deeper question then becomes, "who does it harm?"

I think you nailed down the essence of the entire debate with the question noted above.

amjadawgs

Some may think this is off topic. I do hope the NCAA makes this rule and more importantly, enforces detriment on the universities and the coaches who break the rule – the kids DO NOT deserve the punishment. But, as was discussed in a thread created by @JayDog a couple of weeks ago, this is a “tiny” step in the right direction. There is SOOO much more broken in the recruiting process. I won’t waste everyone’s time by making a long list, but I do want to point out one thing I brought up in the thread by @JayDog. I made a mockery of Harbaugh’s recruiting antics and a certain member of Dawgnation quoted me (I won’t name drop here) and said, “I wouldn’t care if we signed the #1 class.” Obviously, I just let it go, but he was dead wrong! I would lose a lot of respect if CKS took a family vacation day with a recruit and his family. I understand this is now a business, but the base of the business is still football! Selling your football program, your athletic program – anything to do with academics and even “how” they can prepare you for the next level of football and/or life, those are the important things and the difference in staying within what I deem “ethical” and not venturing to “selling your soul for a commit.”

JayDog

@amjadawgs said:
I won’t waste everyone’s time by making a long list, but I do want to point out one thing I brought up in the thread by @JayDog. I made a mockery of Harbaugh’s recruiting antics and a certain member of Dawgnation quoted me (I won’t name drop here) and said, “I wouldn’t care if we signed the #1 class.” Obviously, I just let it go, but he was dead wrong! I would lose a lot of respect if CKS took a family vacation day with a recruit and his family. I understand this is now a business, but the base of the business is still football! Selling your football program, your athletic program – anything to do with academics and even “how” they can prepare you for the next level of football and/or life, those are the important things and the difference in staying within what I deem “ethical” and not venturing to “selling your soul for a commit.”

I remember the post in question. I lean more your way than his, though the question of ethics still plagues me. I have taken a purely academic approach. But to define ethics as a "standard practice" falls short in in considering the human element. I favor honesty above all else in these interactions. If the recruit knows what can happen up front, then it takes care of some of the human element because the sense of injustice would be nullified. There may be disappointment, but the situation would be fair.

The NCAA needs to legislate the circus out of recruiting. Make recruiting plain and simple. The school extends a letter of interest. No visits in home or elsewhere. If the recruit is interested, he can take them up on the offer to check the university out. All face to face contact must be on the college campus. Increase the number allowed each year. Limit what can be done on those visits and how much money can be spent. There would be no scholarship offers made unless the school is ready to sign that kid immediately. If the recruit doesn't sign immediately, the school must give him a deadline to make up his mind. Pass the deadline, and the school is free to open that scholarship spot to someone else--giving it to the first taker.

If those were the rules, a responsible recruit would be taking time to make visits to interested schools across a period of years. Relationships with coaches can be built that way and through texts and phone calls. There would be a process for less recruited kids to reach out to the schools they are interested in attending.

Fraught with problems...I know.

RetiredRedcoat

@Reeldawg said:
An institution that hires a high school coach just to get a few good players is unethical.

You are correct in that punishing the players is not right.

I do see some logic in the proposed rule that is different than the unsavory inequalities which you correctly pointed out.

This rule is meant to be an institutional deterrent. If the school can't use a player as soon they intended, they must make a choice.

Do they want the coach or the player.

There will be situations, where both coach and player may be simultaneously desired. If this is the case, why not allow the rule to take the player and make the coach wait two years. This is unlikely but food for thought.

Perhaps keep the rule as written but allow an appeals process where the institution must demonstrate that the need for the position was discussed prior to the recruitment of the player.

There is no perfect solution but something should be done.

If the practice continues, you have a situation where a person with trust and persuasion is going be highly paid. The thought they will guide their young players to a path that best fits the player's needs without being influenced by monetary gain seems naive.

Essentially, all the inequities with coaches and money in college trickles down to the high school level.

If coaches who make six figures can't find their moral compass, what is to be expected of a coach on a teachers salary.

I don't know that we're communicating with each other very well. I wholeheartedly agree that hiring a coach to get a player is unethical.

And I understand the concept of an institutional deterrent. I understand having to take either the coach or the player...but in the case of Big Cat, the recruit was brought in and then the coach was hired after the fact. What do you do in that case? Do you suspend a student for two years for committing to a school that had not hired his high school coach at the time he signed? That's where I see the logic breaking down. The student gets punished for a kickback to his coach.

My problem is that this is just one more case where the punishments for players seem to pile up and the coaches are allowed to act with impunity.

A coach can swap schools whenever he wants with no waiting period, but if a student transfers he has to sit a year. Shouldn't be that way.

A coach can be paid for his image and likeness when a student who can't is the reason the coach has a job. Shouldn't be that way.

A school can make millions off these men every weekend but the students can't sell their jerseys for $500 bucks because the sport is "amateur" and those are "impermissible benefits." Shouldn't be that way.

I agree something should be done. But focus the solution on preventing the coaching hires rather than punishing the athletes. At this point the NCAA seems to be doing their best to punish athletes for the money they make AND the money other people make because of them.

spradlin24

RetiredRedcoat I agree that we should find a way to stop the coaching hire, but I am not sure that can happen without causing the University to think about losing a quality player if they hire a certain coach. It is not fair to the kids at all, but I think if the head coach knows bringing in a certain coach will cost him a player like Bryant for two years that coach will not get hired. I am not sure if this is the right way to fix this, but they have to help these kids that are getting pushed in a certain direction by someone that has a lot of influence for their gain and not the kids gain. The kid could go and be successful anywhere he wanted to without a coach tag along. I a sure this will not be the final rule when it does come out and it will be something that has to be tweaked regularly to avoid issues. Harbaugh has already found a way around it before it is even official by hiring the coach 2 years early to gain a player he wants to get and avoid any penalty.