GoVols876
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2007
- Messages
- 563
- Likes
- 264
New NCAA rule will limit Muschamp's and other HCs in waiting in recruiting
Chip Brown
Orangebloods.com Columnist
Will Muschamp, one of the best recruiters on the Texas staff, could certainly feel singled out by a new NCAA rule that will limit the amount of direct contact a "publicly designated" coach-in-waiting can have with a recruit. The rule hadn't even been proposed when Muschamp was named coach-in-waiting at Texas on Nov. 18, 2008. Now, it's an NCAA rule that affects Texas and only one other school.
A new rule will cut back Will Muschamp's direct contact with recruits.
Fearing schools that designate a coach-in-waiting would gain unfair contact with a recruit, the NCAA has approved a rule that will limit the direct contact with recruits an assistant coach can have if he is a CIW.
Assistant coaches can have more contact with recruits than head coaches. But an assistant who is publicly designated a CIW will be limited to the same contact as a head coach.
Texas wasn't aware of the rule until a few weeks ago.
I was not able to talk directly to athletic director DeLoss Dodds or anyone in the football office Tuesday, but I walked the halls over at Belmont today and needless to say there is all kinds of frustration with this rule for obvious reasons.
Will Muschamp is an aggressive recruiter who enjoys that part of his job and, most importantly, helps identify the prospects who Texas will recruit, a key priority of the defensive coordinator. His ability to visit with recruits directly, especially during the spring evaluation period, will now be cut back. (More on this in a moment.)
When Texas designated Muschamp as the coach-in-waiting on Nov. 18, 2008, this rule wasn't even in discussion. It was proposed by the Big East in June of 2009, debated in September of 2009 and ratified shortly thereafter for implementation beginning in 2010, according to this year's NCAA Manual.
The NCAA rules manual includes the "rationale" for new legislation when it is proposed. Here is the rationale that was presented by the Big East in recommending the new rule:
In recent years, some football programs have begun to publicly designate an individual on its current staff to become the institution's next head football coach when the current head football coach retires.
In addition to being an assistant coach, this individual has also been given the title of "head coach in waiting." As the Division I membership has supported legislative initiatives to restrict the off-campus recruiting activities of the head football coach, this designation has provided a distinct recruiting advantage.
This proposal would eliminate that advantage by mandating that the "head coach in waiting" adhere to all legislation applicable to the head football coach.
The rule was supported by the Football Issues Committee. Here's what the committee concluded in this year's NCAA Manual:
The committee supports the proposal. The committee noted that such coaches, once publicly designated, are allowed to recruit in a manner representative of a head coach and speak on behalf of the football program as a head coach -- not just an assistant coach.
The legislation was opposed by the Recruiting and Athletics Personnel Issues Cabinet. Here's what the Cabinet maintained (also published in the 2010 NCAA Manual:
The cabinet opposes the proposal. The cabinet noted that the designation of an assistant coach as the next head coach may occur several years prior to the departure of the current head coach, which may prohibit assistant coaches from participating in off-campus recruiting activities during the spring evaluation period for an extended period of time and may result in other unintended consequences.
The rule is on the books and will impact how Muschamp is able to recruit the 2011 signing class.
Texas doesn't see where a school gains an unfair advantage by having a coach-in-waiting out recruiting, especially during the spring evaluation period.
Mack Brown went out of his way during his press conference last Wednesday to make the point that he alone makes a scholarship offer and decides how many offers will go out to the various position groups.
Talked to Bob Burda of the Big 12 Tuesday about the rule, and he noted how several of these situations were playing out at places like Oregon, Purdue, Kentucky and Florida State over the past couple years.
Oddly enough, those schools have all transitioned their coach-in-waiting to head coach. Now, the only two schools in Division I-A with coaches in waiting appear to be Texas and Maryland (where Ralph Friedgen will hand things off to James Franklin).
Here is the legislation as laid out in the 2010 NCAA Manual:
13.1.2.6 Head Coach Restrictions -- Bowl Subdivision Football.
13.1.2.6.1 Assistant Coach Publicly Designated as Institution's Next Head Coach.
An institution's assistant coach who has been publicly designated by the institution to become its next head coach shall be subject to the recruiting restrictions applicable to the institution's head coach.
[13.1.2.6.1 through 13.1.2.6.2 renumbered as 13.1.2.6.2 through 13.1.2.6.3, unchanged.]
B. Bylaws: Amend 13.1.8.4, as follows:
[Federated provision, FBS only]
13.1.8.4 Limitations on Number of Evaluations -- Football.
In football, institutional staff members shall be limited to three evaluations during the academic year during which the prospective student-athlete competes or practices on any team. Not more than one evaluation may be used during the fall evaluation period and not more than two evaluations may be used during the April 15 through May 31 evaluation period.
An authorized off-campus recruiter may use one evaluation to assess the
prospective student-athlete's athletics ability and one evaluation to assess the prospective studentathlete's academic qualifications during the April 15 through May 31 evaluation period.
If an institution's coaching staff member conducts both an athletics and an academic evaluation of a prospective student-athlete on the same day during the April 15 through May 31 evaluation period, the institution shall be charged with the use of an academic evaluation only and shall be permitted to conduct a second athletics evaluation of the prospective student-athlete on a separate day during the evaluation period.
13.1.8.4.1 Head Coach Restriction -- Spring Evaluation Period. In bowl subdivision football, during the April 15 through May 31 evaluation period, the head coach [and any assistant coach who has been publicly designated by the institution to become the next head coach (see
Bylaw 13.1.2.6.1)] shall not engage in off-campus recruiting activities, participate in an offcampus coaching clinic, visit a prospective student-athlete's educational institution for any reason or meet with a prospective student-athlete's coach at an off-campus location.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I got this off another message board. I think the NCAA did a good job with this one.
Chip Brown
Orangebloods.com Columnist
Will Muschamp, one of the best recruiters on the Texas staff, could certainly feel singled out by a new NCAA rule that will limit the amount of direct contact a "publicly designated" coach-in-waiting can have with a recruit. The rule hadn't even been proposed when Muschamp was named coach-in-waiting at Texas on Nov. 18, 2008. Now, it's an NCAA rule that affects Texas and only one other school.
A new rule will cut back Will Muschamp's direct contact with recruits.
Fearing schools that designate a coach-in-waiting would gain unfair contact with a recruit, the NCAA has approved a rule that will limit the direct contact with recruits an assistant coach can have if he is a CIW.
Assistant coaches can have more contact with recruits than head coaches. But an assistant who is publicly designated a CIW will be limited to the same contact as a head coach.
Texas wasn't aware of the rule until a few weeks ago.
I was not able to talk directly to athletic director DeLoss Dodds or anyone in the football office Tuesday, but I walked the halls over at Belmont today and needless to say there is all kinds of frustration with this rule for obvious reasons.
Will Muschamp is an aggressive recruiter who enjoys that part of his job and, most importantly, helps identify the prospects who Texas will recruit, a key priority of the defensive coordinator. His ability to visit with recruits directly, especially during the spring evaluation period, will now be cut back. (More on this in a moment.)
When Texas designated Muschamp as the coach-in-waiting on Nov. 18, 2008, this rule wasn't even in discussion. It was proposed by the Big East in June of 2009, debated in September of 2009 and ratified shortly thereafter for implementation beginning in 2010, according to this year's NCAA Manual.
The NCAA rules manual includes the "rationale" for new legislation when it is proposed. Here is the rationale that was presented by the Big East in recommending the new rule:
In recent years, some football programs have begun to publicly designate an individual on its current staff to become the institution's next head football coach when the current head football coach retires.
In addition to being an assistant coach, this individual has also been given the title of "head coach in waiting." As the Division I membership has supported legislative initiatives to restrict the off-campus recruiting activities of the head football coach, this designation has provided a distinct recruiting advantage.
This proposal would eliminate that advantage by mandating that the "head coach in waiting" adhere to all legislation applicable to the head football coach.
The rule was supported by the Football Issues Committee. Here's what the committee concluded in this year's NCAA Manual:
The committee supports the proposal. The committee noted that such coaches, once publicly designated, are allowed to recruit in a manner representative of a head coach and speak on behalf of the football program as a head coach -- not just an assistant coach.
The legislation was opposed by the Recruiting and Athletics Personnel Issues Cabinet. Here's what the Cabinet maintained (also published in the 2010 NCAA Manual:
The cabinet opposes the proposal. The cabinet noted that the designation of an assistant coach as the next head coach may occur several years prior to the departure of the current head coach, which may prohibit assistant coaches from participating in off-campus recruiting activities during the spring evaluation period for an extended period of time and may result in other unintended consequences.
The rule is on the books and will impact how Muschamp is able to recruit the 2011 signing class.
Texas doesn't see where a school gains an unfair advantage by having a coach-in-waiting out recruiting, especially during the spring evaluation period.
Mack Brown went out of his way during his press conference last Wednesday to make the point that he alone makes a scholarship offer and decides how many offers will go out to the various position groups.
Talked to Bob Burda of the Big 12 Tuesday about the rule, and he noted how several of these situations were playing out at places like Oregon, Purdue, Kentucky and Florida State over the past couple years.
Oddly enough, those schools have all transitioned their coach-in-waiting to head coach. Now, the only two schools in Division I-A with coaches in waiting appear to be Texas and Maryland (where Ralph Friedgen will hand things off to James Franklin).
Here is the legislation as laid out in the 2010 NCAA Manual:
13.1.2.6 Head Coach Restrictions -- Bowl Subdivision Football.
13.1.2.6.1 Assistant Coach Publicly Designated as Institution's Next Head Coach.
An institution's assistant coach who has been publicly designated by the institution to become its next head coach shall be subject to the recruiting restrictions applicable to the institution's head coach.
[13.1.2.6.1 through 13.1.2.6.2 renumbered as 13.1.2.6.2 through 13.1.2.6.3, unchanged.]
B. Bylaws: Amend 13.1.8.4, as follows:
[Federated provision, FBS only]
13.1.8.4 Limitations on Number of Evaluations -- Football.
In football, institutional staff members shall be limited to three evaluations during the academic year during which the prospective student-athlete competes or practices on any team. Not more than one evaluation may be used during the fall evaluation period and not more than two evaluations may be used during the April 15 through May 31 evaluation period.
An authorized off-campus recruiter may use one evaluation to assess the
prospective student-athlete's athletics ability and one evaluation to assess the prospective studentathlete's academic qualifications during the April 15 through May 31 evaluation period.
If an institution's coaching staff member conducts both an athletics and an academic evaluation of a prospective student-athlete on the same day during the April 15 through May 31 evaluation period, the institution shall be charged with the use of an academic evaluation only and shall be permitted to conduct a second athletics evaluation of the prospective student-athlete on a separate day during the evaluation period.
13.1.8.4.1 Head Coach Restriction -- Spring Evaluation Period. In bowl subdivision football, during the April 15 through May 31 evaluation period, the head coach [and any assistant coach who has been publicly designated by the institution to become the next head coach (see
Bylaw 13.1.2.6.1)] shall not engage in off-campus recruiting activities, participate in an offcampus coaching clinic, visit a prospective student-athlete's educational institution for any reason or meet with a prospective student-athlete's coach at an off-campus location.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I got this off another message board. I think the NCAA did a good job with this one.
Last edited:
