Recruiting Revisited

My last post on recruiting practices got its fair share of dialog, a lot of it around 5 year college students.

Just to make it clear - i absolutely believe that players can and should make all decisions regarding their lives and futures; my primary concern is that we have zero ...ZERO.... ethical guidelines for recruiting. My concern is that we, as coaches, control the bulk of the information that enables players to make sound, rational, informed decisions .... and some times we don't do the right thing with either the information, OR the responsibility we have.

At the club level I personally feel there is a lot bigger gray area, and a lot more is kosher (if only with a big K instead of an OU) - simply because the colleges and universities, athletic departments and rec sports offices - are not involved. There are still ethical issues, but without the oversight of a major institution, there is less accountability, so really less to base any standards on.

To the reader who commented that, if a players wants to stay in school 5 years just so they can play more college rugby, or doesn't want to finish college at all (and is around just for rugby), that's totally cool (cuz it's his or her money), I have a question. Would you be willing to take that stand with the university sports or recreation officials? How do you think the university would respond to the player who says "Well, I'm paying the bill, and I've decided my priority is rugby. I'll graduate when I graduate, if I graduate. School is less important than rugby". How do you think the university would respond to the coach who echo's those sentiments? Keep in mind, while the player may in fact be footing the bill, most universities get some sort of public subsidy, and most university clubs are at least, in part, funded by student fees. So while it's mostly YOUR money, some of it is my money.

One reader commented that the sketchy event is rare. It's not as rare as we'd like to think. There are IN FACT college coaches telling players, as freshman, they they need to get on the five year plan. There are IN FACT college coaches who pay the "special" player's expenses for them, to entice them to stay around longer. There are IN FACT coaches who promise players that, if they stay with them, or if they move, they will make this or that all star team.

So the debate isn't about the player's choice, it's about the coaches actions. It's about what we, as a community, think is OK. Its about what our employers (and sorry, even if you are a volunteer you are accountable to the school) think is OK.

Just looking through a range of NCAA documents on recruiting, it's clear that they have had to put boundaries in place. Very little of the documentation describes a minimum, it describes boundaries and limits.

NCAA rules describe things like how often a coach can make phone contact with a player, over what period of time, and starting how early. How often a coach can make face-to-face contact. Even, yes, how often a coach can use text messaging, chat, IM, and email. Their guidelines specify WHERE contact can take place, and its in almost all situations it is school grounds, practice fields, sports locations. These rules are incredibly detailed, and specific for sport and division. They discuss exactly what "deals" a coach can make with a prospective player, and how these "deals" must be documented in writing and reviewed.

Now granted, we're not NCAA. But do we really believe as a community, that there's no need to discuss ethics? That to question what's ethical and what's not is the equivalent of complaining?

I don't think so.