Brian Spurlock-US PRESSWIRE
The NCAA made the right call on two pieces of recruiting legislation, even if it did take some arm-twisting.
If you want something done correctly, you've got to do it yourself.
I'm no big city athletic director, but you know and I know that once proposals that would essentially strip all major rules and regulations of college football recruiting were on the table as legitimate options, some people were gonna get angry.
And they did. And the NCAA did what was best for itself. It listened.
The Division I Board of Directors Monday suspended two of the 25 pieces of legislation it adopted in January, responding to extensive membership feedback that despite the benefits of the proposals, the new rules could have a negative impact on prospects and their families, college coaches and administrators
The Board postponed new rules deregulating who can perform recruiting tasks and what printed materials can be sent to prospects.
To summarize this, remember all the talk of recruiting war rooms? Kevin Steele being picked up by Alabama to lead their charge causing other schools to dip their toe in this toxic pool?
Gone. As is the power to recruit for the new Grand Poobahs of Recruiting at individual schools. For now, at least.
The same group that essentially banged on the doors of the NCAA's castle with torches and pitchforks looking to kill the monster college football's governing body had created isn't likely to let it see the light of day, modified or not.
Unfortunately, there's still one piece of rancid legislation that slipped through the cracks.
Board members also considered suspending a third proposal that eliminated restrictions on modes and numerical limitations of recruiting contacts, but they ultimately agreed to let the membership decide that rule’s future through the override process.
Let me help you: Kill it. I'll refer to the first sentence of the release:
...the new rules could have a negative impact on prospects and their families, college coaches and administrators.
Let's been realistic about this. Could?
If your kid was targeted by several major programs during the 2014 cycle and you had college coaches and recruiting services calling the house, your cell phones, if he was pestered constantly on Facebook or Twitter to the point where he deletes his accounts, where is the "could be negative" here?
Smaller schools that can't compete with the checkbooks of Alabama, Texas, Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan, Southern California, well they're pretty much out of luck in the recruiting wars. They're playing for second place on a good day.
If recruits didn't want to get to the NFL before, they would if said rules were okayed. Contracts and free agency would be child's play in comparison.
I'm in a giving mood, so here's a compromise between the laziness of the rule proposals and the sanity of those against them: Allow a separate recruiting coordinator.
Boom. Done. That's it.
Coaches coach, coordinators coordinate and we all live happily ever after until seeding happens for the playoff.