These days, where we have seen the burgeoning use of instant social communication, it is not surprising that the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is scrambling to get a handle on when, how and how much a student-athlete may be contacted during the college recruiting process.
There have always been strict, albeit seemingly ever-changing, rules about telephone calls, e-mails, Facebook, “snail” mail, in-home and campus visits during assigned contact periods, but the use of texting has been prohibited since 2007 because, according to the NCAA, “of the potential cost to prospect student-athletes.”
Now I have to hand it to the NCAA because I don’t think this codger even knew there was such a thing as texting three years ago and have just become comfortable with its use. But you can bet coaches recruiting at major athletic programs were familiar with its use and were working it to what they hoped would be a competitive advantage over other peer institution programs.
My concern over the lack of communication through the spoken word and the interruption to conversation the cellular device presents is best saved for another column as is my curiosity over where the NCAA, comes down on live chatting on social networks between coaches and prospects and how they can possibly monitor it.
What is of concern is the age at which prospective athletes first encounter someone who is interested in their prospective athletic prowess.
For example, in Division-I men’s basketball, recruitment materials may be sent to a prospect after June 15 of their sophomore year and only a single phone call a month is allowed.
During a prospect’s junior year, one telephone call a month is allowed through July 31 with both on- and off-campus contact increasing during the senior year. Similar rules exist for football, although initial contact is not allowed until Sept. 1 of a prospect’s junior year.
Those rules seem reasonable to me.
But somewhat because of parental pressure along with the enhanced reputation gained by a promising young athlete who is receiving even alleged collegiate scrutiny, young kids are coming under a microscope and their current and future athletic potential graded long before they even know what a razor is, let alone have a need to use one.
I have little problem with an aspiring high school athlete – Kalispell’s Brock Osweiler for example – making a non-binding verbal commitment to compete at the school of their choice in the sport of their choice, although I would like to see the decision be made after athletic skills and physical prowess have matured or at least advanced.
But I am concerned that prominent college coaches show up at elementary school games and that there are rating systems in place to grade the top fifth-through-eighth-graders around the country.
While the NCAA finally got a handle on college coaches sponsoring summer club teams as a way to get a leg up on the recruiting process and eliminating their involvement in 2009, there is nothing on the books to prevent a school from offering a scholarship to a player prior to high school. And several institutions over the last several years have offered college scholarships to middle-schoolers.
While that’s great for a family’s financial planning for college, I certainly do not agree that it is good for either the school or the athlete, especially in light of coaching turnover.
Can’t we let our kids learn, advance their skills, enjoy their high school years and, yes, play for just a while before we thrust the adult world upon them?