In response to the cost reduction and commonality of text messaging, the NCAA may modify its rules to allow coaches increased electronic recruiting contact.
But a potential change in the five-year-old rule regarding texting and extending the time during which a recruit can be contacted won’t come without consternation from some members.
Currently in Division-I, under a 2006 rule, electronic correspondence with potential student-athletes was limited to the more conventional, albeit now seemingly ancient, manner of email, fax or mail.
Concern then centered on preventing recruited athletes from being forced to pay for a barrage of unsolicited texts, especially given the lofty initial cost of some phone plans.
Now with the reduced costs and availability of unlimited texting plans and the substantial increase in its use, there’s a move afoot to classify texting contact in the same way as fax or email.
But there’s bound to be a discussion about whether such contact is appropriate or professional. And while there is some sentiment prompting the discussion of a change, there are also those who believe the “old school” approach to contact and the possible eventual offering of a college scholarship should be maintained.
The argument centers on maintaining the formality and excitement of a scholarship offer and that a job offer or even the acceptance of a position wouldn’t be done via a text. So why allow recruitment or a scholarship offer in such a manner?
And some, mistakenly in my mind, argue that student-athletes view texting as a young person’s means of casual communication – not to be violated by the “adult” world.
There’s also discussion at some levels of competition that the time during which a recruit can be first visited off-campus be adjusted to the summer before an athlete’s junior year.
My concern isn’t so much about how a potential recruit is contacted, but I do worry about how early a youngster draws the attention of an athlete.
Can’t we let them play all sports they’re interested in and pursue a diploma for three years without intervention? Perhaps it’s the parents who are promoting early contact.
But of bigger concern to me is oversight and enforcement.
Sure, I suppose there’s an electronic paper trail and there’s no doubt texting would be easier for coaches. And I hear the argument that youngsters, especially with caller ID, are not apt to answer their phone unless they want to be contacted, letting it instead be forwarded to voice mail. But just who is the “text cop?”
The Big Sky Conference has been a bit ahead of the curve when it comes to texting requirements, adopting a measure in 2007 that allows the texting of student-athletes after they sign a National Letter of Intent. That works for me.
At every turn of a new regulation come the violators who will take advantage of the abilities of NCAA’S enforcement arm, let alone a school’s compliance department.
Text contact is convenient and arguably useful in the recruiting process. But give me “old school” any day.