New NCAA Recruiting Rule Limits Head Coaches In-Waiting
by horns129 on Feb 9, 2010 6:11 PM CST
Email
PrintAn NCAA rule adopted 1-16-10 applies all recruiting limitations currently reserved for head coaches to head coaches in-waiting. It covers any FBS assistants publicly designated to become the next head coach. According to Chip Brown, this rule was proposed by the Sun Belt Big East Conference and has definitely caught Texas off guard. The only other major program currently affected is Maryland, since FSU's, Kentucky's, and Purdue's new coaches have already taken the top position.
This is obviously a serious hit for Muschamp on the recruiting trail, not the least of which limits him to the same single in-home visit as Mack. Really, any school would be hurt by removing a coach from such a critical task. What's left to determine is UT's next action on the matter. Will they be allowed to un-designate Muschamp as successor? Is there some loophole UT's lawyer's can dig up? I just heard about this from Ketchum and Brown on 104.9 this afternoon, so please provide any additional details if available. The link below is an OB message board post listing the rule (possibly a draft), but that's all I could find for now.
http://texas.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=61&tid=139183996&mid=139183996&sid=902&style=2
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
52 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
That would suck
Luckily one of the committees shot it down so hopefully it doesn’t go through.
3/19/2009 & 12/15/2009 - Games Where Dogus Balbay Made a Three-Pointer. Never Forget.
Did you copy this off an email that was from a "good" source
Because this looks like the type of BS email that comes from the internets.
Damit, did not mean to post that here
My apologies Horns129, I posted this on accident. It turns out this has been approved by the board (search 2009-31 under proposal number), and now needs an override objection to not become a bylaw change.
No problem, I agree that's how it sounded.
I just happened to catch Chip Brown calling in to Ketchum’s show today. Hopefully the change is not enacted or there’s a way around this bs for UT.
What's the process for objections?
Because I’m sure at least 1 school we know will submit a formal complaint.
Not sure, but there is one that can work
My other alma mater was in a similar situation about five years ago, when a proposed rules change (about as far along in the process as this one seems to be) would have adversely affected the athletic programs (far more adversely than this current HCIW rule would affect UT). A challenge to the proposed rule was successfully mounted, and the proposed rule never made it into the books.
So it’s not too late to challenge and block the proposed legislation, and it’s not a fait accompli by any stretch of the imagination.
The key difference in the two situations is that about ten or so other schools would have been as impacted as JHU would have been, so there were some natural allies. In this case, UT seems to be on its own — though I would imagine that there are other big-name programs out there who would like to play the HCIW card when appropriate and wouldn’t want to be hampered like this.
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
by Hopkins Horn on Feb 10, 2010 10:37 AM CST up reply actions
Questions
Anyone know who specifically proposed this? And has the proposer publicly stated the motivations for doing so?
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
From the proposal
Source: Big East Conference
Rationale: 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.
this designation has provided a distinct recruiting advantage
OK Big East, name names and give specific examples of when the designation provided such a distinct recruiting advantage.
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
by Hopkins Horn on Feb 9, 2010 11:18 PM CST up reply actions
It looks like they're saying that offering stability to recruits is an unfair advantage
And if it is, Mack Brown has been a repeat offender, the rapscallion.
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 10, 2010 11:42 AM CST up reply actions
Very misplaced logic
Inherently, designating a coach-in-waiting does not equal having two head coaches. You can never have TWO HEAD coaches. FSU suffered greatly, for instance, with Bowden as figurehead. By definition, you can only have one HEAD coach and, therefore, you cannot gain advantage, simply by telling recruits, “Oh, I’m the other head coach.”
However, when you have a situation that seems to offer stability, then you can have an advantage. Yet, the NCAA has assumed a harm being done, when really the advantage can only happen when you have proven stability. Yet, they’d be foolish to ban stability.
Perhaps this is a step to level the playing field regarding coaches salaries, given that Coaches in Waiting will get paid more than assistants.
Its Official Boys
the staff is very upset about this. expect to see epsn cover it towards the end of the week. expect mack to be interviewed on espn in the next week or so. they are going to fight it!
by nojusticenopeaceftp on Feb 9, 2010 11:25 PM CST reply actions
Better yet
can anyone explain why a head coach would be limited to a single in home visit versus other coaches on his staff?
I dont have a real reason...
but its a big part of the recruiting process and strategy. If head coaches could have multiple visits that could create an unfair advantage to schools with lesser known coaches. For example, if Mack Brown could go visit a recruit 5 times and June Jones visits the same recruit 5 times, the awe of Brown could create an unrealistic view of UT over SMU. With it only being one visit, the staff must strategize more regarding when that visit should be taken. At least thats what I think it is.
To all Houston sports fans, Houston is the 4th biggest city in America, there will be traffic on the way to your respective sports game. Come Early, Be Loud, Stay Late.
by TexasHoosier on Feb 10, 2010 10:45 PM CST up reply actions
i thought it was so the headcoach could focus on other things than constant in home visits and even the playing field a bit? but i dont know.
by Displaced Longhorn on Feb 11, 2010 11:39 AM CST up reply actions
If anything, Texas should be grandfathered in.
Now instead of having whatever “distinct recruiting advantage” other people thought we had, we’re at a major disadvantage because our number 1 assistant is going to have his hands tied behind his back now.
3/19/2009 & 12/15/2009 - Games Where Dogus Balbay Made a Three-Pointer. Never Forget.
It's a very fair argument
Otherwise this is legislation aimed solely at us.
"Texas played without its best player for nearly 56 minutes. There's an asterisk." -- Ivan Maisel, ESPN.com
by Hopkins Horn on Feb 10, 2010 8:18 AM CST up reply actions
that would be better
why in the world woul the sunbelt bring this up? this is a stupid rule. I guess what can be done in the future is a private coach in waiting plow. let the assistant only know and don’t tell a damn soul. Keep it private or just verbal, you stay here until the current coach retires, wink wink, we’l interview you for the head coach position wink wink.
this has got to be the worst recruiting rule ever thought up by someone who has no right to propose such rules. It doesn’t make any since and makes the NCAA look dumb to implimat a rule that would cause a disadvantage in recruitment for some schools over others.
by Ryan2907 on Feb 10, 2010 8:35 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
All this does
is prevent schools from naming a HCIW. Now we will run in to team’s secretly giving this title or everything related to this title becomes unofficial or under the table.
I sort of understand why it was proposed because if a HC is known to be in his last year, the HCIW can recruit as the HC, but without the rules. But I certainly don’t think it should be passed. It’s not fair to the top assistants who have earned that distinction, but will now not receive it.
So do we take that title away from Muschamp for the purpose of recruiting, even though it’s known to everyone?
How easily could that be done?
Hasn’t he formally signed a contract? Would we have to notify the NCAA that he’s not longer “officially” HCIW? What does it take for the NCAA to recognize someone as HCIW? Contract? Press conference? Handshake agreement?
3/19/2009 & 12/15/2009 - Games Where Dogus Balbay Made a Three-Pointer. Never Forget.
maybe a loophole
the “unofficial” head coach in waiting or assistant head coach,
there is no reasonable reason for this rule, most coaches who are about to retire say so a year in advance or before recruiting season start like they announce after the season. HCIW should have same rights as other assistants until the head coach announces his retirement.
by Ryan2907 on Feb 10, 2010 8:44 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
that’s part of the problem seen by the NCAA is how do you officially acknowledge head coach in waiting?
by Displaced Longhorn on Feb 11, 2010 11:40 AM CST up reply actions
agree
i guess the sun belt couln’t hire away head coach in waitings so the try to keep that from happening. just change his title to assistant head coach wink wink and pay him enough to stay and have a understanding that he’s next in line like a vice president. Vice Head Coach “not in waiting” “wink wink”
by Ryan2907 on Feb 10, 2010 8:40 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
Sun Belt Conference
maybe this rule should ONLY apply the the sunbelt because they proposed it. all new rule changes should only be changed if every athletic director signes off on it. if one says no, then no change. that’s the fair way to impliment a new rule. or if the conference says no, we don’t sign off on such a rule, the conference doesn’t have to go by it and just the conferences who signed of on it. so if half the conferences say no, they don’t adopt the rule, the ones who say yes, have to go by it. kind of like a “state by state” thing when it comes to new laws
by Ryan2907 on Feb 10, 2010 8:49 AM CST via mobile reply actions
"HC In Waiting" more than just a title, right?
I was under the impression that the “in waiting” was defined by the contract. Regardless of what title you gave Muschamp, if his contract stipulates a payoff if he isn’t Head Coach by such and such date, that makes him the “HC in waiting.” Wasn’t that the primary issue with Jimbo Fisher? I don’t know the details of Muschamp’s deal, but it seems to me there would be more to getting around this than simply changing a title.
Dear Texas,
We’re pissed you got Hicks. Please tone down your recruiting. Also, it’s not fair that no one can hire away your HCIW, as he’s rocking our asses on and off the field.
Sincerely,
The rest of college football
And it's not like Maryland's beating anyone
On or off the field these days.
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 10, 2010 11:46 AM CST up reply actions
HCIW / DC
How many visits do the def. coor. get with recruits? Wouldn’t this be unfair for Muschamp as the def. coor. to only get 1 visit instead of what the rest of the def. coor. are allowed?
Texas should re-write his contact and call it a higher position instead of HCIW.
Yep
If they want to play games with us then we should give it right back to them. They could just say since Mack isn’t ready to commit to a retirement date we have decided to remove the HCIW tittle from Muschamp. They could still have a handshake. It’s not like the tittle is a guarantee anyway. We aren’t obligated to hire Boom and he isn’t obliged to stay. This is BS.
"big-time players make big-time plays in big games."
by SoonerSlayer on Feb 10, 2010 10:53 AM CST up reply actions
Uh, I think the "vice" title
is reserved for schools north of the Red River, south of Kansas, and that use a covered wagon as part of the mascot process.
This Rule seems kind of Bulshit I don't understand how us and Maryland would be singled out
Now if they can only figure out some rules that would effect the recruiting of schools like USC, half of the SEC, Ohio St. and Penn St. You know were not the only perennial powerhouse in college football. A rule like this one should really effect the new good ol boys over there at SC!
this is total
BS because it is probably coming from schools who arn’t good enough to have a head coach in waiting.
This is what will happen in the next few weeks:
Mack Brown: “Will Muchchamp is no longer the head coach in waiting… [coachspeak] … thank you for your time.”
NCAA: “And we would’ve gotten away with it too if it wasn’t for you kids and that meddling dog.”
Other Receiving Votes: Oklahoma
by pleaseplaykindle on Feb 10, 2010 5:13 PM CST reply actions
Paging Joe Jamail
This rule is not very well conceived. The HCIW concept is a good thing for schools to ensure stability and it is even a better concept for student athletes that are trying to avoid Kiffin like situations. Why would the NCAA go and screw it up by punishing the schools that are trying to provide stability?
If we are not grandfathered, then I fully support Muschamp asking to have the title removed. It is a very unfair to prohibit the DC from having equal access. NCAA should worry about enforcing its current rules and not about making stupid new ones.
The Big Least can kiss the fattest part of my ass
Why is the NCAA so quick to respond to this proposal, when there are so many other things they need to do?
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 10, 2010 7:59 PM CST up reply actions
Texas feels 'singled out' by recruiting rule change affecting Muschamp
The L.A. Times reports in: Texas feels ‘singled out’ by recruiting rule change affecting Muschamp
"God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him." J.Piper
The article notes an interesting point
The NCAA recruiting cabinet doesn’t support the measure, and notes that many HCIWs are announced several years prior to the retirement of their overstudies. It makes me wonder if the appropriate compromise might be that this would only apply to coaches with definite dates of HC status that are within two years of the current recruiting window. That is, if a guy is slated to become HC in December 2013, he would have to follow the restrictions on HCs starting in December 2011. That would of course just mean that designated HCIWs would never announce their start dates until they actually become HC, but I think there’s a way to work some language into it where it would be less prone to abuse. I still think this would be dumb, because HCIW is all about offering stability to the program, it’s players, and prospective recruits, but it’s preferable to the newly-enacted rule that basically means that two out of any program’s top three coaches (HC, OC, DC) can’t recruit like all other programs’ can.
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 10, 2010 8:13 PM CST up reply actions
Great, so we are the whiners again
I’m starting to get tired up on this cross. But, this rule change is just stupid. HCIW should be encouraged, not discouraged.
Was it really that long ago that we were chuckling at the Kiffin disaster at the other UT, then holding our breath as our HCIW became the primary HC target? HCIW is nothing more than a title, if the actual HC has not announced a retirement date.
I think we should name Joe Blow our Head Coach, and pay him $1 a year, and then hire Mack Brown as an Assistant Head Coach, and pay him gobs of money and let him recruit all he wants.
Crown a legitimate champion? Naaaa, no biggie...
Listen to a directional school offering advice and insight as to recruiting advantages and disadvantages…they are all ears. Pathetic and disgusting.
"Stats are for losers. I like winning games." ~ Will Muschamp
""I always felt like, and I paid a price for it, that it didn't seem right for one guy to bring me down." ~ The Tyler Rose
Maryland & Texas fighting this
“We are partnering with Texas to approach the NCAA about being grandfathered into the rule, since our contract was signed a year ago,”
by Infield Elephant on Feb 13, 2010 12:45 AM CST reply actions
Excellent
I would rather the rule be repealed, but this would be the next best thing.
I have beat wholesale ass for a whole lot less.
by burntorangehorn on Feb 13, 2010 11:40 AM CST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
