Win now or develop for later?

I included an article from Clay Kallam a few blogs back that expressed his opinion of a lack of personal development of a couple elite players. Kallum went on to suggest that Pat Summitt and Carl Buggs failed to develop Shyra Ely and Jasmine Dixon. I then went on to ask should development or winning be the goal in big time basketball?

First let us clarify big time basketball. Shara Ely's college coach, Pat Summitt is as big as it gets. No coach in female basketball has won more NCAA championships than Summitt(8), and only the Wizard of Westwood has won more titles than her, period. Jasmine Dixon's high school coach, Carl Buggs has owned California for the last decade. Since 2003, Buggs has lead his team to the state championship every year! I repeat, for last seven years, Buggs has lead his team to 4 state titles and 3 runner-up trophies(1 title while coaching at Lynwood). His Jack Rabbits have finished nationally ranked for the last 5 years and finished as high as #2 in 2006-2007( Jasmine Dixon years). In their respective arenas, both coaches are at the top.



This success speaks volumes of their abilities but what does it say about development? Can a lack of development in their players be blamed on them? Yes! No! And probably not!



Yes Argument:



When speaking of the importance of supporting environments for the development of elite kids, Geoff Colvin writes:



Employers, like parents and coaches, have to keep pushing them to develop, and the lesson for employers(coaches) is that the process requires sacrifices on their part as well-in the form of SUBOPTIMAL PERFORMANCE.... or periods of LITTLE or NO PRODUCTIVITY from an employee (player) while he or she is learning a new skills. But the lesson is that these sacrifices pay off."



In other words, Coach Buggs should have continued to put Dixon in positions that expanded her game. This would have ensured that she was more equipped to have success at the higher level of big time college basketball. Dixon transferred from Rutgers and landed at UCLA. The question is did her underdeveloped game contribute to her dissatisfaction at Rutgers? Probably so.



I watched a young Jasmine Dixon DOMINATE California youth basketball since her 8th grade year. She was 5'11 and built like a woman in the 8th grade. She bullied in the paint like it was her domain. She was fast enough to guard smaller players and quick enough to sprint past other post players on the way to her scores. Her dominance continued throughout her high school career as she became a McDonald's All-American. However, the highly touted Dixon began to slip in national rankings as the high school years went by. Bigger players like Nneka Ogumike and April Sykes began to get more attention. More skilled players like Elena DelleDonne and Tiffany Hayes come to the forefront. While Dixon still finished high school very acclaimed, some saw the clouds in the horizon. Dixon was a 6'0 (5'11ish) post player with an inconsistent jump shot and little ball handling skills. Her incredible strength and athletic ability still made her a force to be reckoned with but what was to happen when she faced girls with just as much strength and athletic ability? The results were predictable. Footage from her freshman year at Poly compared to her senior year footage would reveal very little progress in term of skill set development.



Carl Buggs should have not allowed Dixon to lean on her overwhelming strength as a high school player. He should have demanded that Dixon play on the perimeter to further develop her guard skills. The Dixon years at Poly featured guards April Crook-Williams(ranked #20 in 2011), April Cook(Washington St.), Keli Thomspson (UNLV),Ashley Wilson(Colorado) and Brittney Wilson(Colorado). With no less than five D1 guards to play against everyday at practice, Buggs had more than ample opportunity to let Dixon improve her guard skills against these high level guards. Dixon should have been matched up against these guards daily with the goal of improving her handle. Dixon senior year also feature elite post players, Monique Oliver(Rutgers) and freshman Thadessia Southall(USC committ). These two young but effective post players should have allowed Buggs to get Dixon out of the post and on to the perimeter.



NO Argument:



How can you argue with success? Buggs job is to win high school basketball games and very few coaches in the country has done more winning than him over the past decade. You can not blame the lack of PERSONAL development on a coach who's roster includes no less than five D1 players every year. Southern California sends on an average 50-60 players D1 every year. Buggs is responsible for at least 10% of those kids. This highly competitive environment lends little time for individual agendas. Coaching eight D1 kids on one team is challenging. The individual needs of one player can not supersede the mission of the team.



Moving Dixon to the perimeter in games does not allow the younger D1 bound guards to see valuable minutes of floor time. These young guards have put hundreds of thousand of shots and dribbles into becoming elite guards and Dixon did not. Is it not unfair to displace them for the sake of developing Dixon? Should not the best guards play, despite class, status and rank? Dixon was not among the most effective guards on the team, not to mention the state. How could Poly face a Brea team, led by McDonald All-American Jeanette Polhen or a very good Marlborough team, led by McDonald All-American Nikki Speed, with Dixon at the guard and expect to win? Going back to the Colvin quote, "Suboptimal performance and little or no productivity" from Dixon equates to Poly not competing for the state championship. The standard of a successful coach has always been measured in championships. The Wizard of Westwood and his Pyramid of Success was not so profound when he was losing at UCLA. Eleven championships later and his wisdom still sells books today by the bundle.



No, Buggs job was to win and he did just that!



So which is the more compelling argument? Yes, Jasmine Dixon was underdeveloped by a narrow minded coach? Or no, her very successful high school coach afforded her the opportunity to win multiple state championships in a very successful program?



Both statements are probably a little true. So who is the blame? Probably both, Dixon and Coach Buggs probably could have done more to develop her. Who gained more from the relationship? The gains were mutual. Dixon finished her storied high school career among the most winning players at an elite level in history and Buggs has the hardware to prove it. Dixon played with and against some of the best players in the country (rare in a high school program) and had major universities vying for her services. Buggs has had elite players like Monique Oliver move from different states to play in his program that was spearheaded by a nationally known Dixon.



Elite basketball can be a difficult place to develop players. Playing an elite schedule does not allow for a great margin of error. Errors are instrumental in allowing players to grow. A guard can never be a great passer unless she has thrown enough passes to know what not to do. A great shooter is a primarily a failure. Shooting 49% from the perimeter is cause to celebrate. Developing shooters in an environment where every possession counts is near impossible. Carl Buggs or Pat Summitt hands are somewhat tied in terms of developing in their respective environments. This makes the need for a good off-season program and choice of a club team even that more important. Shara Ely and Jasmine Dixon should have improved over the summers of their careers. They should have been with coaches, trainers, clubs and environments where their weaknesses were strengthened. Shyra Ely was developed enough to leave Tennessee as an All-American and professional pick. Tennessee went to three final fours doing her playing days. It is hard to argue with success. But, would have a more developed Ely been more equipped to lead the Vols to a title? The argument continues....

What is a Level Playing Field?

The following two arguments were taken from a message board in a different state. However, the points are valid and can be applied locally:

High profile high school basketball programs today are too often lacking integrity. Kids work hard day after day after day with the "promise" of a fair chance to play. But the truth is very different from reality. In an ideal world, kids grow up and go to their neighborhood high school where they try to earn a spot on their varsity team. It probably still goes on in some of the lower profile programs, but it's not that way at all in the higher profile programs. High profile programs are driven by money, power and politics. Deals are done "under the table" all the time.

Promises are made and promises are broken. Recruitment of players is the order of the day. The idea seems to be that if you recruit well enough you really don't have to teach the kids the concepts of the game, let alone coach. You can just sit back and let them simply do what they do.

High school basketball has become big business. It has become the spring board for coaches looking for bigger and better opportunities. The only problem is that the coaches know only too well that the only way to get to the bigger and better opportunities is by having a winning program, so the cycle continues. It's not about developing a player. It's not about developing young men. It's not about what's fair. It's not about what's right. It's about what will propel a coach to whatever his next goal is, and hey, if a kid or two or ten or even twenty happens to get sacrificed along the way, they just look at it as collateral damage.

High school basketball needs help. It needs leadership that actually cares about the kids. It needs leadership that isn't swayed by the typical things that can compromise a person's integrity ....It needs leadership that is committed to a level playing field. Finding leadership that can rise above the distractions is a pretty tall order but the kids deserve nothing less.



A reader followed with this thought provoking response:


However, why would kids go to their neighborhood school in an "ideal world?" In my ideal world, kids and parents would have the choice, freedom and accessibility to the school that best meets the needs of their child. I coach a player who is deaf who takes the bus over an hour to attend a school that has a program for deaf students. Should this player be forced to attend the neighborhood school that lacks many of these resources because it would make the basketball team more fair?

If it is fair for the student who is deaf to attend a school with a program for deaf students, why should a basketball player be forced to his neighborhood school even if the neighborhood coach is not invested in the program or the development of his players? If the player has an opportunity to attend a different school with a great coach, why is that a bad thing? I coach a player who attends the school because its math department is superior to the neighborhood school. Should we short-change this student the opportunity to take more advanced math courses with better teachers to ensure the fairness on the basketball court? Why is it okay for a student who is deaf or a great math student to attend a school that meets their needs, but when a basketball player makes the same decision, everyone complains about fairness and equality?

That being said, there are certainly problems with different aspects of the development system. Many people make promises that they cannot possibly back up and many parents and players develop an Entitlement Affliction and like to be liked. But, if you look at the entire spectrum of high school basketball, you're really talking about less than 5% of the whole.

The problem is that we spend so much time worrying about that 5%, punishing the 5%, investigating the 5%, etc. that we take away resources (financial and time) from the other 95%. Why not worry less about the 5% and spend more time worrying about improving the 95%?

All-Century Team!

A few local players are nominated for the All-Century Team. You can write in your votes if your pick is not mentioned. Local players that are mentioned in the voting are:


Meighan Simmons, Schertz Steele (guard)

Clarissa Davis, San Antonio Jay (forward)

Tai Dillard, San Antonio Sam Houston (inaccurately classified as a forward)

Annissa Hastings, San Antonio Sam Houston (forward)

Lisa King, San Antonio Marshall (forward)

Click here to vote!

Clay Kallam Going Hard on Development!

The following is the entire article from Clay Kallam on his Full Court Press site. I was going to cut and past portions of the article and add commentary but I felt the need to make sure his entire column was read. I have often written about the need for development over chasing wins but his piece sums it up. However, the question is this. Should development be the focus of big time basketball or winning? College coaches get paid a lot of money to do what? WIN!


When Shyra Ely finished her college career at Tennessee, she was a very suspect prospect. Sure, she was the first pick in the second round of the 2005 draft, but such notables as Kendra Wecker and Dionnah Jackson were chosen ahead of her. Why, despite her collegiate achievements?

What was missing?




At 6-1, Ely had been a post player her whole career, and as a left-handed post player, she took full advantage of most defenders’ mysterious inability to realize that left-handers go left. (This is true at all levels, for about 90 percent of defenders. I recently saw Alana Beard go left to the basket against Sacramento—hadn’t anyone noticed that’s basically what she does?) Unfortunately, Ely’s athleticism and sinister behavior were enough for her to succeed in college—but once she got to the WNBA, she found more defenders firmly planted on her left hand, much taller defenders blocking her shots in the paint, and no one treating her perimeter game with anything but disdain.

Not surprisingly, Ely failed to set the WNBA on fire. She struggled to score, and given her size, she wasn’t a factor on the boards or on defense.

But Ely figured it out. Now, in 2009, she can go right as well as left, and more important, she can make three-pointers. All of a sudden, Ely is a very tough cover. She is very good to her strong hand, but those who overplay are now punished—and unwary post defenders who sag off will watch a three settle into the net.


When Jasmine Dixon finished her high school career at Long Beach Poly, she was a fearsome 5-11 power forward. She was way too strong for anyone her size, and much too quick for anyone taller.

But high school is not college, and summer basketball isn’t either. Dixon, despite being a McDonald’s All-American, didn’t make it through USA Basketball tryouts and quickly transferred after a frustrating freshman season at Rutgers. She discovered that 5-11 players don’t thrive in the paint at the BCS level, and that her lack of perimeter skills (shooting, ball-handling, defense) meant she couldn’t play the three.

It may be that Dixon will figure it out during her red-shirt year at UCLA, just as Ely did in Europe. But both of them, like the girl who’s 5-7 in sixth grade and plays the post but doesn’t grow and has to learn to be a guard in high school, were poorly served by their coaches and advisors.

Yes, Pat Summitt has an obligation to win at Tennessee, but she also has an obligation to Ely to help her further her career. Dixon’s coaches during the summer and in high school naturally want to win, but they also need to consider how their actions impact Dixon’s future. And those rec league coaches who take the “tall” girl and consign her to learning post moves and never let her handle the ball are, in most cases, severely hampering the player’s chances to shine in high school.

And, of course Dixon and Ely, like the numerous taller-than-the-other-girls sixth-grade posts, want to win, just as their coaches do. They will happily go to their strengths, over and over again, and enjoy the praise and benefits of success.

But that’s why there are coaches. Coaches who are supposed to be as concerned with the development of the players in their charge as with winning games must step in—and in fact, the two go hand in hand. If Ely had been encouraged to use her right hand and shoot threes from the moment she arrived in Knoxville, how much more effective would she have been for the Volunteers when she was a senior? And if Dixon had used her athletic skills and learned to handle the ball as well as she could, how much better would Poly have been when she was a senior?

And how much more fun would each of them had as a player? And how much better prepared would they have been for the next step in their careers?

Brian McCormick, a trenchant critic of the status quo in women’s basketball and amateur sports, calls it “Peak by Friday” coaching. The only thing that matters to these coaches, and these programs, is what a young woman can do for them in the next game. As for her and her future? Well, that’s up to her, and the coaches hope they figure it out without letting any of this skill development stuff interfere with immediate success.

But it shouldn’t be up to the player to improve on their own. Coaches shouldn’t be all about winning this Friday. If athletics has any value, any place in our educational systems, it should be that it helps young people learn and grow, both inside their specialty and outside it. Pat Summitt, a brilliant coach who does many, many things very well, does deserve criticism in my view for not preparing her players for a pro career. They are pretty much the same players when they leave Knoxville as when they arrive—though obviously, stronger, smarter and more experienced. But they don’t enhance their games, for the most part, and the player Summitt recruits is very similar to the player Summitt graduates (another thing she does exceptionally well).

Summitt, of course, is far from alone at the collegiate level. There are very few coaches who consciously develop talent, but considering the fact that a young woman can make a million dollars playing professionally over the course of her career (with most of that money coming from Europe), it is more than disappointing that coaches don’t focus on helping the young women they are supposed to teach develop the skills they’ll need to get the most of their careers.

High school and club coaches lack Summitt’s talent, resources and skill, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have any responsibility to help their players. They need to balance the needs of the player with the needs of the program, and the answer isn’t always to sacrifice the player’s future on the altar of winning a couple more games in some midseason or July tournament.

Families and young players can’t be expected to understand the ramifications of decisions made by coaches—but coaches understand, and they need to take more responsibility for the development of players, and take less interest in their winning percentage. If they don’t, they’re cheating the young women who are entrusting them with their careers, and they are cheating themselves of the opportunity to give something back to the players they claim to care so much about.

UTSA 3-Peat?

While UTSA is trying to win its third consecutive South Land ConferenceTournament title and go dancing again, the Lady Runners have some big shoes to fill. Besides losing SLC Player of the Year, Monica Gibbs, the Lady Runners will also have to replace 3 additional starters and 50 plus points a game from last years team. A progress report follows:

Judy Jones- Judy will be the best freshman in the SLC. Jones looks more the part of the track star that she was in high school with her lean and delicate frame. Add that to the scholarly looking glasses that she sometimes plays in and you may find yourself wondering if the kid can play. But, do not judge this book by its cover. The kid can GO! She has mannish athletic ability. While the classic step-though move is used predominately by women, Jones completes the up-and-under like guys. She leaves her feat and figures the rest out in the air. Her elevation from 15 feet is unfair. Her handle is strong enough to allow her to slash and her jumper must be respected. She will make the most impact on the boards and by causing havoc in passing lanes. Game Stat Prediction: 14 points, 8 boards, 2.5 steals and 1 block. She will vertically jump up and hang on the rim a few times for intimidation purposes this year too!

Amber Gregg- Gregg is the lone returning starter from last years team. Gregg averaged close to 12 points a game last year and finished the season with a huge performance against Sweet 16 bound ranked Baylor. Gregg reportedly had some off season knee surgery but looks to be back on track. Gregg uses her keen basketball IQ and tenacity to make up for her small stature. The junior guard is one of the best shooters in the conference and is primed to have a great year. The loss of the other shooting specialist from last year, Jordan Starks, will ensure that Greggs will have ample opportunities to bust opposing zones. Greggs handle is strong enough to warrant respect and guarding her too close is a tall task. Game Stat Prediction: 14 points, 3 assists, 1.5 steals, 100 made 3's

Whitney York- York started every game as a freshman and averaged close to 10 points a game. She spent all but 8 games out last year with a knee injury but she is back in a big way. NO ONE is the SLC can stay in front of York. Her lefty crossover is a thing of beauty as she lives in the paint. She finishes with soft floaters or finds open teammates with ease. York will be a nightmare to guard in the Lady Runners Dribble Drive Offense and numerous Pick and Roll sets. If her small frame holds up, she will score a bunch of points from the free throw line. York is a great on ball defender as well. Game Stat Prediction: 15 points, 5 assists, 2 steals

UTSA will have to rely heavily on these three players if they are going to dance again. Returning York and adding Jones effectively replaced the great contributions of Gibbs. But, the rebounding production and inside physical presence of Onika Anderson will be greatly missed. The current roster is not imposing on the inside. Early injuries to Cori Cooper leaves a void on the block. Kelsey Ansley, Valencia Cottom and Shantel Nwanguma will probably hold down the block by committee. Wacthing the progress of 6'5 freshman Corrie Focier, will be enjoyable. The legit Big has a long way to go but will undoubtedbly get there.

Others to watch: Jermani Malone(fr), Whitney Wright(fr) and Asleigh Franklin(fr)

Elite Dad with a History Lesson

I received this email from the father of one of the best point guards and players in the city. Emphasis in parenthesis are his. The email follows:

The class of 2010 is a special one indeed. As mentioned in some of the earlier BLOGS, this is the deepest DI committed class in recent memory. I also want to be clear, if you don't play D1 basketball it doesn't mean you are not a good player as this is a common belief. I must say that many of your blogs have had a lot truth as it pertains to what it takes to be an elite player and the plight of girls basketball in San Antonio relative to our counterparts in the northern and southern portions of our state. If I may, I would like to tell a brief story on how I personally have experienced the evolution of girls basketball in San Antonio over the past eight years.

As a military family, shortly after our arrival to Ft Sam Houston in early 2002 I immediately enrolled my son and daughter into the Youth Center on the installation. My daughter who was 10 years old at the time had exceptional skills but had never been a member of any organized teams. So I quickly enrolled her into the youth basketball program on post.... A day after I was called and asked to coach a one of the teams. I told them I would be more than happy to as long as I could coach my daughter's team and they obliged....Subsequently I began to collect several talented players who had obvious potential for greatness at 11 and 12 years of age. They were so good that we were beating teams two grades ahead of them. One day after a victory, a team dad pulled me aside a suggested that I start an AAU team so the girls could play on a competitive level. Initially some parents were apprehensive, but most of them were all for it. So that summer I solicited the help of a man named Tom Brown who had just moved into town from Houston. He had a wealth of knowledge and set me on the right track to start my own team. Keep in mind at this time there were only two major girls competitive basketball teams in S.A., Texas Breakers and Hidden Talent. So with excitement, I started the Lady Cougars 12U AAU basketball team. This was a very special team. All of the girls worked hard, were very competitive and had a desire to win (IMPORTANT). I want to point out one thing, 99 percent of the girls on the team had parents who worked with them individually outside of our normal practices (IMPORTANT)....My primary focus in practice were fundamental ie.. footwork, passing, dribbling, and shooting.) Nothing sophisticated (IMPORTANT). For the next three summers we were one of two of the most competitive teams in S.A., the other being the S.A Rimrockers (notable players Monica Englemann, 09' (Kansas d1), Courtney Peay 09' (Nyack College), LeNique Brown D1 ?). The San Antonio basketball seen was growing and so was interest in my players.(No one steals your players, they leave.) (IMPORTANT) I was sad to see my team break-up but I knew it would eventually come to an end. The Lady Cougars also boasted a roster of big time players you might know such as Alishia Flowers 09' (UCF, D1), Alicia Houston 09' (Midwestern State, D1), Meighan Simmons (Tennessee, D1), Kira Chester 09' (Shriner, D3) Michelle Rodriguez (D1?), and Olivia Patterson (D1?).

There were other girls involved with our program but I don't have any current info as of late. The point of the story is this, from an early age these girls had noticeable talents and gifts. Basketball loyalist back then were saying that this class (2010) was a very special group. The common thread in all these girls was their WILLINGNESS to compete at a high level, their desire to WIN and the WILLINGNESS of their coaches to seek greater competition even it meant leaving the city of S.A. (Hint).


I felt the need to post the email for some obvious reasons:

1. Early Specialization- This topic is a popular among many so called basketball experts. They claim that early specialization prohibits growth in other areas and promotes burnout. They also claim that early specialization leads to overuse injuries. Some of these claims maybe somewhat valid. I will touch on them in later blogs but the fact remains that these above mentioned girls were elite for their age at 11 years old and they continue to be so today. While undoubtedly some elite 11 year olds were casualties of the game over the last 7 years, the kids that persevered are realizing their hoops dreams.

I happen to live next door to a great kid. This kid is polite, respectful and annoys me to no end. The reason for the annoyance is his constant practicing of his trumpet. Day after day, night after night, this boy plays that trumpet. His butchering of the theme song from Rocky makes me dislike the movie! The Pink Panther anthem has never sounded so bad. But, he persists. Everyday for hours, he persists. He has gotten a lot better and I now can tell that his passion leads him. However, if he was a girls basketball player, his parents would be accused of putting too much pressure on him. Or living vicariously through him. Or exposing him to burnout and carpel tunnel induced by playing his trumpet too much.

2. Elite Competition/Environment- This parents email highlights the need to surround yourself with others with like gifts and aspirations. The formation of a club team was a great step in the realization of these young ladies hoop dreams. Potential is loaded word. An overused saying among college and professional coaches is the one that goes," Potential is what gets coaches fired". That is debatable at best. Tony Parker had accomplished very little upon his arrival in the NBA but his potential and environment allowed him to blossom into one of the best players in the league. The same can be said for Kobe Bryant. Back to the subject, this dad and his counterparts saw that these young girls had the potential to shine and all they needed was the right soil to grow.

One of the byproducts of elite competition is elite expectations. These kids were placed among a culture of basketball achievers and underachieving was not an option. This is how you change a culture and encourage excellence. Back to my trumpet playing neighbor. His band has players that are more polished than others. While many band members participate, only the best ones go to competitions against bands from across the city. Also, the elite trumpet players get to play more difficult musical pieces and have solos. Why should Jr High and High School basketball be any different? The blog from a frustrated dad a few days ago illustrates the hypocrisy of these school institutions in regards to girls basketball. Here is a thought. Go to the High Schools of Smithson Valley, Madison, or Judson and tell the football coach that his Jr High quarterback can only play half of the game in order to be fair to the other players. These elite high school coaches understand that those elite Jr High quarterbacks are their future. They were not born elite. They worked to get that way and it is unproductive to punish them for being elite and having elite work ethic. The ENVIRONMENT fosters the results!

3. Parental Support/Discipline- Again, the example provides more support to show that active parental involvement is almost a necessity in producing elite players. I wrote a Blog about fathers who had raised multiple college players called Deliberate Dads. In this Blog, I championed the dads who deserved some kudos. However, others can be just as instrumental in the development of elite players. Lisa Leslie is a great example. Leslie was raised in a home without her father and it was a father of her friend and teammate who played the vital role in her life. Point being, no elite player becomes so without a mentor to show them the PROCESS of becoming elite.

Part of parental support is instilling discipline. Admittedly, there is thin line between instilling discipline and being overbearing. The exact point in which one becomes the other is up to debate. However, no child is born with the discipline to become elite at anything. Behind every elite trumpet player is a parent, teacher or mentor instilling the importance of practice.

My trumpet playing neighbor walks with his head high. His mother's car is draped with stickers and decals trumpeting the success of her little trumpet boy. His place among his band and his ability compared to other players in the city is reportedly respectable. One might say elite. It is hard for to me believe that that racket I hear CONSTANTLY can be called elite but what is outstanding is the dedication of such a young child to pursue his dream. Early Specialization? Probably. Elite Environment and Support? Definitely!

NCAA Regulation?

The NCAA has proposed sweeping changes that will have a great impact on Club ball. The initiatives would initially be geared toward the boys side but will be eventually adopted for girls basketball. I will publish and comment on a few of the different entities involved, along with some pros and cons in the near future. Excerpts of the new proposals follow:


The Division I Board of Directors will consider a set of recruiting restrictions in men’s basketball that would curb compensatory relationships with people associated with prospects and suspend coaches who violate those rules.....

Southeastern Conference Commissioner Mike Slive, who along with a group of other conference commissioners will present the package to the Board, said the reforms will draw a “bright line” between what is and is not permissible.

“It has become evident that more individuals have inserted themselves into the recruiting process other than the families of the prospects in a way that is contrary to the spirit of the legislation,” he said. “These proposed changes make the spirit of the legislation the letter of the legislation in a way that has not been done in the past.”

“This is an attempt to ‘bright-line’ practices that are acceptable and consistent with what we’re trying to accomplish in pre-collegiate basketball,” Delany said. “If you starve the system of money, prospects will be free to make decisions on the basis of the right educational and athletics considerations, rather than because there’s a third-party adult who is influencing him as a result of benefits received.”(Big Ten Commisioner, Jim Delany)

The initial recommendations would affect:

-Employment relating to non-coaching staff positions
-Employment at camps and clinics
-Payment of consulting fees
-Subscriptions to recruiting services with limited value
-Donations to non-profits
-1-900 numbers for telephone contact with a recruit

If the Board approves the initial recommendations, proposals would be introduced in the 2009-10 legislative cycle that would target:

-Non-coaching staff hiring practices by prohibiting institutions from hiring as non-coaching personnel individuals associated with prospects two years before or after the prospect’s actual or anticipated enrollment. The legislation is intended to offer coaches a choice between recruiting the prospect and hiring the person associated with the prospect.

-Institutional camp/clinic employment by allowing institutions to hire only its own staff members or enrolled students at its camps and clinics.


-Institutional camp operation by allowing recruiting during institutional camps, and stating that prospects do not have to leave the locale to begin an unofficial visit.

-Non-Scholastic events on campus by prohibiting Division I institutions from hosting, sponsoring or conducting non-scholastic men’s basketball events on campus or in facilities regularly used by the institution.

-Payment of consulting fees by prohibiting fees to individuals associated with a prospect.

If approved through the structure, the effective date for all the proposals would be May 1, 2010.