The Division I Recruiting Cabinet is seeking feedback on a variety of approaches to a new recruiting model for Division I. 

During every legislative cycle, more proposals aim to tweak recruiting rules than any other section of the Division I Manual. To address an obvious dissatisfaction with current policies, the cabinet embarked on an in-depth review of the recruiting model.

“The membership has made it clear that they are frustrated with the current state of the recruiting rules, and we recognize that by the number of different pieces of legislation that come forward annually,” said chair Petrina Long, senior associate athletics director at UCLA. “Instead of continuing to treat this in a piecemeal fashion with a band-aid approach to specific small areas, the cabinet is evaluating the larger model.”

The group built three separate models (restrictive, moderate and open) in four main areas of recruiting (evaluations, communications, campus visits and offers of aid). None of the proposals is fully developed, and all are intended to help determine the membership’s comfort level with different approaches.

For example, the most restrictive model would not permit offers of aid until a prospect has submitted his or her six-semester high school academic record. A more open model would allow five total official visits per prospect, as long as the prospect is meeting minimum academic progress standards.

The theme of tying recruiting to academic progress is intertwined in many of the suggestions.

Each campus and conference is encouraged to discuss the models. After those discussions are complete, the Recruiting Cabinet asks that schools and conferences either endorse one complete model (restrictive, moderate or open) or match models with areas (for example, be more open with communications and more restrictive with offers of aid or vice versa).

Presenting the models in this way – with a range of options and the ability to “mix and match” between them – helps get all ideas on the table, Long said.

“We’ve gotten feedback in support of both extremes,” she said. “This is an opportunity for people to say what they think is worth exploring and what needs to be taken off the table.”

Honest feedback from the membership is vital to the future work of the cabinet, Long said. To ensure effective communication, each of the 21 cabinet members will go to spring and summer conference meetings to check the reaction to the presentation. The survey is due to the NCAA national office on May 28.

At its next meeting, the cabinet is expected to analyze the feedback. If overwhelming support is seen for any particular item, the group could sponsor legislation in the 2010-11 cycle.

“If we don’t have (overwhelming support for one thing or another), we will have a direction to go,” Long said. “Instead of us making decisions on behalf of the membership, we’d rather they have the opportunity to weigh in. Our role is to serve as a mechanism to get the membership engaged with the topic so we can sift through it and provide some options that will hopefully give us all relief in the end.”

The Recruiting Cabinet meets June 8-9 in Indianapolis. For more information or to provide feedback, contact Jeremiah Carter at jcarter@ncaa.org.