Whenever a rule is passed, a proposition set forth or a void noted, I usually ask a simple question: Why?
Why should we pass this rule, and what are the intended and unintended consequences? What ill are we trying to cure by passing a particular rule, and does it outweigh the negative consequences?
Here are some of the questions I have asked in college basketball of late:
• Why does the NCAA disallow a school to pay for a parent or guardian to accompany a prep recruit on an official visit?
Did you know that schools can pay to lodge and feed a recruit's parent or guardian on an official visit, but cannot pay for the parent or guardian to make the trip?
Why?
How many of us would allow a child of ours to go to a school that we have not seen or visited? Very few. Yet, the NCAA rules don't seem to encourage a parental role in the official visitation process. There are tons of investigations into how a recruit paid for unofficial visits. Why not allow schools to pay for the official visit of the recruit and a parent or guardian to visit the school, which would provide the recruit with the parental guidance we all seem to believe is lacking in the process?
It makes no sense to allow a school to pay for a parent upon arrival, but not to pay for the travel expense. Right now, the NCAA allows five official visits, which is simply too many. Few recruits need that many or take that many. Why not reduce the amount of official visits a recruit can take to three and allow schools to pay for a parent to be involved in the important parts of the process?
A parent or guardian should be encouraged by the NCAA to accompany a recruit on an official visit. The rules should not discourage it and place the financial burden on the recruit.
• Why does the NCAA disallow coaches from working with their players during the summer?
Most players go to summer school as part of their scholarship-funded educations, which is a great thing. It allows players to get ahead, catch up or stay on track to graduate. Summer session has always been a valuable part of any university community, and now it is being used as more than just a mechanism for those behind to catch up. But while in summer school, why can't coaches work with their players? The NCAA does not allow coaching staffs to work out with their players, even though they are on campus.
So instead of allowing a coach to work with his player on campus, players have to seek out workout coaches across the country who have no accountability in the process. Players flew to Chicago and Akron, Ohio, to work out with coaches not associated with their program, and they were forced to take time away from home and school to do it.
Why?
What are we worried about? Are we concerned that coaches would work their players do death during the summer, yet we have no concerns that people outside of their programs would do the same?
When school is in session, coaches should be able to work with their own players whenever they choose. If coaches are restricted from teaching their own players, those players will seek out instruction from others who are usually not controlled or regulated by the NCAA.
• Why does the NCAA restrict access to high school players, generally?
There are strict rules in recruiting. A certain number of phone calls per week. A certain number of days for evaluation of and contact with players.
Why?
Whenever access to players is denied to coaches, someone else is moving in and gaining access and influence, and those are usually people who the NCAA has no control over.
Why?
What problem is the NCAA trying to remedy by restricting access to players in the recruiting process? Every other person in the free world can contact high school players whenever they like, but coaches have strict limits. That makes no sense, and it implies that college coaches are negative influences on kids. I have seen no data to back that up. Coaches are positive influences on kids, and the NCAA should take the cuffs off of them and allow them access to kids. After all, college coaches are encouraging kids to go to school and gain an education while pursuing their athletic dreams. Those with unfettered access, who are unregulated, are encouraging kids to do far less.
• Why are we so worried about the early offer of a scholarship?
The NCAA is moving to restrict the time at which a coach can "offer" a scholarship to a young prospect. The idea of an eighth grader being offered a free ride to college is offensive to some, and the NCAA wants to put a stop to it. It is considering a ban on the offer of a scholarship to a prospect until July 1 between his junior and senior year.
Why?
After all, we are talking about an offer for a free college education from an institution of higher learning, not an offer of candy from a stranger to a small child to lure him into a car. If the school is OK with it, why does the NCAA need to get involved? The offer is nonbinding to the kid, who can change his mind at any time before signing.
A kid can commit to a school at any age, which is totally nonbinding on anyone, yet we are worried about a school plundering nursery schools for talent? Lastly, there is no guarantee that the prospect will qualify for admittance to the school, which is a not-so-insignificant hurdle.
Oh, and the rule would be completely unenforceable. All a coach would have do is tell a recruit that he will have a scholarship waiting as soon as they are allowed to offer one. That is called a distinction without a difference. It is a waste of the NCAA's time and resources. It makes everyone look silly.
Look at it this way: NCAA officials will tell you all day long that the integrity of university presidents is beyond reproach. I will not argue that point, even though I believe I could. If the integrity of the presidents is beyond reproach, can't each university president police his or her own football and basketball coaches as to whom and when they offer a scholarship to that president's institution? If it is so egregious for a coach to offer a ninth-grader a scholarship, why are university presidents not calling their coaches on the carpet to demand answers? I mean, who do these coaches think they are, offering a scholarship to a kid who is not even proven qualified for admittance?
I have had admissions directors tell me that they prefer the early identification of a prospect. That way, the admissions office can work with the young prospect on exactly what he needs to do to gain admittance.
So what is the problem? Schools can police themselves over the offer of scholarships. Presidents and admissions directors can deal with the issue on their own. This isn't an "arms race" because everyone has the same number of "arms" (13 scholarships). Schools and coaches don't need the NCAA telling them to whom and when they can offer a scholarship. Especially if the presidents are in charge. Which leads to another question ...
• Why do college presidents keep saying they are in charge, but then accept no responsibility for anything?
Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany once said, "My view is, the head coach knows everything. That ought to be the presumption going forward. The notion that any CEO in a small operation can take the ostrich defense ought to be eliminated."
OK, if that is the way we want it to be, fine. But if that is the way it is, then why is the president of the university above the ostrich defense? Is the hiring of coaching staffs, so-called package deals, the cars that stars drive or compliance too big for a president to police or know about? The only sports that usually get universities in trouble are football and basketball, so why can't the president and admissions director take responsibility for those sports? Or is a university too big of an operation? Why can't we share the responsibilities instead of just laying them off on a coach?
When Baylor hired an associate of John Wall and people assumed it was a package deal, I was asked by a reporter how I thought he could get Scott Drew on record about the hire, because Drew wasn't talking about it.
I felt the reporter should simply go to the president of Baylor and ask him what the hiring standards are at Baylor and whether that hire was acceptable. Then the reporter could ask the other presidents of Big 12 schools whether they agreed and whether they would allow such a hire. After all, the presidents are in charge and have unquestioned integrity. Coaches are not without responsibility in the hiring of staff and the recruiting, admission and education of athletes, but they do not bear sole responsibility.
I would like to see presidents and athletic directors have to deal with sanctions, show cause penalties and have graduation rates attached to their names and resumes. After all, they are CEOs, too. And they are in charge.
• How did the media miss the violations at USC?
Taking Delany's view to the next step, if former USC coach Pete Carroll should have known what was going on with Reggie Bush and his family because Bush drove a car and his family was in a nice home, how did the media miss it? I mean, there were reporters who were embedded with USC during Carroll's stretch of success. Could they not have strolled through the parking lot or checked out with whom Bush was hanging out?
Why was the media not asking for compliance information regarding Bush's car and family living arrangements? Could the media not have asked those questions of the compliance department or the president?
If Carroll should have known because he had only a few stars, and it should have been so obvious, it seems as if the media should have caught on, too.
• Why is there not a court or building named after John Thompson?
Last year at a Big East tournament game, I was struck by the fact that the Big East honored the 25th anniversary of Villanova's upset of Georgetown at halftime of a game but did not honor the 25th anniversary of the Hoyas' national championship the year before. Georgetown's title in 1984 marked the first time that an African-American coach won an NCAA title.
Even today, there is no court named for Thompson, either at McDonough Gym or at the Verizon Center.
Why?
There are courts named after Gene Keady, Bobby Cremins, John Kresse, Lute Olson and Pete Newell, which are all justly deserved. But none of those outstanding coaches won more titles than Thompson, and none were firsts. Just because the Verizon Center is a pro building doesn't mean Georgetown cannot put a name on the floor. Thompson is a Hall of Famer and one of the finest coaches the game has produced. He is a principled man and one of the smartest people I have ever been around. He should have his name on a floor, at the very least.
• Why do we keep using terms like "punishment," "stigma" and "negative" with regard to the NCAA tournament?
No matter what you think of the landscape of college basketball, even critics have to admit that it is the most equitable major college sport to the little guy. No other sport has 31 spots reserved in the national championship tournament for conference champions before any other team is in the field. Of the 31 automatic bids, 25 of them allow the little guy into the national championship first. Then a committee selects the 34 (now 37) best remaining teams to round out the field.
This committee not only selects the teams but also goes through a painstaking process to seed the teams from 1 to 65 (now 68) and to bracket them into a balanced national tournament. The NCAA tournament is not the best 65 (now 68) teams; it is 31 conference champions and the next best 34 (now 37) teams after that.
It may not be perfect, but it is as fair as you can get.
Yet, during the expansion debate over the addition of three at-large berths to make the field 68 teams, smart people used some really disparaging and belittling language about the possibility of playing in the "opening round" or "First Four" games (or, for those who choose to embrace reality, the play-in games). Inclusion in the play-in games has been referred to as "punishment." It has been referred to as a "stigma" and a "negative." It has been said that teams are "condemned" to the play-in games.
Competing for the national championship in the NCAA tournament is a stigma? Playing for the national championship in any seed is a negative? Playing in any seed line can be punishment? A team can be condemned to playing for the national championship? Really?
Note that nobody is suggesting that the seeding of the NCAA tournament is incorrect, with the exception of some reasonable disagreement here and there. Nobody is suggesting that the bottom eight seeds do not belong in those slots or are somehow getting jobbed.
Look, I am with the little guy on this one: There should be no play-in games in the NCAA tournament, period. Everyone across the board had ample opportunity to make the field and play into the field. It is called the regular season and the conference tournaments. After that, we have enough information to get an ample field of 64.
There may be ways to address the "inequities" in the system, but why do we hold such a deprecating view of the lower seeds in the NCAA tournament? Why do so many of the traditional lower-seeded conferences take such a deprecating view of earning a lower seed in the tournament?
When do we make it about competition? I am not suggesting that any team or conference should feel "lucky" or "fortunate" just to be there, as the honor is an earned one. But it is hardly condemnation, punishment, negative or stigmatizing. It is an honor to play in the NCAA tournament in any seed. It is an opportunity to compete for the national championship.
• Why can't players seek the advice of agents?
In college baseball, an NCAA rule allows a player to seek the guidance of an adviser, as long as the player pays the going rate for the adviser's services. Well, who has the necessary information for the player to make an informed decision? Who has the best information on the market and the process? Most would tell you that an agent does -- not a lawyer or any other person in an advisory capacity. It is an agent who has relationships with professional teams and can seek reliable information as to a player's draft status so the player can make an informed decision.
I had a basketball agent, and I didn't have to pay him for advice. I had to give him a percentage of what I made, on and off the court. If I didn't get paid, he didn't get a nickel. So his advice was worth nothing. Agents only charge a player for a percentage of the money that player makes. But an agent is not allowed to advise a player for free, which is what the advice is actually worth. Other advisers that charge for advice are getting more than they are worth, because they don't have the information or experience of agents.
In 2008, a baseball pitcher at Oklahoma State named Andy Oliver was declared ineligible right before the NCAA tournament because an adviser called the NCAA and said Oliver owed him money for his advising services. The adviser was apparently upset because another high-profile agent had built a relationship with Oliver and his family. Oklahoma State had no choice but to declare Oliver ineligible over the issue.
Oliver hired a lawyer and sued the NCAA. The trial court ordered Oliver reinstated and declared the NCAA rule to be invalid at least in part because it interfered with a person's right to counsel. The judge said that in 2009; the NCAA paid Oliver $750,000 to settle the case before it went to the jury. The effect of the settlement was that the trial court's order was vacated and the agent-adviser rule was preserved as written.
The issue of agents is the most important facing the NCAA today. In the old days, we worried about boosters giving money to players to get them to a school or to keep them there. Now, we are worried about agents, who primarily want the players to leave school and get paid to play.
But if it is really about the kids, why not allow a player to seek the advice of an agent? Is that really an "extra benefit" that we should be concerned about? Or should we be concerned about the kid and his making the right decision for him.
Jay Bilas is a college basketball analyst for ESPN and a frequent contributor to ESPN.com.