New NCAA interpretation allows D-I schools to hire recruits — sort of

According to a new official interpretation, “groups of prospective student-athletes” — known to everybody else as recruits — now can be employed by NCAA Division I schools.

The interpretation from the NCAA Division Interpretations Committee was shared Tuesday afternoon in a tweet from the Mountain West Conference Compliance Department.

According to the interpretation, an institution’s athletics department may employ a group of prospective student-athletes provided:

• The employment is arranged through normal institution employment procedures and without the intervention of a sport-specific staff member.
• The employment opportunity must be available to other groups in general.
• Plus, the group may not be selected for a recruiting purpose. Compensation must be for work performed and commensurate with the going rate for such services in the locale.
• Compensation must be provided in accordance with the employment arrangements. The employment may not be a fundraiser for a high school athletics program.

Coaches concerned with NCAA interpretation

The new NCAA interpretation immediately sent shock waves throughout the college football coaching community. Some coaches believe the interpretation could open Pandora’s box. Other coaches said it is rife with cheating potential.

For example, one SEC coach said schools could host youth camps and pay recruits for their time working in that camp — as long as the coaches didn’t get involved with the hiring process. A Big 12 coach who spent time as a head coach at a previous stop called the interpretation “mind-blowing.”

“They say it may not be used for recruiting purposes. But why else would it be used?” the coach said. “It’s a total shit show that you can’t control. Schools with the most money will win. NIL is one thing. But the schools being able to pay the PSA is another thing.

“This is pure madness. To say it’s ‘mind-blowing’ is an understatement.”

‘This is devoid of all context’

But multiple compliance directors and an NCAA official told On3 many coaches are viewing the interpretation incorrectly.

An ACC compliance director said since sports-specific members can’t be involved, the idea of a school hiring recruits to work at camps would be against the rules. “Not many camps operate like that anyways,” the compliance director said. “But this is devoid of all context.”

A Mountain West compliance director concurred.

“We’re not going to see recruits working camps or anything that coaches will be at,” the compliance official said. “At least not with how we’re understanding the interpretation and without the intent of bending the rules greatly. But there is a lot of gray area with this, and that’s troubling.”

Most compliance officials believe the intent of the interpretation is to allow prospects to work at stadiums or arenas on game days, instead of at anything that could be linked to recruiting.

NCAA: Interpretation addresses issues around fundraising

An NCAA spokesman agreed that was the interpretation’s intent.

“This interpretation came about due to questions that the staff was receiving related to groups that included prospects wanting to work at our D-I institution’s contests (concessions, ticket takers, etc.),” Jeremy Villanueva, associate director of communications with the NCAA, told On3 in an email.

“The interpretation was meant to make it clear that an institution could hire a group to do these types of things, even if the group included prospects, as long as there was no coaching staff involvement and the group went through the normal employment process. The interpretation was more about addressing issues around an institution fundraising for a prospective student-athlete’s school or program. It was not meant to open up the legislation surrounding the hiring of prospective student-athletes.”

Villanueva said the interpretation mirrors the language in Bylaw 13.2.4.1; that bylaw allows for prospects to be hired under the same stipulations that are found in the interpretation.

“Again, the focus of this was that the institution is not fundraising for a high school athletics program, as the last sentence of the actual interpretation states,” he wrote.

All of this sounds fine, but it’s still concerning for coaches. That’s especially true at schools outside of the powers in college football.

“This is going to be impossible for compliance departments to monitor,” an AAC assistant said. “I understand the intent of all of this. It’s supposed to be a good thing. But I’m worried.”