The Big East Wants Coaching Staff Sizes To Be Smaller
An
article published in USA Today states that the NCAA cabinet is looking into introducing legislation that would limit the support staff allowed in college football programs.
Currently, the NCAA places a limit on the number of coaches that can be involved with assisting the players—on or off the field. That number, currently, is capped at 12 (the head coach, nine assistants, and two graduate assistants).
However, it gets a little sketchier when discussing non-coaching personnel. There are no limits to that number and, just a quick browse of some of the more well-known programs in college football will attest to that; Ohio State (41), Rutgers (36), and Michigan (33) all boast large amounts of non-coaching staff on their payroll.
The latter was recently forced to impose a self-sanction on their football program when it was discovered that inappropriate actions were being executed by the non-coaching staff hired by head coach, Rich Rodriguez.
The report was stated as such:
The school said two main problems - too many people acting as coaches and too many hours being put into football by the players - occurred in part because of "inattention by the football staff."
After his hire from West Virginia, Rodriguez filled all five quality control positions in the program - essentially assistants to assistants who were paid $17 per hour to "run errands for the coaches, check on student-athlete class attendance and academic issues, and chart plays."
The school said the staff "crossed the line in specific situations and engaged in 'coaching activities"' as defined by the NCAA.
The NCAA has stated that this recent discovery has little to do with their decision to introduce this new legislation, but, it has shed some light on an issue that has long been on the minds of those involved on the Football Issues Committee.
Big East associate commissioner and chair of the NCAA Football Issues Committee, Nick Carparelli, stated the following:
"There's a unanimous position (among Big East coaches) that football staffing positions need to be regulated. There are just too many. The Big East coaches feel that there are some schools that have staffs that are so big that it raises the question of what these people can be doing within the rules."
That being said, however, why is the Big East's associate commissioner championing this cause with any more urgency than any other conference?
If there is an issue with non-coaching staff doing inappropriate business at one school, isn't it just as likely that it is happening at another? After all, what major program isn't trying to find a way around some of the vaguer rules of the NCAA?
In truth, it won't likely matter how many staff members are supported by a major football program. The relative edge offered by having one extra strength coach or one additional director of football operations seems comical in the broader sense.
Even more, the notion that the NCAA is
"...very concerned about the cost of this kind of proliferation and whether it's necessary to … putting our teams in the field of play,"seems ironic given their lackadaisical handling of all things college football related.
After all, additional staff within a football program isn't a new phenomenon. This type of behavior, on the behalf of athletic director's and head coached, has been going on since the days of Bear Bryant. Back then college coaches would send out, and in many instances pay, scouts to evaluate high school talent.
At that time, there were no recruiting services in college football and the act of evaluating talent for money was a far-fetched idea. This was long before the days of a
Rivals Top 100 or a
Scout 150 so the act it self, at one point, believe it or not, was considered cheating.
The point is, coaches did what they felt was necessary to gain an extra step on the competition and, no matter what the NCAA Football Issues Committee, comes up with—I don't expect that to change. And, based on the way the NCAA has handled the whole USC—sanction or no sanction debacle—I'd say they are well-aware of that fact.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=eabf751f-1791-461b-9cec-c012fb9bc044)
No comments:
Post a Comment