Recruiting Issues: Basketball-Powell |
(
Commissioner's Rulings
) |
2017-18 SeasonJanuary 19, 2018
Facts:MHC has requested a ruling dealing with MBB player Danny Powell. Mr. Powell is currently a member of the RDC Men’s Basketball team, having commenced studies there at the commencement of the current semester. Prior to signing with RDC, Mr. Ballard has produced a copy of a “Letter of Intent” signed by Mr. Powell on December 2, 2017 which MHC argues commits Mr. Powell to have attended MHC for the current semester. Based on that letter of intent, MHC suggests that Mr. Powell should be unable to play elsewhere during the current semester. In addition, MHC has questioned whether RDC and Lethbridge College (with whom Mr. Powell also dealt with before ultimately electing to attend RDC) complied with the Operating Code rules relating to recruitment expenses. Ruling:I will deal first with the issue of the “Letter of Intent.” As many of our members are aware, letters of intent are commonplace within the NCAA setting. However, in the case of the ACAC, although our Recruitment Review subcommittee is currently examining this issue, at present, the ACAC Operating Code contains no provisions which allow for the enforcement of a letter of intent nor are there any provisions that impose penalties on either athletes or institutions that violate the provisions of a letter of intent. As such, I am afraid that I am unable to enforce the document entered into between Mr. Powell and MHC and Mr. Powell remains free to compete for RDC. With respect to allowable expenses incurred in the recruitment of an athlete, Rule 1.8.1 of the Operating Code is worded as follows: 1.8. Recruiting Trips and Travel 1.8.1. Funding of liaison/recruiting trips for prospective athletes is acceptable, however the ACAC limits a member’s institution or its delegates to finance only one visit on campus, prior to August 1st for a fall semester registration and prior to December 1st for a winter semester registration for any prospective athletes. The expenses covered by the institute would be limited to transportation, meals and accommodation. (Amended December, 2010) In this case, MHC’s concern was whether RDC and Lethbridge College had incurred recruitment expenses in relation to Mr. Powell after December 1, 2017 in contravention of Rule 1.8.1. RDC has confirmed that Mr. Powell did not visit its campus and that no Rule 1.8.1 recruitment expenses were incurred. Lethbridge has advised that Mr. Powell did visit its campus after December 1, 2017 and that travel expenses were covered. However, Lethbridge has also indicated that its discussions with Mr. Powell were of a preliminary nature as they had not yet confirmed Mr. Powell’s eligibility status and, provided that he was eligible, they had not determined whether they wanted him to join the team for the current semester or wait until next Fall. As such, I am not able to definitively say whether Mr. Powell’s visit took place after December 1 for the winter semester or prior to August 1 for the fall semester. As such, I find no violation of Rule 1.8.1 by Lethbridge College. This was my first opportunity to interpret Rule 1.8.1. I find that its wording is somewhat ambiguous when applied to the Lethbridge situation and I would ask the ACAC Council to consider revising the wording of the rule to properly reflect the rule’s intentions. Sincerely, Bill Hendsbee
|