The US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia is hearing a lawsuit, which was brought by a group of plaintiffs, which seeks to overturn some new NCAA legislation. The specific legislation involves the 100-Mile Rule and the Coaches Approval Requirement.
The 100 Mile Rule limits AAU teams from using players that live more than 100 miles from the team's home. This rule affects all foreign players, as well as, players that reside in sparsely populated states. It also affects a student athlete who goes away to prep school and has to stay there for the summer to work on academics. A player is said to reside where his parents reside. Plain and simple, it's intent was for athletes to play near their home. The outcome of the rule is actually bad for all concerned. It punishes too many innocent student athletes. If it is to be implemented, it must be rethought and amended. If the intent is to return control of the athlete to the high school coach, don't beat around the bush with nonsense, just say it and do it.
As of April 1, 2002, NCAA Bylaw 30.16 (k) was enacted. The NCAA Bylaw states: "Individuals involved in coaching activities must have been approved in accordance with guidelines established by an athletics organization involved in the oversight of prospective student-athletes (e.g., Amateur Athletics Union, National Federation of State High School Associations)." The intent was that a uniform standard be set for coaches involved with pre-college athletes. There are those that believe that the present system works so why fix it. The NCAA obviously has reason to believe that the system doesn't work; the rationale for this Bylaw is a harder call. You don't know if the intent has to do with academics, athletics or unfair advantage or a combination of the above.
There was another lawsuit that was recently brought against the NCAA by exempt tournament operators. The organizers want the NCAA to eliminate the 2/4 ruling that states that you can only play in two exempt tournaments every four years. The term exempt tournament refers to an entire tournament being counted as one game instead of a game for game basis. This allows elite teams to play several extra games. Is the intent to open up the tournaments to the lesser Division I schools or is it to keep student athletes in school? I don't know and I believe the NCAA may not know either.
If it's to keep the students on their campus, then maybe these tournaments can be scheduled during winter break. If it's about education, let's eliminate intersectional games like UCLA coming to the Apple or Florida going up to play Washington. These trips just take away too much classroom time. Let's also cut back March Madness to fewer teams so we can keep the athletes in school. Is this what the NCAA really wants?
I don't think that NCAA would go along with these suggestions because it would take too many bucks out of the till. The whole thing doesn't make sense to me. Maybe the whole thing is just a power struggle. That makes a lot of sense to me. Them that got it want more of it, plain and simple.