It took a little more than a month from the time that the Class 4A Greater St. Helens League penalized Camas football for a recruiting violation until, three appeals later, the WIAA’s Executive Board rendered its decision.
Head coach Jon Eagle was found to have committed a “form of recruiting,” according to the Washington Interscholastic Activities Association. Yet, the penalty was rather pedestrian, because, well, because he really did not recruit anyone.
Confused?
That is why this took a month.
That is why the 4A GSHL athletic directors, the WIAA’s District 4, and the executive board can claim victory, that they were correct to rule that something was wrong when Eagle met with an athlete from Evergreen High School and talked about eligibility and football.
This is why Camas administration and the WIAA’s district directors can claim victory, that they were correct to claim no recruiting actually took place.
The first two findings went against Camas, with suspensions for coaches, a fine, and probation. The next appeal went Camas’ way, cleared of all wrongdoing. And then, a review, leading to the final ruling: A form of recruiting but no suspensions. Athletic department placed on probation.
In this opinion/analysis piece, I will try to give you a better understanding of the many things in play regarding this case:
• Why some believe it is recruiting.
• How the WIAA needs to re-write its handbook regarding recruiting.
• Why the GSHL voted for such a stiff penalty in the first place.
• How the Camas athletic department’s own proposed penalty was tougher or as tough as what the WIAA eventually decided.
• How this whole ordeal will lead to a lot of meetings between athletic directors and their coaches. Not just at Camas.
In the past month, I’ve asked the opinion of several coaches in a number of sports, as well as administrators from throughout the state. This is an effort to showcase some of the informed opinion.
Recruiting
I believe Eagle told the athlete to stay at Evergreen. The grandfather of the athlete, who was at the meeting, confirmed this account to the district directors. So why do some believe this action is still recruiting? Or, in the eyes of the WIAA, a form of recruiting?
Because just setting up the meeting, it can be argued, is recruiting.
Consider the following: Evergreen has won six games the past two seasons and will have a new coach. The athlete, looking for a greener football field, made contact with Camas. Eagle and the athlete talked on the phone and scheduled a meeting. This is a head coach who has led his team to three consecutive undefeated regular seasons. This is a head coach — with 150-plus players of his own — who just scheduled a meeting with an athlete from another school on the coach’s day off. That could be considered enticing to the athlete, don’t you think? He was made to feel special, right?
Jon Eagle is meeting with me? Cool!
That is why many athletic directors are uneasy with such meetings, regardless of what is said in the meetings.
Handbook
My guess is beginning next school year, a meeting like this will lead to harsher penalties. The WIAA staff has been instructed to come up with a clear definition of recruiting. In the past, the WIAA has advised coaches to tell a prospective athlete that he must talk to the school administration to get any questions answered regarding eligibility. But technically, there is no rule in the WIAA Handbook that prohibits a coach meeting with the athlete to tell him about eligibility. As long as the coach does not “encourage or entice” the athlete to come to his program.
Crazy, huh? Turns out, unwritten rules are difficult to regulate.
Why so tough
When the 4A GSHL athletic directors gave Eagle a four-game suspension they were utilizing the relatively new guidelines in the WIAA Handbook regarding penalties. There are three levels of infractions, with Level 3 being the highest. Recruiting is a Level 3 offense. Suspension is called for in the first box under Level 3 penalties. Then it says the suspension can be up to a year.
The ADs felt they had to suspend Eagle. Required to, in fact. Because there is no suggestion of probation for Level 3. They went with four games, 44 percent of a regular season.
In the end, the penalty for this “form of recruiting” got Camas a Level 1 sentence: probation.
Seen this before
To be fair to Camas athletic director Rory Oster, the final ruling looks very similar to his own suggestion a month ago. When he self reported the violation to the 4A GSHL, he called the meeting between Eagle and the athlete “unacceptable” and asked that the football program be placed on probation for two years. When Eagle was instead suspended for four games, Oster and the Camas School District went on the offensive, saying the penalty did not fit the crime. In the end, it was probation and training for all Camas coaches. Oster should feel vindicated.
Education
One coach in another sport, in another school district, told me he always thought it was OK to talk to a prospective athlete as long as the athlete or family made first contact. An assistant football coach from another team noted that his program has meetings about concussion awareness, on-field rules, communication skills, etc., but has never been told what to do if a student from another school contacts him about playing football for his team.
So as we put an end to the 2014-15 academic year, look for ADs and coaches to get some schooling prior to the 2015-16 academic year.
Hopefully, the text book — the WIAA Handbook — will be up to date.
Paul Valencia covers high school sports for The Columbian. He can be reached at 360-735-4557 or email at paul.valencia@columbian.com. Follow him on Twitter: @360paulv
