Kim English, the head coach of Providence College men’s basketball, made headlines when he openly criticized other college basketball coaches for allegedly engaging in tampering—illegally contacting his players without permission. Taking to social media, English delivered a pointed message aimed at those trying to sway his athletes to transfer schools without going through proper channels. His message was clear and direct: any coach interested in recruiting Providence players should speak to him directly rather than attempting to contact the athletes or their families behind his back.
In his statement, English expressed deep frustration about what he views as unethical behavior. “Leave them and their families alone,” he wrote. “Call me. I’ll see if they want to play for your programs. Y’all have my number.” His comments reflect a broader concern in college athletics over the growing frequency of behind-the-scenes recruitment attempts—efforts that often occur before a player has officially entered the NCAA transfer portal.
English’s remarks came at a tense moment, particularly due to swirling speculation that Providence star forward Bryce Hopkins might be considering a move to another program. At the time of English’s statement, Hopkins had not entered the transfer portal, which made any outside interest from rival programs a violation of NCAA rules. While no specific schools were mentioned, English’s public reaction suggested he was aware of improper outreach occurring within the college basketball ecosystem.
This issue of tampering—recruiting athletes before they’ve formally declared their intent to transfer—has become increasingly prevalent since the transfer portal was introduced. The portal, designed to give student-athletes greater freedom and transparency when switching schools, has inadvertently opened the door for questionable recruiting practices. Coaches from across the country, including high-profile figures like UConn’s Dan Hurley, have acknowledged that tampering has become widespread and difficult to police. Hurley, like English, has expressed concerns about the lack of enforcement surrounding these violations and the impact they have on the integrity of college athletics.
English’s comments reflect the increasing difficulty college coaches face in retaining players amid the evolving NCAA landscape. With more lenient transfer rules, players have more mobility than ever before, and that freedom has led to a surge in movement during the offseason. While this shift benefits athletes by giving them more options, it has made roster stability a significant challenge for coaching staffs.
For coaches like English, who are trying to build a cohesive program culture, these unsolicited approaches can be incredibly disruptive. When rival programs initiate contact with a player or their family, it can plant seeds of doubt and raise questions about loyalty, opportunity, and fit. Even if a player doesn’t ultimately transfer, the mere suggestion of other options can create tension within a team.
Moreover, English’s insistence that rival coaches speak to him directly rather than contacting players underscores a deeper respect for the coach-to-coach protocol that has long been considered standard in collegiate athletics. In the past, it was understood that any interest in a player on another team should be filtered through their current coach. English’s plea to follow that convention not only seeks to protect his players but also aims to preserve the mutual respect and ethical conduct expected among coaching peers.
The public nature of English’s response also suggests a strategic effort to bring more visibility to the issue. By voicing his concerns openly, he is not only defending his program but also challenging the NCAA and other institutions to take stronger action against tampering. In doing so, he aligns himself with a growing chorus of coaches and administrators who believe that current policies are insufficient to address the evolving challenges of player mobility and recruitment.
At the heart of English’s stance is a desire to shield his players from unnecessary pressure and distraction. Many of these student-athletes are still navigating their collegiate journeys and developing as both athletes and individuals. Outside interference, especially from powerful programs offering alluring promises, can disrupt their progress and alter their decision-making. English’s demand that rival coaches contact him directly serves as a protective measure, intended to keep communication channels transparent and player welfare front and center.
As tampering continues to be a hot-button issue in college sports, it is likely that English’s comments will resonate with other coaches facing similar challenges. Whether or not the NCAA strengthens its regulations or enforces existing rules more rigorously remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the current transfer environment poses new and complex hurdles for programs seeking to maintain continuity, loyalty, and trust.
In the meantime, coaches like Kim English are left to navigate this uncharted territory with both vigilance and transparency. His strong public stance not only reaffirms his commitment to his players but also sets a standard for ethical conduct in an era increasingly defined by change and uncertainty in college athletics.
