I thought that myself when I read that article that talked about a Data Scientist(tm)
Looks like the NCAA wants bloodshed!
There are very few words to describe this picture. I know it's off-topic but I just had to post it.
Click here to see a non pixelated version of the photo and a story about the whole situation.
Although there is too much sparty mention here, Wojo discusses the opportunity presented by the recent OSU trouble. Discussing the Kalis commitment: "Of course, this is just one verbal agreement from one kid. But it's especially notable because he originally committed to the Buckeyes, until Jim Tressel was busted for serial lying and replaced by Luke Fickell."
Last week there was a thread regarding contacting recruits. In essence it stated that anyone who contacted a recruit became a booster. It also suggested that anyone who spoke to a recruit and suggested that recruit should attend a specific school would be in violation of NCAA bylaws.
After reading the actual bylaw I disagreed with this interpretation of the OP and tried to describe why, but many disagreed with my interpretation (which is fine, that is what debates are all about). Since I still had questions as to how someone like myself could be considered a "booster" (a person who isn't an alumni, isn't a season ticket holder, has never been on campus, never donated money, and don't belong to any "booster associations) I contacted UM compliance in regard to my question.
I can't copy and paste the emails on my phone so I will give you the highlights of what she (Elizabeth Heinrich, Assistant Athletic Director of Compliance at UM) said: First I will be clear that my question was how could a person who has no affiliation with a university other than being a fan be considered a "person of athletic interest" which is what they call boosters. Her response was someone fitting that description would not be committing a violation by simply talking to a recruit and passing the idea that said recruit should attend a specific university. She continued by stating that a person fitting my description above would only be found to be committing a violation if they offered something in exchange for their commitment (money etc), but simply saying they should attend a university is not a violation.
To be clear, this only covers a person fitting my description above. If you are a season ticket holder, student, alumni, etc you may fit the definition of "booster" as set out in the NCAA bylaws. I also want to be clear that I think anyone (short of people who actually know a recruit or work in the industry like TVH) who contacts these recruits is taking far too much interest in recruiting and is likely doing far more harm than good.
I posted this so that people who may have been left with uncertainties after reading the previous thread (like myself) could have a more definitive answer as to whether a person with no affiliation to a university would be committing a violation by contacting a recruit and offering them nothing more than advise as to where to attend university. A societal violation, yes...an NCAA violation, no. Hope that clears it up.
It also clarifies that people who are simply fans of a University who may attend the odd game here and there but are not alumni or make donations to the University are not considered boosters by the NCAA.
Taft High prospects WR Dwayne Stanford and DE Adolphus Washington have been the subject of much conversation between Michigan fans. Both targets would help fulfill big needs for Michigan's 2012 class. The duo is yet to take an unofficial visit to Ann Arbor, but have seemingly been trying to schedule a trip for some time. I caught up with their coach to talk about their summer plans and where they're both at in the recruiting cycle.
TOM: I know there has been a few weekends where we thought Dwayne and Adolphus were going to make it up to Michigan. Are they going to get up to Ann Arbor any time soon?
COACH MARTIN: I don't think they'll be taking any more visits because of AAU basketball. I know they go away next week and when they come back we'll be in two a days so it will be tough for them to make it to places. As of now they have nothing else scheduled.
TOM: Do you know where both are at in the process?
COACH MARTIN: Michigan is in their top five, I don't know what their top group is off hand but Michigan is in it for both. Right now neither have a clue when they'll decide. I think once they start taking official visits they'll start to figure it out. They don't want to commit to anybody right now.
TOM: They originally had said that they wanted to be a package deal and then that started to fade a little bit. Do you think their recruitment will end up being more individualized or will they stay together?
COACH MARTIN: I think it's going to be more individualized. If it happens it happens, I don't think they're planning on it right now. I know their top five lists have a couple schools that are not in the others.
TOM: Since you're around them the most what kind of people are they going to be at the next level? What is a program going to get from these two?
COACH MARTIN: They're going to get two hard working guys. With all types of guys that get in trouble you never have to worry about that with these two. From an academic and football standpoint they'll be everywhere they're supposed to be when they're supposed to be. Both will come in and contribute early. Whoever gets them is going to get quality people.
Last I heard Oklahoma was a presumed front-runner for Kiel (with crazy rumours about Indiana as well) but they just added 4* Trevor Knight. I think this helps Michigan, but the question is are we still in the running for him?