Yesterday we learned that 2 of the 3 new NCAA rule changes were being put on indefinite hold due to their unpopularity amongst member institutions, especially B1G schools. These defeated rules dealt with who could recruit (basically anybody) and what they could send (basically anything), but the rule pertaining to quantities of texts/phone calls a recruit could receive was, astoundingly, left alive.
Yesterday's news here: http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/ncaa-recruiting-rule-changes-probably-dead
Well, it looks like it was only given a few extra days to live:
Once again,, institutions are telling the NCAA their new rules suck. Assuming the override is succcessful, the winners will be the recruits (and the coaches who realized the rule was crazy). The losers include cell phone providers, whoever drafts NCAA rules, and creepy text-happy coaches.
Between yesterday and today, it feels like Arab Spring Part 2, just on an athletic level.
The widely discussed rule changes that would have allowed for unlimited texting and mailing to recruits appear to have been killed, apparently in large part due to the B1G's opposition. EDIT: I got it wrong, the provision allowing for unlimited contact still seems to be in place but other rule changes pertaining to who can contact recruits and what types of materials can be sent were shot down.
The article notes that the rule changes could still pop back up at some point in the future, but if they did, it sounds like major modifications would be neccessary. The rule allowing for unlimited texting/mailing was the worst of the three in my opinion so why it survived is beyond me.
P.S. I'm not trying to set any sort of personal record for posts in one day, but after waiting a couple hours after the article was posted on CBSsports.com in hopes that someone else would link to it, I've given up. It is a pretty important story and board worthy IMO.
Today, the Big 10 issued a statement opposing the changes in recruiting rules scheduled to go into effect in July, reading in part:
We have serious concerns whether these proposals, as currently written, are in the best interest of high school student-athletes, their families and their coaches. We are also concerned about the adverse effect they would have on college coaches, administrators and university resources. We look forward to working with the NCAA toward improving the game, the recruiting process and the overall college football experience for all student-athletes.
Personally, I hope this provokes the NCAA to respond to increasing levels of criticism about the upcoming changes. The changes are going to do nothing but eliminate any down time for recruits and the coaches who recruit them.
Stumbled across this while perusing the interwebs this morning. Any merit to what this guy is saying?
Say it isn't so.
Please say that after what happened at Ohio State, the University of Michigan isn't letting its football players keep the throwback jerseys worn in the Wolverines' last-second victory over Notre Dame.
No athletic director who pays attention to the world, and conference, around him would say "yes" to such a request.
And yet, Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon, after checking with his NCAA compliance officer, acceded to the players' wishes. They get to keep the jerseys.
While this is not a violation of NCAA rules, it is a violation of common sense.
Don't people learn?
The mess at Ohio State, which cost football coach Jim Tressel his job and seems likely to put the Buckeyes on probation, began with players trading memorabilia for tattoos.
Several Michigan players say nothing untoward is going to happen, that they will keep the jerseys forever in order to preserve the memory of their victory.
OK. That's a nice thought. But why put temptation in front of players?
Does anyone think well-heeled Wolverines boosters will resist the urge to line players' pockets with cash while getting a "legacy" jersey to frame and hang on their den walls?
Even if you believe players have the right to sell whatever they are given, the NCAA disagrees. If you want players to avoid violating rules by selling jerseys, don't give them jerseys to sell.
Click HERE to read the rest of the column.
Useful and hilarious article by Staples on the rules head coaches should follow so they do not get caught by the NCAA.
1. Pay in Cash
2. No Paper Trail
3. Pay Off Everyone
4. Use the IRS Blackmail Card
5. Plausible Deniability (this immediately reminded me of The Wire)
6. Use Prepaid Cellphones (Staples actually references The Wire)
7. Always Pay in Cash
In the Jordan Diamond thread and many times before, I've seen a lot of misinformation about who exactly the NCAA considers a "booster" (officially known as a representative of athletics interest). Here are three important things to know about the NCAA definition:
- A season ticket holder is considered a booster.
- Anyone who contacts a recruit to encourage that person to attend a particular university instantly becomes a booster of that university.
- Once a person becomes a booster, they remain a booster forever.
The bottom line is that while fans (and I believe alumni) are not by definition considered to be boosters, they turn into a booster the moment they contact a recruit and act as a school's representative by trying to influence the recruit to attend that school.
The NCAA prohibits boosters from contacting recruits, and this includes all manner of electronic communication. A number of universities have posted very similar pages with details on what boosters are prohibited from doing online. The following is part of what appears on a page at the University of Cincinnati's website:
(2) Message Boards: Boosters participating on a message board are not permitted to write, call, instant message, text, chat with, or e-mail a prospect. Sometimes we will read on a message board that someone thinks it is okay to contact a prospect once they sign a National Letter of Intent with Cincinnati. However, that signing does not change the fact he or she is still a prospect and all prohibitions against booster contact continue to apply. We often also hear comments that because a person is not a graduate of Cincinnati or a season ticket holder, they believe they are not a booster and it is okay for them to contact a prospect. However, part of the NCAA's definition of a booster includes anyone who contacts a recruit on behalf of the institution. Therefore, as soon as someone on a message board e-mails or sends a message out to a recruit, they automatically become a booster and are subject to the NCAA rules prohibiting such contact.
(3) Social Networking: Boosters are not permitted to use social networking websites such as Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace to contact or otherwise attempt to correspond with prospects. This includes, but is not limited to, posting on a wall, using the inbox/e-mail feature, instant messaging, "@replies", "mentions", or direct messaging. Recently, NC State University sent a cease-and-desist letter to a student who had formed a Facebook group urging a prospect to come to the university. The university saw the group as a fan's attempt to recruit the prospect, thus violating NCAA rules.
Long story short (as a number of people said in Jordan Diamond thread): Don't contact any recruits using any method of communication.
Also worth reading: The NYT article Social media and the NCAA — A recruit's friend, a team's fan and a headache for colleges