Contact a recruit--become a booster
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
and I think I disagree with the OP somewhat.
Let me be clear first and state I don't think anyone who doesn't know another person (recruit or otherwise) should be messaging them in any form. That is just creepy shit IMHE.
My point though, is that the definition I have seen on multiple AD's websites for boosters wouldn't apply to someone like me. I have never been to a UM game, didn't attend UM and have never contacted a recruit in an effort to assist staff in the recruitment of any individual.
That last part is what all the sites I looked at were clear on (assisting the staff in recruiting). In other words if Brady Hoke has no idea nor ever asked me to help recruit on behalf of UM, and I don't fit any other criterea of a booster, this rule wouldn't apply to me. I could contact anyone and tell them I think they should attend whatever university I wanted.
Again, I think plain common sense should tell a person that it is completely inappropriate, but it doesn't seem to be against the rules from what I read. Just my 2 cents.
I'm not an expert on NCAA rules, and I'm not a lawyer either, but the official definition of a booster from NCAA bylaw 13.02.11 perhaps deliberately uses rather broad language that different schools have interpreted in different ways. For example, some specifically say that all alumni are boosters, and others don't say whether they consider alums to be boosters or not.
Take a look at the parts that I've bolded below. I interpret this to mean that it makes no difference whether Brady Hoke knows you're trying to assist him in recruiting or that he never asked you to assist.
A "representative of the institution's athletics interests" is an individual who is known (or who should have been known) by a member of the institution's executive or athletics administration to:
(a) Have participated in or to be a member of an agency or organization, including corporate entities (e.g., apparel and equipment companies), promoting the institution's intercollegiate athletics program; (Revised: 1/14/02)
(b) Have made financial contributions to the athletics department or to an athletics booster organization of that institution;
(c) Be assisting or to have been requested (by the athletics department staff) to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes;
(d) Be assisting or to have assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student-athletes or their families; or
(e) Have been involved otherwise in promoting the institution's athletics program.
But go back to what I quoted in the OP from Cincinnati. Those exact paragraphs have been posted by the compliance departments at a number of schools. My guess is that it came from a widely attended compliance seminar. And that document makes it crystal clear that anyone contacting a recruit for the purposes of encouraging them to attend a specific school instantly becomes a booster of that school.
The key part of that bylaw is the first paragraph before it breaks down into bullets. That says:
who is known (or who should have been known) by a member of the institution's executive or athletics administration. (and continues to say) to be assisting or to have been requested to assist in the recruitment of prospective student athletes.
There is no way that the AD should or even could know that people like the guy on this blog saying he contacts recruits and pushes them to choose UM are doing these things. That is what this is saying.
Again, I am with the majority who say that contacting these kids is absolute nonsense, but as far as these bylaws are concerned a regular joe fan who doesn't have season tickets, isn't a student or alumni and isn't providing benefits to the kids wouldn't be considered a booster and therefore wouldn't be a violation.
You're entitled to your interpretation. But unless you're an expert on NCAA compliance, I'll defer to the compliance staffs that posted the document I quoted.
Also did you read the NYT article I mentioned in the OP? It can't be any clearer than this:
Grace said he saw nothing wrong with using social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to reach out to some of the best high school players in the country, as long as there is no harassment. And he is far from alone in doing so. But what Grace and other fans like him may not know was that he had been violating NCAA regulations.
The NCAA allows coaches to correspond with recruits via email, fax and social networking sites. But since 2007, it has prohibited all other forms of electronically transmitted correspondence, including text messaging, instant messaging and posting messages on a user's Facebook wall. Alumni, fans and boosters, individually or in organized groups, are not permitted to contact a recruit for the purpose of enticing him to attend a particular university.
but in interpreting legislation in general. Having served in government for the past 6 years I have become quite good at interpreting "legal speak".
I am not trying to be arguementative with you, I simply disagree. What isn't clear from your article is who Grace is. Was he an alumni? a student? If so, that still falls in line with my interpretation. I am simply saying that there is no way the NCAA could look at me and come to the conclusion that I was a booster for the U of M if I made contact witha recruit. I live in Nova Scotia Canada, haven't stepped foot on U of M campus and never donated as much as a penny to the university or any athlete playing for them.
All of what you are saying is ignoring the basis of the NCAA bylaw that you yourself qouted. That is the crux of the bylaw, the fact that it is a violation if the university knew or should have known that (input name here) contacted a recruit with the intention to influence their decision.
Is there any way that the NCAA could ever believe that UM know or should know that a guy in Nova Scotia Canada is contacting recruits and urging them to attend UM (I absolutely am not doing this, just using it as an example)? If the answer to that is no, they do not fit the definition of a booster as described in the bylaw.
Sorry, but I will defer to the bylaw rather than a NYT article in this case, and I don't find the bylaw all that ambiguous.
The NYT article has a quote from an NCAA official commenting on what Grace was said to be doing:
"If a school comes across an instance of this happening, it is expected that they would reach out to those athletics personnel, fans and boosters and reinforce the ground rules related to communicating with recruits," Cameron Schuh, an associate director for public and media relations for the NCAA, said in an email.
He talks about "athletics personnel, fans and boosters," so it doesn't make any difference whether Grace is an alum, student, or season-ticket holder.
I think what throws many people off track in this area is their focus on the term "booster." This is not the official NCAA term for who is governed by these rules. The term is "representative of athletics interest." Anyone who contacts a recruit to encourage him or her to attend a particular school becomes a representative of athletics interest of that school. So it makes no difference where you live, whether you've ever been on campus, or whether you've ever given the university any money.
As the person I quote below says, the NCAA definition of a representative of athletics interest is vague--perhaps purposely so. But it's pretty clear to me that both the NCAA official quoted in the NYT article and many compliance officials disagree with your reading of the bylaw.
I found the following on a UConn message board. The poster quotes a UConn compliance official saying fans cannot contact recruits--period.
These aren't my words, the following is directly from UConn Compliance. Please note that the term "booster" applies to anyone that has (among other things) purchased season's tickets, contributed to UConn, gone to UConn, or "promoted the interests of UConn athletics" which is a vague term that the NCAA can apply any way it likes. See the Representative of Athletics Interests definition (booster):
The NCAA rules that regulate contact with prospective student-athletes include not only face-to-face contacts, emails, phone calls, but also any and all contacts through social media websites. This includes, but is not limited to, websites such as Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace.
Boosters or other representatives of UCONN’s athletics interests are prohibited from contacting recruits through these and similar websites. Despite these new applications of the internet, NCAA rules regarding how these technologies can be used have not changed. For instance, many years ago NCAA rules made it impermissible for anyone other than a UCONN coach to write a letter to a prospect encouraging that individual to come to UCONN. As the internet developed the rule was applied the same way to email, so that only a UCONN coach could email a prospect in an attempt to recruit the individual to UCONN. Now, with new methods for broader communication over these social networking sites, it is necessary to remember that it is still permissible only for UCONN coaches to use these sites to recruit prospects to come to UCONN. Even then, there are significant limitations and regulations on how that communication can take place.
Fans may not initiate or accept “friend” requests of prospects on Facebook, but they can “follow” recruits on Twitter. Fans should NEVER post to a recruit’s “wall,” reply to a “tweet,” send them any type of direct message, or take any other action that would constitute contacting that recruit. This prohibition also includes creating fan pages for recruits to attend UCONN.
If anyone other than UCONN coaches contact recruits or encourage prospects to enroll at UCONN, the NCAA will deem that to be a violation and we will be subject to penalties and recruiting limitations, potentially even jeopardizing the eligibility of the prospect. This is true even if the prospect is unaware of such recruiting efforts. Further, those individuals who participate in impermissible recruiting could face penalties, including being banned from obtaining tickets to athletic events.
Please remember, that while new technology has revolutionized the college recruiting world, the basic rules regarding recruitment of student-athletes remains the same. All recruiting activities to the permissible athletics staff members. Know that our coaches are at the forefront of these efforts and are doing everything they legally can to recruit outstanding student-athletes to UCONN. If any Boneyard posters have any questions regarding what constitutes a social media website, what types of actions are prohibited, or any other technology and recruiting questions, please encourage them to contact the Office of Athletics Compliance BEFORE taking any actions.
I guess you aren't familiar with big organizations but an associate director of public and media relations isn't the guy I would be taking the lead from if I wanted information pertaining to recruiting violations. We have seen on this site alone that people can read the same thing and come up with multiple interpretations and within the NCAA is no different. UnlessI saw something in writing from the NCAA that was signed by one of their Directors (not associates) saying that a person could not speak to a recuit and advise them on where to attend university without becoming "a representative of athletics interest" I am going to say you are off on what you think this means. I am going to make my point one final time and it is that you are misinterpretting the definiton of respresentatives of athletics interest, plain and simple.
If you were right this rule would make every father, mother, teacher, preacher, coach, brother sister, friend, aunt, uncle, etc etc etc a booster for life. All becaus they told this kid he should attend a specific school. How does that work with families with multiple kids? Are they boosters for evey univeristy they told their kids they should go to? What about teachers? Are they boosters for every university they told a kid they should check out. Someone else raised the question about other committs recruiting? They are boosters now as well if you are correct. Do you see how ridiculous it would be if the definition is as you are interpretting it? I will say once again, your interpretation of this bylaw is far more broad than I believe it is intended.
I am not denying that it is vague and leaves the NCAA much wiggle room if they decided they wanted to go after a university for something under this bylaw, but a person with no affiliation with a university that gives a kid some advise on where to go to school does not fit this description. So I will never be convinced that if I ever told my 10 year old nephew to go to UM and play hockey that the NCAA would consider it a violation. Sorry, that is just nonsensicle.
My final point is this: Compliance departments are not the NCAA and in most cases will err on the side of caution. You can stop qouting them to me (and the NYT as well) because I can see the bylaw in black and white. It isn't all that vague to me and just because some guy on a blog (both you and the guy from the UCONN) says this bylaw means "x" another guy on this blog (and I am sure other blog as well) says it means "y" The very crux of the NCAA definition when speaking of a "booster" is that the person is known or should be known to the university. If a person has no affiliation with a university other than being a fan of said university, it is not reasonable to expect that university to know of the individual. That is what clarifies this definition.
So in this case I am going to go forward believe my interpretation is correct for multiple reasons, not the least of which mine makes far more sense than yours (not to be a dick, but it does).
As I've said numerous times, I'll take the word of compliance experts over your opinion, particularly given that all you've looked is one bylaw that concerns this issue--when there are others that pertain as well. I've wasted way too much time responding to you, but one obvious point--there are exceptions to the rules for people with whom a recruit has a preexisiting relationship, including family, friends, and neighbors.
And by the way, I haven't misinterpreted anything. Every point I've made on this thread is taken directly from experts on NCAA compliance.
Do you even understand what interpret means? You aren't taking anyones word because you haven't spoken to anyone. You are taking pieces (only the ones that support your position) of information from the NCAA bylaws, sports blogs and articles out of newspapers. That is not taking peoples word for anything.
What you are doing is looking at information and making a judgement as to how you think that translates into reality. You are making interpretations and the fact that you can't even see that makes me understand why you can't see how absurd your interpretation is.
I'm done with this debate and will say once more that you're wrong. When you have evidence to the contrary (which would be a person with no affiliation whatsoever to a university being declared a booster because they spoke to a recuit and mentioned a particular school and therefore the NCAA concluded the school has violated this bylaw) I will go on knowing I am right and you are misinterpretting this bylaw.
The funniest part to me is you keep ignoring the part that you yourself bolded in your pasting of the bylaw (this is your paste right here):
A "representative of the institution's athletics interests" is an individual who is known (or who should have been known) by a member of the institution's executive or athletics administration to:
For one final time the key to this definition is whether the university KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN that a person was talking to recruits telling them to go to UM. You have to be insane if you think the NCAA would rule that UM should know that Blue in Yarmouth (way up here in eastern Canada) contacted recuit "x" and told him to go blue. No sugar coat....f*ing insane dude.
I don't understand the confusion here. Raoul is quoting NCAA officials who state, bluntly, that fans can't contact recruits. How do you disagree with that? Who would be more familiar with NCAA rules than the NCAA itself?
I'll discuss this with you because having read thousands of your post I have come to respect you as a poster and get the feeling you are an intelligent individual.
I am going to first state that I am not taking the quote as gospel for a simple reason. If an NCAA rep. was asked a question about contacting a recruit it is highly likely IMHE he would give a short answer that wouldn't go into great detail about the actual rule. It is far easier to say "fans can't contact recruits" than to go into the discussion of entirety of the rule. Couple that with the fact that most people know qoutes can be taken out of context and I am a little skeptical as to what this quote actually means.
Now, I have a fairly good grasp of the english language and my reading comprehension is great as well. I know from seeing you around here for so long that your's is also, Let's just look at the rule and ignore everything else for a minute and tell me how you interpret it. I am not going to qoute it again because it has been qouted many times already. The meat of it is that it is a violation if the university knew or should have known that a person would be contacting recruits on their behalf to encourage them to go to their university. My question is how could that be applied to anyone who has never been affiliated with the university in any way?
I will state again, I think it is in bad taste for anyone to contact these recruits in any way, but my interpretation of this bylaw is that it isn't against the rules unless you fit the definition above, which many "fans" wouldn't.
I am also curious how you make the distinction (as you did in an earlier post) that current recruits encouraging other recruits to attend a university don't fit the definition? It seems that they would fit the bill just as much as someone like me (who doesn't even live in the USA and has never set foot on campus in my life).
Anyway, my main question to you is how do you interpret the definition from the rule book? Forget everyhthing else and just tell what that says to you.
Edit: I don't know how my posts are flaming. Honestly, I simply disagreed with the OP and have presented my case in a rational way without name calling or being an ass (at least not in my opinion). I am trying to have a reasonable debate on the subject, and I am not sure how that constitutes flaming.
If Tom is a season ticket holder, which seems pretty likely, then is he commiting a violation by contacting recruits?
the key is that it is a violation to try to pursuade them to go to a certain university. TVH doesn't do that.
...season ticket holder. He lives in Arizona.
What about sign-language? It didn't say anything about that.
I use 3rd base coach signals...
Ask someone in the athletic department what to do. That little tidbit comes with our season tickets. I'll leave the recruiting to the very capable coaching staff.
So are students with season tickets considered boosters? I've had a football player play on an intramural team with me before. If he forgot to pitch in for team costs, would that have been an illegal benefit?
Some of this stuff is just insane.
This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. The day ESPN scrolls on their bottom line'' Michigan violates NCAA rules due to a fan telling him to commit to Michigan" is the day i stop watching college football. I think when they say you cant influence a recruit, they mean by ways other than just saying '' Hey commit to school x'' GTFO.