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 lets not forget the fact that its creepy to follow these guys on twitter or facebook.
How about that user who was harassing TRich on twitter. Shouldn't he be viewed as a booster for whichever school he actually represents.
It's quite a slippery slope in identifying the allegiance of someone online.
Couldn't a Michigan fan create a twitter account "buckeye638" and harass recruits to get the school down south in trouble? (Not that they need any help in that department or any Michigan fan would ever do such a thing)
Thank you for posting this. I sincerely hope that people understand the consequences involved with contacting recruits and choose not to do it.
As someone who works with social media on a regular basis, this is one of the issues I face constantly. Just because someone is capable of contacting anyone , it doesn't mean they should. This was never okay before. It's not okay to email or call a recruit. Why on earth would it be okay to tweet at them or send them a message on Facebook?
the least enforceable rule ever.
But yes, contacting recruits is creepy as shit.
The part about boosters not being allowed to contact recruits seems totally fair to me, but it seems weird that if you contact a recruit you become a booster. There has to be some loophole I'm not understanding that allows guys like TomVH to talk to these kids.
isn't encouraging kids to come to Michigan.
I talked to the compliance department before I first started contacting/interviewing any recruits/family/coaches for my web site to get the ok to do it. Part of it is being considered media, but I was told I could talk to recruits and ask them questions but I cannot in any way during our contact encourage them to come to Michigan and the compliance officer said it's the same deal for Sam Webb and others. Every time I see a thread here or elsewhere saying go to so and so's Facebook and encourage them to come to Michigan, I cringe at it based on my talk with U-M compliance.
I know a few years ago before the purge the compliance department had written up what they considered a booster in social media, even going so far as to say you should not send friend requests to prospective recruits because, for instance on Facebook, when you send someone an Add Friend request, it sends that other individual an e-mail saying you want to add them. That e-mail is considered contact in their view. I realize many fans still do it anyway (not just at Michigan but everywhere) in the neverending effort to follow recruits every move, wall post, and tweet, and I really don't know how strongly the compliance office/NCAA can even monitor it. If you do it, whatever, but I don't encourage posting publicly telling everyone else to do it and drawing a lot of attention to it.
Here's the link to U-M's Who Is A Booster page, too, for reference.
I know most people are saying these booster rules are "un-enforcable" and that the NCAA can't/won't be able to track these things but wouldn't it be prudent to try and stop this type of activity?
Basically, I'm asking if MGoAdmins could give the compliance department an email address for people repeatedly contacting recruits in an inappropriate manner (despite being warned against it on the board *cough cough*)
Then, even if compliance can't get them to stop, at least there's an official warning...
So Tom cannot be a season ticket holder then, correct? Since season ticket holder + contacting recruit = violation of rules.
my understanding is that he is not contacting a recruit on Michigans behalf, so he CAN in fact be a season ticket holder. however, the second he encourages any one of the recruits he talks to, to go to Michigan, or any other school for that matter, he has violated the rules.
i could be wrong.
I read it differently.
It looks to me like there are 2 definitions of "booster":
1. season ticket holder = booster
2. contact recruit to encourage them to attend school = booster
Since being a booster + contacting recruit = rules violation, it looks to me like if you fall under either definition of booster and you contact a recruit, then you've violated the rules.
Boosters are allowed to speak to a recruit. It only becomes a problem when they attempt to influence their decision. Influencing their decision is the issue, which Tom never does.
Tom does not ask or entice recruits to go to Michigan. He just asks them general questions regarding the process and when they will make a decision. There is a big difference here. Tom is acting as a member of a media organization not a recruiter.
Granted, he doesn't ask or entice recruits to go to Michigan.
I'm saying that, under the rules posted above, there appears to be another definition of "booster", i.e., one who holds season tickets.
It appears that any contact by season ticket holder would be prohibited, regardless of the subject of that contact.
Thank you. But a better title might be "Contact a recruit - commit a recruiting violation," if only to further clarify the importance.
I understand what you're saying, and I can't say I'm really happy with my title and I may change it, but so many times I've read people say things like "well that only applies to boosters," and they don't realize two things: (1) "booster" has a very broad definition that definitely includes anyone who has ever had season tickets and may include all alumni (some schools include alumni in their definition and some don't); and (2) contacting a recruit turns you into a booster. It was the second point I was trying to convey in the title.
a recruit who is already committed to a team (RJS) talking to a prospect (Shittu)?
RJS is committing a violation then I guess! Really FAIR huh NCAA?
<br>-Chet
just stop.
-Srsly
Sorry, this is OT and may have been covered in another thread - but I have to ask...
Why are you saying RIP to Akon in your signature? Dude's alive...
I think these people should also be labled as pedophiles, excluding people who, you know, are supposed to contact them.
I suppose it was a bit of a reach, but contacting recruits you don't personally know is creepy and frowned upon.
...as it gets.
If you are on Twitter and you want to tweet about a recruit (say, expressing excitement that a recruit has given a verbal or updated his status), the proper way to do it is to type out the kid's name, not his Twitter handle.
This is ok:
#GoBlue 2012 OH DE Jordan Diamond still has Michigan in his final group.
This is not:
#GoBlue 2012 OH DE @Jordan76simeon still has Michigan in his final group.
The bottom line is that following is ok, interacting is not. Don't contact recruits on any social media site.
[Edit} That said, I do wonder if RT's constitute a gray area. For instance, here's a tweet of mine where I retweeted something from Shane Morris:
A Michigan team beat a bunch of southern teams? Shock the world. RT @S_Morris12 2011 IMG Madden Football 7on7 Champions!
In this case, I'm not interacting with him in that I'm not trying to elicit a response. However, I am interacting with him in that this tweet does use his @twitterhandle and will end up in his "Mentions" list. If I had simply used the "Retweet" function, his tweet would have ended up in my followers' timelines and would show up in Morris' "Your Tweets Retweeted" list which is essentially the same thing as a "Mention". I think we need an @bylawblog ruling.
So a university could be charged with a violation if someone posted (via Twitter, Facebook, etc.) on Recuit X's wall saying "You should come to school Z"? If so, that seems incredibly hard to enforce and rather ambiguous: anybody could create a Twitter account, call themselves #1MichFanForeva, and post on a recruit's wall saying "Wud up brah, u shud goe to Mitchigan!!1!" And then Michigan would stand to face penalties for that? I hope I am wrong about that, but that's how it appears to me.
Edit: I started typing this before MGoShoe's post, so that clears it up a bit. But I think the point still stands that the rule is weird, due to the ambiguity of the internet.
I agree in theory. While I think that you have the rule right, it has never, to my knowledge, been enforced. Therefore the issue is a moot point. How can you be outraged over something that is not enforced? It's like being pissed that you can hypothetically get pulled over doing 56mph.
Along the same vein, the one rule that I find terrible is that in hockey, the home team can get a delay of game penalty for throwing stuff on the ice. How do you enforce that? I've seen it happen before too, so though it may be rare, it does get called. This was about 8 years ago though, so I do not know if it has changed.
if you were to say "@whoever congrats on your decision hope you have a successful college career" or "@whoever dont let other people pressure you to make a decision, pick who you feel comfortable with and which gives you the best opportunity outside of football" are those ok? because ive seen many fans do that.
It doesn't really matter. At the end of the day it's a rule that the NCAA would never actually enforce. Fans tweeting people and messaging people on facebook is not something they have the time, money or energy to deal with. People can mesage away and the university isn't going to get in any type of trouble until something involving dollar bills comes into play.
All that being said, it's still creepy and people shouldn't do it.
NC State students have gotten in trouble twice now for starting up Facebook groups encouraging specific recruits to come to NC State, first John Wall and then C.J. Leslie.
In the Wall case the student who started the group was sent a cease-and-desist order from the University to change or take down the group (he ended up changing the name of it) or face penalties such as being denied tickets and being formally disassociated from the athletic program.
Here's another article about it that also mentions Penn State shutting down a Terrelle Pryor group during his recruitment:
http://www.technicianonline.com/sports/facebook-you-have-one-ncaa-violation-1.1647898
The two examples you gave had nothing to do with the NCAA Enforcing the rule, simply the universities preventing students from doing something.
There is a huge difference between those two things.
Had the universities not stepped in to force the students to take down those Facebook pages, then the NCAA might very well have taken enforcement action. And that would have been much worse for the involved school.
Universities that are members of the NCAA are expected to monitor the activities of their students, fans, alumni, boosters, etc. to make sure that they are not breaking NCAA rules. And, yes, this includes individual fans.
Is a university going to be aware of every instance in which an individual breaks NCAA rules by making a contact with a recruit in person or online? No. But I can tell you that if a university is made aware of even a single individual making contact with a recruit, that university will make a report to the NCAA of a secondary violation. If you don't believe me, see this thread from a University of Kentucky message board, and in particular read the posts from UK compliance official Sandy Bell (poster UKCOMPLIANCE).
And for those scoffing about some of the things I've posted in this thread, take a look at this quote from Bell:
Also, any supporter of our program who makes any contact with a recruit during the recruiting process automatically becomes a booster.
It isn't against NCAA rules for a fan/person to contact a recruit. It violates rules when the contact is intended to sway a recruit (or encourage them I guess) to attend a specific school.
I agree that the rule seems fairly ambiguous and it is likely because of what the NCAA feels society holds as its norms. I wouldn't think (and perhaps the NCAA didn't think either) that they would have to spell out for the general public that conacting recruits you don't know in any form (electronic or otherwise) isn't an acceptable practice. I can see them rewording this rule so that their intent becomes more clear in the future.
I have said this once and will say it again: Why people would think these kids want some person they have never met and care nothing about to contact them in any way is beyond ridiculous. Some people need to get a life.
Jordan76simeon Thinking about college ... I wanna hear y'all opinion ... where yall think would be a good fit for me?I'm only being 75% facetious.
It isn't against NCAA rules for a fan/person to contact a recruit. It violates rules when the contact is intended to sway a recruit (or encourage them I guess) to attend a specific school.Do fans contact recruits for any other reason? I don't think it's about helping them with their math homework.
Gee, I sure hope none of our current committed recruits become boosters in encouraging other kids to come to Michigan. Is Strobel a booster in recruiting Kalis? Is Chris Bryant a booster if he tweets Diamond about Michigan? Is Ross a booster for tweeting GBOD to potential recruits?
What an asinine rule and clearly not enforced (and probably unenforceable).
Where does intent come in to play? The rule posted above states:
"...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."
(Not that litigation is pending, but...) Couldn't any fan say they are acting in their own interests as a consumer of collegiate football and not as a school's representative? What are the critera for being a "school's representative"? "Ticket purchaser" seems rather flimsy.
is to get rid of Facebook and Twitter.
#SocialMediaSucks
#GetOffMyLawn
but it won't happen because it's popular and a great way to market brands, products. You get words out quickly. I don't see it shutting down anytime soon.
As a HS coach/principal, you can enforce rules prohibiting HS students from creating facebook/twitter/other social medias. That's the only way not to have top recruits have facebook/twitter so fans can harrass them via internet.
have one insane education system if a schools coach/principal can keep students from opening up a twitter, facebook, or any other form of account. I would say that is grossly overstepping your boundries.
Is Strobel a booster in recruiting Kalis? Is Chris Bryant a booster if he tweets Diamond about Michigan? Is Ross a booster for tweeting GBOD to potential recruits?
No on all counts. They're all recruits, regardless of whether or not they're "committed" anywhere. A commitment has no legal binding.
Couldn't any fan say they are acting in their own interests as a consumer of collegiate football and not as a school's representative?
Not if they're telling a recruit to go to one specific school. If you were to simply tell a recruit, "Stay in school. It's your best move!" you wouldn't get in any trouble. When you start telling a kid "Go to Michigan," you can't claim you're acting as an advocate for college football as a whole.
This isn't complicated. If you like a school enough to give it money, you're a booster. If you are one, don't do anything stupid. In all likelihood, the kids do not care what Random Internet Guy has to tell them, anyway.
to these guys as well! Thanks for the late update!
business is just stupid at this point. Pay the players and be done with it.
I was just checking some of the regulations about "impermissible benefits" and it's just a rabbit hole of nonsense that tries to fulfil the impossible requirement of allowing people to show kindness and appreciation to athletes (!) while enforcing a legalistic notion of amateurism.
Lots of sports have been through this dance before. It's very disappointing that people continue to cling to the notion that we're still a team of Horace Prettymans in 2011 (as if he wasn't getting free mustache wax back in the day anyhow).
would a recruit accept every request they are sent, they are just random crazy fans
Because they're teenagers. Cognitive research shows that teenagers literally don't have the same capacity for reflection that adults have.
Instead of expecting teenagers to act like adults, we (adults) should not act like teenagers and send recruits friend requests.
...are Twitter follower whores. And why is that? Because that's what celebrities do. These kids see big time athletes and entertainers having followers in the tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions and think that's a measure of worth. At this point in their lives almost all of them consider themselves first round draft pick locks and so they want the notoriety that attends someone like that.
Contrast that attitude with DRob who eschews Twitter entirely.
Don't read this as a criticism, just an acknowledgement of reality.
I posted earlier in the Jordan Diamond post about my concerns re: contacting recruits via twitter. I used to work in college athletics and thought this smelled fishy. I had a friend who used to be the complaince director where I worked give me his interpretation. He felt it was impermissable and would could get the potential student athlete and the university in trouble. STAY AWAY FROM CONTACTING RECRUITS BY TWITTER OR ANY OTHER MEANS!!!! If you care about UM, you will leave those kids alone and let coaches do the selling on traditions, success, etc.
NCAA BYLAW 13.4.1.2 -- Electronic Transmissions
Effective Date: Aug 01, 2007
"communication with or about a prospective student-athlete in the
public's view (e.g., Twitter "@replies" or "mentions") is contrary to the publicity legislation and also
constitutes an impermissible form of electronic communication with a prospective student-athlete."
with what you're saying about not contacting recruits, but it would appear that rule is in relation to school staff, not the general public. This thread was more aimed at people not affiliated with the university contacting recruits and whether they fit the definitions of boosters.
I posted earlier in the Jordan Diamond post about my concerns re: contacting recruits via twitter. I used to work in college athletics and thought this smelled fishy. I had a friend who used to be the complaince director where I worked give me his interpretation. He felt it was impermissable and would could get the potential student athlete and the university in trouble. STAY AWAY FROM CONTACTING RECRUITS BY TWITTER OR ANY OTHER MEANS!!!! If you care about UM, you will leave those kids alone and let coaches do the selling on traditions, success, etc.
NCAA BYLAW 13.4.1.2 -- Electronic Transmissions
Effective Date: Aug 01, 2007
"communication with or about a prospective student-athlete in the
public's view (e.g., Twitter "@replies" or "mentions") is contrary to the publicity legislation and also
constitutes an impermissible form of electronic communication with a prospective student-athlete."