(01-29-2016 05:34 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  Dudes, google is your friend.

(01-29-2016 07:21 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 07:20 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  Wow. Umm, as I said it is not worth it to take the time to find the exact wording in the NCAA rules and prove it to you.

It took 15 seconds.

Because you didn't read through everything so you don't have all of the definitions of a booster. Sorry to tell you, but there are addendums to the rules that are listed all over in their paperwork. It's really a mess, but so is the NCAA.

(01-29-2016 07:20 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  The only one I see of controversy there is the fourth, "season ticket holder." It would be interesting to see NCAA try to hold a university accountable because some guy who had a season ticket in 1972 told the neighbor kid that he liked the university.

Season ticket holder normally means donation. Usually there are fees included in the season tickets that are considered donations, which makes said person a booster.

(01-29-2016 07:24 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 07:21 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 07:20 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  Wow. Umm, as I said it is not worth it to take the time to find the exact wording in the NCAA rules and prove it to you.

It took 15 seconds.

Because you didn't read through everything so you don't have all of the definitions of a booster. Sorry to tell you, but there are addendums to the rules that are listed all over in their paperwork. It's really a mess, but so is the NCAA.

and yet you don't have any definition of "booster" that means, some random person twittering a high school athlete but you're running with it anyhow because that was the rumor you heard. That's A1 journalism?

If it is correct, yes we would agree it's a mess but I've been saying that all along and you've been implying I'm being argumentative (because I agree with you). Logic?

(01-29-2016 07:21 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 07:20 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  Wow. Umm, as I said it is not worth it to take the time to find the exact wording in the NCAA rules and prove it to you.

It took 15 seconds. And what exactly did you prove? You did not prove that a university would be in violation if some random guy twittered a potential recruit and recommended that university.

No where will you see in MY posts that I denied a "BOOSTER" could get the university in trouble.

R.I.F.

Then you agree that tweeting to a recruit could, though not likely unless it was obsessive or from a famous person, get a University if trouble.

(01-28-2016 11:13 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 10:59 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  What I mean above....here's an example:

Let's say there is a recruit with the Twitter handle of @IamRecruit and let's just say an Eastern Michigan fan (bear with me) does the following tweet:

@IamRecruit I hope you choose Eastern Michigan. Go Eagles!

That is a NCAA recruiting violation. It would be considered a minor violation for EMU, but it's still a violation and could get the school and the person that tweeted it in trouble with the NCAA if they really wanted to do something about it.

Banality of twitter, twitterers and twittering at a kid aside, wouldn't we all love to see the NCAA attempt to hold a twitterer or a university accountable for that scenario?

For one thing, if it were even REMOTELY realistic for the NCAA to do that, we'd all be signing on to twitter with "IAMBG..." accounts, twittering away at their recruits.

For another, there is a huge difference between enticement with promise of rewards and gifts and free communication such as simply talking or voicing an opinion even directly to a recruit, let alone Terry's paranoia (which may very well also be NCAA's) of simply talking ABOUT a recruit on a message board.


NCAA wouldn't HAVE enough investigators or lawyers to enforce the message board scenario and if they had even a remotely legal leg to stand on, every message board would shut down to avoid liability as other sites that have been shown contributing to illegal or damaging activity have done. Your own would be history.

Maybe he looked at the depth chart and figured his name would be last on the list. Let's not get all fired up on who we sign and who we lose. By, time the season starts most of the guys who are 2 or 3 stars you won't remember their names after Feb 3rd.

(01-29-2016 07:28 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 07:21 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 07:20 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  Wow. Umm, as I said it is not worth it to take the time to find the exact wording in the NCAA rules and prove it to you.

It took 15 seconds. And what exactly did you prove? You did not prove that a university would be in violation if some random guy twittered a potential recruit and recommended that university.

No where will you see in MY posts that I denied a "BOOSTER" could get the university in trouble.

R.I.F.

Then you agree that tweeting to a recruit could, though not likely unless it was obsessive or from a famous person, get a University if trouble.

We're back to R.I.F because that's not what the post says.

Really? UT grad? Your Daddy a booster? lol

(01-29-2016 07:27 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 07:24 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 07:21 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 07:20 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  Wow. Umm, as I said it is not worth it to take the time to find the exact wording in the NCAA rules and prove it to you.

It took 15 seconds.

Because you didn't read through everything so you don't have all of the definitions of a booster. Sorry to tell you, but there are addendums to the rules that are listed all over in their paperwork. It's really a mess, but so is the NCAA.

and yet you don't have any definition of "booster" that means, some random person twittering a high school athlete but you're running with it anyhow because that was the rumor you heard. That's A1 journalism?

I see your RIF thing and gotta say that's pretty lame when you are the one not comprehending what you are reading.

I'm not running with rumor. Just because I don't want to take the time to go back through hundreds of pages to find the exact wording that only YOU want to see. I don't care if you think it is A1 Journalism or not.

Sifting through NCAA rules is not as simple as you are trying to make it seem. You can't just Google it and find every single thing in the rules. Why do you think there is a need for contractual lawyers? It's simple......because not everything can be taken off Google and be considered "golden" and not have to be interpreted, etc.

I'm done. You are the only one speaking up here that you don't believe it is considered a minor NCAA rules infraction if a fan tweets at/to a recruit. You can keep posting and say what you want. Doesn't really matter anyway because you won't listen to anyone....which is your opinion and you're right as an American.

(01-29-2016 07:21 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 07:20 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  Wow. Umm, as I said it is not worth it to take the time to find the exact wording in the NCAA rules and prove it to you.

It took 15 seconds. And what exactly did you prove? You did not prove that a university would be in violation if some random guy twittered a potential recruit and recommended that university.

No where will you see in MY posts that I denied a "BOOSTER" could get the university in trouble.

R.I.F.

It would help you argument if you would acknowledge reading the bolded text:

Quote:Generally, NCAA rules prohibit anyone else from contacting (calling, writing or in-person contact) prospects or the prospect’s relatives or guardian for recruiting purposes.

(01-29-2016 07:30 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 07:28 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 07:21 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 07:20 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  Wow. Umm, as I said it is not worth it to take the time to find the exact wording in the NCAA rules and prove it to you.

It took 15 seconds. And what exactly did you prove? You did not prove that a university would be in violation if some random guy twittered a potential recruit and recommended that university.

No where will you see in MY posts that I denied a "BOOSTER" could get the university in trouble.

R.I.F.

Then you agree that tweeting to a recruit could, though not likely unless it was obsessive or from a famous person, get a University if trouble.

We're back to R.I.F because that's not what the post says.

Really? UT grad? Your Daddy a booster? lol

What??? My dad never went to college. After being in the military he spent his life working in the auto industry (Dana, Chrysler, etc.) in Toledo. Why are you resorting to "daddy" talk anyway?

(01-29-2016 07:36 PM)northcoastRocket Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 07:21 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 07:20 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  Wow. Umm, as I said it is not worth it to take the time to find the exact wording in the NCAA rules and prove it to you.

It took 15 seconds. And what exactly did you prove? You did not prove that a university would be in violation if some random guy twittered a potential recruit and recommended that university.

No where will you see in MY posts that I denied a "BOOSTER" could get the university in trouble.

R.I.F.

It would help you argument if you would acknowledge reading the bolded text:

Quote:Generally, NCAA rules prohibit anyone else from contacting (calling, writing or in-person contact) prospects or the prospect’s relatives or guardian for recruiting purposes.

It would help if YOU read the bolded text. Even so, what's that to do with anything?

I never denied their rules, I requested them. I only said it would in my opinion be ludicrous if the NCAA tried to charge a university with a violation if some random person not under their control twittered a high school athlete saying, "go to ... university."

You disagree with that assessment?

Didn't think so.

(01-29-2016 07:37 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 07:30 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 07:28 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 07:21 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 07:20 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  Wow. Umm, as I said it is not worth it to take the time to find the exact wording in the NCAA rules and prove it to you.

It took 15 seconds. And what exactly did you prove? You did not prove that a university would be in violation if some random guy twittered a potential recruit and recommended that university.

No where will you see in MY posts that I denied a "BOOSTER" could get the university in trouble.

R.I.F.

Then you agree that tweeting to a recruit could, though not likely unless it was obsessive or from a famous person, get a University if trouble.

We're back to R.I.F because that's not what the post says.

Really? UT grad? Your Daddy a booster? lol

What??? My dad never went to college. After being in the military he spent his life working in the auto industry (Dana, Chrysler, etc.) in Toledo. Why are you resorting to "daddy" talk anyway?

Oh, so now your saying you have to go to college to be a "booster."

You know, it's not only the NCAA, which is a mess with this "booster" definition, lol.

(01-29-2016 07:46 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 07:37 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 07:30 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 07:28 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 07:21 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  It took 15 seconds. And what exactly did you prove? You did not prove that a university would be in violation if some random guy twittered a potential recruit and recommended that university.

No where will you see in MY posts that I denied a "BOOSTER" could get the university in trouble.

R.I.F.

Then you agree that tweeting to a recruit could, though not likely unless it was obsessive or from a famous person, get a University if trouble.

We're back to R.I.F because that's not what the post says.

Really? UT grad? Your Daddy a booster? lol

What??? My dad never went to college. After being in the military he spent his life working in the auto industry (Dana, Chrysler, etc.) in Toledo. Why are you resorting to "daddy" talk anyway?

Oh, so now your saying you have to go to college to be a "booster."

You know, it's not only the NCAA, which is a mess with this "booster" definition, lol.

You said UT grad. How is anyone supposed to know what you actually mean?