It is a NCAA violation. My guess is that they would only react when there is a situation where a particular Twitter account is constantly contacting recruits through Twitter with posts like that..........not too difficult to track back an account and posts by IP Address to who it is and then to find out if that person is a donor or something of a particular school.

And technically all it would take is for the compliance director at a school to notice it and self report the violation to the NCAA.


Anyway........

“AS SOON AS YOU CONTACT A RECRUIT AND TRY TO PERSUADE THEM TO COME TO YOUR SCHOOL, YOU AUTOMATICALLY BECOME A BOOSTER BECAUSE YOU ARE HELPING A RECRUIT COME TO A SPECIFIC INSTITUTION,” [OKLAHOMA STATE ASSISTANT ATHLETIC DIRECTOR OF COMPLIANCE BEN] DYSON SAID. “BOOSTERS AREN’T ALLOWED TO RECRUIT PROSPECTIVE STUDENT-ATHLETES.”


Texas Tech self-reported a violation when Wes Welker tweeted at a recruit - http://www.deseretnews.com/article/86558...tml?pg=all

And on the lighter side of things this one is funny - http://www.elevenwarriors.com/college-fo...an-*******

(01-28-2016 10:59 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  @IamRecruit I hope you choose Eastern Michigan. Go Eagles!

That is a NCAA recruiting violation. It would be considered a minor violation for EMU...

More like a curse leveled at that particular recruit the truth be told....

(01-28-2016 11:35 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  It is a NCAA violation. My guess is that they would only react when there is a situation where a particular Twitter account is constantly contacting recruits through Twitter with posts like that..........not too difficult to track back an account and posts by IP Address to who it is and then to find out if that person is a donor or something of a particular school.

And technically all it would take is for the compliance director at a school to notice it and self report the violation to the NCAA.


Anyway........

“AS SOON AS YOU CONTACT A RECRUIT AND TRY TO PERSUADE THEM TO COME TO YOUR SCHOOL, YOU AUTOMATICALLY BECOME A BOOSTER BECAUSE YOU ARE HELPING A RECRUIT COME TO A SPECIFIC INSTITUTION,” [OKLAHOMA STATE ASSISTANT ATHLETIC DIRECTOR OF COMPLIANCE BEN] DYSON SAID. “BOOSTERS AREN’T ALLOWED TO RECRUIT PROSPECTIVE STUDENT-ATHLETES.”

Who or what are you quoting? The boldfaced comments are apples and oranges to a general fan of a school talking on a message board or even a very public twittering.


Who thinks they can define "being a fan" as "being a booster," and who thinks they can define "being a fan of sports" as "being a booster of a specific school?" IP address has nothing to do with identifying a person as a "booster."

Totally non-legal opinion: I think you're talking bs. Or the NCAA is. No university would support or be a part of an organization that supports the scenario you are describing. It's unenforceable and it borders too close to limiting what would normally be considered free speech.

Also, what are your comments on the obvious implications on both twitter and message boards in general on facilitating these "violations?" Obviously they'd be liable under your believed scenario as other similar situations have already been prosecuted or dealt with civilly.

As I said, if everything you are explaining is correct exactly as you are explaining it, I believe there would have been a whole lot more legal activity. NCAA would have been forced to cave. None of the scenarios you are describing meet the criteria of providing economic or other gain to a the recruit or the recruit's family.

(01-28-2016 07:56 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 07:43 PM)Terry Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 07:01 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 06:38 PM)rocketpaul Wrote:  Note to Ron George if you are stupid enough to play for that ahole Fleck or any Rockets coach ever you are not smart enough to attend here and I also have to question you character as well

Sayyyy WHAT?

I got lost at "or any Rockets coach"...... does that include the current one???

Yeah, bad enough to rip Fleck and his recruits that way but Rocket coaches? I think he meant to say something else. I hope. Maybe "or" is supposed to be "over"?

As much as I dislike it when a young man changes his commitment after giving his word. At the end of the day. He is still a Young man. There is no reason to attac him verbally or any other way.

(01-29-2016 06:49 AM)Babes boy Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 07:56 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 07:43 PM)Terry Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 07:01 PM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 06:38 PM)rocketpaul Wrote:  Note to Ron George if you are stupid enough to play for that ahole Fleck or any Rockets coach ever you are not smart enough to attend here and I also have to question you character as well

Sayyyy WHAT?

I got lost at "or any Rockets coach"...... does that include the current one???

Yeah, bad enough to rip Fleck and his recruits that way but Rocket coaches? I think he meant to say something else. I hope. Maybe "or" is supposed to be "over"?

As much as I dislike it when a young man changes his commitment after giving his word. At the end of the day. He is still a Young man. There is no reason to attac him verbally or any other way.

Doesn't want to be here then it's his choice. Rather have him make that decision before signing a NLI.

(01-29-2016 12:17 AM)RangerRocket Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 10:59 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  @IamRecruit I hope you choose Eastern Michigan. Go Eagles!

That is a NCAA recruiting violation. It would be considered a minor violation for EMU...

More like a curse leveled at that particular recruit the truth be told....

(01-29-2016 12:29 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 11:35 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  It is a NCAA violation. My guess is that they would only react when there is a situation where a particular Twitter account is constantly contacting recruits through Twitter with posts like that..........not too difficult to track back an account and posts by IP Address to who it is and then to find out if that person is a donor or something of a particular school.

And technically all it would take is for the compliance director at a school to notice it and self report the violation to the NCAA.


Anyway........

“AS SOON AS YOU CONTACT A RECRUIT AND TRY TO PERSUADE THEM TO COME TO YOUR SCHOOL, YOU AUTOMATICALLY BECOME A BOOSTER BECAUSE YOU ARE HELPING A RECRUIT COME TO A SPECIFIC INSTITUTION,” [OKLAHOMA STATE ASSISTANT ATHLETIC DIRECTOR OF COMPLIANCE BEN] DYSON SAID. “BOOSTERS AREN’T ALLOWED TO RECRUIT PROSPECTIVE STUDENT-ATHLETES.”

Who or what are you quoting? The boldfaced comments are apples and oranges to a general fan of a school talking on a message board or even a very public twittering.


Who thinks they can define "being a fan" as "being a booster," and who thinks they can define "being a fan of sports" as "being a booster of a specific school?" IP address has nothing to do with identifying a person as a "booster."

Totally non-legal opinion: I think you're talking bs. Or the NCAA is. No university would support or be a part of an organization that supports the scenario you are describing. It's unenforceable and it borders too close to limiting what would normally be considered free speech.

Also, what are your comments on the obvious implications on both twitter and message boards in general on facilitating these "violations?" Obviously they'd be liable under your believed scenario as other similar situations have already been prosecuted or dealt with civilly.

As I said, if everything you are explaining is correct exactly as you are explaining it, I believe there would have been a whole lot more legal activity. NCAA would have been forced to cave. None of the scenarios you are describing meet the criteria of providing economic or other gain to a the recruit or the recruit's family.

Read the comment again. It says right in it that it came from the Assistant Athletic Director of Compliance at Oklahoma State. I understand it might be apples to oranges reading that, but at some point you need to believe and trust someone other than yourself. Can't figure out how to embed tweets in here, but here are some sample tweets from media personnel that know the rule. Whether you believe it or not, or like it or not.......it is an NCAA violation............and kind of creepy for grown men to be tweeting 17 and 18 year old boys. Will the NCAA act on it, probably not but you never know, especially if it was severe enough. Regardless, better to be safe then sorry. Keep UT's reputation clean.


OSU_bucks ‏@OSU_bucks 14 Mar 2015
@Juansworld4 @Buckeyeman800 @4way_lilbruce Do what you want. Tweeting at a recruit IS a NCAA violation.


Brian Doering ‏@BrianDoering80 20 Dec 2013
College Football Fans I need you to listen, if your tweeting at a top high school recruit, your committing a NCAA Violation (I kid you not).


Salt Creek & Stadium ‏@SaltCreekCN 21 Jan 2013
Seriously, Nebraska fans on Twitter. Y'all know that tweeting at a recruit is a NCAA violation for Nebraska, no?


Jeremiah ‏@SYRmotsag 5 Jan 2013
If you see a fan tweeting anything at a recruit unfollow and block them. It is an NCAA violation and super creepy. #PERIOD


Tom Via ‏@tomviathoughts 15 Sep 2013
Just worth a reminder: Per NCAA rules, you can't tweet at a recruit until they sign a LOI. Not even mention him in a tweet or violation.


Anonymous Eagle ‏@AnonymousEagle 11 Jan 2012
ATTENTION #MUBB FANS: Do not tweet at Kendrick Nunn in an attempt to convince him to attend MU. It's an NCAA violation as he is a recruit.

(01-29-2016 09:52 AM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 12:29 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(01-28-2016 11:35 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  It is a NCAA violation. My guess is that they would only react when there is a situation where a particular Twitter account is constantly contacting recruits through Twitter with posts like that..........not too difficult to track back an account and posts by IP Address to who it is and then to find out if that person is a donor [b]or something of a particular school.[/b]

And technically all it would take is for the compliance director at a school to notice it and self report the violation to the NCAA.


Anyway........

“AS SOON AS YOU CONTACT A RECRUIT AND TRY TO PERSUADE THEM TO COME TO YOUR SCHOOL, YOU AUTOMATICALLY BECOME A BOOSTER BECAUSE YOU ARE HELPING A RECRUIT COME TO A SPECIFIC INSTITUTION,” [OKLAHOMA STATE ASSISTANT ATHLETIC DIRECTOR OF COMPLIANCE BEN] DYSON SAID. “BOOSTERS AREN’T ALLOWED TO RECRUIT PROSPECTIVE STUDENT-ATHLETES.”

Who or what are you quoting? The boldfaced comments are apples and oranges to a general fan of a school talking on a message board or even a very public twittering.


Who thinks they can define "being a fan" as "being a booster," and who thinks they can define "being a fan of sports" as "being a booster of a specific school?" IP address has nothing to do with identifying a person as a "booster."

Totally non-legal opinion: I think you're talking bs. Or the NCAA is. No university would support or be a part of an organization that supports the scenario you are describing. It's unenforceable and it borders too close to limiting what would normally be considered free speech.

Also, what are your comments on the obvious implications on both twitter and message boards in general on facilitating these "violations?" Obviously they'd be liable under your believed scenario as other similar situations have already been prosecuted or dealt with civilly.

As I said, if everything you are explaining is correct exactly as you are explaining it, I believe there would have been a whole lot more legal activity. NCAA would have been forced to cave. None of the scenarios you are describing meet the criteria of providing economic or other gain to a the recruit or the recruit's family.

Read the comment again. It says right in it that it came from the Assistant Athletic Director of Compliance at Oklahoma State. I

I read the comment fine the first time. You did not seem to be quoting an NCAA official or document, I wanted to be sure. A "compliance officer" is an employee of the university, not the NCAA. If I were a "compliance" officer I would be covering my azz also by raising the bar but I want to see how the NCAA thinks.

Do you have something from the NCAA that says some random person tweeting at a high school football player saying come to .... school is a violation made by that school?

Do you have anything from the NCAA that people talking about a recruit on a message board is a violation?

Do you have anything from the NCAA that defines "fans" or just interested people as "boosters?"

You didn't respond to my questions about message boards and message board owner responsibilty or if NCAA is indeed holding schools accountable for speech (not actions or promises) made towards athletes by fans, not boosters. What do you think on that?

You did not say who is defining "fan" as "booster?" These I think are important to know.

In my opinion, it is easier to argue that people "tweeting" or talking about recruits on message boards are "boosters" than it is to actually support that they are boosters and subject to NCAA regulation, hence creating strawmen. As for the comment about adults and kids, you're simply parroting what I already said in my first post.

Toledo can stay "clean" by keeping it's internal business clean. By keeping those that are financially supporting the school and athletic dept clean but they have NO hold over the random person such as me that is just talking about their teams. If they, be it a university or the NCAA want to make the case that they do have trhat power, that they can limit what I'm pretty sure is my free speech, then let them give it a try. Might be an interesting exercise as well as one that puts every message board into a position of accountabiltiy for facilitating damaging action.

Never said people on a message board talking about a recruit was a violation. I said don't tweet to recruits. Probably didn't answer all of your questions because quite frankly I am not reading all 27 paragraphs of each of your posts. I just came on here and gave some valuable information for people. Take it how you want. I'm not going to sit here any longer and argue with you. Ever notice how you get in arguments with a lot of people?

One last time, just putting friendly advice out there.....don't tweet to/at recruits.

(01-29-2016 04:09 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  Never said people on a message board talking about a recruit was a violation.

I know. But that's what I was asking about in the post you responded to. That and who is defining "fan" as "booster."

As far as arguments, call them what you will. Debate. Argument. Exchange of information. You just weren't responding to the comments and questions in the post YOU responded to. That's on you. R.I.F.

I'm not concerned if my or your observations and opinions are different and I'm willing to accept information and ideas. Try it.

(01-29-2016 04:27 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 04:09 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  Never said people on a message board talking about a recruit was a violation.

I know. But that's what I was asking about in the post you responded to. That and who is defining "fan" as "booster."

As far as arguments, call them what you will. Debate. Argument. Exchange of information. You just weren't responding to the comments and questions in the post YOU responded to. That's on you. R.I.F.

I'm not concerned if my or your observations and opinions are different and I'm willing to accept information and ideas. Try it.

I accept ideas and information from others all the time. There is no debate to the fact that tweeting at/to a recruit is a minor recruiting violation, whether it is enforced or not. No matter what I say you will want more proof from me, and quite honestly it's not worth it to sift through hundreds and hundreds of pages of NCAA rules because you are not willing to accept it. In fact, it's stupid that there is an argument over this.

I'm not sure what this means that you said above - "You just weren't responding to the comments and questions in the post YOU responded to."

I also don't have any clue what R.I.F. means.

The NCAA, not the University, not me, but the NCAA qualifies fans as boosters of a university whether that fan donates or not, purchases tickets or not, attended the school or not. The NCAA may not be able to "punish" a fan/booster but the NCAA can and will punish a university for it's boosters (fans) actions.

Not my rules, not your rules, but the NCAA's rules.

(01-29-2016 04:51 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 04:27 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(01-29-2016 04:09 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  Never said people on a message board talking about a recruit was a violation.

I know. But that's what I was asking about in the post you responded to. That and who is defining "fan" as "booster."

As far as arguments, call them what you will. Debate. Argument. Exchange of information. You just weren't responding to the comments and questions in the post YOU responded to. That's on you. R.I.F.

I'm not concerned if my or your observations and opinions are different and I'm willing to accept information and ideas. Try it.

I accept ideas and information from others all the time. There is no debate to the fact that tweeting at/to a recruit is a minor recruiting violation, whether it is enforced or not. No matter what I say you will want more proof from me, and quite honestly it's not worth it to sift through hundreds and hundreds of pages of NCAA rules because you are not willing to accept it. In fact, it's stupid that there is an argument over this.

I'm not sure what this means that you said above - "You just weren't responding to the comments and questions in the post YOU responded to."

I also don't have any clue what R.I.F. means.

Yeah, I know.

You continue to miss a rather important component to your information and I continue to ask for it. It is a violation when WHO tweets at a recruit and how is that "who" defined? That's not "argument." That's request for information. That's request for supporting document.

You're a writer? Really? <== See, I can make digs too.

To just say a violation occurs when any random person tweets at a recruit is just horse pucky. To say it is a violation when someone discusses a recruit on a message board (Terry's continued assertion) needs support by quoting an NCAA rule. It is not fact just because someone says so.

Dudes, google is your friend.

Quote:Only institutional staff members are permitted to recruit prospective student-athletes. 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.

also

Quote:As a booster, you may not:
Contact a prospect in-person on-campus or off campus.
Contact a prospect by telephone, email, Internet or letter.
[...]

http://www.ncaa.org/enforcement/role-boosters

I believe they now allow coaches to tweet to prospects, but still no one outside the institutional employees of the school.

Also, I believe it is still true that if you have ever talked to any high school athlete encouraging them to attend a particular university, you are considered a booster for the rest of your life, regardless of any of the other criteria.

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

Quote:Only institutional staff members are permitted to recruit prospective student-athletes. 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.

also

Quote:As a booster, you may not:
Contact a prospect in-person on-campus or off campus.
Contact a prospect by telephone, email, Internet or letter.
[...]

http://www.ncaa.org/enforcement/role-boosters

I believe they now allow coaches to tweet to prospects, but still no one outside the institutional employees of the school.

Also, I believe it is still true that if you have ever talked to any high school athlete encouraging them to attend a particular university, you are considered a booster for the rest of your life, regardless of any of the other criteria.

Thank you......

We as participates of this board can discuss among ourselves what we see on video or if we attended a high school game. But to converse a recruit, a family member, or coach is not allowed....

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

I do note that you said, "I believe." Unfortunately your google did not answer the question at hand.

But saner heads seem to at see some incredulity behind Terry's assertion that posting on a message board makes one a "booster?" Yes? No? (Terry still does not get the hypothesis and conclusion part of the "booster" definition.)

No Terry, what he posted does not support what you are saying. The question isn't, "what is a booster forbidden to do." NCAA can do whatever they want with that. The question is, "how does NCAA define, 'booster'." We're still sitting in a world of speculation on that definition. Not saying your right or wrong. Just saying we don't have that fact.

As for the twittering, so far we only seem to have a bunch of people running with rumor. If correct, then that takes me to the opinion part of my post (Hey RIF, "opinion" is not "argument").

And why would that definition of "booster" be ludicrous if true? Because then any and every knucklehead on the planet would be twittering recruits telling them to go to their rival, in order to get their rival investigated without once even have offered that recruit financial reward. Both unenforceable and I'd bet, unconstitutional. Every single human twitterer on the planet could in some way be called a "booster." Every person ever that even remotely gave advice to an athlete on a university, would be a "booster." Nearly every school counselor would be a "booster." Most of the teachers and administrators not to mention the barber on the corner.

So, until the speculation on "booster" defintion is ended....

The NCAA broadly defines a "booster" as an individual, agency, entity or organization who is known by an institution to:
•Have participated in or been a member of an agency that promotes the institution's intercollegiate athletics program
•Have made financial contributions to the athletics department or a booster organization for the department
•Have been involved otherwise in promoting the institution's athletics program
•Have been a season ticket holder
•Have provided benefits to student-athletes or their relatives or friends

Boom!

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. There are hundreds and hundreds of pages to sift through. As a media person that deals with recruiting I had to be "schooled" in a lot of the recruiting rules. What I have said is fact. Just because I am not willing to spend the hours of time to find the exact wording for you does not mean it is not fact. A $1000 bill is real, but I have never seen one. Even though I've never seen one I still believe it is real. Sorry you are not willing to believe anyone other than yourself.

I am not exactly sure what Terry said, but if he said you cannot talk directly to a recruit on a message board than he is correct.

The NCAA defines a person as a booster as anyone that has donated to the school, an alumni, or anyone that contacts a prospective student-athlete and tries to persuade them to go to their favorite school. Now, the NCAA can be very vague on what they consider a booster. You might not like it, but it is fact.

I really don't believe anyone can change your mind. So it is what it is. And I still don't know what RIF means. I even looked it up. I'm guess you might be using it in your own text, because this is the definition that the Urban dictionary gives:

RIF
n. Abbreviation for "Reduction-In-Force." A polite term used by corporations to describe firing workers without giving a reason for termination.
Joe had only two weeks until retirement until he lost his job due to his company's latest cost-saving RIF.

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.

(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.