(11-10-2019 04:37 PM)Tigx Wrote:  Yeah, I get it this Johnson guy gives some of you hope, but he is just wrong on several things. Penny is absolutely a booster. He made the $1M donation to the athletic department.

There is an issue with the bylaws. The bylaws dont state for how long one remains a booster.

If you dont believe me, read the NCAA bylaws and tell me how long someone will be deemed a booster.

The next issue, even if you call him a booster, is that there is an issue of timing of when the payments are made, and what Penny's capacity was at the time. The payment is ok as long as the person knew the Wiseman family before hand (he did), was a high school coach ( he was) , or a non-scholastic coach( and also this). Penny was all three. The fact that he was a booster is irrelevant here, because the bylaws state that NOONE can give money EXCEPT if the person is at least one of those fore-mentioned 3 categories.

The issue with being booster is relegated to recruits or potential recruits (Wiseman was neither at the time) or enrolled student athletes. (Which he wasnt at the time.)

You cant just say Penny was a booster so the payment was a violation. You have to locate the specific statute that was violated. WHen you drill down to that level, the NCAA is going to have an issue, based upon their own bylaws.

(11-10-2019 04:48 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 04:37 PM)Tigx Wrote:  Yeah, I get it this Johnson guy gives some of you hope, but he is just wrong on several things. Penny is absolutely a booster. He made the $1M donation to the athletic department. Here is the NCAA definition of booster from the NCAA web site. Sorry if pope, haven't read everything on here from the past 2 days. http://www.ncaa.org/enforcement/role-boosters

Boosters, referred to by the NCAA as “representatives of the institution’s athletic interests,” include anyone who has:

Provided a donation in order to obtain season tickets for any sport at the university.

Participated in or has been a member of an organization promoting the university’s athletics programs.

Made financial contributions to the athletic department or to a university booster organization.

Arranged for or provided employment for enrolled student-athletes.

Assisted or has been requested by university staff to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes.

Assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student athletes or their families.

Been involved otherwise in promoting university athletics.


Once an individual is identified as a “representative of the institution’s athletics interests,” the person retains that identity forever.

PDF says ‘indefinite’ the website says ‘forever’

Plus the point being missed, that johnson even stated is that Penny the booster wasn’t trying to steer the kid to Memphis, he was his H.S school coach and AAU coach. In fact Memphis wasnt on the radar and Penny and Wiseman were in recruitment talks with Kentucky

BTM, don't believe this Johnson guy. Penny is absolutely a booster. And everyone knows that Penny was at East, doesn't matter, despite it being screamed on twitter a million times.

Our best argument, it seems to me, which I hope you are right about, is that the NCAA certified him eligible, and Wiseman based his decision to continue at Memphis on that decision. Who knows?

(11-10-2019 04:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 04:37 PM)Tigx Wrote:  Yeah, I get it this Johnson guy gives some of you hope, but he is just wrong on several things. Penny is absolutely a booster. He made the $1M donation to the athletic department.

There is an issue with the bylaws. The bylaws dont state for how long one remains a booster.

If you dont believe me, read the NCAA bylaws and tell me how long someone will be deemed a booster.

The issue with being booster is relegated to recruits or potential recruits (Wiseman was neither at the time) or enrolled student athletes. (Which he wasnt at the time.)

I literally posted and bolded direct from the NCAA website that once one is considered a booster, "the person retains that identity forever".

Ballin and company indicated they will argue the NCAA bylaws are "archaic". I say good look with that argument, the U of M and all member schools make up and agree to the rules, which change yearly.

Hopefully some of you are seeing why the NCAA rarely loses these fights.

(11-10-2019 04:58 PM)Tigx Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 04:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 04:37 PM)Tigx Wrote:  Yeah, I get it this Johnson guy gives some of you hope, but he is just wrong on several things. Penny is absolutely a booster. He made the $1M donation to the athletic department.

There is an issue with the bylaws. The bylaws dont state for how long one remains a booster.

If you dont believe me, read the NCAA bylaws and tell me how long someone will be deemed a booster.

The issue with being booster is relegated to recruits or potential recruits (Wiseman was neither at the time) or enrolled student athletes. (Which he wasnt at the time.)

I literally posted and bolded direct from the NCAA website that once one is considered a booster, "the person retains that identity forever".

Ballin and company indicated they will argue the NCAA bylaws are "archaic". I say good look with that argument, the U of M and all member schools make up and agree to the rules, which change yearly.

Hopefully some of you are seeing why the NCAA rarely loses these fights.

It's situations like Wiseman's and Chase Young's why I am a hardcore pay the players supporter. I want it all to be legal as long as it's not criminal-type activity. I'm talking "$100 handshakes" and stuff like this.

(11-10-2019 04:48 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 04:37 PM)Tigx Wrote:  Yeah, I get it this Johnson guy gives some of you hope, but he is just wrong on several things. Penny is absolutely a booster. He made the $1M donation to the athletic department. Here is the NCAA definition of booster from the NCAA web site. Sorry if pope, haven't read everything on here from the past 2 days. http://www.ncaa.org/enforcement/role-boosters

Boosters, referred to by the NCAA as “representatives of the institution’s athletic interests,” include anyone who has:

Provided a donation in order to obtain season tickets for any sport at the university.

Participated in or has been a member of an organization promoting the university’s athletics programs.

Made financial contributions to the athletic department or to a university booster organization.

Arranged for or provided employment for enrolled student-athletes.

Assisted or has been requested by university staff to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes.

Assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student athletes or their families.

Been involved otherwise in promoting university athletics.


Once an individual is identified as a “representative of the institution’s athletics interests,” the person retains that identity forever.

PDF says ‘indefinite’ the website says ‘forever’

Plus the point being missed, that johnson even stated is that Penny the booster wasn’t trying to steer the kid to Memphis, he was his H.S school coach and AAU coach. In fact Memphis wasnt on the radar and Penny and Wiseman were in recruitment talks with Kentucky

They changed the wording in one of those after the fact of the ambiguity being pointed out. A thread on Twitter existed where a screenshot of the change was shown....

(11-10-2019 05:04 PM)Alanda Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 04:58 PM)Tigx Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 04:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 04:37 PM)Tigx Wrote:  Yeah, I get it this Johnson guy gives some of you hope, but he is just wrong on several things. Penny is absolutely a booster. He made the $1M donation to the athletic department.

There is an issue with the bylaws. The bylaws dont state for how long one remains a booster.

If you dont believe me, read the NCAA bylaws and tell me how long someone will be deemed a booster.

The issue with being booster is relegated to recruits or potential recruits (Wiseman was neither at the time) or enrolled student athletes. (Which he wasnt at the time.)

I literally posted and bolded direct from the NCAA website that once one is considered a booster, "the person retains that identity forever".

Ballin and company indicated they will argue the NCAA bylaws are "archaic". I say good look with that argument, the U of M and all member schools make up and agree to the rules, which change yearly.

Hopefully some of you are seeing why the NCAA rarely loses these fights.

It's situations like Wiseman's and Chase Young's why I am a hardcore pay the players supporter. I want it all to be legal as long as it's not criminal-type activity. I'm talking "$100 handshakes" and stuff like this.

100% agree Alanda.

(11-10-2019 05:17 PM)CUSA_NEWS Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 04:48 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 04:37 PM)Tigx Wrote:  Yeah, I get it this Johnson guy gives some of you hope, but he is just wrong on several things. Penny is absolutely a booster. He made the $1M donation to the athletic department. Here is the NCAA definition of booster from the NCAA web site. Sorry if pope, haven't read everything on here from the past 2 days. http://www.ncaa.org/enforcement/role-boosters

Boosters, referred to by the NCAA as “representatives of the institution’s athletic interests,” include anyone who has:

Provided a donation in order to obtain season tickets for any sport at the university.

Participated in or has been a member of an organization promoting the university’s athletics programs.

Made financial contributions to the athletic department or to a university booster organization.

Arranged for or provided employment for enrolled student-athletes.

Assisted or has been requested by university staff to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes.

Assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student athletes or their families.

Been involved otherwise in promoting university athletics.


Once an individual is identified as a “representative of the institution’s athletics interests,” the person retains that identity forever.

PDF says ‘indefinite’ the website says ‘forever’

Plus the point being missed, that johnson even stated is that Penny the booster wasn’t trying to steer the kid to Memphis, he was his H.S school coach and AAU coach. In fact Memphis wasnt on the radar and Penny and Wiseman were in recruitment talks with Kentucky

They changed the wording in one of those after the fact of the ambiguity being pointed out. A thread on Twitter existed where a screenshot of the change was shown....

I would think the PDF is the true bylaws as written. What they put on their website is just some arbitrary interpretation of it which would have no standing in court, especially if it was changed after the fact.

(11-10-2019 05:40 PM)Indigo Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 05:17 PM)CUSA_NEWS Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 04:48 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 04:37 PM)Tigx Wrote:  Yeah, I get it this Johnson guy gives some of you hope, but he is just wrong on several things. Penny is absolutely a booster. He made the $1M donation to the athletic department. Here is the NCAA definition of booster from the NCAA web site. Sorry if pope, haven't read everything on here from the past 2 days. http://www.ncaa.org/enforcement/role-boosters

Boosters, referred to by the NCAA as “representatives of the institution’s athletic interests,” include anyone who has:

Provided a donation in order to obtain season tickets for any sport at the university.

Participated in or has been a member of an organization promoting the university’s athletics programs.

Made financial contributions to the athletic department or to a university booster organization.

Arranged for or provided employment for enrolled student-athletes.

Assisted or has been requested by university staff to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes.

Assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student athletes or their families.

Been involved otherwise in promoting university athletics.


Once an individual is identified as a “representative of the institution’s athletics interests,” the person retains that identity forever.

PDF says ‘indefinite’ the website says ‘forever’

Plus the point being missed, that johnson even stated is that Penny the booster wasn’t trying to steer the kid to Memphis, he was his H.S school coach and AAU coach. In fact Memphis wasnt on the radar and Penny and Wiseman were in recruitment talks with Kentucky

They changed the wording in one of those after the fact of the ambiguity being pointed out. A thread on Twitter existed where a screenshot of the change was shown....

I would think the PDF is the true bylaws as written. What they put on their website is just some arbitrary interpretation of it which would have no standing in court, especially if it was changed after the fact.

What .pdf are you guys referring to? I pulled the link, and pasted the definition, direct from the NCAA web site.

I

(11-10-2019 05:40 PM)Indigo Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 05:17 PM)CUSA_NEWS Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 04:48 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 04:37 PM)Tigx Wrote:  Yeah, I get it this Johnson guy gives some of you hope, but he is just wrong on several things. Penny is absolutely a booster. He made the $1M donation to the athletic department. Here is the NCAA definition of booster from the NCAA web site. Sorry if pope, haven't read everything on here from the past 2 days. http://www.ncaa.org/enforcement/role-boosters

Boosters, referred to by the NCAA as “representatives of the institution’s athletic interests,” include anyone who has:

Provided a donation in order to obtain season tickets for any sport at the university.

Participated in or has been a member of an organization promoting the university’s athletics programs.

Made financial contributions to the athletic department or to a university booster organization.

Arranged for or provided employment for enrolled student-athletes.

Assisted or has been requested by university staff to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes.

Assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student athletes or their families.

Been involved otherwise in promoting university athletics.


Once an individual is identified as a “representative of the institution’s athletics interests,” the person retains that identity forever.

PDF says ‘indefinite’ the website says ‘forever’

Plus the point being missed, that johnson even stated is that Penny the booster wasn’t trying to steer the kid to Memphis, he was his H.S school coach and AAU coach. In fact Memphis wasnt on the radar and Penny and Wiseman were in recruitment talks with Kentucky

They changed the wording in one of those after the fact of the ambiguity being pointed out. A thread on Twitter existed where a screenshot of the change was shown....

I would think the PDF is the true bylaws as written. What they put on their website is just some arbitrary interpretation of it which would have no standing in court, especially if it was changed after the fact.

Yes, this would be true. I know for a fact that the actual bylaws use the "indefinite" wording as it has been referenced in the legal documents. It would be funny, though, if they changed the website wording within the last couple of days.

(11-10-2019 04:58 PM)Tigx Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 04:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 04:37 PM)Tigx Wrote:  Yeah, I get it this Johnson guy gives some of you hope, but he is just wrong on several things. Penny is absolutely a booster. He made the $1M donation to the athletic department.

There is an issue with the bylaws. The bylaws dont state for how long one remains a booster.

If you dont believe me, read the NCAA bylaws and tell me how long someone will be deemed a booster.

The issue with being booster is relegated to recruits or potential recruits (Wiseman was neither at the time) or enrolled student athletes. (Which he wasnt at the time.)

I literally posted and bolded direct from the NCAA website that once one is considered a booster, "the person retains that identity forever".

Ballin and company indicated they will argue the NCAA bylaws are "archaic". I say good look with that argument, the U of M and all member schools make up and agree to the rules, which change yearly.

Hopefully some of you are seeing why the NCAA rarely loses these fights.

A) You're not reading the bylaw, you're reading their website. The by-law says indefinite, and legal precedent has already been set in the use of that word. Hence "archaic".

B) What lawsuits have the NCAA won? I only know of a few lawsuits against the NCAA off of the top of my heads, and they lost their asses in each one of them. The 1984 TV lawsuit, where the NCAA was found to be in violation of the Sherman antitrust act. Then there was Jerry Tarkanian, and the one from Ed Obannon.

C) Even if something IS in the bylaws, if it is interpreted or used in a way that is unfair to some member institutions or is arbitrarily enforced, the court would rule that as being unequitable.

(11-10-2019 12:55 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 12:45 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 12:41 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  #4 is interesting as well.

Yeah, #4 and #8 go together. If Ballin can get the court to agree with that, the NCAA is toast.

Looks like the NCAA was trying to bully Memphis into being hasty and scared and rule Wiseman ineligible. Dr Rudd called their bluff

We are lucky to have Dr. Rudd. Love this guy!

(11-10-2019 10:41 AM)BandwagonJumper Wrote:  ...
it's going to federal court

now which federal court? if it stays regional, sherry lipman is the judge of that federal court.

Sherry Lipman is a federal district judge presiding in the Western District of Tennessee. She is not the federal district judge presiding in the Western District of Tennessee. If this case was assigned to her somehow she’d almost certainly recuse and one of the other judges in the district would hear it.

(11-10-2019 06:22 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 04:58 PM)Tigx Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 04:51 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 04:37 PM)Tigx Wrote:  Yeah, I get it this Johnson guy gives some of you hope, but he is just wrong on several things. Penny is absolutely a booster. He made the $1M donation to the athletic department.

There is an issue with the bylaws. The bylaws dont state for how long one remains a booster.

If you dont believe me, read the NCAA bylaws and tell me how long someone will be deemed a booster.

The issue with being booster is relegated to recruits or potential recruits (Wiseman was neither at the time) or enrolled student athletes. (Which he wasnt at the time.)

I literally posted and bolded direct from the NCAA website that once one is considered a booster, "the person retains that identity forever".

Ballin and company indicated they will argue the NCAA bylaws are "archaic". I say good look with that argument, the U of M and all member schools make up and agree to the rules, which change yearly.

Hopefully some of you are seeing why the NCAA rarely loses these fights.

A) You're not reading the bylaw, you're reading their website. The by-law says indefinite, and legal precedent has already been set in the use of that word. Hence "archaic".

B) What lawsuits have the NCAA won? I only know of a few lawsuits against the NCAA off of the top of my heads, and they lost their asses in each one of them. The 1984 TV lawsuit, where the NCAA was found to be in violation of the Sherman antitrust act. Then there was Jerry Tarkanian, and the one from Ed Obannon.

C) Even if something IS in the bylaws, if it is interpreted or used in a way that is unfair to some member institutions or is arbitrarily enforced, the court would rule that as being unequitable.

Tarkanian actually lost 5-4 in a Supreme Court decision in 1988.
Tarkanian Loses in Supreme Court : Ruling Reinforces NCAA’s Power to Use Own Enforcement Methods

The NCAA has lost NCAA v. Board of Regents (1984) - TV, and Law v. NCAA (1998) - coach salaries.

And the NCAA has won NCAA v. Tarkanian (1988), NCAA v. Miller (1993) - due process for athletes/coaches/universities, Worldwide Basketball and Sports Tours Inc. v. NCAA (2004) - early season basketball tournaments.

O’Bannon v. NCAA and EA Sports, is still pending an outcome because they are seeking class certification, so it's hard to count that either way at this point.

The NCAA v. Miller case is particularly interesting:

In the wake of the Tarkanian case, the state of Nevada passed a law which attempted to force the NCAA to provide additional due process protections to institutions, coaches, and student-athletes in Nevada. The law also prevented the NCAA from retaliating against Nevada schools for the law.

The NCAA challenged the law based on the Dormant Commerce Clause, a corollary to the Commerce Clause, which prevents a state from passing laws which unduly burden interstate commerce. The NCAA won the case in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with Nevada’s state law being deemed unconstitutional.

(11-10-2019 12:27 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  This is from his twitter feed one hour ago. I posted it Here for convenience

Quote:Attorney Richard Gibbs Johnson, founder of the law firm of Richard G. Johnson Co., L.P.A. in 1990, is a leading practitioner in the area of plaintiffs' legal malpractice and related legal ethics and professional responsibility issues.

Practice Areas:

Legal Malpractice
College Athlete Right to Counsel Cases
Disqualification
Fee Disputes
Judicial Ethics & Conduct
Legal Ethics & Professional Responsibility
Sanctions
Sports Agent Malpractice
UCC Articles 3 & 4 (fiduciary forged check issues)


1/ James Wiseman is eligible to play, Coach Penny Hardaway is not a booster, and University of Memphis President M. David Rudd and Athletic Director Laird Veatch are taking an unusual stance--they're doing the right thing for James, Penny, and the school!

2/ Under the NCAA Constitution, only President Rudd can determine whether James is eligible—not the NCAA, which tries to bully and intimidate its members to do what it says, but President Rudd has told them to pound salt. So James IS eligible unless and until he says he's not.

3/ James is not alleged to have done anything wrong. James' mother is alleged to have accepted financial help to move her family from James' high school coach, who was Penny Hardaway. That is not illegal, immoral, or wrong. Instead, it was a charitable act by Penny.

4/ Penny was not a booster, which is defined in part as a person who has "made financial contributions to the athletics department or to an athletics booster organization of that institution," because he gave to neither. He was also not listed as a booster by the University.

5/ In 2008, Penny gave a tax-deductible million dollar donation to the University of Memphis, a charitable non-profit 501©(3), for a sports hall of fame, of which he would be in first as a star Tigers BB player and then as a star NBA player. It was a very good deed by Penny.

6/ Even if he had been labeled a booster, under NCAA bylaws, that designation is either "presumed" or "indefinite," as there are two competing definitions, neither of which has defined thresholds or parameters. So a $1 contribution is the same as a $1MM one.

7/ Also, since no one stays in any man-made category forever, which factors are to be considered in determining when a booster status expires is unstated? Without a threshold and duration, there is no enforceable definition, which is construed against the NCAA by a court.

8/ Boosters can only violate NCAA bylaw chapters 13 on recruiting and 16 on benefits for enrolled athletes. Penny was a high school coach, when he gave a high school player's mother money to help with moving costs, so even if he was a booster, neither of these would apply.

9/ James is black and a projected first-round draft pick. Penny is black and has had a great career, plus we need more black college BB coaches. Why is the NCAA attacking James' mother and his coach, when one needed financial help, and the other was kind enough to give it? Why?

10/ Both James, Penny, and the University have actionable claims against the NCAA for breach of contract and tortious interference with contract. James' mother has a claim for invasion of privacy. Any claims will be tried in state court in Memphis. The NCAA would get hammered.

11/ The NCAA is evil personified at the most petty level. They have attacked a fine young man, his mother, and a splendid coach, who have done nothing in the least bit wrong. President Rudd and AD Veatch should be applauded and thanked for recognizing the equities here. Courage!

mike drop !

(11-11-2019 08:57 AM)blue and grey emjay Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 12:27 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  This is from his twitter feed one hour ago. I posted it Here for convenience

Quote:Attorney Richard Gibbs Johnson, founder of the law firm of Richard G. Johnson Co., L.P.A. in 1990, is a leading practitioner in the area of plaintiffs' legal malpractice and related legal ethics and professional responsibility issues.

Practice Areas:

Legal Malpractice
College Athlete Right to Counsel Cases
Disqualification
Fee Disputes
Judicial Ethics & Conduct
Legal Ethics & Professional Responsibility
Sanctions
Sports Agent Malpractice
UCC Articles 3 & 4 (fiduciary forged check issues)


1/ James Wiseman is eligible to play, Coach Penny Hardaway is not a booster, and University of Memphis President M. David Rudd and Athletic Director Laird Veatch are taking an unusual stance--they're doing the right thing for James, Penny, and the school!

2/ Under the NCAA Constitution, only President Rudd can determine whether James is eligible—not the NCAA, which tries to bully and intimidate its members to do what it says, but President Rudd has told them to pound salt. So James IS eligible unless and until he says he's not.

3/ James is not alleged to have done anything wrong. James' mother is alleged to have accepted financial help to move her family from James' high school coach, who was Penny Hardaway. That is not illegal, immoral, or wrong. Instead, it was a charitable act by Penny.

4/ Penny was not a booster, which is defined in part as a person who has "made financial contributions to the athletics department or to an athletics booster organization of that institution," because he gave to neither. He was also not listed as a booster by the University.

5/ In 2008, Penny gave a tax-deductible million dollar donation to the University of Memphis, a charitable non-profit 501©(3), for a sports hall of fame, of which he would be in first as a star Tigers BB player and then as a star NBA player. It was a very good deed by Penny.

6/ Even if he had been labeled a booster, under NCAA bylaws, that designation is either "presumed" or "indefinite," as there are two competing definitions, neither of which has defined thresholds or parameters. So a $1 contribution is the same as a $1MM one.

7/ Also, since no one stays in any man-made category forever, which factors are to be considered in determining when a booster status expires is unstated? Without a threshold and duration, there is no enforceable definition, which is construed against the NCAA by a court.

8/ Boosters can only violate NCAA bylaw chapters 13 on recruiting and 16 on benefits for enrolled athletes. Penny was a high school coach, when he gave a high school player's mother money to help with moving costs, so even if he was a booster, neither of these would apply.

9/ James is black and a projected first-round draft pick. Penny is black and has had a great career, plus we need more black college BB coaches. Why is the NCAA attacking James' mother and his coach, when one needed financial help, and the other was kind enough to give it? Why?

10/ Both James, Penny, and the University have actionable claims against the NCAA for breach of contract and tortious interference with contract. James' mother has a claim for invasion of privacy. Any claims will be tried in state court in Memphis. The NCAA would get hammered.

11/ The NCAA is evil personified at the most petty level. They have attacked a fine young man, his mother, and a splendid coach, who have done nothing in the least bit wrong. President Rudd and AD Veatch should be applauded and thanked for recognizing the equities here. Courage!

mike drop !

Hmmm who to believe TIGX or RGJ, aka The Piranha.

(11-10-2019 04:52 PM)Tigx Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 04:48 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(11-10-2019 04:37 PM)Tigx Wrote:  Yeah, I get it this Johnson guy gives some of you hope, but he is just wrong on several things. Penny is absolutely a booster. He made the $1M donation to the athletic department. Here is the NCAA definition of booster from the NCAA web site. Sorry if pope, haven't read everything on here from the past 2 days. http://www.ncaa.org/enforcement/role-boosters

Boosters, referred to by the NCAA as “representatives of the institution’s athletic interests,” include anyone who has:

Provided a donation in order to obtain season tickets for any sport at the university.

Participated in or has been a member of an organization promoting the university’s athletics programs.

Made financial contributions to the athletic department or to a university booster organization.

Arranged for or provided employment for enrolled student-athletes.

Assisted or has been requested by university staff to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes.

Assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student athletes or their families.

Been involved otherwise in promoting university athletics.


Once an individual is identified as a “representative of the institution’s athletics interests,” the person retains that identity forever.

PDF says ‘indefinite’ the website says ‘forever’

Plus the point being missed, that johnson even stated is that Penny the booster wasn’t trying to steer the kid to Memphis, he was his H.S school coach and AAU coach. In fact Memphis wasnt on the radar and Penny and Wiseman were in recruitment talks with Kentucky

BTM, don't believe this Johnson guy. Penny is absolutely a booster. And everyone knows that Penny was at East, doesn't matter, despite it being screamed on twitter a million times.

Our best argument, it seems to me, which I hope you are right about, is that the NCAA certified him eligible, and Wiseman based his decision to continue at Memphis on that decision. Who knows?

What the “legal” team is pointing out, which is VERY poignant, is that the term “booster” is a loose term....there is a “Grey” area that almost anyone can be labeled as a booster... however according to NCAA own guidelines.... One must be labeled a”booster” by the receiving institution ie TheUofM in this case.. Don’t know what that in-tells or how that is done, however it seems as though it has a process of continued gifts/donations and NOT just a one-time stipend for naming-rights, such as what CPH did in 2008

Wonder who that 'somebody' is.....

Caltucky.

(11-11-2019 09:33 AM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  Caltucky.

Yep