Been a while since I posted. I remember this discussion being fairly animated... here are the facts:
If you tweet at recruits, you're already a creep. You're also violating NCAA rules. Congratulations. http://t.co/vKjISL38jX— Kyle Bailey (@TheClubhouseKB) December 20, 2013
thoughts?
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
The NCAA can't do dick about this. Recruits can't be penalized for getting talked at, and the NCAA has no way of punishing fans. It's a meaningless rule that is entirely unenforceable.
The NCAA doesn't have the resources to follow up on every social media contact, but they do have the rules in place that allows them to do so. You're correct in that the NCAA cannot punish fans individually, but they can punish the school for improper contacts with recruits. The reasoning is that the people contacting the recruits are boosters who have paid for tickets or merchandise, which in turn, goes to support their sports program.
In short, it's not a good idea to have conversations with recruits for any reason. At the very least, the contact can have the opposite effect from that intended and cause the recruit to dismiss that fan's school as a possible destination.
While I don't agree with tweeting recruits, looking at their twitter page to see if there are updates about recruitment or if they are in contact with current players is fine.
Agreed. These are high-school kids, and they've got enough pressure on them to decide where they are going to college without a bunch of biased sports fans schmoozing with them from afar. Not to mention the fact that these kids are total strangers to you - totally creepy.
The letter of the law might not be broken but the spirit is trounced on by tweeting
Merry Christmas!
Sounds like Kyle Bailey needs a lesson in constitutional rights before he spouts off again.
I don't advise doing it. I think it's a rookie move, but seriously there is absolutely no way the NCAA can police this. The NCAA has absolutely no power to tell anyone not to talk to anyone else. Top on the list of reasons why NCAA has zero chance of enforcing this: Freedom of Speech. You can talk to whoever you want. However, if you offer something to recruits then it's crossing the line.
The First Amendment applies only to government incursions. The NCAA is a business and can set whatever rules it likes for its member institutions, which have agreed to abide by its rules. Whether those rules make sense is a different issue, of course.
Ok, I get what you are saying but... no. There is no way at all the NCAA can ever limit my right to free speech, which is applies to every citizen in the United States not just those in government incursions, to speak to anyone else. Be it college recruits, football coaches, politicians, etc. I have the right to speak to whomever I wish to no matter which organization the other person may be in. The NCAA has the right to bar member athletes from receiving illicit benefits but it does not have the right to bar anyone who is not a member from specking to those member athletes. They are not a government body that can supersede the Bill of Rights.
A contract supersedes any rights, perceived or real. The member institutions of the NCAA agreed, in a contract, that no person shall act on their behalf to influence a recruit. We, as fans, fall under that agreement. Is it enforceable? No, probably not, and it probably shouldn't be due to massive effort required for something so ridiculous. But in most contracts in most companies, there are always clauses about conduct detrimental to the company, or something similar. You have a right to free speech, yes, but you bear the burden of the ramifications of what you say. Companies can regulate what their members/employees say. Congress isn't going to legislate against it, because they can't. The NCAA can. They're not superseding the Constitution, they're entitled to enforce the powers and duties given to it under the agreement with the member institutions.
yeah but you see that's the problem:
We as fans do not fall under that agreement. None of us signed a contract with the NCAA. What you are talking about is member athletes speaking to fans, which yes, since they did sign a contract, they can police. But for any normal fan the NCAA has no right to bar freedom of speech. This is what Bailey is saying in his tweet.
I guess I'm missing the Constitutional implications of the tweet - Bailey is reminding people they shouldn't be doing this. The net effect is that, no, the NCAA cannot punish us as individual people. You're right about that. But it can, in fact, punish VT if our fan base continually tries to influence recruits. It's really VT's obligation to try to stop it (due diligence), though no one will hold them accountable for anyone's actions (hence stupid rule). The legal challenge would exist between VT and the NCAA in that case, and it would have to be demonstrated that VT has the reasonable ability to regulate people acting on its behalf. In the age of social media, that's utterly impossible. This, to me, is still not a rights issue at all, though. It's a contractual one, though we're really debating a stupid clause in a contract that appears to be very poorly worded (because it is far too generic).
OK, well let's say I tweet a recruit that says "Hope you go to VT". I have no legal ties to the NCAA or the school. The NCAA says its a violation and draws penalties on the school. So the legal proof that the NCAA would have to show is that somehow I am either tied to the school or that the school has the ability to limit my interaction with a recruit, which they cannot. So the NCAA pushes it and fines the school and the school fights back. When it's finally drawn down to the basic argument it would be this. Does this fan have a right to speak to the recruit and as such is the school legally and financially responsible for that fan? No way. VT has no legal responsibility for my actions because ultimately I have the right to say whatever I want to whoever I want. (they may bar me from walking on campus again though)
Let's take another example. Say I spout of 50 tweets to LOLUVA recruits saying how if they commit I will get them all laid by some beautiful coeds. The NCAA immediately penalizes LOLUVA for my tweets because it was contact, however in reality I am a VT fan. LOLUVA would argue that it cannot police any one fan's right to speak.
No it doesn't make sense. It's impossible for the NCAA to police this because intrinsically this comes down to the freedom of one individual to speak to another.
In your example, yes VT can be punished for your actions as a booster. The idea is that the NCAA is punishing you by punishing the team you like. The schools have agreed to this arrangement because they don't like boosters interfering with recruiting either. In court VT wouldn't have much of a case because they agreed to the bylaws like every other NCAA member institution.
You certainly have a right to speak to recruits, and the NCAA and it's member institutions have the right to dole out & accept punishments for your actions as they see fit according to their bylaws...
My example doesn't say that I am a booster. Yes, the NCAA could punish but then that's not what I am talking about. What I am saying is that they cannot prohibit me from speaking to recruits. They have no legal basis to do so.
But I disagree about VT not having a case in court. The NCAA would have to prove that they have punished everyone for every tweet to the same standard which they have not done so. There is a reason why, because they can't. No university can legally be responsible for the free will of its fans. Unless they are a booster of some sort.
There's no need for a legal basis, it's in the National Collegiate Athletic Association rules that Virginia Tech and the other member institutions choose to follow by being members of the NCAA.
Also, the NCAA treats every case of rules violations on its own merits. Thats why punishments for recruiting violations and illict benefits are seemingly inconsistent from case to case.
There is a legal basis. look at how Miami is fighting back against the sanctions the NCAA is handing to them. It's through the courts. Every punishment by the NCAA does not need to be automatically assumed by the university. They can appeal within the NCAA system or fight it in court. And this could be won in a heartbeat
You're entitled to your own opinions. You aren't entitled to your own facts.
http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/article/Miami-accepts-NCAA-sanctions...
Miami isn't fighting at all because the sanctions were crap.
And before you try insulting someone you should do a more thorough google search on the subject you clearly don't understand:
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130222/ncaa-mia...
and here:
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2013/02/university_of_miami_recei...
and here:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/dennis-dodd/21733498/sha...
In fact, Miami consulted with there own legal offices as well outside counsel. What you are attempting, and failing miserably, to argue is that Miami accepted the full sanctions that the NCAA proposed. They did not. In fact, they largely escaped major sanctions by self-imposing sanctions in the interim, as stated here:
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/9861775/miami-hurricanes-av...
and precisely because Miami fought back and threatened to go to court and even beyond to Supreme Court.
"look at how Miami is fighting back against the sanctions the NCAA is handing to them. It's through the courts."- You
They did nothing through the courts. They never went to court because the NCAA ended up barely punishing them. The self-sanctions were laughable; the NCAA decided that they didn't want to draw more attention to their own incompetence.
"What you are attempting, and failing miserably, to argue is that Miami accepted the full sanctions that the NCAA proposed. "- You
http://college-football.si.com/2013/10/22/miami-hurricanes-ncaa-sanctions/
"The NCAA has been told Miami accepts its sanctions. No appeal from Hurricanes. This saga, by and large, ends today."
Please stop making things up.
"They never went to court because the NCAA ended up barely punishing them." - You
Incorrect. Miami did in fact use the court to fight the NCAA. the threat of court is still using the court. The threat to take the NCAA to court is what avoided more severe punishment. It was, however, not that the NCAA was considering only minimal punishment so Miami didn't need to go to court.
Yes, what I said was poor wording. you can call me out on that, but it doesn't mean you are right or that what you are arguing about Miami avoiding penalties is accurate.
You didn't word it poorly, you worded it incorrectly. Poorly would mean you were right when you said Miami went to court and didn't accept sanctions when they never went to court and accepted their sanctions without incident. Miami used the power of media pressure and let ESPN et al. argue that the NCAA should give Miami a pass for cheating their asses off.
dude... really?
If a newspaper slanders me and I threaten litigation to which we settle out of court it still means that I went through the legal process of using court to my advantage. Specifically the threat of court. However, whether my wording was incorrect or not does not equate to the fact that your understanding of what actually happened is entirely wrong.
You have provided no factual evidence that Miami used the media and ESPN to argue their case against the NCAA. In fact, all the articles I listed specifically states that Miami used the threat of court to impose on the NCAA that their self-sanctioning was enough punishment. Due to that threat and the fact that they bungled the case the NCAA gave Miami only an additional slap on the wrist. Therefore Miami used the court to get what they want.
What you are claiming is plain and simply wrong. Please stop making things up.
Your behavior has implications for the NCAA member that you're acting on behalf of.
You personally may not be affected directly except to be banned from attending sporting events at the facilities of that NCAA member. The ramifications for the NCAA member may be greater - such as probation, loss of scholarships, etc.
Ultimately you will not be fined, sent to jail, etc, however the NCAA member that you claim to like so much can suffer greatly from your "free speech" actions.
yeah, look, I don't think you are reading what I wrote. I am not condoning nor advising anyone to tweet recruits.
I am pointing out the inaccuracy to the Bailey tweet, and article, that the NCAA has the right to police the free speech of fans, which it does not.
Oklahoma had to vacate the 2005 season and lost scholarships from future seasons because they had players who were ineligible due to taking money from boosters for no-show jobs. The school didn't do anything wrong but they were held responsible for a failure to monitor. So yes, fans have to be responsible as well because their actions can get the school in hot water. Whether or not it's enforceable, it's against the rules to tweet recruits, so don't tweet recruits. Caring is creepy.
Freedom of speech only applies to the government restricting what a person can say. Please stop bringing it up because whenever someone brings up freedom of speech in a non-government situation I have an aneurysm and I've already had about 50 this week.
You could have saved yourself an aneurysm by understanding what was being said. NCAA has no power to stop my right to speech to any recruit as I am not a member of the NCAA nor have I ever signed a contract with them. And to save you further aneurysms I can also inform you that recent decisions in legal cases have supported employees that have received punishment from employers after posting something on Social Media during off-work hours. You can see this here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/technology/employers-social-media-poli...
and here:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/07/07/free-speech-righ...
and here:
http://www.convinceandconvert.com/social-media-policy-2/is-your-social-m...
and here:
http://hightalk.net/2011/02/09/can-companies-restrict-employees-use-of-s...
what you are talking about is employers restricting employees during work hours, which the they have every right to do. But not beyond that. And they certainly have no right to limit the freedom of speech of anyone not working for them.
So the questions you should be asking are these:
1) Are athletes always on the clock and not subject to normal work hours?
2) Are recruits, who have yet to sign into any contractual relationship with the NCAA, able to be limited at all?
I would say the answer to both is in face, NO.
I'll add this before I bow out. I appreciate the factual nature of everyone's arguments, but tensions are starting to rise and I'd rather continue talking about football.
We do not, as Americans, have a right to say anything we want to anyone without consequence. The only protection we have is that the government cannot punish us for our opinions. If you believe you can say whatever you want, whenever you want, to whomever you want, that is simply not true and there is no protection anywhere for that. If you walk up to me and say, "I'm going to beat your face in," and expect that the police won't show up and arrest you for harrassment, making threats, and even assault, you'd be wrong, because you do not have an absolute right to say anything to anyone.
The NCAA has some boneheaded rules, and nothing will ever come of this.
Who's watching some bowl games today?
The NCAA has said that tweeting recruits is a violation. You disagree. I think the NCAA is better suited to analyze their own rule book. The "free speech" canard is exactly that. You're certainly free to tweet whatever you want but there may be consequenes for the school.
You are not a member of the NCAA. Schools are members. Schools are expected to monitor their athletes and intervene if they find out violations are occurring involving the athletes. Whether or not the NCAA actually wants that fight is another story, but the point is that you shouldn't tweet recruits and should instead leave it to the coaches. When boosters, fans, etc. break rules the schools are held accountable.
look man. I apologize if I was condescending or insulting. But if you had read my comments you would have seen that I agree with all of this. My point was and remains that the NCAA has no right to limit me to speak to recruits and would never be able to police this. However, I always said they could punish those members of the NCAA. You just said the same thing. We agree. I think we can leave it at that.
Actually we, as fans, are specifically mentioned in the agreement as each and every one of us meet the NCAA members' mutually agreed upon definition of a booster. And the rules apply to boosters all throughout the agreement.
What this guy said. Just don't tweet recruits. While you may think they love the attention because they favorite your tweet or retweet it, it's still creepy and only leads to people being extremely rude and abusive towards them if they choose a different team. Nothing that you say will help sway them towards going to any school so what's the point?
I also said not to do it. I agree with that part.
My point is that Bailey is saying that it's a violation of NCAA rules. I realize that in the rule books it may say that but there is no way NCAA can police it because when you break down the legal right of one person to speak to another it reverts back to freedom of speech. The NCAA would never win that legal argument.
Not bailey, read the actual article...He is just posting an article from someone else.
I did. I see it as he is both saying it and posting the article that is reinforcing what he is saying.
Look at it from this point of view. In a job, you are ethically bound to your employer. Now, you go talk to another company. You could be sharing secrets about your employer, you could be discussing coming to work with them, or you could just be making a new friend. Your employer has every right and is legally allowed to punish you for those actions. That's not a violation of the first amendment, that's for breaking policy that is set in place. It's really no different because the NCAA is a corporation.
yes, I completely agree. But you are still talking about someone who is under contract. I, as a fan, have never signed a contract with the NCAA. They cannot limit or bar me from speaking to anyone I want, right? For any and all athletes that have signed a contract with them they can do that, but for me, not a chance.
If you are acting as a representative of the school (which as fans we are) then you are bound by that contract whether you signed anything or not. If you have ever given anything to the school, you are a booster and fall under the rules as well.
Boosters: check. Even Students: check. Normal fan with no affiliation with the school other than a liking for its football program, no way. There is no implied contract there. Watching the Hokies play on TV or even buying a ticket does not make you contractually bound to the NCAA.
Look, I want to say again, I do not advise people doing it. I just dislike the idea that NCAA can limit the rights of everyday people. They can't.
Agreed on all accounts. But when has a huge sports organization ever acted in a logical manner? NFL? NCAA?
According to the NCAA, any purchase of goods and services from a university sports program makes you technically a booster. As a booster you are prohibited from contact with recruits who may choose to attend your university. The rule has nothing to do with anyone's constitutional rights.
That's an entirely different contractual argument. Buying merchandise, tickets or food from VT does not automatically sign you under a legally binding contract with the NCAA. No matter how much the NCAA wants it to be that way it can never police this either.
You need to understand that the contractual relationship is not between you and the NCAA, it's between the NCAA and it's member schools, like Virginia Tech. The NCAA's relationship with you is secondary. However, the NCAA does try and influence your behavior via their relationship and ability to punish the school you support.
Bottom line if you break NCAA rules, the school you support can suffer.
In the case of twitter and social media, now, in order for them to enforce it, they'd have to punish all schools, not pick a couple of the "worst cases" and punish them. The backlash for the NCAA doing otherwise would be problematic for them, as well as the schools involved. Punishing all schools would hurt their income, and punishing some schools would hurt their image, and potentially their income. All that's required of the schools is to say, "Don't do that."
The only other option for them would be to say, as a recruit, you aren't allowed to have twitter, and can't accept friends on Facebook, or you lose eligibility until you comply.
Yeah, definitely missing my point. I know all this. Again not condoning any fan to tweet recruits. Please see comment above.
However, I do disagree with what you are saying. I feel that the NCAA would have an extremely difficult time to penalize any university for interaction on social media. If you want to discuss why this is we can as I find it very interesting:
1) As stated above, they have not done so now and would need to prove that they have punished equally for all tweets.
2) Fans, that are non-boosters, are not contractually obligated to the NCAA in any way whatsoever and therefore the university cannot be held responsible for their actions. This is why the NCAA investigates so (and I can't believe I am saying this) thoroughly. They must find that the offending individual is some how tied to the university or program. If they are not then they will punish the player only.
3) NCAA is a business, not a government, and cannot infringe on the rights of ordinary citizens nor can they infringe on the rights of another legal business, such as Twitter. Twitter whom upon signing up requires you to sign a terms of usage to provide you the right to use their program to contact ANYONE. The NCAA has no power to stop anyone on twitter, except boosters who have a conflicting contractual agreement, from exercising their terms of usage anymore than Twitter can stop an athlete from cheating on a test. It's not possible. Corporate law forbids this.
So again, I am not condoning the action. But the NCAA has no legal standing here. None. If they were to pursue punishment for, let's call them, harmless tweets such as "Go Hokies!" then the university could easily fight back and win. Furthermore if the NCAA pursued to penalize the university on my tweet and I am not a booster I could sue the NCAA for infringing upon my legal right of freedom of speech, which could result in the mother of all class action lawsuits. Ed O'bannon's case would be a pale comparison.
Finally, if the NCAA were to pursue punishment for these type of tweets then every university would be up in arms. No university president would allow their university to be governed by an organization that blindly punishes their university like this, and university presidents tend to agree with each other.
Don't forget that the NCAA exists at the behest of the universities, not the other way around.
I agree with you on principle, but I think you have number 3 exactly backwards.
NCAA is a business, not a government, and cannot infringe on the rights of ordinary citizens.
The constitution & Bill of Rights are protections against the government's infringement of rights. They say nothing about giving up those rights freely to anyone else.
A business can infringe on your rights legally in any manner of ways, so long as there is a contract stating such. An employer can limit who you can speak with about certain things. A game provider or search engine can share what you think should be private information. A store can say "No Guns Allowed", or "No Shirts, No Shoes, No Service."
So, in fact, the NCAA can limit the rights of those who have entered into a contract with it. So while there is literally nothing they can legally do to the fans, they can threaten and punish the institutions you root for.
As you say however, this is a ridiculous rule that will fail miserably if they ever try to enforce it. Your previous example of how the rule could be used to hurt teams you root against is a great example that I would imagine the NCAA attorneys have considered.
That's a good point and yes you are correct. You as a person can be infringed upon in any number of ways by a corporation, as you pointed out. However, if I have no contract with them and am not in any place in which they control, such as my living room, they have no power against me. The NCAA is saying they have the power in all instances, even this, which I disagree with.
While many fans are boosters and students I think the large majority of fans are not. The NCAA holds no power over these people and therefore it's impossible, other than to say it broke a rule, for the NCAA to police them. Or for that matter punish schools for fans the university is in no control of.
They could simply tell all athletes not to use social media, but not sure how that applies to recruits who are yet to sign papers with NCAA.
The point was, if you work for a company, it's part of the agreement you sign. In essence, the company isn't taking your right of speech away, you're giving it away. You would be in violation of contract to do otherwise. Since fans don't work the NCAA, nor do fans sign a document barring them from contacting any recruit, there's not breach of contract, there's no violation of rules that the fan agrees to with the NCAA. Fans do not give their right up and sign any documentation stating that they agree to anything.
So it's really just a matter of saying "Please don't do that."
See my comment above. The NCAA can punish member institutions for the behavior of their fans, because those member institutions have agreed to operate under those conditions. You can talk to whoever you want to, but the NCAA and it's members can set whatever convoluted rules they see fit.
They can't enforce it, but if the school is aware and makes no effort to get the fans to cease and desist they can punish the school for fostering an atmosphere of non-compliance.
Basically leave the recruiting to the coaches.
Kyle does put high value on his own opinions. A little Cowherd-esque in that regard. Other than that, he's typically solid.
Question: (don't get any ideas) but ...
is it illegal by NCAA rules to post a message about (or to) a recruit on a highway billboard?
if so I don't see how tweeting is different and
the NCAA could police it by starting with the most egregious offenders
and making examples of them.
DON'T TWEET RECRUITS. Thanks for the forum.
And then you have the coaches who talked about the positives of fans tweeting recruits: http://coachingsearch.com/article?a=james-franklin-explains-the-1-thing-....
Kentucky wide receivers coach Tommy Mainord:
Vanderbilt head coach James Franklin:
"I'm not saying you guys should do it, because that would be illegal, but if some fans were to tweet recruits, that'd be awesome."
-James Franklin
ew
So what they're saying is everybody should follow these kids and favorite and retweet the shit out of every thing they tweet?
BLINK TWICE IF THATS WHAT YOU WANT US TO DO, MR FRANKLIN.
This is my perspective on this silly issue. If you're going to make these bold statements, show the wording of the NCAA rulebook that specifies these as recruiting violations:
Maybe this author is right. Maybe the NCAA rulebook is written in a way that says all forms of communication is illegal. I doubt it, and I'm pretty sure the rulebook is generic enough that any terrible lawyer could prove that a simple tweet is not a violation. A specific tweet stating, "you should come to VT and I'll pay you money." Yea, that's probably a violation. But saying, "Go Hokies," in a tweet is not anything specific and easily arguable to not be encouragement.
This is just another example of the NCAA being the stupidest bureaucracy on the planet. How idiotic to make a rule that it KNOWS it won't be able to enforce.
I'd imagine the rule was in place well before Twitter was a thing. Like, back in the stone ages, when we didn't all know what every semi-famous person was up to at all hours of the day.
What does the law say if all of Hokie Nation sent letters to the recruit with one word messages?
Like "YOU"!!!
Why not email our compliance officer, Tim whats his name, and ask him what he thinks. (I already know the answer)
Sam Rogers is allowed to tweet recruits.
Twitter was invented so Sam Rogers can communicate with people. The force of his vocal expressions make mortal men's ears bleed.
What?
So what I gather from this thread is that I could pose as a Hoo on Twitter and promise all sorts of stuff to their recruits, and IF the NCAA were able to do anything about it they would sanction the school. But they're never going to get around to that, so it really doesn't matter.
Promise a winning season. That'd be hilarious.
Promise fans will come to the spring game.
Seems more SEC than ACC in conception
See this is an issue. Give me a budget of 0 dollars and a little time and my imagination is the only thing stopping me from creating an infinite number of accounts. It would be extremely difficult to prove every offending account was a "booster"of that university.
"YOU!" -- macraw83
"I would like to formerly promise that if you become a Cavalier then you have a chance of leading us to a national championship in 4 years. Barring that, we might become the best team in the state, something that hasn't happened in 10 years. And even if that doesn't happen, we should still beat Richmond next year. Oh, and you'll be kept safe; the head coach is also a cop."
- me posing as a UVA recruiter, probably
YOU! ... me, a formal cop.
Creepy?
What I imagine Reavis was about to tweet before just changing it to "go #hokies": "@rerunjj2007 you have helped me decide to make my account private. Thank you for being that complete stranger I've never met, giving me the creeps"
I definitely read that last word as "crepes."
If someone I never met offered me crepes I'd take them.
The stable name for crepes is "hoofinol".
Totally. Especially if they were made by that one really pretty crepe girl at Turner place.
Mmmm, crepes.
I think that it is ok to cheer for your team, but keep it between the lines. If you see a kid around town, feel free to give him a "go hokies" shoutout, but I think thats where it stops.
I guess I'd better get my tent off of Nnadi' s lawn then.
unless you label it as an FSU tent. some reverse psychology action
Did you not set up outside Deshawn Hand's yard?
Nah. I snuck into his shower. The last thing I heard him say before he tackled me through his wall was, "That's it! I'm heading to Bama!"
I don't think its weird at all. Its the internet. People do WAY weirder things on the internet than try to say whats up to an athlete.
With social media engulfing HS kids lives it would seem like a natural connection
but there still would need to be some type of guidelines especially for coaches and boosters.
If the NCAA ever went after a school for fans acting on their own accord and tweeting recruits, I would question why Bama didn't have to be responsible for toomer's oaks.
Just sayin.
In the spirit of chaos, someone needs to tweet this entire conversation to a random high school player. See who, if anyone the ncaa punishes.
Wow Kyle Bailey, be more snarky. I don't think you're snarky enough
Lets be honest here fellas. 80 percent of this board tweets recruits with a shoutout or a congrats of some sorts from time to time. Most recruits like it, very few don't. Most recruits want more followers and more people to interact with. A lot of recruits use the @ask app where fans can ask whatever they want. Its just how social media is evolving. But there are thousands of fans of EVERY team who tweet and follow recruits.
Maybe I'm an old man (40) but I've never tweeted a recruit.....
Captions aren't even necessary for this...
Lol ya your an old man. But your still a hokie fan and that makes you great in ny book
same here. never have. don't even use the twitter.
...in my day... "a 'tweet'was something Barbara Walters gave her dog." ... take second ... there it is.... quote by J Kimmel
Never used it ... waste enough time on other stuff.
there is a lot of people who don't use twitter. I didn't even use it til last yr. Mostly the younger peeps use it.
... not to be mistaken with "tweeding" recruits... buying tweed jackets for them.