I realize this has been a topic of heated discussions on here in the past, one that I know I've stated my opinion on several times, but with Signing day around the corner, some schools have been addressing this issue. With no further comment, here are some posts from a few of them:
Signing Day's coming up and #ComplianceLiamNeeson is adamant that you leave recruiting 2 the Coaches #DontTweetAtPSAs pic.twitter.com/wrPDDhQZ16— Maryland Compliance (@TerpsCompliance) January 24, 2014
Even "The Creeper" knows that fans & boosters should leave recruiting to the coaches. #ncaarlz pic.twitter.com/oTOo2TFahi— Boiler Bylaws (@BoilerBylaws) January 21, 2014
NOTE: This is not meant to stir the pot and create any hostility. Just sharing what compliance departments are asking of their fans.
Comments
I wonder what some of the powerhouse schools have to say about this... i.e. Alabama, FSU, LSU, etc...
Maryland and Purdue aren't exactly what I'd call big-time football programs.
I, personally, don't see a problem with a shout-out to a committed athlete as much as being and pleading for an athlete that's committed elsewhere. At what point does it become inappropriate?
Pretty much completely covered and opined on here:
http://www.thekeyplay.com/content/2013/december/20/tweeting-recruits
So you're saying I can't tweet at recruits and offer them strippers, drugs, wads of cash, etc. if they commit to VT?
Unless you're a Miami booster, no. But if you call the strippers "hostesses" then it's okay.
It's against the NCAA rules and it's creepy.
I don't think that rule should exist, silly and too hard to enforce. But I do think everyone should view it as creepy which makes the rule discussion silly. Cause it's creepy.
Another vote here for creepy. They're kids. It's weird.
That's how I feel too. If you're excited that a player is coming to play for you, you want to say "Hey cool X just committed to us." They're on twitter. It's not like you're sending them a message "OI HEY, GO TO MY SCHOOL." You're saying "Hey friends and followers. Check this guy out. He plays that sport we like."
You do you, but I don't see why it's necessary to include their Twitter handle. Just use their name. Say "Glad we picked up Nnadi today." Follow them on Twitter if you want, but tweeting at them isn't necessary regardless of how much they enjoy the attention. These guys are 17 and 18 years old. Of course they love getting more followers. It has become a symbol of social status. And yes, they love being talked about because it inflates their ego, but the same message is conveyed by not tagging them and just using their name and it doesn't violate any NCAA bylaws.
Nothing wrong with mentioning them by name. Just not advisable to use their Twitter handle and say something directly to them.
That's my point. Mention by name, not by twitter handle and all is well.
Purdue: "Don't be a Creeper"
SEC schools: "Yeah, definitely don't tweet recruits you guys *nod wink more nodding*"
i find this to be a little ridiculous, its twitter and if they make a decision based off people tweeting at them, they oh boy they have some problems. The NCAA is a joke, I think it has more to do with media personnel/ big time car dealerships/anyone that can give benefits.
Its funny how once they sign a LOI or commit on national signing day everything is ok to tweet at them especially racial and rude comments, but not before. Makes 0 sense to me.
I don't think it's ever ok to tweet racial or rude comments. And once the sign the LOI, they are officially a member of your team. Not some random high-schooler who you are begging to come to your college. Way less creepy.
Right I agree, rude and racial tweets to kids is disgusting but it happens al the time. As fans we have a good sense as to who we think is a definite and who is on the fence and an occasional tweet doesn't hurt. I think regardless the NCAA can't and will never do anything about twitter and recruiting its so low on their totem pole of things to police. haha see what i did there POLICE
So what about when MV7 tweets at a recruit or DW4? NCAA Violation?
It's basically the same premise as speeding. Everyone goes 5 over, it's almost expected and tolerated. However it's against the law and if a cop decides to pull you over you have no recourse.
If they tweet at them in regards to what the NCAA rules say it's a violation, then yes it is. I'm sure this is more of the schools covering their asses. By telling fans publicly they don't think they should tweet recruits it might help them if the NCAA decides it wants to try and seem like they have teeth.
It's very smart on the schools' part to do this. They are making a very public and obvious statement that, in effect, demonstrates their due diligence and absolves them of culpability. The school can't control anyone, but it can tell them what's right and wrong.
The whole premise of the NCAA rule is stupid. If I want to have a conversation with another human being, I'm going too. The NCAA can pass whatever "rules" they want too
Agree.
I'd never tweet a recruit myself, but it's a rule that can not be enforced comprehensively. Therefore it will be applied selectively.
I would imagine that all any institution needs to do to win a case is show that a rudimentary search shows that U's X, Y & Z have fans tweeting HS athletes and the NCAA has not charged X, Y & Z.
This is the kind of rule that can backfire on the NCAA horribly if they ever try to enforce.
"I would imagine that all any institution needs to do to win a case is show that a rudimentary search shows that U's X, Y & Z have fans tweeting HS athletes and the NCAA has not charged X, Y & Z."
That would work as well as telling a judge to dismiss your speeding ticket because others were going just as fast on that road, I would imagine.
It may be a dumb rule and it may not be enforceable but it's against the rules as presently written. I really don't understand what's so hard about following a rule that says not to tweet at recruits.
Because I'm not compelled to follow NCAA rules. Same reason that if England passed a law saying that fans of a mls team shouldn't tweet David beckham, I would be under no obligation to follow that law.
If the NCAA wants to limit the contact that official employees of universities have with recruits, that makes sense. Those universities have willingly entered into a contract with the NCAA and agreed to play by the NCAA rules. But there is no logical reason for the NCAA to think it has any standing to limit the contact that casual fans have recruits. I'm not affiliated with Virginia tech simply because I root for their sport team.
I just hope you don't wind up being the cause of penalties against our football program.
By that logic, it's not a violation if a fan of a school gives a player a no-show/no-work job since they aren't part of the school. Wait, it can be a violation.
The NCAA's rules are designed to limit the impact fans, boosters, and people not part of the university can have on their student-athletes. By definition, you are not supposed to have contact with prospective students. In the NCAA's eyes you are affiliated with VT, and if you've ever made financial contributions to VT you are considered a booster.
The NCAA may not be able to do anything to you specifically, but they could punish the school for failure to monitor. If you really want to risk putting VT in hot water because you believe it's your God-given right to talk to a 17 year old on Twitter, go right ahead.
http://michiganhockey.net/compliance/#.UuLml9Io7cs
That's entirely different. A recruit can choose to decline your job offer, and there's no consequences. However, A recruit can do nothing to prevent you from tweeting him. He can (and should) refrain from replying, but there's no way that the NCAA can hold the actions of Random Internet Guy against the recruit, unless they start saying that recruits cannot be on Twitter because of the potential for random contact.
You miss the point, which is that the school is held responsible for the actions of its fans and boosters.
Boosters, maybe. Fans, hell no. Otherwise, it would be very simple for me to pose as a Bama fan and do all sorts of nefarious deeds, such as talk to them on Twitter.
That's one major reason why it's an awful rule. But the NCAA defines a "booster" very broadly, basically anyone that acts to promote the interests of a university. You don't have to have a financial interest to be a booster.
I get that, but it has its limits.
http://www.athletics.vt.edu/compliance/boosters/brochure.pdf
I'm not a lawyer, but that last bullet still doesn't sound too threatening for the average Joe. I read that as generating some legitimate publicity, whether through advertising, reporting, or similar. I can't imagine the average Twitterer would be covered by that.
Disclaimer: I am in no way advocating the act of tweeting recruits. I am merely saying that I highly doubt that most occurrences are actually violations.
In the other thread I linked above, someone had linked to a story where any NCAA compliance official had said that tweeting a recruit was unequivocally a violation in their eyes. You're right, it's a hell of a stretch, but when the governing body says that's how it views the rules, it's pretty much open and shut.
I don't doubt that the NCAA views it as a violation.
I just think it's stupid.
Well in one case, a fan is giving an amateur athlete benefits for play. In the other, a fan is talking to an amateur athlete.
I think it's beyond imagination to think that the NCAA would ever crack down on Virginia Tech because I wanted to tweet a recruit.
"Well in one case, a fan is giving an amateur athlete benefits for play. In the other, a fan is talking to an amateur athlete."
Both are against the rules. Whether or not you like the rules is not a condition of a rule being valid.
"I think it's beyond imagination to think that the NCAA would ever crack down on Virginia Tech because I wanted to tweet a recruit."
a) The NCAA has proven itself over the years to be an irrational actor.
b) What's the point of doing it? It's against the rules. We all know it's against the rules. Just about everyone reputable has said not to do it. What's the value in insisting you can do something that you can't and shouldn't do?
The principle is that over-reaching stupidity by irrational actors should not be ratified by blind acceptance. It only begets more stupidity.
It's kinda like marijuana, no? While there are those who say that it is really not harmful (or less harmful than alcohol). But if you are caught with it you're still going to get in trouble with the law.
Whether or not the law Is correct or not isn't my point though. The point is that is currently against the law (in most states and federally) and if caught you could potentially get in trouble.
While the NCAA probably won't do anything for some fans tweeting at recruits, if they had it out for us they could in theory use it against us.
Maybe it's not the best analogy but I hope I'm getting my point across.
No, it's not like marijuana at all. What the NCAA is trying to discourage is directly opposed by federal law (see the 1st amendment), possession of certain substances is not. This rule forbidding fans from tweeting recruits is unlawful by definition. It would never hold up in court, so I don't think there's a point in arguing over whether it should be followed or not.
P.S. I've never tweeted a recruit, I'm just saying that this rule is stupid and illegal
See the discussion linked above (the first time we talked about this). It's not a First Amendment issue.
The first amendment relates to the government. The NCAA is not the government. It doesn't apply.
and here we go...
This is way too simplistic. No the NCAA is not a government but that does not mean it is not a First Amendment issue. Simply because they are a business and not a government does not mean it can dictate what anyone does that is not a part of its organization. You have every right to speak to another individual and NCAA has zero right to stop you. Why? Because you are granted rights outside of their ability to control you.
If the NCAA filed action against you for your tweet to a recruit then they would have to prove that somehow they have the right to police your communication. The very first thing your lawyer will argue is that you have a constitutional right to free speech unimpeded by government and yes even incorporated entities. This has been argued thousands of times in court successfully.
Even if you are under contract there is still court precedent that you're right to speech is protected. As I provided in the previous thread you can see where the court has found in favor of employees with regards to using Social Media on off-work hours:
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...
And these are the questions I raised that neither of you could answer:
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?
Even if they are during work hours "employees" of any company has the right to speak to each other. National Labor Relations Board has stated clearly: "If a work rule has the potential to reasonably chill an employees right to organize or bargain collectively, its unlawful."
Again I say the answer to those questions is, no. Why? because you and the recruit have your right to speak to each other.
Finally please read the following from the Harvard Journal (I think they would know):
http://harvardjsel.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Blohm.pdf
In it the Havard Journal of Sports & Entertainment law clearly outlines why this is a First Amendment issue. Clearly stating:
Please stop telling people this does not pertain to First Amendment. It does. What you are saying is factually wrong.
Meaning: If the NCAA penalizes for a casual fan's tweet it is violating the FIRST AMENDMENT.
Also please read this:
http://sportinlaw.com/2012/01/31/the-right-balance-of-social-media/
which clearly states that Social Media policies by NCAA and Universities restricting athletes is problematic for both the First and Fourth Amendment, let alone casual fans.
The article is about something completely different than the topic at hand.
The words in the First Amendment are "Congress shall make no law...etc." The NCAA is not Congress. Full stop. Oklahoma took away Josh Jarboe's scholarship after he dropped a profanity-laced Youtube rap video. Stony Brook suspended a player for making racist statements on Twitter. They can do this because the First Amendment doesn't allow for consequence-free speech, and because playing football is a privilege, not a right.
The NCAA in its rules sets out to regulate contact between prospective student athletes and boosters. This is done for obvious reasons- the NCAA doesn't want boosters promising athletes cars, etc. The ban on tweeting recruits falls under that umbrella. We all agree that boosters can't give prospects inducements to go to a school, right? Same concept. The NCAA has decided the best way to do that is to ban all contact between boosters and recruits unless there's a pre-existing relationship. If you meet the definition of a booster and you decide you have to talk to a recruit, then all you're doing is making the school's compliance office self-report a violation and write you a letter asking you not to do that again, and compliance has enough to do.
How does me speaking to a recruit in any way affect collective bargaining? You're talking crap here.
As to your questions:
1) They always represent the school in which they're enrolled. They aren't "subject to normal work hours" because they aren't employees. They aren't employees because they aren't paid. You're applying the wrong standard. The NCAA is not a workplace. You're applying the wrong laws to the situation. The booster/recruit relationship is not the same as an employer/employee or coworker relationship. If you can't or won't understand this, please let me know so I can stop replying to you.
2) Yes. The NCAA has denied eligibility to players who have violated their rules prior to signing with a school. Ask Colten Houston or Shabazz Muhammad. Players have to be declared eligible and if they did things in high school that would make them ineligibile it can be held against them. Again, this makes sense, otherwise prospects could gladly get a Mercedes from a booster to go to a school without penalty.
The Harvard Journal is opinion and not based on any actual legal finding. It does mention that UNC was punished in part for social media violations, which means the "the NCAA will never actually punish anyone for this argument" is shot down. What they think the court suggested is not actually law. That's not how it works. The law is what the court actually said, and in this case they said that regulations on contact with recruits can be restricted without violating the First Amendment. Writing it in all caps doesn't make it true. Sorry. That may be how it works on other parts of the internet but it isn't reality. The person who wrote this (who wasn't a lawyer at the time- she was a 3rd year law student) believes in her opinion that possibly the court could do something. They may not do what she thinks they could do.
The rules as written say that boosters are affiliated with schools and can't have contact with prospective recruits, just like they can't give money to a recruit or housing or anything. This isn't complicated.
What you are talking about is Coaches and athletes violating NCAA bylaws, which as stated previously I agree is different.
The topic at hand is Fans Tweeting Recruits. This is specifically what the Harvard Journal is referring to in the subsequent findings. Every example you use is a penalty against some action by an individual that is already voluntarily signed to agree with NCAA rules. Please read more carefully as the topic at hand is Fans Tweeting Recruits.
The ban on tweeting is ONLY enforceable on those that likewise voluntarily consented to NCAA bylaws. Their umbrella does not, can not, include everyone in the populace. That is the definition of talking crap.
replies to your questions:
1) Coaches are employees. School officials are employees. Athletes are private students. All of them have a right to not have every moment of their life dictated by NCAA bylaws. This has been covered in corporate law in many cases.
2) Houston used a banned substance. Muhammad received impermissible benefits from a booster. neither is about tweeting recruits. Everything I spoke about is. Please read more carefully.
The Harvard Journal is an opinion based upon a law student that must have it read and passed by the editors and professors that oversee it, people far more knowledgeable than you and they did in fact use case precedent with Brentwood II. It is also used be Law office around the country for research, something you clearly don't know. The judges finding in that case was written clearly to show that only those that volunteer for these bylaws are subject to them. That is an actual legal finding. What you are reading is only that they penalized the school for the coaches actions, the volunteer, and not the subsequent findings about broad restriction on the greater public. That's why you're wrong.
if you want to form an argument then find something, anything, to support what you say. Right now you have nothing. And you are only talking about NCAA vs those that sign something with them. Not a fans tweet to a recruit which is what this thread is about.
Writing in all caps doesn't make it true. Sadly it also didn't make you understand what you're talking about either.
The NCAA already bans contact between boosters and prospective recruits. You do realize this, right? This includes phone calls, letters, etc. If you meet the definition of a booster, you can't talk to a recruit at all until he gets on campus. Doing so would get the school in trouble if they didn't do everything in their power to shut it down. It doesn't apply to the entire populace, only those who are involved in college athletics. To my knowledge, no one has challenged this rule because it's an entirely valid rule. Why is tweeting recruits any different than calling recruits or showing up at their door?
As to your replies:
1) You're changing the question. You asked if athletes are always on the clock, which they are since athletes get punished for things done away from campus since it embarrasses the school. They aren't employees, and the NCAA doesn't want them to be employees because then they'd have much larger issues.
2) You asked if recruits who aren't signed yet able to be limited. They clearly are because if they do things which make them ineligible then they can become ineligible when they get to college. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean you can ignore it.
I'm familiar with how law journals work. Please don't lecture me on this. The actual legal finding was that the school association's restrictions were proper and did not strike at the 1st Amendment. That is the law. Anything else written by the author, while well researched, is her opinion. It is not the law. The holding in the case said nothing about other issues and therefore is dicta regarding other issues. Also, that involved a "state actor", so the 1st Amendment was implicated. The NCAA is not a state actor. The justice who wrote that particular opinion is no longer on the Supreme Court. Another justice who joined there isn't on the Court any more. The makeup of the rest of the justices could be completely different. Exrapolating what the Court will do in the future is always murky.
"if you want to form an argument then find something, anything, to support what you say. Right now you have nothing."
I have the NCAA and the compliance officers all saying don't do it. I have a long-standing ban on boosters talking to recruits that's never been challenged. You have a law journal speculating that a future challenge may be successful. I like where I'm standing here.
Me: The topic is about Fans tweeting Recruits, not Boosters.
You: The NCAA prohibits boosters from contacting recruits.
Please read more carefully before you reply.
1) Athletes get punished for rule infractions anywhere yes. But as previous cases have shown incorporated entities cannot wholly dictate rules over an individual at all times and even non-incorporated entities. This has been argued successfully in court before. NCAA is an incorporated entity. You can find the landmark case being Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District in which the finding made it clear that First Amendment rights are not given up once you become a student, or even a student athlete.
2) Recruits can be made ineligible for lots of things. Talking to casual fans has never been one of them and never will be. (Again not talking about Boosters, please read carefully)
If you don't want a lecture on how law journals work then don't say things that show you need one. The finding of that case clearly defines it's judgement as pertaining only to the coach and school and not "appeals to the public at large." Reading is important. This means that the ruling cannot be applied to anyone and everyone as a blanket coverage.
Yes people change jobs all the time. Just because a judge then is not a judge now doesn't mean that their findings are any less important. This is why lawyers cite previous findings in their legal arguments. That's how the law works.
But since you are so loathe to base your argument on fact and only your own conjecture. I will offer you another source that writes about First and Fourth amendment issues with NCAA policing social media:
http://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Texas_Bar_Journal&Templa...
In it Browning writes:
and before you dismiss his credentials as flippantly as you did the Harvard journal, because you have no actual facts to use, he is regarded as one of the foremost experts on the law and social media. His accolades include:
http://texasbarcollege.com/Reports/JohnGBrowning.pdf (bio page)
So again, what you say is false. wrong. factually inaccurate. This is a First Amendment issue. Simply saying it isn't doesn't make it so.
From my admittedly biased POV, I think fernley is winning this by a wide margin.
I'm no lawyer, but I think I can grok the basics.
The NCAA has stated they possess a power that (A) takes priority over the freedom of not only those who actively and voluntarily come under contract with the NCAA, but also (B) with those who are not under contract with either party, much less the NCAA.
They are on thin ice with regards to parties falling under (A), and are SOL with regards to parties falling under (B), failing complete voluntary compliance setting precedent that they haven't gained in case law.
awww.... shucks.
Thanks dude. And this is a great summary!
I'm completely on the other end of the spectrum. I really don't see what he's not getting here - The schools have agreed to abide by the NCAA rules, one of which states that schools can be punished by fans tweeting recruits. This is not a 1st amendment issue, it is not really a legal issue. It is an NCAA issue. They can punish whoever they want in their club as they see fit because the members agree to it. Whether or not you like it is pretty irrelevant.
"If you don't want a lecture on how law journals work then don't say things that show you need one. "
I can't hear you, I have a J.D. in my ears. If the case you're referencing doesn't apply to what you're talking about, why are you bringing it up in the first place? We both agree that the Brentwood case allows for organizations to put restrictions on schools and coaches. That's all it says and it doesn't go any further than that. You seem to want it to say more which it doesn't.
1. Marc Tyler was suspended by USC for joking about getting paid more at USC than as a pro. Why? Because playing football is a privilege, not a right. His is not an isolated incident. Athletes must abide by the rules of their scholarship and can't say or do whatever they want when not wearing a jersey. This is a separate argument from whether fans can tweet recruits.
2. Read how the NCAA defines boosters. It doesn't take much to turn a fan into a booster. The clause "persons who have been involved in promoting the institution's athletics program" applies to just about everyone here. If you try to get someone to go to a certain school, you're no longer a casual fan and you become a booster.
http://blogs.ajc.com/recruiting/2012/08/21/overzealous-uga-fan-calls-rec...
"According to Booz, There are five things that make someone become a booster, and one of them is if a fan is assisting in the recruiting of a prospect on Social Media, or over the telephone, or in person. If they solicit the enrollment of a prospect, then thats a violation of NCAA rules.
The article you brought it relates to student-athletes and what they can talk about as a student. That's a different argument. Of course they have rights. With rights come responsibilities. It has nothing to do with fans tweeting recruits. I completely agree with what he's saying, but he's not really talking about the issue we're talking about.
"But since you are so loathe to base your argument on fact and only your own conjecture."
You're the one basing your argument on the conjecture of what people think might happen in future court rulings based on whatever a Google search turns up. I'm basing my opinion based on the existing rules, which says you can't tweet at recruits as fan.
You're the one basing your argument on the conjecture of what people think might happen in future court rulings based on whatever a Google search turns up. I'm basing my opinion based on the existing rules, which says you can't tweet at recruits as fan.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of law is that rules are legally binding up to the point they are actually challenged. At that point, it is up to a Judge and/or Jury. So conjecture on what may happen if a penalty is applied to actions by persons not under contract with the NCAA or the University being penalized can only be based on how the courts have tended to rule in similar circumstances.
And case law in contextually similar trials have made a nod 1st and 4th amendment protections.
I'm probably not at all right in this, but I would guess that is because if the courts sided with an abridgment of those rights, they might be interpreted as providing state enforcement to things that are clearly beyond their power.
Are you making the contention that since there is no specific 1st Amendment case law in regards to the NCAA giving penalties to non-NCAA or University contracted individuals, that there is therefore no case to be made?
Nail on the head, krak_t
I'm saying that, as of this moment, the 1st Amendment isn't implicated because the NCAA isn't the government nor is it considered a state actor (the Supreme Court said as much in the Tarkanian case, though that was for a different issue). All of the cases cited regarding speech involve workplace situations which aren't the same because the NCAA's relationship with its student athletes isn't employer/employee. The big difference that you have a right to work and make a living, but you don't have a right to play college football. That's a privilege. The rules against boosters contacting recruits at all have existed for a while and to my knowledge have not been challenged in court. The NCAA has ordered schools to disassociate with boosters who have broken rules. As far as I know that has never been challenged in court.
Yeah, you have a JD. Good for you. It's a great achievement. You having a J.D. is meaningless when you are wrong however. My entire family are lawyers. My uncle, retired now, was the top construction lawyer in the world, yes world. My cousin is a very well known State's Attorney in CA, his wife a famous environmental lawyer, their son a constitutional lawyer in D.C. Another cousin a tax attorney. My grandfather was a patent attorney and alumni of VT in '39. My brother's wife a divorce attorney. All of them, including my grandfather when he was alive, have said this is a constitutional issue.
The topic is Fans tweeting recruits. My questions 1) and 2) are about athletes. These are two distinct conversations both related to the fact that social media and the NCAA has constitutional implications. You really need to read more carefully.
The basis of our debate is you dismissively stating this is not a First Amendment issue, based on zero fact. You only say: because the NCAA says so. In fact Social Media and NCAA is a constitutional issue as I have shown. It's already a point of conversation in the legal profession. Whether it is about fans or athletes is irrelevant to the main point that this is a constitutional issue for lawyers today. it is. I've already proved this. Browning's career is now centered on this. The fact that there is not an existing case pending about the specific topic of fans tweeting recruits does not mean there is no constitutional issue.
Yes I used google search and through that simple google search I have more than proved you wrong. How? by using things called facts. Things someone with a J.D. should know is needed when forming an argument. I live in China though, so I can't simply go somewhere to research this. You can. Yet you cannot even do a google search. Why? because you have nothing to support your argument.
You seem to regard the NCAA as some all powerful entity that can dictate themselves over everyone. They can't. They have no power to do so. Just because they define a booster loosely doesn't make everyone a booster. Simply because they say fans cannot tweet recruits doesn't mean they can't. It only means that they view it that way. Nothing more.
The NCAA has no right to tell any casual fan what they can do with their life. They cannot dictate how people use a product from another corporate entity like twitter who have their own unique set of rules that are not defined by the NCAA. You suggesting both is ridiculous.
You can be dismissive and flippant, but it doesn't make you any less wrong. Try taking your J.D. out of year ears and use them to listen to people that know better than you.
So in summary:
Me: Here is my opinion that is supported by all these facts by lawyers that specialize in the field that say you are wrong.
you: No I'm not.
good argument counsellor.
"Why? because you have nothing to support your argument."
You know, other than the facts as they currently exist. No, seriously, that's what I have and it's not a bad hand to hold. It's not a First Amendment issue because the NCAA has not been shown to be a state actor in prior legal actions. The one analogous agency that was considered a state actor saw its regulations upheld. You're the one arguing that everything that currently exists is wrong. Browning's article which you cling to is about schools regulating things students tweet, not about this matter. Your Google searches would be more effective if you weren't throwing up crap like that or quotes about collective bargaining earlier while patting yourself on the back about how smart you are.
"Simply because they say fans cannot tweet recruits doesn't mean they can't. It only means that they view it that way. Nothing more."
Actually, it means that fans can't tweet recruits because the NCAA makes the rules, just like they say fans can't give a recruit a car to go to their school of choice. Actually, that's not totally accurate- the fans can do whatever. The schools will be the one to suffer. Ask Alabama after boosters paid Albert Means to go to Alabama, or Mississippi State who was sanctioned last year because of a booster's actions.
"The NCAA has no right to tell any casual fan what they can do with their life. "
As soon as you start trying to compel a student to go to a school you are no longer a casual fan. The NCAA can't stop individuals, but they can and have punished schools for the misbehavior of fans who cross the line. The schools are absolutely liable, which is why they make a point of telling people don't talk to recruits. Do you agree that fans calling recruits to get them to go to a school is a violation? It's the same as tweeting them. Otherwise, you're saying the NCAA can set no rules at all. They are a private organization and the NCAA and its member organizations can set their own rules and definitions. If schools didn't like it they could move to change the rules.
"Me: Here is my opinion that is supported by all these facts by lawyers that specialize in the field that say you are wrong."
Except in everything you've brought up they've written that it's their opinion. And it's usually related to the different issue of students tweeting and whether schools can punish them for things they tweet (which they have done, with limits).
First, I'm going to apologize for making personal jibes. I followed you down that rabbits warren when I shouldn't have.
We are arguing the semantics of a case that doesn't exist. The question is whether there is a First amendment consideration in regards to Social Media and the NCAA rules. I say yes, as do people who specialize in the field do. You say no. I believe the fact that they are writing about it in law journals and publications says it's an issue and does not need a court case.
Yes, the existing state is a fact, but that doesn't mean that the existing state makes your argument. People used to argue separate but equal because it was the existing state, as well as same sex marriage. Did the fact that a court case had not happen mean that those existing states didn't have a constitutional implication? No. It didn't.
I'm not clinging to anything. I am just using evidence to support my argument. Again, I have limited resources to do so yet I am still finding them. And they are commenting on the fact that NCAA rules (whether to casual fans or athletes) have constitutional implications. I believe they know what they are talking about.
NCAA makes their rules. Not rules for everyone. Again you cite a booster offering something to a recruit. I have already said that I agree about that. What everyone is talking about is the casual fan tweeting something like: "hey man, Virginia Tech is awesome! you should totally be a Hokie." That is not offering anything to anyone. That is conversation by one individual to another on another corporate entity's privately owned product that puts messages in the public domain. If that same fan followed with "And I totally will buy you a car when you get here." Then yes this could be a violation. But then the NCAA would have to prove that a) this is a booster or someone affiliated with the program and b) someone the University has not taken measures to disassociate with. The NCAA has no right to do anything regarding the first message. if they did try to do so, then there is an issue with the First Amendment because the NCAA has no right to enforce blanket rules for the entire population. And they have no right to ban you from using the private property of another incorporated entity.
Yes, this is my point. this is the only thing the NCAA can do. Punish it's members (schools, coaches, athletes, boosters). Tweeting a kid isn't actually like calling them and that's precisely where the problem lays. I don't do it and I recommend others not to do it, but that doesn't mean you can't or that if you do it's a violation because a phone call is different than Social Media.
The NCAA was established by the schools and operates at the pleasure of the schools, not the other way around. Do you think if the NCAA started punishing schools for every tweet by the casual fan to a recruit that they would accept that? No way. Universities will never accept absolute liability for individuals they have no hope or means to control. As you say, if the schools don't like it they will move to change the rules.
There is a reason why the NCAA has not punished for casual tweets like this. There is a reason why they never will. Because they can't punish a non-member and members will not allow them to do so.
I only reply to this because I wanted to see how skinny the comment would be on my phone. Pretty damn skinny I assume so I'll put a large word to see if it has to hyphenate it. Establishmentarianism
How about disestablishmentarianistic?
antidisestablishmentarianism
I win!
Skinniest. Post. Ever.
You sure about that, chief?
I've always wondered how thin these things get!
Much skinnier than this.
So if was was walking on campus this past weekend and saw Derrick Nnadi, I couldn't say "Go Hokies!...You should choose the Hokies!"??
I am sure you will say yes, I can't do that....frankly that is ridiculous.
I don't care what the NCAA says about that.
I am not a booster....I wasn't on campus this weekend...and I didn't say anything to Derrick Nnadi.
What if I tweeted him and said "Good luck with your decision"...is that OK?
Maybe the solution is for all these damn recruits to get off of twitter. If I were the parents, I would tell my kid to get off of twitter and not being saying stupid stuff like asking the fans to vote on where I should go to school.
Frankly, if you look at the twitter accounts of these kids, they are using obscenties...seeking attention, doing dumb stuff to begin with.
The nerve of the NCAA to try and dictate personal liberties is galling to me....
They should clean up there own $hit and stop worrying about insignificant stuff like tweets.
If Derrick Nnadi gets tweets from 10 different fans of 10 different schools...all saying "Come to my school"....should all 10 schools be punished?
Many fans are not even affiliated with the school they root for anyway...it could be Joe Schmo the Plumber from North Dakota who is tweeting a player to come to Alabama.
The NCAA is so flawed its sad...
To put it planely. If any of these kids weren't playing football and there was a chance they'd go to VT would you be following or tweeting them? I'd venture to say no, you wouldn't. If you are tweeting them you are trying to get them to go to VT by showing how awesome and receptive the fan base is; you are trying to sway the decision of a student athlete to go to a certain school over another.
Sure it happens on campus all the time by students and visitors, but on twitter you're doing it in a very public and very documented medium. What you say to a kid while passing him on your way to class isn't very traceable, however trying the same thing on twitter leaves a nice trail of evidence.
the NCAA doesn't own Twitter. It's the property of a wholly separate incorporated entity. The NCAA can't use your casual tweets against you or against the university. The universities have no means in which to control anyone on twitter either and therefore will never accept liability for them.
They only way anyone gets penalized is if someone who has already signed under the NCAA tweets something. Such as a booster, coach or athlete. Any fan can tweet any recruit they want and the NCAA can't do anything about it.
Even if a casual fan (not a booster) were to tweet a recruit and say something dumb like: "hey, I'll give you 50k if you go to VT." Do you think the university will get in any trouble? The university cannot control everyone in the entire world on twitter. They have no right to stop you from saying what you want to another individual. The NCAA can do nothing. If the recruit accepts it from a casual fan then and only then can the NCAA do something, and that's against the recruit by barring them from playing.
Schools, universities, and companies don't own Facebook, yet they use Facebook posts as reason to suspend or terminate student and employees.
That wasn't even the point of my original reply, but I went off on a tangent there. Point is, you would not associate with these kids in anyway if they were not prospective football players for Virginia Tech. Most of the tweets are most likely sent to make the kid feel liked or appreciated by the fan base done in an attempt to sway his decision to their school. All in all it's probably not a rule that will be enforced all the time, but one that exists just in case they need it.
yes, I agree that members of schools and the NCAA must follow a set of rules. And their tweets could be used against them to penalize them, and have. But that cannot be applied to the general public because the schools and the NCAA have no means to enforce punishment for non-members. So if casual fan (who is not a member) tweets a recruit nothing will happen. no one gets penalized.
i don't disagree with what you are saying. yes, people would not follow these kids if they were not going to play sports. But that still doesn't mean that the NCAA can penalize universities or recruits for the tweets of a casual fan. If the recruit accepts then they will get into trouble. Mostly by being declared ineligible to play sports. But the fan can keep tweeting to his hearts content and the NCAA can do nothing about him.
How about we change the argument slightly. You shouldn't tweet at recruits to try and sway their decision because it's against NCAA rules and you might get your new stud 5-star recruit suspended or ineligible to play CFB.
Not saying it's a stupid almost unenforceable rule, but it's a rule none the less. Like most recruiting rules it's there to level the playing field for schools. Michigan's entire fan base tweeting their love for a recruit probably holds more sway than North Dakota State University's fan base.
yes exactly.
These are interesting points, but I think there is one prevailing issue that hasn't been addressed. Throughout most of the recruiting process, these football players are children. Numerous court cases have concluded that the government has a vested interest in shielding children from inappropriate materials and communication, which trumps any First Amendment right the other party has to "say what they want." Now, that's the government. Let's switch back to the NCAA. Consider Nevin Shapiro and the things he provided to those recruits - drugs, alcohol, strippers. Was it his right to say whatever he wanted or interact however he wanted with these children? I would say any reasonable court would answer, "no." His "rights" (perceived or real) do not trump the safety of children, because he put those kids in terrible situations, using his influence and money to sway their decisions.
The NCAA has a vested interest in protecting these kids. They are applying what they believe to be a reasonable restriction on the interactions of strangers with children. In this age of social media and cyber-bullying, where kids are routinely tormented by people online, I would think it intuitive that the NCAA would try to limit the impact of people who are trying to influence children who are being deified on TV by the likes of ESPN, Rivals, etc, who profit mightily off of talking and prognosticating about them (whole different issue there).
Of course, the NCAA did not write these rules with Twitter in mind, but I think that is why they are sticking to them so ardently. Probably the rules need to be rewritten, or at the very least, their interpretation reconsidered. With online communication, it's an unstoppable tide and no governing body, not the NCAA, not the school, can fully shield these kids from the public in any meaningful way, or at least in accordance with the original intent of the bylaw.
yes, this is a wonderful point. Unless 18, they are children who need protection and I agree with everything you said about that.
The problematic issue with that is that if they are on Twitter which allows underage kids to use their product then there is no way to protect them. parental controls are exactly that, by parents, and if they are allowed on twitter then they are in the public domain.
I still think you and Rocco are using the wrong examples though. Shapiro was a booster, not a casual fan. I have said many times anyone signed under an agreement with the NCAA can be policed (though these umbrella clauses has been contested in court before and lost in corporate world), and I believe boosters, coaches and school officials should be policed.
But what we are talking about is the tweet from the casual fan that has never voluntarily signed anything with the NCAA. Not a booster, nor a coach. Not an existing collegiate athlete. A casual fan. This is where the First Amendment comes into play as illustrated in my points. It is clearly a First Amendment issue as the NCAA is stating that ALL contact to recruits is a violation. They cannot say this and they cannot enforce this without violating the First Amendment.
I have more references to other sites, legal findings and publications if you really need. The point is though that this is a hot button item in constitutional law when it comes to sports. You can find a lot of information online about Free speech the NCAA and recruits, and more in law journals.
What you both said is that it is not a First Amendment issue, but in fact it is. It's a very big issue actually. One that renders the NCAA in a very precarious position and powerless to stop anyone not signed under contract with them.
I guess I simply remain unconvinced, but that's just my personal view and I definitely appreciate your perspective and the time it took to synthesize all that info and distill it into forum posts. It's worth a read and I'm always open to considering new stuff. Without a legal background myself, it's hard to really get through all of it. Time will tell what happens with the NCAA, but I'm sure of one thing - the NCAA will be facing court challenges on several issues if they keep going down the road they're on without changing with the times.
Turkey leg for a hearty debate from which I now bow out to become a spectator.
Same to you. we debated it last time and this time. Both times respectfully. turkey leg back at you.
Though I am not sure what will convince you if law journals and debate of legal blogs don't. Perhaps only an actual court case will.
At any rate, you are correct in that NCAA will be hip deep in court challenges if they continue to pursue this.
Maybe we shouldn't let children on Twitter then....maybe some parents should take a tiny bit of personal responsibility for their kids and GET THEM OFF TWITTER!
We wouldn't be having this discussion if these "children" were not on Twitter.
The value would be talking to who I wanted to talk to. And there is zero
Risk involved. The NCAA would never level sanctions against Virginia tech for it.
It's a rule that doesn't matter. It'll never be enforced. I'm not going To not talk to interesting people just because the NCAA says I shouldn't, especially if there will never be negative consequences for those actions.
While it's true that a rule isn't invalid just because I don't like it, it's also true that rules aren't valid just because they are rules. What if the NCAA said that any schools whose fans post copyrighted material on video sharing/streaming sites will be punished? Would you then stop watching all cfb clips just because "it's a rule"? Of course not. That be crazy. Similarly, I think it's just as overreaching for the NCAA to say that fans of college programs can't talk to recruits. In my opinion, they are overstepping their bounds and trying to pretend they have influence in a sphere they simply don't.
The NCAA has no jurisdiction over copyrighted materials. Their jurisdiction is over student-athletes and the schools/boosters in the system. There's a reason why schools quickly issue "don't tweet recruits" statements whenever their coach or someone suggests tweeting them is okay. If the school doesn't say that, they could be hit with failure to monitor or failing to promote an atmosphere of compliance. It only takes one time for the NCAA to actually enforce the rule. Forgive me for valuing the opinion of the people who are actually responsible for interpreting the rules.
I think that your analogy doesn't really apply, given this isn't a crime or misdemeanor we are talking about, but a contract between private parties.
I think a more apt analogy would be if an employer penalized an employee who was sent a questionable email from a stranger, when the employee can show that the employer was aware that many other employees were guilty of the same infraction both before and after, and faced no punishment.
One other thing: You can bet if penalties do start being handed out for this BS rule, fans of rival institutions will weaponize it.
"Boats and Hoes for life"
--da []_[]
I don't think there's a black-and-white answer to this. Talking as a undergrad, I think it is okay for us to reach out to potential student-athletes because of the age similarity. As previous posts said, I think there comes a point where reaching out to high school kids as an adult can be creepy. But where does one draw the line between age appropriate and creepy? Although it is technically illegal, who is to tell a booster that they cannot tweet at someone who their money is going towards? It's a tricky subject.
"Although it is technically illegal, who is to tell a booster that they cannot tweet at someone who their money is going towards?"
The NCAA. And the schools who say not to tweet recruits and leave recruiting to the professionals.
Yes, even though it is illegal it still happens quite frequently as we all know. Just because colleges' tweet telling boosters not to tweet at recruits, it is still going to happen. There's really not a whole lot the NCAA can do about this. Not like they will spend time stalking every single high school player to see who tweets at them. Just not practical
Guys recruits reach out to fans just as much as fans reach out to recruits. I tweet recruits once in a while and I find nothing wrong with a congrats on the offer here or a congrats on the commitment their etc. This is a very heated discussion by many
I've tweeted recruits twice, one was CJ Reavis asking him a potential recruit that ended up being Andrew Ford and the other was a reply to Colt Pettit on Saturday when he said that because of Hokienation he was staying. CJ replyed and Colt favorited my tweet so I'm guessing they didn't mind.
Most of them don't mind. They reach out. They like it. Especially CJ lol
I'm gone for one day and one of my favorite subjects comes back on the boards...
I'm not going to reply individually. I just want to make some points, but really GuitarMan said it. This was pretty much all covered before.
anyway,
1) I personally don't tweet recruits. I don't tweet at all.
2) The NCAA has no right to limit how anyone speaks or contacts anyone else. Unless you have signed a contract with them they have ZERO jurisdiction over what you do or what you say. ZERO.
2) Being a fan of a team does not make you a booster nor make you accountable to NCAA rules. Neither does buying merchandise. Just because the NCAA defines it as so doesn't mean shit to anyone they have not signed a contract with.
3) There is absolutely no way for the NCAA to police this. Nor is there ever any chance that they will take action against a casual fan tweeting recruits. There are a few reasons why this is so:
a) NCAA is an organization to which manages collegiate sports but is wholly dependent upon collegiate sports to exist. University presidents will not allow their universities which essentially pay for the NCAA to be penalized and fined for fans in which it has no control over.
b) If the NCAA penalizes for just one, they would have to do so for ALL tweets. The sheer number of them would be ridiculous to keep track of let alone verify.
c) If you have signed up for twitter then you signed their terms of use. This is a "users agreement" with that company. They have certain rules, much like TKP does, that govern what you can and cannot do on Twitter in your tweets. One of their rules is that you are allowed to tweet ANYONE who also has a twitter account so long as it does not break any of the other rules. The NCAA has ZERO authority to override your contract with Twitter to impose their own governance on how you use your twitter account. Corporate law 101 here folks.
d) The ability to fake tweets to rival school's recruits is way too easy. Again, as NCAA cannot impose how you use your twitter account, they cannot tell you to not do this either. There is no way they could follow and verify which are true and which are trolls.
e) You could in fact be that recruit's close friend or relative. Can the NCAA stop them too? No way
As Mason said, the NCAA can do nothing to stop one individual from talking to another, so long as you have not signed a contract with them. The NCAA may have broadly defined rules but in this case they mean absolute dick. There will never be a penalty for a university from a tweet by a casual fan. never.
If you give to Hokie Club then it's a different story, but even then I seriously doubt it unless you were offering them something. As GuitarMan also stated this is a great way for Universities to be seen as taking a stand against it in an effort to follow the rules, but they also can't do anything more than this.
In conclusion, it's your choice but I don't do it. I would tell others not to do it. But recruits seem to enjoy "feeling the love" from the fan base when they commit.
You're correct... I don't personally have a contract with the NCAA and they can't do anything to me if I violate their rules. But Virginia Tech does and if I meet the definition of a Booster (and I believe all fans who purchase tickets and/or attend games do) then Virginia Tech can be punished if I break the no contact rule. So the bottom line is, if you meet the NCAA's definition of a booster, don't break the rules because they can punish your team, who HAS agreed to follow the rules.
Yes, schools can get punished. Any member can be.
But I disagree that buying a ticket makes you a booster. I've bought a ticket to see Iowa play Nebraska (and many other non-VT games), does that make me a booster of either one of those teams? No it doesn't. The NCAA can write broad rules, just as they've done, but that doesn't make them enforceable.
Anyone who has ever purchased a season ticket to a program is considered a booster of that program. So, no, your ticket to see Iowa play Nebraska doesn't qualify you as an Iowa booster, but if you lived in Iowa and decided to get your football fix by going to all their home games then it would.
Since it is "season tickets", you could argue that anyone who bought a student season ticket while in school would count, which I'd imagine covers a lot more people than you expect. By that definition, I'd say probably about 90% or more of the people on this site are considered boosters.
Any purchase of season tickets then yes I agree. Students I agree but I think students have private rights as well that don't automatically mean they can be legally considered a booster. For example, a grad student that went to UNC as undergrad and has been a UNC fan all his life, then went to VT for a Masters and watched a game via student ticket. Is he a VT booster or a UNC booster?
So you are saying that the definition of a booster is geographical? So for example I live overseas but buy a ticket to a VT game then I am not a VT booster? Or if I lived in VA and was a VT fan but bought a ticket to LOLUVA game I am a booster of LOLUVA?
No. It can't be like this and doesn't work this way. The NCAA can say in their rules people are boosters as broadly as they wish but that doesn't mean that people are or that they can enforce that. And simply saying that someone is a booster because they bought a ticket automatically enters you into a binding contract with obligations and liability to the NCAA is not logical. It can't enforce this because no one has actually signed anything with the NCAA.
Also, what happens when someone buys a ticket off of another person online or personally? How would the NCAA keep track of that without id tracking on the ticket itself? Is the original buyer the booster or the person who actually watched the game?
It simply can't be done this way. Too many holes in this rule to make it anything more than wishful thinking for the NCAA.
I'm fairly certain the line is drawn at "season tickets" because you have to buy them from the box office. If you then sell them online, that's in the second hand market and they don't count as "season tickets" anymore.
yeah, I agree with this too. season tickets are the line for me as well.
So If I bought UVA season tickets because I enjoyed watching them go 3-10....even thought I hate UVA...that makes me a booster? Season ticket purchase is debatable also.
It's not debatable according to the way the NCAA rules are worded.
I have always had trouble finding the actual bit in NCAA regulations, but if you search "(school name) booster" you'll likely find some document where that school details what qualifies you as a booster, and what you are and are not allowed to do, and all of the ones I've seen include "season tickets" in the qualification section.
There's no reason you wouldn't count as a booster for both schools. Technically, once you meet the requirements for being a booster at any school, you are forevermore a booster of that school. If you then meet the same requirements for another school, you are a booster for that school in addition.
I wasn't trying to say anything about geographical location. I was just giving an example, just because I could consider that a viable situation, a fan of college football overall that doesn't live near his team but gets tickets to another closer to him to satisfy his hunger for football, and in the process becoming a booster for the local school.
And yes, it can work this way. I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere in the agreements you sign when purchasing season tickets, schools are required to include some language stating that by purchasing these tickets you are now a booster of the program. Actually, it would surprise me if such language didn't exist. That's probably a requirement of NCAA membership, and completely legal for them to do. Obviously I do not know, since I have never read said agreements (terrible practice, I know...), but it just seems logical to me that this is why it is restricted to "season ticket" purchasers.
Oh, I agree about season tickets. If you buy season tickets then you are a booster. This is an established means of supporting a team. But if I buy a single ticket to a game that does not define me as a booster. Simply just a football fan. the NCAA may want me to be labeled a booster but I've never signed any formal agreement with them that makes me liable to their rules. And they have no way to track second market sales.
what you are saying though is that a) once a booster always a booster and b) you are a booster of every school. But then it would be way too easy to use this against rival schools. I can just buy tickets to LOLUVA and wreak havoc.
Look, I am not saying that the NCAA cannot state this in their rules. They can and they can call it a violation. I am saying that even if the NCAA calls you a booster, it doesn't make you one. You must sign a formal contract or voluntarily enter into an agreement that is a clear support for a team, such as buying season tickets. If you are not a booster but simply a football fan then buying a game ticket does not make you a booster, whereby if you contacted a recruit the university could be penalized.
First, because the university cannot hope to control every single person that buys a ticket. Secondly, because universities will not accept unlimited liability for everyone as defined by the NCAA's rule. It's a catchall to dissuade people for doing it but that is all it is, just a deterrent.
Assuming you've never bought season tickets (either as a student or otherwise), then the NCAA does not label you a booster, and for the most part this whole conversation doesn't apply to you.
I said this as a joke in a different thread a couple weeks ago, but yes, by NCAA rules it is true. However, it is extremely unlikely that you'd attract any NCAA investigative attention towards the 'Hoos, and you'd be stuck with season tickets. An overall loss, in my book.
I'm pretty sure I didn't say that, and I'm fairly certain that it's wrong. As long as you don't meet the definition put forward by the NCAA (which merely attending a game does not), then technically you are not violating any rules by tweeting a recruit.
If you buy a ticket through the ticket office, you have to sign a legally-binding agreement, and you could be held liable. The NCAA rules don't target anyone who only buys tickets through the second-hand market.
Actually, I bet they do, otherwise they wouldn't be members of the NCAA. Now, granted, that doesn't mean that if sanctions were to come down that the schools wouldn't be able to fight it and have a good chance to beat it, but that's not the point of my posts. Also, see my point above.
I was a student at Tech and never bought season tickets. I lined up and got tickets at a window. I also used my girlfriend's university athletics card. Am I a booster?
LOLUVA and havoc: You and me. We wouldn't do this. Crazy idiots like Nevin Shapiro and that guy that poisoned all the trees just might.
Buying a Ticket = legally binding contract: Where on my ticket does it say it is a legally binding contract? I have not signed my name to anyone contract nor have I read any terms. There is no contract when you buy a ticket.
Universities don't accept unlimited liability. In fact all universities have massive insurance policies and legal teams to protect themselves from claims of unlimited liability. They would fight any claim to the contrary.
And my point that university cannot control every single person that buys a ticket still holds. They cannot be held liable for the actions of all these people. Do you believe they can be? Then for example let's say Joe, a casual fan, buys a ticket and gets smashed in Bburg, then stupidly drives home and kills someone. In the wreckage the cops find a game ticket in the car. Is the university liable for his actions? Do they need to pay millions to the family of the deceased? No. because they cannot be held liable for the actions of the masses to which they have no hope or means to control. Just as if that same fan leaves the game and tweets a recruit: Come to VT and I'll get you laid. The university cannot be held liable for that because they have no control over that fan.
When you buy a ticket from the athletic department, there's a confirmation box, stating that you agree to abide by the Athletic Department's terms and conditions. Checking this box is identical to signing a contract.
Thanks for the completely inapplicable tangent, and I'm going to try to give a legitimate answer, probably not my best decision. First off, the two actions are completely unrelated. One is a DUI manslaughter, which is punishable under law. The other is contacting a recruit, which is punishable by NCAA policy, and would only be a problem if Joe was a booster, which he probably isn't unless he is a HC member or has bought season tickets before. Just going to one game does not apply.
Ticket: Is this new? or only for students? I have bought tickets to college games at many universities and I have never once signed anything or checked any box.
Ridiculous comparison: I was not saying the two are comparable. I was commenting on you saying universities accept unlimited liability. If they did then they would open to any type of lawsuit because as you said buying a ticket now signs them up to a forma contract with the university. One that requires the university to somehow follow and be responsible for the actions of people buying a ticket. Unlimited liability is exactly that. unlimited. It would not matter if it is by law or by ncaa bylaws.
you say above buying a ticket signs you up to a legal contract in which you are now formally responsible to abide by the Athletic's department terms and conditions. Then you say going to one game doesn't apply.
So i think what you mean above is "season tickets" which I have already agreed confirms you as a booster. Which means the universities are not liable for the actions of their fans, only their boosters. correct? and simply attending games through ticket purchase and being a casual fan does not define you as a booster.
Look, again I am not arguing that the NCAA says this is how it is. I am just saying that it's impossible for them to do anything about it because they can never hope to control this or hold the university liable for fans in which they can't control. Universities will never accept unlimited liability for anything.
That is what I've been saying the whole time. It ONLY applies for SEASON tickets, as in they are the only purchases that qualifies you as a booster. There are a few other conditions that could apply, but they are much less common.
And the universities are agreeing to control their boosters, and to be held liable when their boosters violate NCAA policy. Nothing more, and nothing less.
Me in my first sentence in my first direct reply to you:
haha.. no worries dude. Agree to agree then.
What I am talking about on this whole thread is the NCAA's blanket statement rules that say every fan is a booster, etc. etc. and therefore no fan can tweet a recruit because it's a violation. If you are not a booster you can tweet recruits to your hearts content no matter how much the NCAA doesn't want you to. That's all.
Anyway it was a good debate even if we were saying the same thing...
That gif kills me every time.
I knew this would get a little heated but the point was not to create an argument. The point was to acknowledge that schools say it is a violation. Whether enforced or not, by the letter of the law, it's a violation. Do what you want, but just as someone else said, it's like going 5 miles over the speed limit. You won't likely be cited for the it but it's still a violation of the kaw. If you are cited, you have absolutely no room to argue. I'm sure this rule will change in time, but right now that's what it is.
Correction: It's a violation of a "rule" not a law.
When I said "violation of the law" I was referring to the example of speeding. And I do believe that bylaws are referred to simply as laws quite often.
Yeah I know. Sorry was being pedantic. turkey leg as an apology?
What I mean is that it is a violation of a rule of governance from a incorporated entity and not a law passed by a government.
Just tweet UVA's recruits instead. It'll be fine.
If you get caught tweeting VT's recruits, just tell him you're from the same area. Which area? 'MERICA!s
No, seriously, don't be a creep.
I totally agree with the "don't be a creep" position. That being said, what really creeps me out is that the NCAA thinks they can limit the free speech rights of persons not affiliated in any way with an NCAA organization. It sounds like the NCAA wants to be able to punish any member institution whenever any random person tweets a recruit with an opinion about where that recruit should choose to play NCAA sports. The First Amendment simply does not allow that broad of a reach in limiting speech. People have the right to freely associate and freely converse, outside of reasonable restrictions that they voluntarily consent to suffering. I have never and will never tweet a VT prospect or player, but please do not tell me that such an action is proscribed by the NCAA should some random guy/girl decide that they want to encourage or discourage a recruit to attend any NCAA school. NCAA = Nuts! (Apologies to Gen. McAuliffe)
So what you're saying is if I make a fake Twitter account that says I'm a Clemson fan and start tweeting at players then Clemson will get in trouble?
If you could some how count as a Clemson booster. Would it be worth the one-time $100 donation to their athletic fund? That would certainly qualify you as a dangerous individual.
Hypothetically...my new Twitter handle is "Wealthy_ClemsonBooster4Life"...
I just tweeted all their recruits and told them that the have inherited money from their wealthy great uncle who died with no heirs to claim the money...if they commit to Clemson they will receive 1 million bucks.
If the NCAA ever punished a team...JUST ONCE...it would open the floodgates of joke tweets, fake tweets, malicious tweets....the NCAA would be buried and overwhelmed.
This thread is one of those topics that just winds up being...
Like the debates over uniforms or whether QBs should play TE.
It seems there are three sides to this argument.
1. Those who agree that the NCAA can punish schools for fans tweeting recruits trying to get them to go to their school.
2. Those who disagree with point #1.
3. Those who disagree with point #1 thinking it means you can't tweet at a recruit saying "Good game Bob, you're a helluva footballer."
Well... in certain circumstances (such as a Hokie Club member tweeting a recruit to congratulate him on a good game), Group #3 would actually be correct. According to NCAA rules (not trying to start an argument about whether said rules are justified), a booster of a school (which includes any member of the HC) may not contact a potential recruit at all, unless there is a pre-existing relationship, and even then they may not discuss the potential recruit's possible plans of signing with the school represented by said booster. So a random HC donor who does not already know a kid before he becomes a "potential recruit" cannot contact the kid in any way, according to NCAA policy.
Loved that first one.
You guys are fantastic with the details and fun to watch however, you miss the forest for the trees.
NCAA is not attempting to stop an individual from tweeting a recruit. It will happen and they know it.
NCAA wants to prevent twitter from becoming a problem by getting out in front of it. I applaud them for this.
What they want to stop is someone or rather, a group from using twitter to circumvent recruiting rules.
The rule prevents "BOOSTERS" (note important) from contacting recruits using twitter. Please note that the NCAA can define "booster" as opposed to a fan or "some guy conversing with an interesting fellow".
They are going to look for patterns and decide if someone is stepping over the line, then they will define them as a booster and request a stop, etc, etc. They are also going to make sure there is no "organization" to the pattern of contacts to a recruit. If a pattern develops, they will work to stop that or find it's organization and stop them at that point.
This is all pre-emptive. They will not go after the guy that happens to tweet without attempt to conceal or pattern out, "Hey Guy, saw you at the game Friday night, would love you to join Hokie Nation. We have a great school did you like the new weight room when you visited?"
They are after the organized use of twitter as a recruiting tool in an attempt to circumvent the legal number of contacts a coach or school official can have with a kid. There's a limit to the number of times Shane can have a phone conversation with the recruit X. It doesn't mean he can have his cousin tweet him instead and not have it count.
By schools sending out notices to NOT Tweet the recruits, they can show the first step of due diligence in attempting to comply with NCAA rules should some idiot try to do exactly as I stated (and some idiot will), use new media to try and circumvent the rules.
Keep Chill and Hokie on!
Edit: The NCAA rule, as stated, is an assist to schools to attempt to limit the number of "fan contacts" by allowing to quote the NCAA rule and keep idiots from organizing on their on to contact guys and girls, of interest.
I agree whole-heartedly with this post, with one exception:
The NCAA is not "getting out in front of it". The rule as it is written has existed for many years, and merely refers to communication. This is not something where the NCAA is savvy about social media and has enacted policy specific to social media.
Don't give them more credit than they deserve.
I agree with egbert as well and with this too.
We are arguing the semantics of what a booster is and liability above. As you say here the rule is not written well and does not cover social media. There are problems with the rule. That's all I am saying as well. Too many problems with the rule to make it enforceable. And as egbert said this is largely a deterrent for universities to use on their fans.