Recent Comments
Ah, someone that is upfront about things. It's refreshing.
How about an olive branch? Can you have another video contest so that he can actually win this time? Don't worry. He will.
Nice job researching this nugget. Frank's bonus is especially interesting.
Obviously, giving to any organization is an individual decision that each person makes aftger considering what's important to them.
Personally, I'm a lifetime Hokie fan and started giving to the Hokie Club in 1980, one year after I graduated. I give at a level that gets me 6 priority tickets and tickets to the away games so I suppose you could say I've drank the koolaid. I was even a Hokie Club rep in the 1990s when I lived in another city, so I do have a fair idea of the workings on the Hokie Club and believe that it has some really dedicated volunteers that could serve as a solid foundation with the right leadership, both in Blacksburg and at the local level.
Unfortunately, since moving to a much bigger city (and closer to Blacksburg) in 1999, I have seen first hand the things that many on this board reference - no reaching out, no appreciation, and local events that are more designed to pat each other on the back about what good work each of them is doing rather than engaging and activating the fanbase.
I'm a Hokie for life and will continue to give to the HC as Hokie Sports is my one vice in life. However, I also believe that we have tremendous untapped potential and I hope our new leadership wakes up the sleeping giant and shakes things up in the Hokie Club. If that happens, then truly the best is yet to come.
Thanks for the link!
I'm definitely submitting something. I'll post here first to get feedback.
Thanks, for the summary. Logan has been nothing but class while at VT and I hope he gets a chance with the right organization.
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.
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:
the NCAA must tread carefully, as regulations restricting the use of social media risk infringing on the rights of free speech and expression protected under the First Amendment.
Please stop telling people this does not pertain to First Amendment. It does. What you are saying is factually wrong.
In Brentwood II, the Court addressed a coach directly contacting prospective players. By distinguishing this from "appeals to the public at large," the Court suggests the First Amendment would protect broad prohibitions on speech directed at a larger community. Furthermore, the focus on the "voluntary" nature of joining an athletic association suggests that restrictions placed on those who are not voluntary members would constitute a violation of the First Amendment.
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.
🚨 🚒 🔥
|
12 years 6 months
# | David Teel Interview with John Ballein- Not an AD candidate/Problems with Fundraising Very common according to the article.
I have 0 connection to that incident. If he submits the best design, I would happily choose it.
Definitely think he isn't totally comfortable with it. But unless he verbals to FSU like today they won't be able to take him and unless Florida makes a strong late push I think he signs.
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)
Will Billdozer get screwed again? Important questions.
|
12 years 6 months
# | Cincinnati Enquirer reporting that Bearcats AD Whit Babcock will likely be the new Virginia Tech Athletic Director Is Babcock following TKP on the Twitters yet?
The fact that he has a decision basically means it is an open recruitment and we shouldn't consider his verbal at all at this point
Which makes our OL coach hire before Grimes even more perplexing.
Working at a candy factory for a borderline insane guy named Wonka isn't the usual stepping stone to Big Time college football.
Who do you blame when your coach is a bust?
Pampered and spoiled like a kid in a trust.
Blaming the kids is a lie and a shame
You know exactly who's to blame.
Javon Harrison. Translate this however you want but I guess were riding this one all the way to the end.
Decision By Feb 5th <<<<— PKG//Die (@BANKROLL_13) January 26, 2014
Just like comparing Seth's 2nd to JJ's 2nd would not be fair either. Different contexts, etc. The person I was replying to mentioned that this team was as good (or close) as Seth's final year. I don't think they are close, and even if they were, that is not something to applaud or give JJ a pass because of.
A fair analysis of JJ would involve his coaching abilities (does he get the most out of his athletes? Is he developing players?, Is he coming up with strategies/game plans that work? Etc.) and his recruiting abilities. I understand where you are coming from- and I agree.
Typically your OL coaches were good OL players themselves
Dang Searles is a big dude
The first amendment relates to the government. The NCAA is not the government. It doesn't apply.
I doubt any of them will be expected to jump right into the two deep (although several have the talent.) They will have time to develop properly.
If we land him, he becomes my favorite player in the class. And that is a bold statement, given the huge man crush I already have on Fisher, Reavis, Williams, McKenzie, Nnadi, and Walker.
Based on some earlier tweets (too cold in Blacksburg, etc.) it may come down to whether FSU or Florida have room. Let's hope they run out of space by the 5th.