|
Post by BearClause on Sept 7, 2006 18:37:52 GMT -5
The regulations may be unrealistic as they are not enforceable. The definition of "booster" has to be delimited; it cannot be left as it is now to mean all fans. This encroaches on freedom of expression and puts an unfair onus on the schools. Schools have no control over fans. To some degree there is control over what fans do through the event management or the athletic department. I think this message was meant as a sign that they didn't condone the activity and want to discourage such behavior in the future. As far as I know, most major athletic venues at any level don't allow one to bring in alcohol or glass bottles. Some don't allow for people to bring in any food. They are supposed to be able to control signs that are "in poor taste". Athletic events aren't a "public square" for people to voice anything and everything. If someone starts a fight at an event and security or police don't intervene, I think they can be held liable if someone is seriously injured. Is it fair that the NCAA rulebook allows for penalizing points or (in extreme cases) forcing a forfeit on the home team for unruly fan behavior? The whole point of the NCAA's rules is to create a disincentive to violate the rules and does put the onus on the school to do whatever they can to discourage/police/prevent such activity with punishments for not doing so. That's why most schools send out compliance guides to boosters and season ticket holders.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Sept 7, 2006 18:40:07 GMT -5
So these dorks at UH that ban our very own spirited, UH Basketball players who have body paint on, yet they don't ban Vili Fehoko (UH "Warrior" mascot) and his sons who also wear body paint? Or do they get immunity by default? Talk about stupid. I don't think that was any NCAA problem but just something the athletic dept thought was inappropriate. Maybe some of the kids had "man breasts"? The signs targeted a specific recruit, and it really was in the athletic dept's best interests to discourage it from happening again.
|
|
|
Post by JT on Sept 7, 2006 18:45:38 GMT -5
The regulations may be unrealistic as they are not enforceable. The definition of "booster" has to be delimited; it cannot be left as it is now to mean all fans. That isn't how it's defined, and it's certainly possible that the writer of the poster was not a representative of athletic interests, as defined by the NCAA. But the NCAA might actually call on the university to show that he wasn't an official booster. That's the sort of thing that gives compliance officers headaches. Even more fun for the compliance officers, they have no way to control boosters. Once you're a "representative of athletic interests", you're one for life. The university can't kick you off the team, as it were. The most they can do is (try and) bar you from the university grounds, but if you want to keep on creating violations, you can make phone calls, send letters, and cause thousands of violations that the school will have to address.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2006 18:49:54 GMT -5
I can almost guarantee there will be the same types of signs when Klineman visits Texas this weekend.
Heck I think someone here posted there were signs at an earlier Texas match where she wasn't even in attendance.
I know they have to cross all their i's and to their t's to make sure you're not committing a violation. I don't see how you're really hurting anyone though, the signs seem harmless to me.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Sept 7, 2006 19:23:03 GMT -5
The regulations may be unrealistic as they are not enforceable. The definition of "booster" has to be delimited; it cannot be left as it is now to mean all fans. This encroaches on freedom of expression and puts an unfair onus on the schools. Schools have no control over fans. To some degree there is control over what fans do through the event management or the athletic department. I think this message was meant as a sign that they didn't condone the activity and want to discourage such behavior in the future. As far as I know, most major athletic venues at any level don't allow one to bring in alcohol or glass bottles. Some don't allow for people to bring in any food. They are supposed to be able to control signs that are "in poor taste". Athletic events aren't a "public square" for people to voice anything and everything. If someone starts a fight at an event and security or police don't intervene, I think they can be held liable if someone is seriously injured. Is it fair that the NCAA rulebook allows for penalizing points or (in extreme cases) forcing a forfeit on the home team for unruly fan behavior? The whole point of the NCAA's rules is to create a disincentive to violate the rules and does put the onus on the school to do whatever they can to discourage/police/prevent such activity with punishments for not doing so. That's why most schools send out compliance guides to boosters and season ticket holders. I was referring to our old topic of NCAA recruitment violations, Bearclause. I have no qualms about what you are saying now. Rowdiness is a public nuisance covered by law.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Sept 7, 2006 19:36:56 GMT -5
The regulations may be unrealistic as they are not enforceable. The definition of "booster" has to be delimited; it cannot be left as it is now to mean all fans. That isn't how it's defined, and it's certainly possible that the writer of the poster was not a representative of athletic interests, as defined by the NCAA. But the NCAA might actually call on the university to show that he wasn't an official booster. That's the sort of thing that gives compliance officers headaches. One of the criteria for "booster" is one who has been involved, in any way, in the promotion of the respective school's athletic program. Once a booster, you're identified as a booster for life. This is vague and impossible to regulate. This can easily be challeneged in the court of law.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Sept 7, 2006 19:52:34 GMT -5
I was referring to our old topic of NCAA recruitment violations, Bearclause. I have no qualms about what you are saying now. Rowdiness is a public nuisance covered by law. However - the recent trend has been the NCAA calling for sanctions against schools that don't control recruitment pleas outside of approved athletic dept personnel. Or schools self-reporting such violations. The NCAA's enforcement often consists of committee interpretations on their Bylaws and what sanctions to apply. They've more or less taken a stand against outside influence in the recruiting process - even if it sounds harmless. Personally I think this was a harmless little prank by some kids. However - they've taken this stand because of more egregious things such as boosters paying for recruiting billboards. I think the UH athletic dept is doing the right thing by trying to nip it in the bud before it bites back at them.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Sept 7, 2006 19:53:37 GMT -5
Yes.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Sept 7, 2006 20:12:33 GMT -5
One of the criteria for "booster" is one who has been involved, in any way, in the promotion of the respective school's athletic program. Once a booster, you're identified as a booster for life. This is vague and impossible to regulate. This can easily be challeneged in the court of law. Good luck. The NCAA is a private organization, and the US federal court system has been loathe to try and overrule any NCAA rulings. The NCAA receives no federal funding and the US courts have rarely intervened. The only times I've heard where courts have intervened is when the NCAA "unfairly" ruled that someone was completely ineligible for any NCAA competition. Frankly - the worst thing I could imagine possibly happening with "representatives of athletic interests" and an "improper inducement" is that an NCAA committee rules that player A isn't eligible at school X, but that they could be immediately eligible at another school. Or at the very least the NCAA lists it as a secondary violation and requires some restitution. I've gone through the NCAA section on recruiting many times, and they make it clear that the rules are meant to punish the schools for "lack of institutional control" but not the recruit if anyone (booster/coach) does anything illegal short of providing money or goods/services.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Sept 7, 2006 20:36:31 GMT -5
There's no impact to "boosters" if NCAA regulating arm should cite the booster as violating the regulations. How could there be? The penalty would befall the school. Now if the school should take action against the booster, it's another matter. If this should happen to me, I wouldn't hesitate to see my attorney for advice. As for the respective athlete being banned from attending the violating school, that athlete too could contest the NCAA on the basis that the institution was his/her choice to begin with. He/she has freedom to attend any school of choice. Now if the school should become compliant and reject the athlete, that still is another issue. ALso, the penalized school could say enough is enough- it's not us or our booster club members who are violating the regulations, but private citizens whom we neither control nor are responsible for. All these grounds have not been tested.
But then we did have a long related discussion on this issue. We'd only be repeating our views.
|
|
|
Post by pedro el leon on Sept 7, 2006 20:44:09 GMT -5
The body paint one really baffles me. Have they ever seen a Duke basketball game where that guy goes to every Cameron Indoor game with nothing but a speedo on? And this is on national TV, and the guy gets plenty of attention from the cameras and announcers. And UH officials are mad about something every school does... Unreal. The Duke dude...: ... that I'm sure none of you wanted to see.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2006 20:46:13 GMT -5
The only solution is civil disobedience. We must ALL break the rules in order for the rules to go away.
Let's start our movement in Hawaii. K?
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Sept 7, 2006 20:49:05 GMT -5
I don't poop at parties, I usually go before I head off to the party, that way, not only am I not constipated during the party, but I make a fashionably late entrance.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Sept 7, 2006 20:56:46 GMT -5
Once I made a fashionably late entrance to a party in my apartment complex/dorm. All the food was gone. Not only that, all the girls were taken up.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Sept 7, 2006 20:58:15 GMT -5
This doesn't mean I started to poop at parties.
|
|