|
Post by pineapple on Sept 7, 2006 23:55:14 GMT -5
The school should be penalized, not the recruit.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Sept 7, 2006 23:58:20 GMT -5
WHat I am driving at is simply this: the NCAA regulations have not been tested in court. Members schools have all bought into them. This can be very dangerous. we see similar occurances with the seedings. Coaches upset all over the country, but no remedial action taken.
|
|
|
Post by 2c on Sept 7, 2006 23:58:45 GMT -5
What an interesting twist if ... AK commits to UH just to find out that the NCAA slaps down UH for infractions involving her recruitment and 'boosters' thus making her ineligible to play the first year; thus prompting her to rescind her commitment and she ends up signing with Stanford. Not even I'd wish that on Bik or IB.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Sept 7, 2006 23:59:33 GMT -5
That can happen.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Sept 8, 2006 0:04:15 GMT -5
Now if AK wants UH to study Kilauea and is allowed providing she doesn't play volleyball, if I were her, I'd sue on the basis that I have not done anything wrong.
|
|
|
Post by JT on Sept 8, 2006 0:04:23 GMT -5
But I would let the court and my attorneys decide; all I know as a recruit that I've been denied enrollment to an institution I chose to attend on my own free will. The institution should be penalized, but not in ways to flowover to me an innocent party. . The student-athlete can't be denied enrollment. The only thing that can be denied (if the violations were caused by the school or its representatives) is the privilege of the student to represent the school in athletics. Will the penalty be that severe because a booster encourages a recruit to play for his school during an official visit by the recruit? I doubt it highly. Even for more serious violations than that, the penalties are likely to be restricted to limiting the number of scholarships the school can offer, or restricting them from post-season tournaments, or restricting the number of contacts they can make in the future (i.e. making it harder for them to get new student-athletes). Heck... when the UofMN athletic program had a slew of football, basketball, and wrestling violations (20 different rules violated) I'm pretty sure that they weren't prevented from having any innocent players continue to play. They were limited on scholarships, recruiting, post-season play, had the coach's salary frozen, had to submit to stricter oversight by the NCAA, had booster clubs more significantly separated from the athletic teams/department, and got told in public that they were baaaaaaad, baaaaaaaad boys.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Sept 8, 2006 0:07:20 GMT -5
I am NOT saying I am right; I am saying what I would do as I feel I am being victimized by the regulations. My case might get thrown out by the court. But who knows which way it would go; all I feel is there is unfairness to the recruit who is an innocent bystander.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Sept 8, 2006 0:11:35 GMT -5
SO much for that, now I getta see UH play Fairfield on TV.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Sept 8, 2006 3:18:18 GMT -5
"Institutional control" may be feasible over student sections in athletic events. But my point is it should have no jurisdiction over private citizens (people with no official involvement with the schools). Try to quell them might be construed as violating civil rights (freedom of speech). Now if these private individuals should hoist signs encouraging a recruit to sign with their favorite team, it would be interesting to see if the school would try to stop them too. All the school would need to do is put fine print on all of thier tickets stating that violations of these types of rules will result in removal from the arena. The fans would most likely get the hint that making signs trying to entice recruits to enroll at the school won't be tolerated whether the people with such signs are "private individuals", boosters, or whatever. Such fans may get irritated at the actions, however, they risk having sanctions placed on the school which no school has promised any fans the right to cause.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Sept 8, 2006 3:24:33 GMT -5
I am NOT saying I am right; I am saying what I would do as I feel I am being victimized by the regulations. My case might get thrown out by the court. But who knows which way it would go; all I feel is there is unfairness to the recruit who is an innocent bystander. How is preventing fans from making signs meant to entice a highly rated recruit to attend a school unfair to the recruit? I'm sure UH brings a plethora of recruits to matches, why is one particular recruit deserving of special treatment by fans to assist in recruiting her? Treat the recruits the same and don't take risks of causing potential recruiting violations.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Sept 8, 2006 3:34:38 GMT -5
I am not concerned about signs. Whats unfair is the poor recruit gets caught in the middle. for something she is not responsible for.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Sept 8, 2006 3:40:25 GMT -5
Then control the fans and don't allow them to put her (or the school) in that position.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Sept 8, 2006 3:42:16 GMT -5
Recruits shouldn't be penalized because of fans' behavior. When fans get too loud at a football game, the referee can penalize the team for rowdy fans. This is effective; fans shut up quickly. It doesn't seem wrong to do this.
Now in place of "team," put in "recruit." Somehow it doesn't seem right. But it's essentially what we're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by pineapple on Sept 8, 2006 3:44:57 GMT -5
Then control the fans and don't allow them to put her (or the school) in that position. Control fans? For rowdiness, yes! but for waving signs to get a recruit to choose their school? Hey, this is freedom of speech, shouldn't be regulated in my opinion. I don't know the original intent of recruitment regulations, but I imagine it has to do with curtailing bribes. Waving signs is not bribery and not different from waving signs at a political rally. If you want to shield recruits from such demonstrations, then protect them, not penalize them directly or indirectly, i.e., taking away their eligiblity in any way. Even the schools shouldn't be penalized if they have no control over the fans. Unlike football games, the fans may not subside in their zeal after penalty has been imposed. They are private citizens with freedom of speech, not accountable to the schools. On the other hand, booster clubs, registered donors, faculty and even students can be held accountable once they sign agreement to comply with recruitment regulations, and they are readily identifiable. Perhaps the regulations would be enforceable and realistic if the definition of "boosters" were limited to these groups. The way it stands now if you have shown to be a fan in any way you are a booster, and once a booster you are always a booster, regardless of where you moved to or what school you've changed your allegiance to.
|
|
|
Post by JT on Sept 8, 2006 8:51:12 GMT -5
Control fans? For rowdiness, yes! but for waving signs to get a recruit to choose their school? Hey, this is freedom of speech, shouldn't be regulated in my opinion. ... On the other hand, booster clubs, registered donors, faculty and even students can be held accountable once they sign agreement to comply with recruitment regulations, and they are readily identifiable. How do you tell the difference between a fan waving a sign at a game, and a booster club member waving a sign at a game? I don't know about the other schools, but at least in MN, boosters aren't required to dye their hair maroon or gold (even though I did), and fans aren't prevented from doing so. No, no, no, no, no.That is not how it stands. The NCAA rules are explicit about who is a booster, and being a "fan in the stands" isn't enough to turn you into one. That said, the compliance officer is -- at least when he makes comments about the ideal athletic world he'd like to work in -- going to try and get all fans to behave as if they were boosters, because he has no ready mechanism for identifying the boosters among the ordinary fans.
|
|