Wow what a sour grape :shock: sorry that his kid didn't work out but to actively spew garbage to sway a high school recruit shows very little intelligence. The kid should take the best opportunity for himself to not only play football but accelerate in life. One could only hope he makes his decisions on his own merit not some__________! Mr. Brandon should be embarrassed :lol: :lol:
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
2015 Griz Football Recruiting- 4 Transfers/ 17 Verbals/ 4 WO's
- Thread starter Paytonlives
- Start date
Richard Cranium
Well-known member
Seriously? John, the Griz have a 72-37-5 winning record over the cats! The Griz have a 24-5 record against the cats in the past 29 games, 20 of those wins were by double digits, only 1 cat victory was by double digits! 10 of those last 29 wins were by 21 points or more! The Griz have had no less than a dozen of their playes make an NFL roster, the cats no more than 4. 3 of the Griz players have played in the pro bowl, none for the cats! The Griz have more NC's in FCS. We have a way bigger and better stadium, that is one of the top ten in all the country FBS included. We are months from ground breaking on a state of the art training facility that will be the envy of even some Pac-12 facilities. Our locker rooms will be state of the art too! You sir are an idiot, to think any kid would be better off playing in Bozo, versus Grizzoula, unless the kid wanted to study engineering!
George Ferguson
Well-known member
I'm not sure it's an NCAA violation yet, as I don't know if Woody's dad would be considered a booster at MSU YET. The minute Woody signs his LOI his dad is a BOOSTER as he will receive comp tickets to MSU games. PERIOD. But I'm not sure if he is at this point therefore I don't know if what he's doing on Angel's Twitter is a violation against MSU. Technically, Woody isn't even a Bobcat yet anyway. HOWEVER, it is completely BUSH LEAGUE. Stitt didn't do anything but a favor for Woody by being honest with him and giving him a chance to go somewhere who would give him an education and a chance to play tight end. MSU did that and I think it's great.
His dad should leave it that, but we all know how sports parents are these days. I'm sure there are a few of you fellow Egrizzers who are just as insane about your kids lol.
His dad should leave it that, but we all know how sports parents are these days. I'm sure there are a few of you fellow Egrizzers who are just as insane about your kids lol.
I feel bad for the kid. If Angel thinks the griz, the history of getting players to the NFL and the school are what he wants it would be great to have him. If Msu, their program and their school and degrees are what would set him up then I wish him the best. Anything else would be selfish and petty.
George Ferguson
Well-known member
CDA, it's close, it's a fine line, but even Colter tweeted to the guy that he would become a booster the minute he came to watch Woody play for the first time. And, not to mention, Brandom is not a student-athlete at MSU YET. Like I said, it's close, a lot of gray areas. But I don't care either way. I feel sorry for Woody and I feel sorry for Angel in this instance. I would never want MSU to get in trouble for something like this, it would be completely stupid. Not to mention, I'm not willing to make a big deal about something like this like a certain BN poster does EVERY single time about the Griz and any NCAA issue. I think his handle initials are PG. LOL
havgrizfan said:
I get what you're saying. What I'm saying is the very act of contacting Villanueva made him a booster. It's actually pretty clear. He was a booster with the first tweet and made three repeated violations.
http://www.nationalletter.org/documentLibrary/boosterGuideToTheNli.pdf
The ncaa rule defining what a booster is, in places, very vague, but I'm not aware that being a parent of a player or receiving comp tickets makes a parent a booster. The main part of the definition involves contributing money to the program. I believe that buying season tickets makes one a booster.
The definition says one is a representative of the school's athletic interests if senior people in the athletic dept. or the school know or should have known that the person is doing certain enumerated things. See the below ncaa bylaw provisions, which I took from an article not the ncaa rules. Note the vagueness of (c) and (e). Nevertheless, I don't think the bylaw would catch a parent who hasn't contributed some funds. If a parent of a committed recruit would be caught by these vauge rules, wouldn't a committed recruit and existing player also be caught (and that can't be the case). In fact, if the vague provisions were taken literally, why wouldn't a random person not associated with a school who was using twitter to encourage a kid go to the school be a representative/booster? He would be doing (c) and (e) things, and the school would or should become aware of that.
(I haven't tried to look for specific ncaa rulings that might apply).
Definition
NCAA Bylaw 13.02.14 (Representative of Athletics Interests) defines a “representative of the institution’s athletics interests” (“booster”) as “an individual, independent agency, corporate entity (e.g., apparel or equipment manufacturer) or other organization who is known (or who should have been known) by a member of the institution’s executive or athletics administration to:
(a) Have participated in or to be a member of an agency or organization promoting the institution’s intercollegiate athletics program;
(b) Have made financial contributions to the athletics department or to an athletics booster organization of that institution;
(c) Be assisting or to have been requested (by the athletics department staff) to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes;
(d) Be assisting or to have assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student-athletes or their families; or
(e) Have been involved otherwise in promoting the institution’s athletics program.”
NCAA Constitution 6.4.1 also has a similar definition for boosters. Under NCAA Bylaw 13.02.14.1 (Duration of Status), “once an individual, independent agency, corporate entity or other organization is identified as such a representative, the person, independent agency, corporate entity or other organization retains that identity indefinitely”.
Limitations: Recruiting
NCAA legislation limits booster involvement in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes (“recruits). For instance, NCAA Bylaw 13.2.1 (General Regulation) states:
An institution’s staff member or any representative of its athletics interests shall not be involved, directly or indirectly, in making arrangements for or giving or offering to give any financial aid or other benefits to a prospective student-athlete or his or her relatives or friends, other than expressly permitted by NCAA regulations. Receipt of a benefit by a prospective student-athlete or his or her relatives or friends is not a violation of NCAA legislation if it is determined that the same benefit is generally available to the institution’s prospective students or their relatives or friends or to a particular segment of the student body (e.g., international students, minority students) determined on a basis unrelated to athletics ability.
Also, NCAA Bylaw 13.2.1.1 (Specific Prohibitions) lists specifically-prohibited financial-aid, benefits and arrangements include that can be offered or provided to prospects:
(a) An employment arrangement for a prospective student-athlete’s relatives;
(b) Gift of clothing or equipment;
(c) Cosigning of loans;
(d) Providing loans to a prospective student-athlete’s relatives or friends;
(e) Cash or like items;
(f) Any tangible items, including merchandise;
(g) Free or reduced-cost services, rentals or purchases of any type;
(h) Free or reduced-cost housing;
(i) Use of an institution’s athletics equipment (e.g., for a high school all-star game);
(j) Sponsorship of or arrangement for an awards banquet for high school, preparatory school or two-year-college athletes by an institution, representatives of its athletics interests or its alumni groups or booster clubs; and
(k) Expenses for academic services (e.g., tutoring, test preparation) to assist in the completion of initial-eligibility or transfer-eligibility requirements or improvement of the prospective student-athlete’s academic profile in conjunction with a waiver request. (Adopted: 4/23/08)
Limitations: Extra-Benefits
NCAA legislation prohibits any person or entity, including boosters, from providing enrolled student-athletes with an extra-benefit. NCAA Bylaw 16.02.3 (Extra-Benefit) defines an “extra-benefit” as “any special arrangement by an institutional employee or a representative of the institution’s athletics interests to provide a student-athlete or the student-athlete’s relative or friend a benefit not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation. Receipt of a benefit by student-athletes or their relatives or friends is not a violation of NCAA legislation if it is demonstrated that the same benefit is generally available to the institution’s students or their relatives or friends or to a particular segment of the student body (e.g., international students, minority students) determined on a basis unrelated to athletics ability.” NCAA Bylaw 16.11.1.1 (General Rule) notes that the “receipt of a benefit (including otherwise prohibited extra benefits per Bylaw 16.11.2) by student-athletes, their relatives or friends is not a violation of NCAA rules if it is demonstrated that the same benefit is generally available to the institution’s students and their relatives or friends”.
The definition says one is a representative of the school's athletic interests if senior people in the athletic dept. or the school know or should have known that the person is doing certain enumerated things. See the below ncaa bylaw provisions, which I took from an article not the ncaa rules. Note the vagueness of (c) and (e). Nevertheless, I don't think the bylaw would catch a parent who hasn't contributed some funds. If a parent of a committed recruit would be caught by these vauge rules, wouldn't a committed recruit and existing player also be caught (and that can't be the case). In fact, if the vague provisions were taken literally, why wouldn't a random person not associated with a school who was using twitter to encourage a kid go to the school be a representative/booster? He would be doing (c) and (e) things, and the school would or should become aware of that.
(I haven't tried to look for specific ncaa rulings that might apply).
Definition
NCAA Bylaw 13.02.14 (Representative of Athletics Interests) defines a “representative of the institution’s athletics interests” (“booster”) as “an individual, independent agency, corporate entity (e.g., apparel or equipment manufacturer) or other organization who is known (or who should have been known) by a member of the institution’s executive or athletics administration to:
(a) Have participated in or to be a member of an agency or organization promoting the institution’s intercollegiate athletics program;
(b) Have made financial contributions to the athletics department or to an athletics booster organization of that institution;
(c) Be assisting or to have been requested (by the athletics department staff) to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes;
(d) Be assisting or to have assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student-athletes or their families; or
(e) Have been involved otherwise in promoting the institution’s athletics program.”
NCAA Constitution 6.4.1 also has a similar definition for boosters. Under NCAA Bylaw 13.02.14.1 (Duration of Status), “once an individual, independent agency, corporate entity or other organization is identified as such a representative, the person, independent agency, corporate entity or other organization retains that identity indefinitely”.
Limitations: Recruiting
NCAA legislation limits booster involvement in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes (“recruits). For instance, NCAA Bylaw 13.2.1 (General Regulation) states:
An institution’s staff member or any representative of its athletics interests shall not be involved, directly or indirectly, in making arrangements for or giving or offering to give any financial aid or other benefits to a prospective student-athlete or his or her relatives or friends, other than expressly permitted by NCAA regulations. Receipt of a benefit by a prospective student-athlete or his or her relatives or friends is not a violation of NCAA legislation if it is determined that the same benefit is generally available to the institution’s prospective students or their relatives or friends or to a particular segment of the student body (e.g., international students, minority students) determined on a basis unrelated to athletics ability.
Also, NCAA Bylaw 13.2.1.1 (Specific Prohibitions) lists specifically-prohibited financial-aid, benefits and arrangements include that can be offered or provided to prospects:
(a) An employment arrangement for a prospective student-athlete’s relatives;
(b) Gift of clothing or equipment;
(c) Cosigning of loans;
(d) Providing loans to a prospective student-athlete’s relatives or friends;
(e) Cash or like items;
(f) Any tangible items, including merchandise;
(g) Free or reduced-cost services, rentals or purchases of any type;
(h) Free or reduced-cost housing;
(i) Use of an institution’s athletics equipment (e.g., for a high school all-star game);
(j) Sponsorship of or arrangement for an awards banquet for high school, preparatory school or two-year-college athletes by an institution, representatives of its athletics interests or its alumni groups or booster clubs; and
(k) Expenses for academic services (e.g., tutoring, test preparation) to assist in the completion of initial-eligibility or transfer-eligibility requirements or improvement of the prospective student-athlete’s academic profile in conjunction with a waiver request. (Adopted: 4/23/08)
Limitations: Extra-Benefits
NCAA legislation prohibits any person or entity, including boosters, from providing enrolled student-athletes with an extra-benefit. NCAA Bylaw 16.02.3 (Extra-Benefit) defines an “extra-benefit” as “any special arrangement by an institutional employee or a representative of the institution’s athletics interests to provide a student-athlete or the student-athlete’s relative or friend a benefit not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation. Receipt of a benefit by student-athletes or their relatives or friends is not a violation of NCAA legislation if it is demonstrated that the same benefit is generally available to the institution’s students or their relatives or friends or to a particular segment of the student body (e.g., international students, minority students) determined on a basis unrelated to athletics ability.” NCAA Bylaw 16.11.1.1 (General Rule) notes that the “receipt of a benefit (including otherwise prohibited extra benefits per Bylaw 16.11.2) by student-athletes, their relatives or friends is not a violation of NCAA rules if it is demonstrated that the same benefit is generally available to the institution’s students and their relatives or friends”.
PR, I think it's 13.02.14(c) and (e) that hang him. Check out this Q&A with a compliance director. See, specifically, Part 2, question 1.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...ng-violation-compliance-college-football-2013
http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...ng-violation-compliance-college-football-2013
grizfan442
Active member
Sure hope we get refocused here!! Looking thru our recruits that we know about... Found it funny ( not ) ..... Only 1 walk on verbal commit?? Hope we get after some of these kids before Western, Tech, Carroll,MSU get all the ones that could play here. I hope on Feb I'm pleasantly surprised, just hope our basket isn't empty at the end
Grizzlies1982
Well-known member
grizfan442 said:
Seems like most years the coaches announce walk ons along with the scholarship kids on signing day. I can only assume the staff is keeping in contact with those walk on prospects.
CDAGRIZ said:
Yup, those are the 2 vague sections that I cited. I see Part 2, question 1. However, that is not an ncaa Q&A. I just can't believe that some random person, with little or no connection to a school, can be deemed to be a booster. That makes zero sense. I realize that a player parent isn't random, but the Q&A doesn't limit to a parent or someone with connections.
I assume you don't think a committed recruit becomes a booster under this definition and thus can't call guys he met on the recruiting trip and encourage them to to come to the school he's committing to? What about Tres Tinkle? He's the coach's son. He probably texted/called guys being recruited by his dad (ones he'd met), and encouraged them to commit. That just can't be a recruiting violation.
I would love to fight the ncaa in court or in general, if they were taking the position that someone not connected to a school is a representative of the school's athletic interests.
How about a Griz player who gets food after a game of some random person, not a season ticket holder or contributor to UM? Or a Griz player getting food from a Cat booster's tailgate after the game?
PlayerRep said:
Yeah, I get that it's not the NCAA saying it, but this dude is paid to interpret the rules. To be clear, I think the rules are ridiculous (full disclosure: I worked in NCAA compliance at UCLA for a bit). But, the way I understand it is the act of soliciting creates the connection (booster status) and also constitutes the violation. Like a stepped-together transaction of sorts. So, one who solicits a recruit cannot be said to have no connection to the school under the rules as drafted. Dumb, I agree.
I like the hypothetical on the players. I wonder if the NCAA would consider them boosters, or if there is an exception/exemption. As with any regulatory body, their rules have loopholes and gaps that lead to illogical and often unfair outcomes. I'll never forget a WVB player coming into the office all worried because she had Thanksgiving dinner at her teammate's parents' house and thought it might be an improper benefit. That the NCAA can make a student athlete worry about something so simple is just ridiculous.
Latest posts
-
New GFP - UM President Jeremiah Shinn joins us (links here)
- Latest: ResilientGriz
-
-
