I became aware of this kind of situation when inquiring about it due to a client/friend's daughter who is a D-1 prospect (She has since verbally committed to Butler in her Jr. year for volleyball, but she remains a D-1 basketball/volleyball recruit.). I learned that it is such a sensitive issue that I could not even take my client alone to dinner for business purposes because I, a lowly ND alum with no financial status whatsoever, could be considered a "booster". And this was when she was a HS freshman! I find it hard to believe that a lawyer who sits in $20,000 seats would not know about this and understand the possible consequences. But as the kids in the hip hop generation say........Whatevah.
I know that this sort of stuff can be abused, for example what the Tenn Booster did seems very minor and hardly gives Tenn a recruiting advantage. But taken to the extreme it could have been a Super Bowl trip. The good thing is that the NCAA allows for the violation to be addressed through repayment of the 'extra benefit'. As to Sids situation. I don't understand that at all, that seems just dumb. It's almost like once a family has a son/daughter who is recruitable that they have to cut off all ties to their friends who have graduated from college and/or are fans of a college. Pretty much eliminates everybody. Sid since Brian was a recruitable Div1 football player, did you stop going to dinner with friends/associates who attended colleges with football programs. Seems like you said Brian had opportunities to play at the Div 1 level. Terry
Terry, I agree. I inquired because I did not want to be responsible for a problem if she became a recruit for ND, which never happened. The only D-1 school who recruited Brian was Air Force. However, to be truthful, if there had been more, I doubt I would have been as aware of the stringent rules as I am today. As far as losing the ability to socialize with friends, it would not have been a problem, since I don't have any. :lol:
I thought the rule on this was as long as they (the Booster's son and recruit) had a pre-existing relationship it wasn't a violation????
Scott, That is the way I viewed the rule as well. I think that Tennessee is being overly cautious in self reporting the issue so that we can show institutional control.
That may be the rule, but I was told by a person in ND's compliance dept. basically to not spend money on or provide favors to a "recruit". It would seem that ND's position is based on assuming that the exception does not exist. Another possibility is that the person I talked to was not aware of the exception, but I doubt it. It looks like TN's position is as Tom describes it....overly cautious.
Somewhere...out there... a player at Nevada-Las Vegas is driving a new Mercedes...a UCLA student/athlete is appearing in the crowd scenes of the latest Hollywood movie...while football teams at Arizona State and Colorado have hot & cold running bimbos in their hotel rooms... But forget all that... We demand to know if Tennessee has a grip on its women's basketball tickets. You never know who might be getting those for free... Who's running the NCAA now? Howard Dean? :roll: ..............JO'Co