Let's Not Cause Compliance Issues

Donate To GopherHole
AF_Howie_2180

AF_Howie_2180

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2013
Messages
309
Reaction score
217
Points
43
So I found this interesting gem of information on the Gopher Goal Line Club Page about what Boosters can and cannot do..

So for many of us on here we fit the term Booster -

Are You a Booster? You are considered a representative of athletics interests (booster) if ANY of the following are true:
  1. You have ever made a donation to the University or our athletics booster organizations;
  2. Member of any organization or agency promoting University of Minnesota Athletics;
  3. You have ever helped arrange/ provided employment for an enrolled student-athlete;
  4. Participated in varsity athletics or an alumnus at U of M
  5. You have ever been a season ticket holder in any U of M sport; or
  6. You have otherwise promoted Minnesota’s athletics program in ANY matter.
Note: Once you have obtained BOOSTER status, you retain this identity indefinitely.

What You Cannot Do:
  1. Recruit on behalf of the institution (e.g. contact, evaluate, phone calls, text messages)
  2. Contact prospects on social media
    1. There are a lot of comments on Twitter feeds when players commit, just wondering if someone really wanted to if that could come back to bite the U in the back side as being a violation of this regulation as a Booster.
  3. Provide any tangible benefits to prospects or student-athletes (PSAs)
  4. Provide any benefits to anyone who teaches or directs PSAs (e.g. coaches, teachers)
 



The social media bit is interesting, and I wonder if it will change or be made more specific (i.e. draw a difference between tweeting at a prospect and dming them).
 

Don't tweet at high school students. Here's a quick flow chart in case you struggle to remember:

Should you tweet at a high school student? -> No.

On a related note, I saw some dude literally grab a recruit by the arm at a game not long ago. Took every bit of my being not to say something to him. That kid was creeped tf out, and so was everyone who witnessed it.
 


Taji34 said:
The social media bit is interesting, and I wonder if it will change or be made more specific (i.e. draw a difference between tweeting at a prospect and dming them).
Click to expand...
Found this via the University of Louisiana Ragin Cajuns page who they give credit to the University of Michigan for providing them....So just change UL to U of MN or Cajun to Gopherss

  • Most prospective student-athletes use social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook to communicate with both their family and friends and the general public. We are often asked, when it comes to recruiting, what kind of interaction is permitted with a prospective student-athlete on these sites? The rules apply differently based on which of three categories you fall into: coaches, media or fans/boosters.
  • Coaches are permitted to use social media sites on a limited basis to communicate with recruits. Since coaches are permitted to send recruiting correspondence to recruits during their junior and senior years of high school, there are certain functions on social media sites that are similar to email correspondence, such as the direct message feature on Twitter and the Inbox feature on Facebook. The key is that these are person-to-person communications. Coaches may not post communications with a prospect in a public forum, because the coaches may not publicize who they are recruiting. So posting on a wall or @replying to a Twitter message from a prospect is not permitted since that can be viewed by anyone viewing the prospect’s page.
  • Media likewise often contact recruits through social media sites. Provided they are contacting an individual for media purposes, NCAA rules do not regulate the manner in which they contact the prospect – by direct message or public tweet.
  • Boosters are subject to some limitations on their contact with prospective student-athletes. One component of NCAA rules is that only the authorized coaches may recruit on behalf of the institution. This promotes competitive equity by ensuring that every program has the same number of people available to recruit for their program. Boosters are not permitted to recruit prospective student-athletes on behalf of the institution. So it would be a violation of NCAA rules for a booster to contact a prospective student-athlete by Twitter or Facebook to encourage them to attend UL. Likewise, it would be impermissible for a booster to set up a fan page in order to encourage a specific prospect to attend UL, such as a page entitled “Cajuns Fans Love Jake Prospect.” Because the institution is held responsible for the conduct of its boosters, doing so would require the University of Louisiana at Lafayette to self-report a violation of NCAA rules.
  • It is not, however, impermissible for booster to follow a prospective student-athlete on Facebook or Twitter, as long as they are not reaching out to that recruit to in any way encourage them to attend UL. Boosters may not contact a prospect even if a prospective student-athlete invites people to contact him or her to advise them about what school to choose.
  • Also, keep in mind that someone can be both a member of the media and a booster, depending on the context. As a member of the media, you would expect that someone would be seeking information, not pushing a particular agenda. So if a media member/booster contacted a prospect to say “I hear you are leaning towards UL, would you care to comment” that would be an appropriate contact by a member of the media. If that same individual sent a message saying, “I hear you are leaning towards UL, I think you would look great in Red and Black. Is it true?” that would be impermissible contact by a booster because they are encouraging the prospect to attend UL. It all depends on the context.
 

Hey mods, let's pin this, and post it to all the sports boards.
 

I mean if a kid says "had a great visit!" and someone goes on twitter and says "Minnesota would be happy to have you!" the NCAA doesn't care. I think you're all reading too far into this. Literally every post by any recruit has comments from fan bases. No one has ever been admonished because of these actions.
 




"Contact on social media"

To me, that means use a social media platform to send a direct/private message to a recruit, ostensibly to promote the school/team.

I do not consider posting a comment to something that has been put up by the recruit, to be contacting the recruit. Nor do I consider putting up a public post that has some kind of tag to the recruit's account, to be contacting the recruit.

I am also not a lawyer. The language is vague, I'm sure on purpose. It gives the authorities the most wiggle room to confirm or reject the allegation of a violation.
 

I've always thought it would be weird to tweet at recruits/players, but that's just me. I did tweet well wishes at Casey before his latest surgery, otherwise I don't know why I would tweet at a player.
 

Does anyone actually think the NCAA is going to search Twitter comments and magically determine whether or not an unverified Twitter account is being run by a booster of a particular program?
 

Keyser Söze said:
Does anyone actually think the NCAA is going to search Twitter comments and magically determine whether or not an unverified Twitter account is being run by a booster of a particular program?
Click to expand...
The NCAA enforcement and such is entirely random. So yeah if Alabama does something wrong then maybe they come after us for it... who knows.
 



Keyser Söze said:
Does anyone actually think the NCAA is going to search Twitter comments and magically determine whether or not an unverified Twitter account is being run by a booster of a particular program?
Click to expand...
No chance. They're way too busy screwing over the Gophers in the CFP rankings to waste any time on this.
 

Keyser Söze said:
Does anyone actually think the NCAA is going to search Twitter comments and magically determine whether or not an unverified Twitter account is being run by a booster of a particular program?
Click to expand...
No, the system doesn't work like that. There is no such thing as "actively seeking out violations".

A violation has to be reported to the NCAA, then they have to decide if it's credible, etc. etc. They *could* use a tweet or DM if it was relevant in the case. Doesn't mean they *will*. That's what matters, in why they have it in the language.
 

MplsGopher said:
No, the system doesn't work like that. There is no such thing as "actively seeking out violations".

A violation has to be reported to the NCAA, then they have to decide if it's credible, etc. etc. They *could* use a tweet or DM if it was relevant in the case. Doesn't mean they *will*. That's what matters, in why they have it in the language.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Even if it's reported, how would they magically determine that an unverified Twitter account is in fact a booster of that program? Tons of people create fake accounts pretending to be people they aren't.
 

Keyser Söze said:
You're missing the point. Even if it's reported, how would they magically determine that an unverified Twitter account is in fact a booster of that program? Tons of people create fake accounts pretending to be people they aren't.
Click to expand...
I don't think that is a relevant point.

The only point I'm making is that having the language on the books would allow the NCAA to use it in the case, assuming they could figure it out/had the evidence, etc.
 

MplsGopher said:
I don't think that is a relevant point.

The only point I'm making is that having the language on the books would allow the NCAA to use it in the case, assuming they could figure it out/had the evidence, etc.
Click to expand...

Tweeting at a recruit is only a violation if you are a booster, yet the NCAA not being able to determine if a Twitter user is a booster is an irrelevant point? Wut?
 

Keyser Söze said:
Tweeting at a recruit is only a violation if you are a booster, yet the NCAA not being able to determine if a Twitter user is a booster is an irrelevant point? Wut?
Click to expand...
The rules are only relevant if they’re investigating a case. I don’t think it gets to that point, if they don’t have evidence. I’m pretty sure they’re capable of “asking around” if people know who this or that Twitter handle belongs to.

I don’t think this is worth much more of our time.
 

So North Carolina can run fake classes for 20 years and it's no violation, but if Spoofin tweets at a recruit we're in trouble?
 

Word said:
So North Carolina can run fake classes for 20 years and it's no violation, but if Spoofin tweets at a recruit we're in trouble?
Click to expand...
As NC would tell you, it was because other students took the class too.
 


UpAndUnder43 said:
I mean if a kid says "had a great visit!" and someone goes on twitter and says "Minnesota would be happy to have you!" the NCAA doesn't care. I think you're all reading too far into this. Literally every post by any recruit has comments from fan bases. No one has ever been admonished because of these actions.
Click to expand...
Now there is an understatement.
 

Word said:
So North Carolina can run fake classes for 20 years and it's no violation, but if Spoofin tweets at a recruit we're in trouble?
Click to expand...
For the record, I don’t tweet.
 

Word said:
So North Carolina can run fake classes for 20 years and it's no violation, but if Spoofin tweets at a recruit we're in trouble?
Click to expand...

Not enough is said about this, still. Fake classes might the worst violation in NCAA history and they got off. Even Clem’s kids had to do some work in a real class and we almost got the death penalty. UNC should have not only gotten deep doo doo for their AD but also lost university accreditation for that stunt
 



fmlizard said:
Not enough is said about this, still. Fake classes might the worst violation in NCAA history and they got off. Even Clem’s kids had to do some work in a real class and we almost got the death penalty. UNC should have not only gotten deep doo doo for their AD but also lost university accreditation for that stunt
Click to expand...
I’ll never agree with this. It was only one department of one college.

Cancer researchers shouldn’t have been able to get NIH grants, because some liberal arts dept gave a fake class? Absurd.

The NCAA could have and should have punished the school’s athletic teams. That has nothing to do with accreditation.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom