PJ Fleck, Gophers Have Turned in Multiple Rival Schools for Tampering

Donate To GopherHole
BleedGopher

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
62,123
Reaction score
18,591
Points
113
Per Strack:

PJ Fleck, Mark Coyle turning in rival schools for tampering​

What can PJ Fleck and the University of Minnesota football program do to try and combat other schools from illegally trying to poach players from their roster, long before they ever express interest or announce plans to enter the transfer portal?

www.minnesotasportsfan.com

PJ Fleck, Gophers Have Turned in Multiple Rival Schools for Tampering

The Minnesota Gophers are trying to keep rival programs from illegally poaching their players by turning them in for alleged tampering.
www.minnesotasportsfan.com www.minnesotasportsfan.com

Go Gophers!!
 






This is some good popcorn!

SsZ8pbG.gif
 



Guessing Wisconsin was sniffing Darius Taylor. You'd assume this is a player who is staying that would bother to show the coaches the improper contact. Nothing will happen to those teams. We also turned in Kansas State a couple years back when they contacted Ky Thomas before he was in the portal. He wasn't allowed to transfer there and later picked Kansas.
 



sounds like the gophers are behind. if the other program has more NIL to offer this is little more than due diligence on targeting the players you want. the conditions aren't equal if there's NIL on the table
 

There’s rumors (likely true) that Cameron Ward had multiple offers before he even entered the portal.
 

It would have to be someone who is coming back, to tell Fleck about the offers. Otherwise he’s never know.

There won’t be any proof of this, unless the other team doing it are complete morons. Just hearsay.

But I like this anyway. At least get it out in the paper that we will turn you in if you F around.
 

MplsGopher said:
It would have to be someone who is coming back, to tell Fleck about the offers. Otherwise he’s never know.

There won’t be any proof of this, unless the other team doing it are complete morons. Just hearsay.

But I like this anyway. At least get it out in the paper that we will turn you in if you F around.
Click to expand...
Not hearsay if it comes straight from the player they attempted to tamper with.

Also after the whole Connor Stalions Venmo debacle I’m willing to believe there are some complete morons out there.
 



If there’s no actual proof and it’s just the player claiming someone rolled up on him and gave a dollar figure, that’s literally hearsay.

It’s not a court of law. The NCAA could choose to launch an investigation despite lack of evidence. I’m just saying
 

MplsGopher said:
If there’s no actual proof and it’s just the player claiming someone rolled up on him and gave a dollar figure, that’s literally hearsay.

It’s not a court of law. The NCAA could choose to launch an investigation despite lack of evidence. I’m just saying
Click to expand...
It may not be solid proof but it is not hearsay. That is not how hearsay works or what it means. If a player says “I was contacted by X school and they offered me a Benz if I transferred” that wouldn’t be hearsay. If Fleck were to say “A player told me they were contacted by X school, and were offered a Benz if they transferred” that would be hearsay. At least that’s my understanding of it.
 

WashedGoph said:
It may not be solid proof but it is not hearsay. That is not how hearsay works or what it means. If a player says “I was contacted by X school and they offered me a Benz if I transferred” that wouldn’t be hearsay. If Fleck were to say “A player told me they were contacted by X school, and were offered a Benz if they transferred” that would be hearsay. At least that’s my understanding of it.
Click to expand...
That's correct! Good explanation!
 

Is there actually an enforceable rule against tampering?

There's no players' union or labor agreement or franchise owners' agreement. There's no rules at all except for a small handful with obvious loopholes a 5th grade law student could see from space.

Present-day college football is becoming the exact thinly-regulated winner-take-all pure capitalist market you would expect from the most American of sports.
 

WashedGoph said:
It may not be solid proof but it is not hearsay. That is not how hearsay works or what it means. If a player says “I was contacted by X school and they offered me a Benz if I transferred” that wouldn’t be hearsay. If Fleck were to say “A player told me they were contacted by X school, and were offered a Benz if they transferred” that would be hearsay. At least that’s my understanding of it.
Click to expand...
You don't want Bob Loblaw to see this post and educate you on what does and does not constitute heresay! He'd slap an injunction on your future posting!
 


Its likely that once a player announces he is entering the portal he can be contacted, but that's just my guess
 

fmlizard said:
Is there actually an enforceable rule against tampering?

There's no players' union or labor agreement or franchise owners' agreement. There's no rules at all except for a small handful with obvious loopholes a 5th grade law student could see from space.

Present-day college football is becoming the exact thinly-regulated winner-take-all pure capitalist market you would expect from the most American of sports.
Click to expand...
There are all kinds of recruiting rules. This is likely covered in those rules.
 

WashedGoph said:
It may not be solid proof but it is not hearsay. That is not how hearsay works or what it means. If a player says “I was contacted by X school and they offered me a Benz if I transferred” that wouldn’t be hearsay. If Fleck were to say “A player told me they were contacted by X school, and were offered a Benz if they transferred” that would be hearsay. At least that’s my understanding of it.
Click to expand...
This is the problem with NIL when there is no Federal policy/laws on how the process should be managed on a national basis. As it stands now, all the collectives completely isolate the schools from the NCAA. The NCAA has no authority over the collectives and the schools can claim they had no knowledge of any offers being made outside the portal process. So, if the state doesn't have an extremely well-defined process to manage it, then it's kind of the wild west which it is as we can all see.
 

let's go to the NCAA rulebook:

(c) The head coach of the certifying institution and the student shall certify that no athletics staff member or other representative of the institution’s athletics interest communicated or made contact with the student-athlete, or any individual associated with the student (e.g., family member, scholastic or nonscholastic coach, advisor), directly or indirectly, without first obtaining authorization through the notification of transfer process (see Bylaw 13.1.1.3). (d)

In order to evaluate and determine if tampering occurred, reporting is key. Pursuant to Bylaw 13.1.1.3, any communication with an enrolled student-athlete is impermissible. Although communication is impermissible, not every instance rises to the level of tampering. Every case is fact specific.

19.1.2 Significant Breach of Conduct (Level II Violation). A significant breach of conduct is one or more violations that provide or are intended to provide more than a minimal but less than a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage; include more than a minimal but less than a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit; or involve conduct that may compromise the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model as set forth in the constitution and bylaws.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
let's go to the NCAA rulebook:

(c) The head coach of the certifying institution and the student shall certify that no athletics staff member or other representative of the institution’s athletics interest communicated or made contact with the student-athlete, or any individual associated with the student (e.g., family member, scholastic or nonscholastic coach, advisor), directly or indirectly, without first obtaining authorization through the notification of transfer process (see Bylaw 13.1.1.3). (d)

In order to evaluate and determine if tampering occurred, reporting is key. Pursuant to Bylaw 13.1.1.3, any communication with an enrolled student-athlete is impermissible. Although communication is impermissible, not every instance rises to the level of tampering. Every case is fact specific.

19.1.2 Significant Breach of Conduct (Level II Violation). A significant breach of conduct is one or more violations that provide or are intended to provide more than a minimal but less than a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage; include more than a minimal but less than a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit; or involve conduct that may compromise the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model as set forth in the constitution and bylaws.
Click to expand...
The trouble with the NCAA is that some state laws and the court themselves have removed much of the enforcement teeth the NCAA has. I have attached a link from a Temple Law article from August of this year. You quickly get a sense of how complex and convoluted this is.

Temple Law article
 

Sparlimb said:
Guessing Wisconsin was sniffing Darius Taylor. You'd assume this is a player who is staying that would bother to show the coaches the improper contact. Nothing will happen to those teams. We also turned in Kansas State a couple years back when they contacted Ky Thomas before he was in the portal. He wasn't allowed to transfer there and later picked Kansas.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty good birdie you've got there Sparlimb...

Good intel if true.
 

It might seem futile to turn other teams in but there are still recruiting violations even though it doesn't feel like there are. And the only way the poaching gets stopped or at least reigned in is if teams report the other teams that are doing it.

Personally I would love to see a player go public with communications they get from another team when they are not in the portal. Because there should be no communication of any kind going on so if you are sure you don't want to leave go ahead and put teams on blast for trying to poach you from your current team.
 

@WashedGoph thanks for correcting me. I was wrong. And learned something new!

There must be some other legal word for when a person says something is true because they observed it in the first-person but no other evidence exists supporting the claim, so there is no way to prove if the person is telling the truth or lying.
 

@fmlizard just like the law, if the language of a rule/bylaw is general enough, then anyone can make an argument that that rule/bylaw in fact coves a specific instance of alleged wrongdoing.

Then up to the judge/jury/panel whatever to decide if that is/should be correct or not.
 

MplsGopher said:
If there’s no actual proof and it’s just the player claiming someone rolled up on him and gave a dollar figure, that’s literally hearsay.

It’s not a court of law. The NCAA could choose to launch an investigation despite lack of evidence. I’m just saying
Click to expand...
That is literally NOT hearsay. If a student athlete is willing to testify under oath that he was offered something of value to transfer to another school - that is direct evidence of tampering.
 

@Redbird post #27.

Refrain from posting until you’ve read the thread, thanks.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom