| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14109
Back to top |
 Posted: 09/05/14 10:07 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| Brinx wrote: |
This whole situation is petty. Sure, Geno broke the letter of the law but he didn't break the spirit of it. There really wasn't anything to be gained by Uconn for making that short congratulatory call and it's really hard to believe that anybody sincerely believed that he did.
The saddest part is the negative attention this is getting. It's making the NCAA look petty (lord knows they don't need any help there), is making people speculate about other programs (who done it witch hunt), and made a 13 year old girl feel bad about some of the attention her performance earned.
Also, another DI coach tweeted encouraging words to Davis but no one seemed to report that; which only makes the whole thing seem even more petty as it seems to have been done to hurt Geno/Uconn more than to enforce the rules. |
The only reason this is an issue is because it's Connecticut. If say Cal Poly tweeted her or called her and was given a violation by the NCAA, ESPN or any other news media wouldn't have said a word about it. The NCAA makes rulings on violations all the time, and often times when they to find a school to have violated a rule it's never made public so to say other schools are getting away with it could be untrue.
|
|
mercfan3
Joined: 23 Nov 2004
Posts: 19752
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/05/14 10:25 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I have to believe some of you are just poking the bear.
or you have some really big anti-Geno glasses on.
It was really petty of that other AD to do what they did. Any reasonable person could see that. And any reasonable person could see the difference between what Geno did and actual recruiting violations.
_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/05/14 10:52 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Phil wrote: |
He checked with the school compliance officer, who checked the rules, and concluded it was within the rules. Here's the rule:
| Quote: |
| 13.02.11 Prospective Student-Athlete. A prospective student-athlete is a student who has started classes for the ninth grade. In addition, a student who has not started classes for the ninth grade becomes a prospective student-athlete if the institution provides such an individual (or the individuals relatives or friends) any financial assistance or other benefits that the institution does not provide to prospective students generally. |
She hasn't started classes, so she isn't a Prospective Student-Athlete.
|
You've quoted a definition that's not used in the rule that was deemed to have been violated, which this Bylaw:
"13.1.3.1 Time Period for Telephone CallsGeneral Rule. Telephone calls to an individual (or his or her relatives or legal guardians) may not be made before July 1 following the completion of his or her junior year in high school (subject to the exceptions below), or the opening day of classes of his or her senior year in high school (as designated by the high school), whichever is earlier . . . ."
Although the context makes it clear that the "individual" referred to in the rule must be a student, the prohibition against making telephone calls does not use the term "prospective student-athlete" nor does it require that the call have a recruiting purpose. The general rule, which has several exceptions, seems simply to be a clear and absolute ban on telephone calls to students before they complete their junior year of high school. Note that this rule does not bar other forms of communication such as a letter or email, and probably not a text message either as the definition of "telephone calls" in Bylaw 13.02.15 refers to "human voice exchange".
Even if the rule had a recruiting purpose requirement, it's totally naive to think that there has be "recruiting talk" in an initial recruiting contact. Recruiting is like long term seduction. It begins simply, with some sort of innocuous initial personal contact. The process is a slow one of building a relationship of trust and likability. The sales pitch "close" may not be made until years later.
What was Geno's purpose in making the call? Let's just think about three scenarios, the first of which is the actual one.
1. Davis wears a UConn sweatshirt all over the place and repeatedly says she wants to play basketball at UConn when she goes to college.
2. Davis wears a Temple sweatshirt all over the place and repeatedly says she want to play basketball at Temple when she goes to college.
3. Davis never wears any college's garb and never mentions a word about playing college basketball at all.
What's the probability that Geno would have called Davis in scenarios 2 and 3? |
|
Homyonkel
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 123
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/05/14 11:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Walking home today I had just turned onto my street when a car coming toward the "T" intersection made a U-turn (there were no cars in sight) and headed for home. Now I know this is against the law and am wondering if I should have reported it.
|
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14109
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/05/14 11:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| mercfan3 wrote: |
I have to believe some of you are just poking the bear.
or you have some really big anti-Geno glasses on.
It was really petty of that other AD to do what they did. Any reasonable person could see that. And any reasonable person could see the difference between what Geno did and actual recruiting violations. |
I think it is perfectly reasonable to think this call can have an impact on a person, and should he decide he wants to recruit her this call could play a role. The fact that he or she didn't mention anything about recruiting or Connecticut doesn't mean it didn't involve recruiting. Coaches talk to recruits all the time, and I think it's safe to say in at least 30% of the phone calls not a word is spoken about basketball or the school, just trying to get to know each other better or maybe talking about another sport the person plays, that's why this rule is in place.
The fact that Geno checked with compliance before he made the phone call shows he also thought it could be a violation. And while I don't really have a problem with the call, I do think it sucks that this happened after he was told it was ok to do. It would be different if he just made the phone call and then was called out for a violation, but the fact the he was told he was ok to call, is the part the sucks in my opinion.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15729
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/06/14 3:48 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| Phil wrote: |
He checked with the school compliance officer, who checked the rules, and concluded it was within the rules. Here's the rule:
| Quote: |
| 13.02.11 Prospective Student-Athlete. A prospective student-athlete is a student who has started classes for the ninth grade. In addition, a student who has not started classes for the ninth grade becomes a prospective student-athlete if the institution provides such an individual (or the individuals relatives or friends) any financial assistance or other benefits that the institution does not provide to prospective students generally. |
She hasn't started classes, so she isn't a Prospective Student-Athlete.
|
You've quoted a definition that's not used in the rule that was deemed to have been violated, which this Bylaw:
"13.1.3.1 Time Period for Telephone CallsGeneral Rule. Telephone calls to an individual (or his or her relatives or legal guardians) may not be made before July 1 following the completion of his or her junior year in high school (subject to the exceptions below), or the opening day of classes of his or her senior year in high school (as designated by the high school), whichever is earlier . . . ."
Although the context makes it clear that the "individual" referred to in the rule must be a student, the prohibition against making telephone calls does not use the term "prospective student-athlete" nor does it require that the call have a recruiting purpose. The general rule, which has several exceptions, seems simply to be a clear and absolute ban on telephone calls to students before they complete their junior year of high school. Note that this rule does not bar other forms of communication such as a letter or email, and probably not a text message either as the definition of "telephone calls" in Bylaw 13.02.15 refers to "human voice exchange".
Even if the rule had a recruiting purpose requirement, it's totally naive to think that there has be "recruiting talk" in an initial recruiting contact. Recruiting is like long term seduction. It begins simply, with some sort of innocuous initial personal contact. The process is a slow one of building a relationship of trust and likability. The sales pitch "close" may not be made until years later.
What was Geno's purpose in making the call? Let's just think about three scenarios, the first of which is the actual one.
1. Davis wears a UConn sweatshirt all over the place and repeatedly says she wants to play basketball at UConn when she goes to college.
2. Davis wears a Temple sweatshirt all over the place and repeatedly says she want to play basketball at Temple when she goes to college.
3. Davis never wears any college's garb and never mentions a word about playing college basketball at all.
What's the probability that Geno would have called Davis in scenarios 2 and 3? |
The problem with a broad understanding about what constitutes an "individual" according to this bylaw is that it would preclude a coach from talking to any individual before their junior year, for any reason. This would reduce to the absurd, as it would preclude them from speaking on the telephone to a relative or family friend. Since this is obviously not the intention of the bylaw, a more limited definition of "individual" seems to be called for. Since the bylaws are directed towards how coaches interact with student-athletes, understanding the term "individual" here to be representative of a prospective student-athlete seems reasonable. Basically, you have to look at it in the context of the whole, and not just as if it were a stand-alone rule.
As for whether Geno would have called Davis under 2 or 3, there would have been no reason to. He called her because she mentioned he was a hero of hers, someone she looks up to. Think of it like this, a kid is sick in the hospital and says his favorite athlete is LeBron James. If James hears about it, perhaps he would give the kid a call because he knows that it would make his day. But if the kid said that his favorite player was Kevin Durant, James would probably not call, and Durant would instead. Or if the kid mentioned nothing about basketball players and instead said Obama was his hero. perhaps Obama makes the call.
It's all about the kid, not about the person making the call. It is done to be nice, and to make someone's day.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14109
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/06/14 4:43 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
The problem with a broad understanding about what constitutes an "individual" according to this bylaw is that it would preclude a coach from talking to any individual before their junior year, for any reason. This would reduce to the absurd, as it would preclude them from speaking on the telephone to a relative or family friend. Since this is obviously not the intention of the bylaw, a more limited definition of "individual" seems to be called for. Since the bylaws are directed towards how coaches interact with student-athletes, understanding the term "individual" here to be representative of a prospective student-athlete seems reasonable. Basically, you have to look at it in the context of the whole, and not just as if it were a stand-alone rule.
As for whether Geno would have called Davis under 2 or 3, there would have been no reason to. He called her because she mentioned he was a hero of hers, someone she looks up to. Think of it like this, a kid is sick in the hospital and says his favorite athlete is LeBron James. If James hears about it, perhaps he would give the kid a call because he knows that it would make his day. But if the kid said that his favorite player was Kevin Durant, James would probably not call, and Durant would instead. Or if the kid mentioned nothing about basketball players and instead said Obama was his hero. perhaps Obama makes the call.
It's all about the kid, not about the person making the call. It is done to be nice, and to make someone's day. |
In theory what you say makes sense, and ideally if everyone was on the up and up that's how it should be, but unfortunately there are people in this world who will do whatever they can to get around the rules. I personally don't think in this situation there was anything done wrong, I think it was just a nice gesture on his part, and he did go through the proper channels to make sure it could be done. But I think it opens the door for people who can hide behind the "nice gesture" reason when in reality they are trying to get the upper hand. As was mentioned in another thread about recruiting some college coaches will go to high schools of people they are recruiting to meet with the high school coach and "accidentally" walk by the recruits class as they were getting out, and do other things to get around the rules.
Here is an example of a rule that in my opinion is too much, but I understand why it's in place, college coaches who have younger high school aged siblings who do not play a sport, still have to put their names on the "recruit" list, and it's clear they aren't being recruited as they don't play the sport, but the NCAA has this rule in place because coaches will try get around the rules of getting players they are interested in more tickets than they are allowed as they try to entice the player to go to their school.
|
|
PhillyCat
Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Posts: 226
Back to top |
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/06/14 9:18 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
The problem with a broad understanding about what constitutes an "individual" according to this bylaw is that it would preclude a coach from talking to any individual before their junior year, for any reason. This would reduce to the absurd, as it would preclude them from speaking on the telephone to a relative or family friend. Since this is obviously not the intention of the bylaw, a more limited definition of "individual" seems to be called for. Since the bylaws are directed towards how coaches interact with student-athletes, understanding the term "individual" here to be representative of a prospective student-athlete seems reasonable. Basically, you have to look at it in the context of the whole, and not just as if it were a stand-alone rule.
As for whether Geno would have called Davis under 2 or 3, there would have been no reason to. He called her because she mentioned he was a hero of hers, someone she looks up to. Think of it like this, a kid is sick in the hospital and says his favorite athlete is LeBron James. If James hears about it, perhaps he would give the kid a call because he knows that it would make his day. But if the kid said that his favorite player was Kevin Durant, James would probably not call, and Durant would instead. Or if the kid mentioned nothing about basketball players and instead said Obama was his hero. perhaps Obama makes the call.
It's all about the kid, not about the person making the call. It is done to be nice, and to make someone's day. |
As has been mentioned, there are exceptions to this rule, such as a son/daughter or long-time family friend where a pre-existing relationship can be shown. I am relatively certain that neither of those nor any of the other exceptions would apply to Jones & Geno.
Your scenario regarding LeBron and a sick child in the hospital isn't even close to this. Pro athlete who has no connection to the NCAA vs a Division I women's basketball coach. Sick child in the hospital vs a very health, athletic girl. Those scenarios are completely opposite. In fact, I would say that if Geno went to visit a very sick child in the hospital it would NOT be deemed a violation. For the most part, children in hospital are either terminally sick or have a lifetime of challenges ahead of them and thus would not be constituted a "prospective student-athlete". I know teams that have visited kids in children's hospitals and have volunteered at Ronald McDonald houses across the country. Again, that is a different scenario than the original story.
Again, I don't think anyone is saying it's this huge deal. But the reality is he placed a call to an individual because of her being from his hometown, her athletic achievements and that she has said how much she loves UConn.
All that said, I can't imagine this was done for any other reason than a good-will gesture towards Ms Jones. I'm pretty sure we all agree on that.
|
|
LegoMyEggo
Joined: 02 Apr 2010
Posts: 284
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/06/14 11:39 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| This has been brilliant by Geno, blowing this up through media. He makes himself look sympathetic. It also makes people forget about his twitter attack on the young lady that tweeted her five schools, which didn't include UConn.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/06/14 12:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GEF34 wrote: |
| I do think it sucks that this happened after he was told it was ok to do. It would be different if he just made the phone call and then was called out for a violation, but the fact the he was told he was ok to call, is the part the sucks in my opinion. |
Geno was told this by the in-house UConn compliance person not the NCAA compliance office. All this means is that that the UConn person is either inexperienced or befuddled in interpreting the complex NCAA rules--or, at least, this particular rule.
The general telephone call rule is clear on it's face. It has nothing to do with the definition of "prospective student-athlete". That is a defined term used in many other rules but not in the telephone rule, which is clearly intended to have a broader scope with several very carefully crafted exceptions. The general rule and every one of the stated exceptions deliberately use the term "individual" not "prospective student-athlete".
There are "additional restrictions" in sub-rules under the telephone rule, in which the drafters deliberately switch to the defined "prospective student-athlete" term and ban all "communications" (not just telephone calls) in certain circumstance. The differential intent of the legislators seems abundantly clear.
That UConn continues to recite the irrelevant prospective student-athlete definition is just hand-waving and a red herring deflection.
The complaining school simply had a sharper compliance person than UConn does. The NCAA compliance and enforcement units had no trouble instantly agreeing with the complainant on the meaning and scope of the relevant rule.
Again, the rule applies only to telephone calls. Any coach could have communicated with Davis in numerous other permissable ways.
While there could be a rule 20 pages later in the Bylaws, which no one has noticed, that changes the meaning or scope of the no-telephone rule, this seems like an easy case and an obvious violation. |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66880
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/06/14 12:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| GEF34 wrote: |
| I do think it sucks that this happened after he was told it was ok to do. It would be different if he just made the phone call and then was called out for a violation, but the fact the he was told he was ok to call, is the part the sucks in my opinion. |
Geno was told this by the in-house UConn compliance person not the NCAA compliance office. All this means is that that the UConn person is either inexperienced or befuddled in interpreting the complex NCAA rules--or, at least, this particular rule. |
Which means the violation wasn't Geno's, it was the compliance officer's.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
GEF34
Joined: 23 Jul 2008
Posts: 14109
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/06/14 1:37 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| GEF34 wrote: |
| I do think it sucks that this happened after he was told it was ok to do. It would be different if he just made the phone call and then was called out for a violation, but the fact the he was told he was ok to call, is the part the sucks in my opinion. |
Geno was told this by the in-house UConn compliance person not the NCAA compliance office. All this means is that that the UConn person is either inexperienced or befuddled in interpreting the complex NCAA rules--or, at least, this particular rule.
The general telephone call rule is clear on it's face. It has nothing to do with the definition of "prospective student-athlete". That is a defined term used in many other rules but not in the telephone rule, which is clearly intended to have a broader scope with several very carefully crafted exceptions. The general rule and every one of the stated exceptions deliberately use the term "individual" not "prospective student-athlete".
There are "additional restrictions" in sub-rules under the telephone rule, in which the drafters deliberately switch to the defined "prospective student-athlete" term and ban all "communications" (not just telephone calls) in certain circumstance. The differential intent of the legislators seems abundantly clear.
That UConn continues to recite the irrelevant prospective student-athlete definition is just hand-waving and a red herring deflection.
The complaining school simply had a sharper compliance person than UConn does. The NCAA compliance and enforcement units had no trouble instantly agreeing with the complainant on the meaning and scope of the relevant rule.
Again, the rule applies only to telephone calls. Any coach could have communicated with Davis in numerous other permissable ways.
While there could be a rule 20 pages later in the Bylaws, which no one has noticed, that changes the meaning or scope of the no-telephone rule, this seems like an easy case and an obvious violation. |
Yes I know he asked the Compliance office at Connecticut not with the NCAA, but he did do what he was suppose to do. It's not like he is suppose to ask the NCAA every time he things something he may do will be a violation, he is suppose to ask the Compliance office at Connecticut and that is what he did. That's why I think it sucks, because often times you hear coaches using the "I didn't know it was a rule" excuse, but in this case he is told yes by the people he is suppose to ask and the person/people he asked gave him wrong information.
And this next point is also partially related to what purduefanatic wrote and partially related to what you wrote. Often times college teams "adopt" a sick child he is a big fan of the team, and a lot of the times in the human interest stories they do during the NCAA Tournament or halftime of tv games where players and coaches talk about how this individual inspires them because they are fighting for their lives, but yet still interested about the team, going to games and practices, wearing gear, talking to players and coaches etc., it's not uncommon for the coach to say I talk on the phone with this person everyday or once a week or on days they have chem, etc., and I would assume that isn't a violation, so perhaps there are other exceptions besides family, long time friend or pre-existing relationship so maybe the Compliance office or person thought this would fall under that exception. I have no idea what that exception would be or how it would be worded, but they don't typically fall under family, long time friend, pre-existing relationship exception.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/06/14 1:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| GEF34 wrote: |
| I do think it sucks that this happened after he was told it was ok to do. It would be different if he just made the phone call and then was called out for a violation, but the fact the he was told he was ok to call, is the part the sucks in my opinion. |
Geno was told this by the in-house UConn compliance person not the NCAA compliance office. All this means is that that the UConn person is either inexperienced or befuddled in interpreting the complex NCAA rules--or, at least, this particular rule. |
Which means the violation wasn't Geno's, it was the compliance officer's. |
Most accurately, the school commits the violation.
If a corporate executive gets tax advice from an attorney or CPA, and the IRS or a court ultimately upholds a different tax position, the corporation is the violator. And it just means the attorney or CPA was wrong in his or her interpretation of a particular tax rule, ex post facto, not that the corporate executive is evil or that the advisor is universally incompetent.
As far as I know, you can't ask the NCAA for advisory opinions, any more than you can ask a judge for one. You have to rely on your own private advisors and then take your chances in court.
The general telephone rule, which flatly bars calls to any "individual" (= student of any age) before the end of her senior year, makes eminent sense to me. Here's why.
Yes, the NCAA recruiting rules are Baroque, Byzantine and often Lewis Carroll-ish. However, each one of the rules has been agreed to by the collective schools themselves for their own collective benefit. More importantly, many of the rules are in place to protect students against the historically rapacious, intrusive and even illegal behavior of coaches and boosters.
Many of these rules are specifically framed to protect high school students, 9th graders and above--"prospective student-athletes"--against various forms of this rapacity. Doesn't it make even more sense to protect even younger kids, grade school kids, against the most common form of potential coach abuse: telephone calls?
Many grade school kids play on their high school varsity GBB teams as 7th and 8th graders. Why would any sensible organization (the NCAA) write a protective rule against telephone calls to 9th, 10th and 11 graders (prospective student-athletes), but leave coaches open to call K-8 grade school kids? It wouldn't. So it makes common sense to broaden the no-telephone rules to all students below grade 12. One way to accomplish that worthy goal is to use a broadly inclusive word like "individual" in a no-telephone rule.
The UConn tribalists and anti-tribalists seem to be all swept up in ad hominem Genomania, instead of reading the relevant rule carefully and thinking about its purpose.
Last edited by GlennMacGrady on 09/06/14 1:50 pm; edited 4 times in total |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/06/14 1:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| purduefanatic wrote: |
Your scenario regarding LeBron and a sick child in the hospital isn't even close to this. Pro athlete who has no connection to the NCAA vs a Division I women's basketball coach. Sick child in the hospital vs a very health, athletic girl. Those scenarios are completely opposite. In fact, I would say that if Geno went to visit a very sick child in the hospital it would NOT be deemed a violation. For the most part, children in hospital are either terminally sick or have a lifetime of challenges ahead of them and thus would not be constituted a "prospective student-athlete". I know teams that have visited kids in children's hospitals and have volunteered at Ronald McDonald houses across the country. Again, that is a different scenario than the original story. |
No analogy is a perfect parallel, they are only meant to highlight something that they have in common. Here, it was to answer the question that was posed above about why Geno chose this specific girl, and whether he would have if she had dropped Temple's name or not dropped any name.
And in that aspect, my analogy works. The point was that the only time it would make sense for Geno to call her is if it would mean something to her. If she were a Temple fan, or not a basketball fan at all, it would have seemed weird for Geno to call. But since it was his name that was dropped, it made perfect sense and falls into the bounds of "reasonable". In my analogy, why the person made the news was incidental to my point. Which person would call the child was the part that mattered. It's the same reason the WNBA flew her out to see the Lynx play after she dropped Maya Moore's name. If she had dropped EDD's name, they would have flown her out to see the Sky play.
If you want, we could substitute another child in that analogy. How about a very athletic middle school aged girl who makes the news because she single-handedly saves her family from a burning house. When she is interviewed by the news, she mentions that LeBron is her favorite player....and the rest of the analogy as it was. The point being that it would only make sense for LeBron to be the one to call if she name dropped his name.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/06/14 1:51 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| GEF34 wrote: |
| I do think it sucks that this happened after he was told it was ok to do. It would be different if he just made the phone call and then was called out for a violation, but the fact the he was told he was ok to call, is the part the sucks in my opinion. |
Geno was told this by the in-house UConn compliance person not the NCAA compliance office. All this means is that that the UConn person is either inexperienced or befuddled in interpreting the complex NCAA rules--or, at least, this particular rule. |
Which means the violation wasn't Geno's, it was the compliance officer's. |
Most accurately, the school commits the violation.
If a corporate executive gets tax advice from an attorney or CPA, and the IRS or a court ultimately upholds a different tax position, the corporation is the violator. And it just means the attorney or CPA was wrong in his or her interpretation of a particular tax rule, ex post facto, not that the corporate executive is evil or that the advisor is universally incompetent.
As far as I know, you can't ask the NCAA for advisory opinions, any more than you can ask a judge for one. You have to rely on your own private advisers and then take you chances in court.
The general telephone rule, which flatly bars calls to any "individual" (= student of any age) before the end of her senior year, makes eminent sense to me. Here's why.
Yes, the NCAA recruiting rules are Baroque, Byzantine and often Lewis Carroll-ish. However, each one of the rules has been agreed to by the collective schools themselves for their own collective benefit. More importantly, many of the rules are in place to protect students against the historically rapacious, intrusive and even illegal behavior of coaches and boosters.
Many of these rules are specifically framed to protect high school students, 9th graders and above--"prospective student-athletes"--against this rapacity. Doesn't it make even more sense to protect even younger kids, grade school kids, against the most common form of potential coach abuse: telephone calls?
Many grade school kids play on their high school varsity GBB teams as 7th and 8th graders. Why would any sensible organization (the NCAA) write a protective rule against telephone calls to 9th, 10th and 11 graders (prospective student-athletes), but leave coaches open to call K-8 grade school kids? It wouldn't. So it makes common sense to broaden the no-telephone rules to all students below grade 12. One way to accomplish that worthy goal is to use a broadly inclusive word like "individual" in a no-telephone rule.
The UConn tribalists and anti-tribalists seem to be all swept up in ad hominem Genomania, instead of reading the relevant rule carefully and thinking about its purpose. |
A 7th or 8th grader playing on a high school team would be considered a "prospective student athlete". So I am unsure why that term would be insufficient for the purpose you designate.
But since you highlight the reason why the rule exists, this case would be a perfect example of why a broad understanding of the rule is wrongly applied. There should be no reason why Geno cannot do a nice thing for a young girl who accomplished something so incredible. He was clearly not trying to recruit, even in the broadest of terms, but rather be a decent human being.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8225
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/06/14 2:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
| GEF34 wrote: |
| I do think it sucks that this happened after he was told it was ok to do. It would be different if he just made the phone call and then was called out for a violation, but the fact the he was told he was ok to call, is the part the sucks in my opinion. |
Geno was told this by the in-house UConn compliance person not the NCAA compliance office. All this means is that that the UConn person is either inexperienced or befuddled in interpreting the complex NCAA rules--or, at least, this particular rule. |
Which means the violation wasn't Geno's, it was the compliance officer's. |
Most accurately, the school commits the violation.
If a corporate executive gets tax advice from an attorney or CPA, and the IRS or a court ultimately upholds a different tax position, the corporation is the violator. And it just means the attorney or CPA was wrong in his or her interpretation of a particular tax rule, ex post facto, not that the corporate executive is evil or that the advisor is universally incompetent.
As far as I know, you can't ask the NCAA for advisory opinions, any more than you can ask a judge for one. You have to rely on your own private advisers and then take you chances in court.
The general telephone rule, which flatly bars calls to any "individual" (= student of any age) before the end of her senior year, makes eminent sense to me. Here's why.
Yes, the NCAA recruiting rules are Baroque, Byzantine and often Lewis Carroll-ish. However, each one of the rules has been agreed to by the collective schools themselves for their own collective benefit. More importantly, many of the rules are in place to protect students against the historically rapacious, intrusive and even illegal behavior of coaches and boosters.
Many of these rules are specifically framed to protect high school students, 9th graders and above--"prospective student-athletes"--against this rapacity. Doesn't it make even more sense to protect even younger kids, grade school kids, against the most common form of potential coach abuse: telephone calls?
Many grade school kids play on their high school varsity GBB teams as 7th and 8th graders. Why would any sensible organization (the NCAA) write a protective rule against telephone calls to 9th, 10th and 11 graders (prospective student-athletes), but leave coaches open to call K-8 grade school kids? It wouldn't. So it makes common sense to broaden the no-telephone rules to all students below grade 12. One way to accomplish that worthy goal is to use a broadly inclusive word like "individual" in a no-telephone rule.
The UConn tribalists and anti-tribalists seem to be all swept up in ad hominem Genomania, instead of reading the relevant rule carefully and thinking about its purpose. |
A 7th or 8th grader playing on a high school team would be considered a "prospective student athlete". So I am unsure why that term would be insufficient for the purpose you designate.
|
Incorrect. The definition is quoted above by Phil. A prospective student-athlete is a student "who has started classes for the ninth grade."
Many of the recruiting rules apply to prospective student-athletes, as defined--i.e., 9th to 12 graders. A few of the rules, like the no-telephone rule, apply to any "individual", which has no grade level limitation.
UConn's compliance person improperly read the "prospective student-athlete" definition into the no-telephone rule, and hence gave Geno the wrong answer because Davis is only an 8th grader. The newspapers have picked up on the prospective student-athlete irrelevancy because UConn keeps floating it, and none of the media actually focus on relevant rule, much less think about its salutary purpose. |
|
Beemer
Joined: 19 Jul 2014
Posts: 483
Location: Connecticut
Back to top |
|
Oldfandepot2
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 996
Location: Northeast
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/06/14 3:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| So, Glenn all these newspapers, Michelle Voepel, Mel Greenberg et al are in Geno's hip pocket. It is not the technical application of the rule which can be interpreted widely as shown on this thread but the reporting that Mel and Michelle et al view as petty. So you can argue ad nauseum about its technical merits but that is not the issue.
_________________
Cave Canem!
We must listen to each other no matter how much it hurts. Bishop Desmond Tutu.
Last edited by Oldfandepot2 on 09/06/14 3:34 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/06/14 3:21 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Oldfandepot2 wrote: |
| So, Glenn all these newspapers, Michelle Voepel, Mel Greenberg et al are in Geno's hip pocket. It is not the technical application of the rule which can be interpreted widely as shown on this thread but the reporting that Mel and Michelle et al view as petty. So you can argue ad nauseum about its technical merits but that is not the issue. |
Yeah, basically it fails the common sense test. It's like reporting someone for jaywalking when they jaywalked to help a child on the other side of the road.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Oldfandepot2
Joined: 05 Jul 2013
Posts: 996
Location: Northeast
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/06/14 3:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| justintyme wrote: |
| Oldfandepot2 wrote: |
| So, Glenn all these newspapers, Michelle Voepel, Mel Greenberg et al are in Geno's hip pocket. It is not the technical application of the rule which can be interpreted widely as shown on this thread but the reporting that Mel and Michelle et al view as petty. So you can argue ad nauseum about its technical merits but that is not the issue. |
Yeah, basically it fails the common sense test. It's like reporting someone for jaywalking when they jaywalked to help a child on the other side of the road. |
Nice analogy.
_________________
Cave Canem!
We must listen to each other no matter how much it hurts. Bishop Desmond Tutu.
|
|
hyperetic
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 5349
Location: Fayetteville
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/06/14 3:48 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| GlennMacGrady wrote: |
You've quoted a definition that's not used in the rule that was deemed to have been violated, which this Bylaw:
"13.1.3.1 Time Period for Telephone CallsGeneral Rule. Telephone calls to an individual (or his or her relatives or legal guardians) may not be made before July 1 following the completion of his or her junior year in high school (subject to the exceptions below), or the opening day of classes of his or her senior year in high school (as designated by the high school), whichever is earlier . . . ."
Although the context makes it clear that the "individual" referred to in the rule must be a student, the prohibition against making telephone calls does not use the term "prospective student-athlete" nor does it require that the call have a recruiting purpose. The general rule, which has several exceptions, seems simply to be a clear and absolute ban on telephone calls to students before they complete their junior year of high school. Note that this rule does not bar other forms of communication such as a letter or email, and probably not a text message either as the definition of "telephone calls" in Bylaw 13.02.15 refers to "human voice exchange".
Even if the rule had a recruiting purpose requirement, it's totally naive to think that there has be "recruiting talk" in an initial recruiting contact. Recruiting is like long term seduction. It begins simply, with some sort of innocuous initial personal contact. The process is a slow one of building a relationship of trust and likability. The sales pitch "close" may not be made until years later.
What was Geno's purpose in making the call? Let's just think about three scenarios, the first of which is the actual one.
1. Davis wears a UConn sweatshirt all over the place and repeatedly says she wants to play basketball at UConn when she goes to college.
2. Davis wears a Temple sweatshirt all over the place and repeatedly says she want to play basketball at Temple when she goes to college.
3. Davis never wears any college's garb and never mentions a word about playing college basketball at all.
What's the probability that Geno would have called Davis in scenarios 2 and 3? |
Soooooo...kids (prospective student-athletes) are not to make up their minds about where they want to go until their junior year in high school. If they do make up their mind before then, they have to keep it to themselves? They definitely can't share their interest with any athletic personnel from said school? Hmmmm....
Because Geno is a coach at UConn, he's not allowed to be considered a hero by any prospective student-athletes. Even though it may be a high point, an encouraging moment in their life, he must not utter one mumbling word to them? I am certainly glad this rule doesn't apply outside the NCAA. Kids have people they look up to. Heroes can help motivate kids to do their best. Basically what I am seeing is the NCAA wants everyone to have a shot at recruiting her if she turns out to be any good despite her already leaning toward UCONN.
| NCAA wrote: |
| "You can't choose a university before your 11th grade year and when you choose you have to look at all our universities, not just one. We have to be fair you know." |
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/06/14 4:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I always laugh when people talk about "the NCAA requires..." or "the NCAA wants...." or "the NCAA rules..." as if the NCAA is some sort of alien life form that came down to earth and used science-fiction-like powers to impose some extra-terrestial set of arbitrary rules on the poor downtrodden college sports community.
"The NCAA" isn't anything. It's just an association of schools. The schools themselves write the rules. The schools themselves vote on the rules. The schools themselves agree to comply with the rules. The schools themselves enforce the rules. The schools themselves can change the rules if they don't like them.
Fans can whine all they want about the rules when their coach gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar, but the schools themselves thought those rules were necessary and appropriate when the schools themselves adopted those rules. And most schools seem to have no problem complying with them.
|
|
AJMMs
Joined: 09 May 2005
Posts: 139
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/06/14 5:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Geno should've just not called her if he had any concerns of it being a violation. I would have chose not to. Was he seeking the limelight in doing so, since she was all over the news at the time? Did she specifically say that her dream would be to get a call from him at that moment? If she is saying that she wants to play for UConn one day, it doesn't matter if she is being recruited by the school or not. There are numerous players out there that say UConn is their dream school and even though there is no chance at all that they ever get looked at by Geno and his staff or any other "dream" school coaches out there, you still can't contact them like that. Geno should've known better. He wanted his name associated with her and the national media so he went for it, regardless. Too much ego in that man. And no one ever mentioned the porn pic he favorited on Twitter which was the cause of his not having a Twitter page any more. LOL. He's a great mastermind of a coach, but there's also something fishy about the little twerp that rubs me the wrong way all the time. Bottom line, he understood that there was a possibility of a recruiting violation, since he asked the administration for an OK. If you think it might be, just don't go there. (:
|
|
|
|
