Parents and Message Boards

[cutter]

from ncaa site (but, still unclear to me):

"Divisions I and II look at social networking less in terms of the technology being used and more in terms of its recruiting impact. NCAA rules do not allow comments about possible recruits on an institution’s social media page or a page belonging to someone affiliated with the institution. In addition, these pages cannot feature photos of prospects and messages cannot be sent to recruits using these social media technologies other than through their e-mail function.

Since texting is impermissible, if a coach becomes aware that a recruit has elected to receive direct messages as text messages on a mobile device, the coach must cease communicating with the recruit through the social networking site. All other electronically transmitted correspondence including, but not limited to, text messaging, Instant Messenger, chat rooms or message boards [e.g., a user’s wall] within a social networking Web site or through other services or applications remain impermissible."

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Issues/Recruiting/Social+Media+and+Recruiting


Stallion will probably clarify, but I believe he has raised the idea that communication with fans on a message board is impermissible. maybe he can provide documentation with a link?

[cutter]

excerpt from Baylor Compliance Office letter, 2004 (I can only imagine stringency has increased since then):

Booster Web sites and Message Boards:

The internet has provided the opportunity for Baylor fans from all over the world to communicate with each other in a way that was not possible before. The following regulations regarding those sites are very important for all fans who participate on these message boards to know:

(1)The NCAA does not consider the boosters who run these Web sites to be members of the media. Therefore, when the administrators of these sites contact a prospective student-athlete (an individual who has started classes for the ninth grade), interview them and place that interview on their Web site, Baylor is responsible for an impermissible contact. Recently, the University of Kentucky had a situation where some football recruits were interviewed by the administrator of such a Web site, which resulted in a violation for Kentucky. As a result of this violation, the university had to declare both recruits (who eventually signed with Kentucky) ineligible and appeal to the NCAA to have their eligibility reinstated.

(2)Boosters participating on a message board are not permitted to write, call or e-mail a recruit. I’ve noticed that fans on other websites sometimes believe it is permissible to contact a prospect once they sign a National Letter of Intent; they are wrong. The signing does not change the fact he or she is still a prospect and all prohibitions against booster contact continue to apply. We often also hear comments that because a person is not a graduate of Baylor or a season ticket holder, they believe they are not a booster and it is permissible for them to contact a prospect. However, part of the NCAA’s definition of a booster includes anyone who contacts a recruit on behalf of the institution. Therefore, as soon as someone on a message board e-mails or sends a message out to a recruit, they automatically become a booster and are subject to the NCAA rules prohibiting such contact.

(3)The NCAA considers chat rooms and instant messaging to be telephone calls. Since boosters are not permitted to call a recruit, participating in a chat room with a recruit or instant messaging him or her is not permitted.

http://www.baylorfans.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-64706.html

[Stallion]

same applies to Parents once you realize you are talking to a prospective recruit who has not yet signed LOI. Same applies when you are in Football stands. If a known recruit or their parent asks you a question explain and direct them to SMU Football Offices

[cutter]

same applies to Parents once you realize you are talking to a prospective recruit who has not yet signed LOI. Same applies when you are in Football stands. If a known recruit or their parent asks you a question explain and direct them to SMU Football Offices

do you happen to have a link to a source? I keep perusing various ncaa sites, and it is so convoluted, that I cannot seem to find a clear, concise statement of that fact. no wonder it is so easy to run afoul of the rules.

[goldenstang]

NCAA makes it next to impossible to interpret their rules. It's intentional that way they can practice selective enforcement.

[pwnyxpress]

Is PonyFans considered affiliated with SMU? I didn't think it was.

[goldenstang]

Plenty of the people on here are though

[Stallion]

If you are an alumnus or member of the Mustang Club you are a representative of the University

[reddevil]

I think semantics come into play here.

Is it permissible to make a post that is entirely directed at the parent of a recruit, probably not.

Can you post a positive message about a recruit that a parent of a recruit just might happen to read, yes that is likely permissible.

The easiest way to circumvent all of this is with anonymity. Parents of recruits should not identify themselves on the board.

[2ndandlong]

If you have serious questions on this, you should really contact the university's counsel. That's what they're there for. Let's play it safe. If you need the contact info, pm me and I'll send it to you in the morning.

[2ndandlong]

Or PM me your question and I'll be glad to chase it down for you.

[cutter]

If you have serious questions on this, you should really contact the university's counsel. That's what they're there for. Let's play it safe. If you need the contact info, pm me and I'll send it to you in the morning.

Or PM me your question and I'll be glad to chase it down for you.

It would seem to make much more sense for the university (AD/compliance office or general counsel) to recognize that there is a potential problem and to issue a straightforward, concise guideline of what the rules allow and don't allow, akin to the Baylor Compliance Office statement cited above. Such a release could be posted here on this board as a reference sticky, and updated appropriately.
To raise individual queries and issues to any university office seems to be a silly, haphazard approach that will only perpetuate the potential for inadvertent crossing of lines. Thankfully, Stallion and others seem to have pointed out appropriate concerns during communication on this board. Still, the current state of most posters not knowing what the lawful guidelines are, is just 'an accident waiting to happen'. And, the risks increase as the program grows.

as I see it.

[2ndandlong]

Cutter,

I agree, and you'll see in his response that he intends to take a more active role in monitoring.

My point was more to stop people from guessing and use a resource that boosters (like all of us) should get to know and rely on. Kyle is a great guy and very responsive.

[2ndandlong]

Below is the response I received from Kyle Conder, Compliance. I made it known up front to him that it was my intention to publish his response here:

Thank you for your message. You have raised an important issue. Your question is excellent.

Under NCAA rules, it is not permissible for representatives of SMU’s athletics interests (i.e., SMU fans, boosters, supporters) to have written communication with a prospective student-athlete (i.e., a recruit) or the prospect’s relatives or legal guardians.

Although I understand the message board users’ frustration, NCAA legislation in this regard is specific. For an SMU supporter to knowingly engage in written correspondence with the parent of a prospect would be a violation of NCAA rules.

I am also aware that it may be difficult to determine whether a message board user is, in fact, a prospect or the parent of a prospect. However, once an individual has identified himself as a prospect or the parent of a prospect, it is incumbent on SMU supporters to refrain from corresponding with that individual.

A violation under this section of NCAA rules would render the prospect ineligible for participation in athletics at SMU, unless and until the prospect is reinstated by the NCAA.

You may share this response with other message board users. I will make a better effort to engage the membership of PonyFans.com and other message boards devoted to SMU Athletics.

Below you will find the pertinent NCAA bylaws and an example of a violation that was submitted by another institution to the NCAA.

13.01.4 - Recruiting by Representatives of Athletics Interests.

Representatives of an institution's athletics interests are prohibited from making in-person, on- or off-campus recruiting contacts, or written or telephonic communications with a prospective student-athlete or the prospective student-athlete's relatives or legal guardians.

13.1.2.1 - General Rule.

All in-person, on- and off-campus recruiting contacts with a prospective student-athlete or the prospective student-athlete's relatives or legal guardians shall be made only by authorized institutional staff members. Such contact, as well as correspondence and telephone calls, by representatives of an institution's athletics interests is prohibited except as otherwise permitted in this section. Violations of this bylaw involving individuals other than a representative of an institution's athletics interests shall be considered institutional violations per Constitution 2.8.1; however, such violations shall not affect the prospective student-athlete's eligibility. (Revised: 8/5/04)

Secondary Case Number: 43932 SA Reinstatement Case Number: 36271

Facts:

January 2010, a representative of institution's athletics interests exchanged three to six messages with a prospective student-athlete's (PSA's) father via institution's unofficial internet message board. In addition, February 20, 2010, another representative of institution's athletics interests had in-person, off-campus contact with PSA and PSA's family at one of institution's away contests. Specifically, the first representative initiated an online correspondence with PSA's father and informed the second representative PSA's family would attend institution's away contest. On approaching PSA's family, the second representative had a two-minute conversation with them before institution's athletics director asked him to stop. Both representatives mistakenly thought that their contact with PSA was permissible because PSA had verbally committed to attend institution.

Institutional Action:

Institution conducted rules education with involved representatives. Compliance office developed an "Extra Benefits Guide" for staff and representatives of athletics interests. Rules education by compliance office with all administrative staff in athletics department. Compliance office will be conducting rules education on extra benefits with all representatives of athletics interests. Compliance office is continuing to develop materials that will be provided to representatives of athletics interests and fans via institution's website along with mailings.

Thank you for “Asking Before You Act.” If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call (214-768-4051), write ([email protected]), or visit (Loyd All-Sports Center 304D). Let me know if there is anything else I can do for you.

[2ndandlong]

In summary, no communication, and, if you have questions, remember this important paragraph:

Thank you for “Asking Before You Act.” If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call (214-768-4051), write ([email protected]), or visit (Loyd All-Sports Center 304D). Let me know if there is anything else I can do for you.

His name is Kyle Conder.