Interviews with Recruits = NCAA Violations

[babytownfrolics]

It's the "fact" that he violated NCAA rules "on behalf of Marquette"?    

Firstly, not a fact.  A possibility.  Secondly, I'd like to see your source on the "fact" that he did it "on behalf of Marquette."

Thanks.

This is taken from the link provided by Danielle at the top of this post.

ONCE YOU ARE A BOOSTER, YOU ARE ONE FOREVER! AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF MARQUETTE'S ATHLETICS INTERESTS, YOU ARE BOUND BY NCAA, BIG EAST AND MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY RULES. AND, THEREFORE, MARQUETTE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS!

It's obvious he's been contacting him for some time as he's been conducting interviews with him and developed a "rapport" with him.  If he's considered a booster...

[ChicosBailBonds]

While it might be convenient, in the age of message board and internet bloggers, to designated everyone who blogs or records a video as a member of the media it simply will not fly with the NCAA.  Chico of all people knows this well. In order to be legit, in the eyes of the NCAA, the media needs to be credentialed.  That is to say that they must be recognized by legitimate entities (such as MU or other local universities or pro teams) as members of the media for purposes of receiving a credential that enables them to cover events for these universities and teams without paying admission (in other words they're at the press table/row and have access to clubhouses/locker rooms and players for coverage purpose.

It is clear that Brad, perhaps unkowingly, fits the definition of a booster in that he is an alum.  I think it's ironic that being an alum defines one as a booster as I have seen several alums post things on this board that are harmful to our alma mater.

That is correct, you need to be credentialed to be at certain events, etc.  Which, ironically, the NCAA started to credential some bloggers two years ago for some events.  Your point is well taken.

That's also where it gets interesting with Brad, etc.  Because MU, to protect their own self interests and pass information on which THEY want to pass on and can CONTROL, will credential specific entities.  A bit of latin...quid pro quo as it were.  Nothing wrong with that, it's smart business.

But let's also get real, too.  What is to stop a Wisconsin Badger fan from interviewing a top Marquette recruit, put it all over the internet in the hopes of getting Marquette in trouble?  Or a Louisville fan doing that to Kentucky?  Etc, etc.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

I won't pretend to know how or why you know my name, or that you think it would be a good idea to include my first name in one of your posts, but either way, it should be deleted.  Thanks.

Oh, I'm sorry....I saw you use Brad's name so figured it was ok....

In your profile, your PUBLIC PROFILE, you should elect not to have information in public that you don't want public.   Gee, didn't you know this....how could you not know this....you rail on someone for not knowing something about a NCAA rule in a rule book that is over 500 pages long and yet you missed that little item.  Tsk tsk.

See where this is going? 

[babytownfrolics]

Oh, I'm sorry....I saw you use Brad's name so figured it was ok....

In your profile, your PUBLIC PROFILE, you should elect not to have information in public that you don't want public.   Gee, didn't you know this....how could you not know this....you rail on someone for not knowing something about a NCAA rule in a rule book that is over 500 pages long and yet you missed that little item.  Tsk tsk.

See where this is going? 

No I don't see where it's going, because now you're comparing my mistake in not knowing how to hide my personal information, to someone who interviewed a recruit without bothering to read the NCAA regulations on the matter.  One has nothing to do with the other.

If he wanted to play internet journalist, he should have been more careful, that's all.

[babytownfrolics]

Oh, I'm sorry....I saw you use Brad's name so figured it was ok....

In your profile, your PUBLIC PROFILE, you should elect not to have information in public that you don't want public.   Gee, didn't you know this....how could you not know this....you rail on someone for not knowing something about a NCAA rule in a rule book that is over 500 pages long and yet you missed that little item.  Tsk tsk.

First of all, Brad Forster is posting under the name Brad Forster and holds himself out as such.

Second, I guess I should be asking why you would bother to click the link to my public profile, then include my name in one of your posts.  I have plenty of theories but I'll keep them to myself.

[ChicosBailBonds]

No I don't see where it's going, because now you're comparing my mistake in not knowing how to hide my personal information, to someone who interviewed a recruit without bothering to read the NCAA regulations on the matter.  One has nothing to do with the other.

If he wanted to play internet journalist, he should have been more careful, that's all.

Let me connect the dots for you.

He more than likely made a mistake, not knowing the rules and you blast him for it.

You made a mistake, so I was happy to show you that we can all be blasters if we choose to go down that path.


You now take a conciliatory tone with him, but you certainly weren't earlier.  Your words seemed to indicate a lot more than "he should have been more careful, that's all".

[mu_hilltopper]

It's obvious he's been contacting him for some time as he's been conducting interviews with him and developed a "rapport" with him.  If he's considered a booster...

Yes, I read the post at the top.  If it were a "fact" wouldn't we be reading about an NCAA violation right about now?  Indeed, Forster has a DJ video from April that's been viewed 2000+ times.   Maybe the NCAA is working slow on that one?   My point is, that they are possible violations until they become actual "facts" as you suggest.

Also, are you still working on sourcing your "fact" that Forster created the videos/performed violations "on Marquette's behalf"?    Eagerly awaiting!

[babytownfrolics]

Yes, I read the post at the top.  If it were a "fact" wouldn't we be reading about an NCAA violation right about now?  Indeed, Forster has a DJ video from April that's been viewed 2000+ times.   Maybe the NCAA is working slow on that one?   My point is, that they are possible violations until they become actual "facts" as you suggest.

Also, are you still working on sourcing your "fact" that Forster created the videos/performed violations "on Marquette's behalf"?    Eagerly awaiting!

Fact was a little too strong, as it appears the phrase "booster" has some wiggle room, but if he's considered a booster, he essentially was acting on behalf of Marquette because Marquette is responsible for the actions of its boosters.  That was what I meant.  I have no sources, it merely follows from the inherent logic of what he did (assuming he's a booster).

My main point is that IF a violation occurred, Marquette would suffer the consequences vis-a-vis the NCAA, not Forster.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Fact was a little too strong, as it appears the phrase "booster" has some wiggle room, but if he's considered a booster, he essentially was acting on behalf of Marquette because Marquette is responsible for the actions of its boosters.  That was what I meant.  I have no sources, it merely follows from the inherent logic of what he did (assuming he's a booster).

I don't understand, why aren't you giving him the benefit of the doubt like you did Buzz?

[babytownfrolics]

I don't understand, why aren't you giving him the benefit of the doubt like you did Buzz?

Yeah, that's kind of my point.  I happen to trust the guy that Marquette chose to be the steward of the bball program instead of some guy with a computer, a video camera, and some kind of agenda.

[Benny B]

Yes, I read the post at the top.  If it were a "fact" wouldn't we be reading about an NCAA violation right about now?  Indeed, Forster has a DJ video from April that's been viewed 2000+ times.   Maybe the NCAA is working slow on that one?   My point is, that they are possible violations until they become actual "facts" as you suggest.

Also, are you still working on sourcing your "fact" that Forster created the videos/performed violations "on Marquette's behalf"?    Eagerly awaiting!

So after 3 pages of this, am I the only one asking the question:

Hypothetically -- let's say that the level of contact between Brad and DJ - albeit with the best of intentions - is considered a violation of NCAA rules which would result in sanctions for Marquette.  Since MU had nothing to do with Brad's actions, wouldn't distancing itself from DJ in an attempt to avoid sanctions make MU's decision to part ways appropriate?  Or should MU honor the NLI even though it meant losing a scholarship or two over the next few years?

[Litehouse]

Yes, I read the post at the top.  If it were a "fact" wouldn't we be reading about an NCAA violation right about now?  Indeed, Forster has a DJ video from April that's been viewed 2000+ times.   Maybe the NCAA is working slow on that one?   My point is, that they are possible violations until they become actual "facts" as you suggest.

Also, are you still working on sourcing your "fact" that Forster created the videos/performed violations "on Marquette's behalf"?    Eagerly awaiting!

The rule makes the player ineligible to go to that particular school.  So theoretically it wouldn't be a violation unless Newbill comes to MU.

[mu_hilltopper]

Can anyone find a story on the NCAA actually doing this?  I mean, between football, basketball, and 26 other sports, there are thousands of recruits.  And millions of boosters.    And I'll bet TONS of contact that indeed, violate the rules at the top of this post.

With that kind of volume, prior to knowing the real number, one would think there'd be dozens, perhaps hundreds of cases prosecuted by the NCAA.

I'm further guessing the reality is more like one or two.   But I'd love to know the actual numbers.

[rocky_warrior]

Whoa whoa whoa.  If, IF this is a "violation", There are many cases where fan/booster contact is deemed a minor (secondary) violation, which would NOT result in a penalty, or the inability of Newbill to attend Marquette.  I believe if  brad's contact was a violation, it would be deemed a secondary....

Violations
The NCAA defines violations in two ways:

    * Secondary Violation
          o A secondary violation is a violation that is isolated or inadvertent in nature, provides or is intended to provide only a minimal recruiting, competitive or other advantage and does not include any significant recruiting inducement or extra benefit. Multiple secondary violations by a member institution may collectively be considered as a major violation.
    * Major Violation
          o All violations other than secondary violations are major violations, specifically those that provide an extensive recruiting or competitive advantage.

[rocky_warrior]

With that kind of volume, prior to knowing the real number, one would think there'd be dozens, perhaps hundreds of cases prosecuted by the NCAA.

I'm further guessing the reality is more like one or two.   But I'd love to know the actual numbers.

Don't know the numbers, but to go along with my last post, there are even two levels of secondary violations, and it sounds like there might be hundreds/thousands of level II secondary violations that simply get filed away

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/legislation+and+governance/compliance/secondary+infractions/secondary_infractions_self_reporting.html

Level II secondary violations  are processed by the institutions and/or their conferences.  Each institution or conference must submit a Level II violations report to the enforcement staff on at least a quarterly basis (four times per year).  Although the staff will review the Level II reports, no formal processing of these reports will occur.  In addition, Level II violations will not require institutions to seek reinstatement of eligibility through the formal NCAA student-athlete reinstatement process for any involved student-athletes.

[Benny B]

Don't know the numbers, but to go along with my last post, there are even two levels of secondary violations, and it sounds like there might be hundreds/thousands of level II secondary violations that simply get filed away

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/legislation+and+governance/compliance/secondary+infractions/secondary_infractions_self_reporting.html

Never mind... I withdraw my hypothetical.

[HouWarrior]

When Forster posted here his intent to interview DJ in an upcoming video--Didn't I,  mess up big time, and all of us here fail our school in warning off such conduct?

 If I were Brad, at such time--I would have taken no insult, and wouldve thanked anyone here for the ounce of prevention NCAA warning.

I regret this--as my K bradley experience (above) had me thinking of this point, but I was too lazy, timid, or dumb to post something.

We are better to be careful, and overzealous with compliance, than to risk/promote/or acquiesce in silence, any possibility--even remote of a screw up.
I am sorry.

[RawdogDX]

I didn't read this whole thread but I read the start.  Does anyone have a single example where a blogger interviewed a recruit and the NCAA said he couldn't go there?   Or a recruit got banned because some 24 year old who gives 50$ a year sent him a facebook Friend request?  
You know how many people must break this every year?  

That kid from the blind side should not have been allowed to fill out an application.

[rocky_warrior]

I didn't read this whole thread but I read the start.

Seriously.  I wonder why I bother posting.  Look 4 & 5 posts up.

[muvanwilder]

Yikes, looks like Brad Forster is getting the Steve Bartman treatment.

[avid1010]

Fans, please remember that you are considered a booster by NCAA standards if you are an alum, season ticket holder, donor, among other things.  If any of our boosters contact our recruits, that recruit will be ineligible to come to Marquette.  Please do not ever contact any of our recruits or their parents.  This means do not contact them in person, by e-mail, Facebook, Twitter, conduct interviews, etc.

Thanks and Go Marquette!

I just donated $1 to the University of Indiana's men's basketball team, and am currently contacting all of their potential recruits via Facebook, Twitter and e-mail.  Interviews to be requested at a later date    I'm also calling for any Duke recruit Jay Bilas or Jay Williams spoke to during their coverage of high school hoops be removed from Duke, ASAP.

I get what you're saying...but...

[Litehouse]

I remember hearing about this rule with the various "Come to ______" facebook pages.  This story is about John Wall and NC State.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/4945435/

I also remember this story with Iman Shumpert's visit to UNC.
http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2007/09/unc-investigates-possible-recruiting.html

[bilsu]

I just donated $1 to the University of Indiana's men's basketball team, and am currently contacting all of their potential recruits via Facebook, Twitter and e-mail.  Interviews to be requested at a later date    I'm also calling for any Duke recruit Jay Bilas or Jay Williams spoke to during their coverage of high school hoops be removed from Duke, ASAP.

I get what you're saying...but...

Indiana's irrelavent. Donate you dollar to Kentucky.

[Pakuni]

I have no idea whether Brad Forster violated some obscure NCAA rule, and I doubt very much that Marquette gets in any sort of trouble over this.

That said, the NCAA has an extremely broad definition of booster that could theoretically include just about anyone who's ever expressed an interest in or spent a dime on a college athletics program. A booster can be anyone who is known to "have been involved otherwise in promoting the institution’s athletics program."

So, by creating videos where he educates fellow fans on (and hypes) a particular recruit, is Brad "involved in promoting the institution's athletics programs?"
I'd say the answer probably is yes.
I don't think the NCAA would do anything about it, but maybe the moral of the story is be careful out there.

[mu_hilltopper]

I don't think the NCAA would do anything about it, but maybe the moral of the story is be careful out there.

This is why I always cross the street exactly between the crosswalk lines.  To be 'safe.'