So, we disassociated the Memphis booster last month.

[graddawg]

http://djournal.com/pages/insidemis...ooster &id=19955281&instance=mississippistate

I guess this confirms 1) that we've know about this for a while and 2) the investigation, at least into this guy, is pretty far along.

 

[Shmuley]

The last sentence is instructive ...........................................................................................................................................................................

quote:

The letter says the booster, as of July 13, had not responded to requests to be interviewed by the NCAA.

​

 

[GloryDawg]

Why didn't this guy step up two years ago when we could have had Newton?

 

[tenureplan]

funny you should ask that

because since then, the sentiment of many has been "well, if everyone else is going to cheat, so should we". Maybe that is what lead to this indirectly.

 

[hooptydawg]

so why can't this guy be named?

 

[pDigital32Dawg]

Lord Voldemort maybe?

 

[The Fatboy]

so why can't this guy be named?

He would be harassed to no endby the media. the last thing we wont is him talking TO ANYONE

 

[Lawdawg.sixpack]

Someone tell 2HD that he should use "dissociate". It's a more gooder word for journalistical works.

 

[RocketDawg]

Perhaps the state(s) should make ...

trying to bribe/buy players a felony and throw the booster in jail. College FB is a big business ... and could probably fall under the same rules of control that major league baseball (e.g., juicing by the players) is under.

 

[drofdirt]

Totally agree, RD. Should be civil and criminal penalties for those who violate the rules in terms of benefits extended to perspective student-athletes that are not permitted according to NCAA rules of governance in intercollegiate athletics. Then maybe this 17'ing behavior by some people who think they above the rules will finally cease!

 

[00Dawg]

Let's not go there, shall we? Any fans of our school should be familiar with a certain shopkeeper about 4 decades ago who extended a discount to a football player that was given to all students, and said discount cost us almost a whole season's worth of games plus any positive momentum our program had. Under what you're suggesting, said shopkeeper would've then been criminally liable.

 

[patdog]

I'm failing to see what the problem would be with holding someone criminally liabile for costing a school millions that a probation would cost by committing NCAA violations.

 

[maroonmania]

Correct me if I'm wrong but...

Let's not go there, shall we? Any fans of our school should be familiar with a certain shopkeeper about 4 decades ago who extended a discount to a football player that was given to all students, and said discount cost us almost a whole season's worth of games plus any positive momentum our program had. Under what you're suggesting, said shopkeeper would've then been criminally liable.

what cost us a bunch of games was playing the player in defiance of the NCAA while the investigation was going on, not just because he got a discount.

 

[slickdawg]

so why can't this guy be named?

If you name him and it turns out to be wrong, you just opened yourself and the site up for a libel/slander lawsuit. You could still be libel if you have the right name.

http://thedabblingmum.com/writing/general/slanderlibel.htm


Imagine yourself in this situation: You relay a fellow writer’s comment about a picky magazine editor on a message board. Some time later, you’re facing a libel lawsuit for the comments you made.
Wait a minute. Did you really make the comment, or did you just state someone else’s opinion in written form? According to the legal definition of the term, you just committed libel.
Slander, libel, and defamation of character are very serious crimes, punishable by a fine of up to $100,000. How harmless do message boards seem now? The truth is that people probably make slanderous or libelous comments almost every day. It’s just the luck of the draw on who winds up paying the price for them.

 

[00Dawg]

Let's review.
Player A receives a student discount available to all MSU students.
NCAA, unable to find anything substantial, ignores shopkeeper's statements that discount was available to all MSU students (as stated in newspaper article), and rules player ineligible.
MSU obtains court injunction allowing player to play during investigation.
NCAA, in defiance of all logic, rules that discount was a violation, and forces forfeiture of all games Player A participated in.

Should we have not fought the ruling in court? In hindsight, yes. But at the time, it was beyond all belief that the NCAA would ignore the facts of the case and simply rule as they wished.
Something like that now would make ESPN highlights for days, and they'd probably back off...probably.

Now, with that in mind, as well as the random enforcement of the rules seen over the last few years, do we really have people who say that the shopkeeper in our 1970's case, or the booster in Tiregate, or even Kenny Rogers need to face jail time? Do you really want to tie criminal penalties to the whims of an organization as random as the NCAA?

 

[lazlow]

trying to bribe/buy players a felony and throw the booster in jail. College FB is a big business ... and could probably fall under the same rules of control that major league baseball (e.g., juicing by the players) is under.

Sounds good i guess until it makes it to the supreme court. This would spell the end of college football as we know it. Dang, just when we were about to get a play-off.

 

[patdog]

No one would be convicted on the basis of what the NCAA ruled. A jury would decide whether or not someone violated the law, not whether they committed an NCAA violation. In the case of the discount that was available to all students, its doubtful a jury would convict. In the real world, its doubtful anyone would ever be prosecuted except maybe in the most extreme cases. But having the law would serve as a reasonably good deterrant to a booster committing a violation.

 

[Guy From Gulfport]

trying to bribe/buy players a felony and throw the booster in jail. College FB is a big business ... and could probably fall under the same rules of control that major league baseball (e.g., juicing by the players) is under.

Unfortunately, athletics has never been truly based on ethics or integrity.

The State of Alabama would NEVER pass, much less enforce, this one. The corrupt... errr... "lenient" climate of other states is a part of what has us behind the 8-ball for the last 50 years. They have honed their craft very well.

We stub our toe, trying to only skirt in the grey area, and then we crucify our own. We just need to lawyer the 17 up, and offensively do so. Play it their way (All In, RIGHT Auburn?). If not, we should just be resigned to winning 4-7 games a year, and putting all of our chips into the triumphant return of Bryan Juicy Jumbos!

 

[engie]

trying to bribe/buy players a felony and throw the booster in jail. College FB is a big business ... and could probably fall under the same rules of control that major league baseball (e.g., juicing by the players) is under.

Failing to see any correlation to MLB whatsoever. No one has been thrown in jail for juicing and the only reason they came close was for PERJURY.

 

[00Dawg]

Maybe, but you'll excuse me from wanting our government deciding where the line is on what improper benefits for a prospective athlete constitute criminal activity. One of the posters above advocated any breaking of the rules as carrying civil and criminal penalties. All it takes is one reading of MSU's self-reported secondary violations in calendar year to show just how expensive that would be to vet for a nation of boosters, let alone prosecute.

 

[drofdirt]

What you're missing in all this, 00, is the fact that we made a horrible decision back in 1974, and we continue to pay for that decision today. You do also remember back then that we had certain prominent supporters in this dispute with the NCAA who wanted to have our congressional delegation introduce legislation at the federal level to specifically restrict what the NCAA could and could not do in cases like ours? That really didn't earn us many brownie points with the NCAA either.

Without the teeth of significant penalty, activities like what has been reported concerning the recent recruiting irregularity will continue to occur on an ever-increasing basis. How does dissociation from a school's programs and interest serve to deter this type of action? In all practical aspects, it really doesn't because those who feel they can break the rules and get away with it in the first place, are also crazy enough to feel they can get around being dissociated from a university's programs and activities. That assumes they really care about the university in the first place, and aren't engaged in their unacceptable behavior for personal gain, either financial or otherwise.

The idea that the courts would be over-run by cases like this is very naive. I would suggest that it would take less than a dozen cases with severe monetary and perhaps incarcerational penalty to make this activity something that would all but disappear. You can argue that there will always have a few morons out there who will do this, but that is something you really can't avoid because nothing associated with human activity is totally perfect.

Another thing that might be a possibility to limit the university's liability for the actions of a "rogue" booster is to require all boosters to swear an affidavit of adherence/compliance with the rules of governance concerning conduct of boosters in relationship to prospective- and current student-athletes. You break your sworn agreement, and you assume full responsibility for what occurs, and not the university.

This would have to be reached as an agreement in principle with the NCAA in advance, however, and might be very difficult to obtain since they would have to shift their punishment from institutions to individuals. And this would involve them making things transparent to the legal process, which is something they would probably resist at all costs!

There is no substitute for educating the booster population as to the ramifications of breaking the rules with regard to current- and future student-athletes. It looks like we may have to redouble our efforts in this area to help minimize people who "unknowingly" break the rules.