| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
FrozenLVFan
Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 3516
Back to top |
|
summertime blues
Joined: 16 Apr 2013
Posts: 7842
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Back to top |
 Posted: 11/22/16 9:30 am ::: |
Reply  |
|
| This is a stupid regulation, IMO.
_________________
Don't take life so serious. It ain't nohows permanent.
It takes 3 years to build a team and 7 to build a program.--Conventional Wisdom
|
|
Fighting Artichoke
Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 4040
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/22/16 9:36 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| summertime blues wrote: |
| This is a stupid regulation, IMO. |
Which one? The "No prostitution" rule or the "you can't let a student athlete live in your home for 8 months" rule? I back both of them myself.
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8947
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/22/16 10:32 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Fighting Artichoke wrote: |
| summertime blues wrote: |
| This is a stupid regulation, IMO. |
Which one? The "No prostitution" rule or the "you can't let a student athlete live in your home for 8 months" rule? I back both of them myself. |
I agree.
And you can't tell me that the coaching staff or SOMEONE associated with the program didn't know that this was against the rules.
Or at least think to ask if it was OK.
|
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/22/16 10:33 am ::: |
Reply |
|
"The student-athlete knew the former assistant coach from her youth."
Normally, the litmus test for impermissible benefits is one where an athlete would not receive a benefit that another member of the general student population would not receive.
Here, however, the line is extremely blurred, as there was a pre-existing relationship.
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8947
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/22/16 10:48 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
"The student-athlete knew the former assistant coach from her youth."
Normally, the litmus test for impermissible benefits is one where an athlete would not receive a benefit that another member of the general student population would not receive.
Here, however, the line is extremely blurred, as there was a pre-existing relationship. |
Just ask! It's a pretty simple thing to do.
Given who her dad is, the family is not new to the sports world and the NCAA. They had to know there would be questions about the arrangement.
|
|
TechDawgMc
Joined: 12 Aug 2010
Posts: 401
Location: Temple, TX
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/22/16 11:03 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| I think a key thing here is that it's D3, where no financial support based on athletics is allowed. Free housing is a pretty good value. A D1 player would already be getting it, so living with a coach wouldn't be a big deal. But at D3 with no scholarship money allowed, that's hard to justify as legitimate.
|
|
Fighting Artichoke
Joined: 12 Dec 2012
Posts: 4040
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/22/16 12:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
"The student-athlete knew the former assistant coach from her youth."
Normally, the litmus test for impermissible benefits is one where an athlete would not receive a benefit that another member of the general student population would not receive.
Here, however, the line is extremely blurred, as there was a pre-existing relationship. |
That's a good point, Cam, but you think they would have asked whether the NCAA would allow it.
|
|
FrozenLVFan
Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 3516
Back to top |
| Posted: 11/22/16 6:32 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| A blurry line is exactly what mandates checking with the NCAA.
|
|
|
|
