Do not communicate with recruits via social media

[Tommy]

Can someone please explain to me how an organization for which I do not belong, and for which I did not elect anyone to sit on is able to pass a rule as to what I do in my personal life?

Furthermore, what is to stop me from tweeting a recruit as I pose as a fan of a team other than the one that I root for in order to get them into trouble?

There are so many things wrong with this, I can't begin to get into it. There is a limit to the reach that any organization can and should have, and this is well past that limit.

Seriously NCAA - worry about some of the bigger violations that you seem to ignore on almost a daily basis with your 'money maker' schools and stop worrying about what the fan base is doing.

FYI - I don't even have a twitter account, but I am sick and tired of a government that is already telling me what I can and can't do more than it should. I certainly don't need organizations I have no affiliation with doing more of the same. Whether you think this is a big deal or not is irrelevant. The more this type of thing is accepted and allowed, the worse it will get over time. NCAA is overstepping their bounds.

Ridiculous.

[Chico]

Bradleyfan 1, there is no bigger or better Bradley fan than myself but I know I'm not a pain in the you know what at the games. Say or do what you want at the games but don't ruin it for everyone around you. We all stand to cheer or yell at the refs at times but keep it reasonable is all most fans want. No one cheers the Braves on more than myself when I'm at the games and I'm up and down when the game calls for it, not just to be doing it and to be seen.

[tornado]

the impermissible contact & extra benefits rules probably protect and help the smaller and midmajor schools more than the biggies...
It's been pretty rare that some BIG, WEALTHY booster from a mid-major buys a car or funnels some cash to recruits - but such proven examples occur all the time involving big schools (OJ Mayo, Reggie Bush, Anthony Davis, Cam Newton, Josh Selby, John Wall, etc., etc..) - and likely plenty more than never get proven...
Now, if only NCAA would enforce their own rules and nail the big boys......

Then they turn on the little guys and nail them for buying a hamburger or paying taxi fare or inadvertent & unintentional overpay for summer job....

[tornado]

One other interesting prohibition for boosters...

https://twitter.com/awireman/status/649293110430801920

[RoyalShock]

One other interesting prohibition for boosters...
https://twitter.com/awireman/status/649293110430801920

That is not entirely correct: From an article I found on the University of South Carolina website:

According to NCAA bylaw 12.5.1.1 member institutions and their recognized entities, member conferences and other non-institutional charitable, educational or nonprofit agencies may use a student-athlete's name, picture or appearance, but only under specific conditions and if certain procedures are followed.

NCAA bylaw 12.5.2.2 (Use of a Student-Athlete's Name or Picture Without Knowledge or Permission) states that if a student-athlete's name or picture appears on commercial items or is used to promote a commercial product sold by an individual or agency without the student-athlete's knowledge or permission, the student-athlete (or the institution acting on behalf of the student-athlete) is required to take steps to stop such an activity in order to retain his or her eligibility for intercollegiate athletics.

http://www.gamecocksonline.com/blog/2011/08/what-you-need-to-know-about-student-athlete-autographs-colonial-life-fan-appreciation-day.html

The key phrase in bylaw 12.5.2.2 is "used to promote a commercial product". A fan selling an autographed basketball, or team poster, or game program, etc., is not a "commercial product", nor "promoting a commercial product."

Perhaps the UK compliance department is being extra careful, but at least according to the bylaws as they were in 2011 (granted, they may have changed since then, but that was one of the most recent Google results in my search) that tweet is incorrect.

[tornado]

my understanding is that it creates a difficult to prove or disprove setting that the amateur athlete might be profiting from the sale of his memorabilia.
Of course you could claim you are selling it and the athlete isn't making anything - but the suspicions are there...and a whole lot of college kids do have agents selling stuff for them like Johnny Manziel did..

[RoyalShock]

my understanding is that it creates a difficult to prove or disprove setting that the amateur athlete might be profiting from the sale of his memorabilia.
Of course you could claim you are selling it and the athlete isn't making anything - but the suspicions are there...and a whole lot of college kids do have agents selling stuff for them like Johnny Manziel did..

I understand compliance departments wanting to be careful, but they can't say fans selling items with autographs is prohibited, because it isn't. The item just can't be a commercial product or promoting one. That's a pretty significant overreach to say fans can't sell anything that has an autograph of a current player on it.

[RoyalShock]

In doing some more looking around, here is an article I find interesting:

http://capstonereport.com/2014/01/17/breaking-selling-autographed-merchandise-still-illegal/22870/

In that one, memorabilia shops are getting players to sign official or officially licensed items (which I would consider "commercial products") for the express purpose of selling them for a profit. The author claims the rules permit this, but I would say, no, they don't. If you're licensed to do business, and your business is selling memorabilia, then you're both selling and promoting your own commercial product.

To me (and according to the bylaws), that's different from a fan getting the team's signatures during an autograph signing after a game and then putting it on eBay the next day, as long as the player is not receiving compensation.