|
Post by lou on Aug 29, 2016 12:53:01 GMT -5
A neighbor's grandson was recruited to Princeton for football class of '20. I was told his Mom liked HC, kid liked Princeton. He'll pay ~$6000/yr
I think this kid is a TE also, when he got to campus was told he'll play JV this year
|
|
|
Post by purplehaze on Aug 29, 2016 14:17:37 GMT -5
would love to know this kid's family's general financial position. always suspicious on these lucrative ivy packages which regularly will make the difference against our full schollie
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Aug 29, 2016 14:42:25 GMT -5
would love to know this kid's family's general financial position. always suspicious on these lucrative ivy packages which regularly will make the difference against our full schollie BB&N's tuition is $44,000 a year. And we don't know if HC offered a full scollie.
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Aug 31, 2016 22:29:25 GMT -5
leskub- Welcome here. Campus is indeed gorgeous. Academics are rigorous, so its diploma is highly respected. Great alumni networks help graduates. Small and intimate. He will know everyone in his class year. He will LOVE his four years at Holy Cross.
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Sept 1, 2016 3:59:54 GMT -5
I was a Biology Pre-Med major at HC and was accepted at three med schools. That was 53 years ago. HC's reputation in med schools goes back decades and continues. (I'm worried about my pool overflowing with all the rain here in Venice.)
|
|
|
Post by Dean Wormer on Sept 1, 2016 7:34:50 GMT -5
All,
Just a word of warning. I know a parent initiated this contact, but the NCAA rules are specific, complicated and confusing about contact between boosters and recruits and their families. And by the NCAA definition of booster, virtually all on this board can be considered Holy Cross boosters.
I have asked HC compliance how to handle such inquiries from parents of recruits. In the mean time, I suggest responses to this type of inquiry be limited to welcome and good luck in your son or daughter's college seach.
|
|
|
Post by td128 on Sept 1, 2016 10:23:30 GMT -5
Given the eyes that track this particular thread, I welcome sharing this link to our Friends of Crusader Football Facebook page so that anybody thinking about HC can see just how passionate and supportive our alumni truly are. We are particularly proud of our 90-Wide Mentoring Program in which we now have 130 Crusader alums (25 different industries covering 30 states) who formally mentor our Crusaders. Opening minds and doors while committed to excellence on and off the field. Let's Win!! www.facebook.com/HolyCrossGridironClub/posts
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Sept 1, 2016 11:37:12 GMT -5
NCAA.....the Monster Monopoly.......often ridiculous regulations
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Sept 1, 2016 13:44:29 GMT -5
The NCAA needs to have regulations for almost everything. Has anyone seen the NCAA regulation that now apply to transgender athletes? It is most complicated, but they have been developing these for some time. 60 Minutes did an excellent segment on a transgender swimmer who came to Harvard to complete for the women (and possibly the 2020 olympics). He now competes as a member of the mens' team - no big deal for any of the athletes involved.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Sept 1, 2016 16:02:19 GMT -5
While waiting for Dean's further insights / guidance, there were several threads on the old board on this subject. IIRC, one discussion involved a poster who, by happenstance, found himself next to the parents of a recruited player, and engaged them in conversation. As I recall the particular threads, there wasn't a problem if a factual question was asked, 'Does it snow much in Worcester?', and answered. There was also not a problem with directing a recruit/parents to information that was otherwise publicly available. The problems potentially arise when a booster promotes or touts the school, the curriculum, the athletic program, a team. See: www.ncaa.org/enforcement/role-boostersRead ^^^^ carefully, and take note of who the subject is.
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Sept 1, 2016 19:19:38 GMT -5
So if a recruit has a next door neighbor who he has known all his life and happens to be an HC alum and from time to time tells the recruit what a great school HC is, the neighbor is in violation. Right?
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Sept 1, 2016 20:08:55 GMT -5
So if a recruit has a next door neighbor who he has known all his life and happens to be an HC alum and from time to time tells the recruit what a great school HC is, the neighbor is in violation. Right? Boosters are not precluded from continuing established friendships with families who have prospective student-athletes. However, boosters may not encourage a prospect’s participation in university athletics or provide benefits to prospects that were not previously provided.
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Sept 2, 2016 0:06:20 GMT -5
hc93- So the neighbor IS in violation. Do you agree?
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Sept 2, 2016 5:10:50 GMT -5
Sarasota, All HC alums are not boosters. But assuming that the hypothetical neighbor would be classified as a 'booster', as HC92 notes, greater latitude is given where there is a pre-existing friendship or association with the prospect. And the guidelines distinguish between direct contact with the prospect, and contact with the parents (guardians). Further, the guidelines note that boosters should not contact recruits who have verbally committed, but not yet enrolled. And a reminder for posters on a board such as this, individual posts that indicate / narrate contact that is or might be prohibited are a public record, and can be cited by someone who complains to the NCAA about HC boosters engaging in prohibited contact. Finally, on this board more than others, announcement of a verbal commitment is often followed by a series of welcoming posts, seemingly addressed to the committing recruit. IMO, when a welcoming post goes beyond a simple 'welcome', and starts touting the school, the program, the coach, that post may cross the NCAA's line, particularly as the post is directed to the prospect/recruit. Under no circumstances, should a booster return tweet a tweet of a recruited athlete announcing his/her commitment. _________________________________ Some may find of interest how a Princeton booster inadvertently got a player and Princeton in trouble with the NCAA. paw.princeton.edu/article/princeton-censured-major-ncaa-violation-womens-tennis
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Sept 2, 2016 5:35:19 GMT -5
As I said.....ridiculous (not the Princeton violation).
|
|
|
Post by HC1843 on Sept 2, 2016 6:34:21 GMT -5
Do no harm.
The NCAA does not care what anyone on this board thinks of its rules.
There is no need to engage in any discussion on this board with a recruit or a recruit's parents.
Let's set aside egos here, be smart, and simply move on.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Sept 2, 2016 7:04:23 GMT -5
As I said.....ridiculous (not the Princeton violation). You may think so, but the NCAA is trying (often unsuccessfully) to draw a bright line. This is an area where if you give an inch, they'll take a mile. ______________ I'll add this. One of the old board threads involved a poster who, IIRC, attended a high school game in which a HC recruit was playing. In effect, he was personally scouting the recruit. I don't remember whether he wore clothing that identified him as having an association with Holy Cross, or whether the question was asked of him. In any event, the poster met the recruit's parents and had a conversational exchange with them. What exactly was said in the exchange was not clear, other than the poster came on the old board and talked about meeting the parents. And IIRC, the thread immediately progressed to a discussion of whether the poster was a booster (he claimed he was not, and thus was not constrained in what he said). The prevailing conclusion of other posters, who knew his background, was that he was a booster. And that any conversation he had with the parents should have been limited to facts, not embellished by opinions of the merits of HC, or opinions about the relative merits of any other school the recruit was considering.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Sept 2, 2016 8:49:34 GMT -5
All HC alums are not boosters. Perhaps. But a number of colleges feel that all of their alums could fall into that category. The definition of a "booster" (not called that in the bylaws) includes: 1. Have been a member at any time of an organization promoting the school's athletics program. 2. Have donated money at any time to the school's athletic department or booster club. 3. Have assisted in recruiting at any time. 4. Have assisted in providing benefits to student-athletes or their families. 5. Have been involved in any way in promoting the school's athletic program. The tricky one is #5. In theory anyone who talks up their school's athletics or promotes it in some way on a message board would become a "booster." That would include not just alums but NAD etc.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Sept 2, 2016 8:53:27 GMT -5
NCAA.....the Monster Monopoly.......often ridiculous regulations There is often a tendency to shoot the messenger when it comes to NCAA regulations, but three things need to be remembered: 1. Every NCAA regulation was proposed by one or more member schools of that division (D1 in the case of HC). 2. Every NCAA regulation was signed off by a review committee consisting of representatives of various schools. 3. Every NCAA regulation was passed by a majority of the schools in that division. If the schools didn't like a particular rule, they didn't have to pass it in the first place. Also they could rescind it at any time. HC has voted in favor of the great majority of NCAA regulations, as has virtually every school.
|
|
|
Post by Dean Wormer on Sept 2, 2016 9:53:11 GMT -5
Alright folks. E-mailed Ryan Colton, HC's Assistant Director of Athletics, Compliance about this situation and provided a link to this thread to review. Here's, in part, what Ryan said So, my prior direction stands ... should a recruited student athele or his or her parents make themselves known on the board, we should politely refer them to the coaches and athletic officials recruiting them for HC. 1843 said it well ... Do no harm. The NCAA does not care what anyone on this board thinks of its rules. There is no need to engage in any discussion on this board with a recruit or a recruit's parents. Let's set aside egos here, be smart, and simply move on. Cheers. For prospective student athletes and Holy Cross' sake I want us to stay as far away as possible from crossing the line into impermissible actions. For reference, here's the definition Ryan referenced in his response above.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Sept 2, 2016 9:53:50 GMT -5
5. Have been involved in any way in promoting the school's athletic program. The tricky one is #5. In theory anyone who talks up their school's athletics or promotes it in some way on a message board would become a "booster." That would include not just alums but NAD etc. I don't think fans who buy tickets, attend games, and cheer/boo are 'boosters' --absent other involvement with athletics. And while I recognize that the do's and don'ts were mostly written before social media, I don't think being a regular poster on a forum such as Crossports makes one a 'booster' per se, --given that the forum is a free exchange of ideas, and not all posts or posters reflect a favorable view of the college, its athletic program(s). or coaches. And while I could probably fill a law school exam with hypotheticals, I'll try one. Going back 40 or so years, let's assume NAD is a non-alum, but a vocal and very loyal fan of HC athletics. Not a booster, IMO. But Lew Alcindor is about to visit HC, and NAD, in his enthusiasm about seeing Alcindor in purple, pays for a large sign to be strung across College St., proclaiming "WELCOME LEW". (He does this is on his own initiative.) The minute the sign goes up, I would categorize NAD as a booster under 5. :
|
|
|
Post by richh on Sept 2, 2016 9:54:08 GMT -5
NCAA.....the Monster Monopoly.......often ridiculous regulations There is often a tendency to shoot the messenger when it comes to NCAA regulations, but three things need to be remembered: 1. Every NCAA regulation was proposed by one or more member schools of that division (D1 in the case of HC). 2. Every NCAA regulation was signed off by a review committee consisting of representatives of various schools. 3. Every NCAA regulation was passed by a majority of the schools in that division. If the schools didn't like a particular rule, they didn't have to pass it in the first place. Also they could rescind it at any time. HC has voted in favor of the great majority of NCAA regulations, as has virtually every school. +1
|
|
|
Post by sarasota on Sept 2, 2016 10:02:56 GMT -5
overkill
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Sept 2, 2016 10:52:36 GMT -5
I suggest you complain to HC about their having voted in favor of these regulations. Also suggest they bring up motions to repeal the ones you don't like. Any rule can be changed or repealed if the majority of D1 schools support it.
|
|
|
Post by Dean Wormer on Sept 2, 2016 11:32:49 GMT -5
Not sure if you mean the NCAA rule, the direction for board members, or both. Regardless ... based on the inability shown by some to follow a few simple rules here or restrain themselves when discussing politics, I have no confidence anything but a clear no tolerance policy will work on something as dicey as NCAA compliance.
|
|