Flea'd from the VS. Some article from the NYT's say UT under NCAA investigation

[10EC]

For using hostesses during recruiting???

I can't see the link b/c I'm not a NYT subscriber.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/09/sports/ncaafootball/09tennessee.html?_r=2&ref=sports

[Volznut]

Basically there were some UT girls (hostesses) at some high school games involving our recruits. UT does not compensate these girls nor are they UT employees, so this is much ado over nothing. These are basically UT coeds going to a high school game to cheer for a guy UT is recruiting. No violation there. The fact that the NCAA would even look into it while they let little fishing trips with Bama boosters and players go - tells me that someone doesn't like the fact that UT is recruiting so well, taking players from them, and made some phone calls. I wouldn't be surprised if Slive or Foley are involved. It will amount to nothing because these girls are not UT employees, and their trips are not sponsored by UT. They are free to do as they want.

[TheRealOrange]

Basically there were some UT girls (hostesses) at some high school games involving our recruits. UT does not compensate these girls nor are they UT employees, so this is much ado over nothing. These are basically UT coeds going to a high school game to cheer for a guy UT is recruiting. No violation there. The fact that the NCAA would even look into it while they let little fishing trips with Bama boosters and players go - tells me that someone doesn't like the fact that UT is recruiting so well, taking players from them, and made some phone calls. I wouldn't be surprised if Slive or Foley are involved. It will amount to nothing because these girls are not UT employees, and their trips are not sponsored by UT. They are free to do as they want.

Is that really the rule?  Have students been deemed to not be "representatives of an institution's athletics interests" in past NCAA cases?  Clearly, the NCAA rule is designed to cover people who are not university employees and who are not sponsored by the university in any way -- like me (under 6.4.1(b) below).  I get an annual reminder of the things I cannot do because they would be recruiting violations.  Anyway, the rule is reprinted below, and that part "e" sure looks like a very broad "catchall" to me.  Maybe it doesn't cover students, but they sure are "individuals" who are "promoting the institution's athletics program" (or so it seems to me).  But, maybe there is an exception for students.

6.4 RESPONSIBILITY FOR ACTIONS OF OUTSIDE ENTITIES

6.4.1 Independent Agencies or Organizations. An institution’s “responsibility” for the conduct of its intercollegiate athletics program shall include responsibility for the acts of an independent agency, corporate entity (e.g., apparel or equipment manufacturer) or other organization when a member of the institution’s executive or athletics administration, or an athletics department staff member, has knowledge that such agency, corporate entity or other organization is promoting the institution’s intercollegiate athletics program. (Revised: 2/16/00)

6.4.2 Representatives of Athletics Interests. An institution’s “responsibility” for the conduct of its intercollegiate athletics program shall include responsibility for the acts of individuals, a corporate entity (e.g., apparel or equipment manufacturer) or other organization when a member of the institution’s executive or athletics administration or an athletics department staff member has knowledge or should have knowledge that such an individual, corporate entity or other organization: (Revised: 2/16/00)

(a) Has participated in or is a member of an agency or organization as described in Constitution 6.4.1;

(b) Has made financial contributions to the athletics department or to an athletics booster organization of that institution;

(c) Has been requested by the athletics department staff to assist in the recruitment of prospective student athletes or is assisting in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes;

(d) Has assisted or is assisting in providing benefits to enrolled student-athletes; or

(e) Is otherwise involved in promoting the institution’s athletics program.

[TheRealOrange]

Upon further review, I do not think students or former students are necessarily "representatives of an institution's athletics interests."  Once a person is identified as a representative, they retain that status "indefinitely," and I recall that just being an alumnus of a school, or having attended games, is not enough to merit the designation as a "representative" (Tee Martin situation leaps to mind)  So, assuming the people involved as "hostesses" were at games on their own, and do not fit within the definition of "representatives," then it may not amount to anything.

[10EC]

Upon further review, I do not think students or former students are necessarily "representatives of an institution's athletics interests."  Once a person is identified as a representative, they retain that status "indefinitely," and I recall that just being an alumnus of a school, or having attended games, is not enough to merit the designation as a "representative" (Tee Martin situation leaps to mind)  So, assuming the people involved as "hostesses" were at games on their own, and do not fit within the definition of "representatives," then it may not amount to anything.

6.4.2.c doesn't apply to the hostesses?

[iVol]

The morning talk radio in Chattanooga said the situation was that some recruits were on campus on visits and the hostesses came up to them telling them to "come to Tennessee" which they explained was a violation because they are deemed representatives and they cannot say something like that. Sounds like a bunch of hot air. I wouldn't imagine that ever goes on at any other place, nevertheless it wouldn't be a major infraction would it?

[Black Diamond Vol]

Well, I guess it's time for me to fess up then.  I'm a former UT student, which apparently makes me a representative of the university, and in recent years I've been to the high school games of Gerald Riggs, Demonte Bolden, Brandon Warren, Kevin Cooper, BJ Coleman, Jaques McClendon, Nick Reveiz, Rod Wilks, Jaquez Smith, and James Stone.  And I can't recall for certain, but I'm pretty sure that at some if those game I even (gasp!) wore orange.  I guess all those guys are ineligible now.  Damn, we are so screwed.

[TheRealOrange]

Well, I guess it's time for me to fess up then.  I'm a former UT student, which apparently makes me a representative of the university, and in recent years I've been to the high school games of Gerald Riggs, Demonte Bolden, Brandon Warren, Kevin Cooper, BJ Coleman, Jaques McClendon, Nick Reveiz, Rod Wilks, Jaquez Smith, and James Stone.  And I can't recall for certain, but I'm pretty sure that at some if those game I even (gasp!) wore orange.  I guess all those guys are ineligible now.  Damn, we are so screwed.

I know you are being facetious, but even boosters (and anyone who donates to VASF is a booster) can attend high school games of prospective student athletes.  They simply cannot make contact or recruit in any way.  The issue here is whether the "hostesses" were representatives of UT's athletics interests.  If the answer is yes, then the issue is whether what they did as "hostesses" is a violation of the rules (it is unclear exactly what they did right now).  But, just attending the game(s) is not a violation.

[ReVOLver]

Hubbs said on 104.5 this AM that it centers around a group of hostesses attending a recruit's game in South Carolina, as Volznut says. He said that the questions that are being asked are, whose idea was it and who paid for it?

Based on Hubbs' attitude towards it, it sounds to me like it is something that is ambiguous in the rules and that other schools have complained about it. Therefore based on my limited knowledge of the situation I equate it to loopholes that other coaches have found and the NCAA has subsequently closed like text messaging by Meyer and video conferences by Saban. Based on my again limited knowledge of the whole thing I'd say that this is a very minor thing. ICBW. I prefer to take a wait-and-see approach. I'm sure our rivals are frothing in ecstasy over the obvious hostess-sex-in-trade-for-your-commitment ring that we are running. 

[Inspector Vol]

The whole thing smells Slimy and Scaly.

As far as I know Kiffin has not thumbed his nose at the NCAA. He has done this to certain coaches and the SEC office. His # of secondary violations is not bad at all. Will this be ruled a violation? Who knows? if it is ruled a violation it would have to be secondary and will result in minor penalties at the very most. If this happens you can look for an all out war in tattling to the NCAA over every minor thing done by our "brethren".  

I do not think that any of these schools want to go down that road. Can you say old South West Conference?  

It is becoming painfully obvious that Slive is not the leader the conference needs. His style just does not fit the job.

[Volznut]

Based on Jame Bryant (scout) and Hubbs (rivals) reaction to this, it's not going to amount to anything. The NCAA also does routine inquiries on some recruits every year.

[ReVOLver]

The whole thing smells Slimy and Scaly.

As far as I know Kiffin has not thumbed his nose at the NCAA. He has done this to certain coaches and the SEC office. His # of secondary violations is not bad at all. Will this be ruled a violation? Who knows? if it is ruled a violation it would have to be secondary and will result in minor penalties at the very most. If this happens you can look for an all out war in tattling to the NCAA over every minor thing done by our "brethren".  

I do not think that any of these schools want to go down that road. Can you say old South West Conference?  

It is becoming painfully obvious that Slive is not the leader the conference needs. His style just does not fit the job.

I am not sure if there is any proof of any involvement by Slive, unless you have heard something that I haven't. It may be natural to think that, though, because it sounds like (and again, I'm going off of a 15 min radio spot) that other schools complained and usually the chain of command would be the SEC office first. But that doesn't mean that Slive is behind it. I want to tread lightly here, but the rhetoric I read from a lot of UT fans... not just you and not just here... concerning Slive is on the level of Bammer's obsession with Roy Kramer in the 90s and I find that disturbing.

[murfvol]

Like many on this board I attend a fair number of high school games. Typically there are a number of folks in the stands sporting the gear of several universities. It's my guess this is the case at every game in the country.

What probably also occurs at those games, particularly ones in which a noteworthy play is involved, is admonishment by fans of any school to attend their favorite university. I've never done it, but it's common.

If this is seriously looked into, every school would be on the hook. The NCAA would do well to keep Pandora's box shut. This is harmless, and every member institution would be affected.

[Black Diamond Vol]

Hubbs said on 104.5 this AM that it centers around a group of hostesses attending a recruit's game in South Carolina, as Volznut says. He said that the questions that are being asked are, whose idea was it and who paid for it?

Based on Hubbs' attitude towards it, it sounds to me like it is something that is ambiguous in the rules and that other schools have complained about it. Therefore based on my limited knowledge of the situation I equate it to loopholes that other coaches have found and the NCAA has subsequently closed like text messaging by Meyer and video conferences by Saban. Based on my again limited knowledge of the whole thing I'd say that this is a very minor thing. ICBW. I prefer to take a wait-and-see approach. I'm sure our rivals are frothing in ecstasy over the obvious hostess-sex-in-trade-for-your-commitment ring that we are running. 

But that's not all it's about. We paid Juwan James as well. And I know it's true, because it was posted by that guru of UT recruiting, GatorTom.

[101stDad]

Just keep in mind that it is the "silly season" - the time between the end of the regular season and the beginning of bowl games.  There has to be something to write/talk about in the world of college football.  Unfortunately for UT and UT fans, this is the topic de jour.  

[droner]

I don't know if this is a violation or a loophole. I do know that I would have not done it. It's skirting too close to the major violation category.

I don't know how they could not be representatives of the university. Did they pay their own way? Did they decide on their own to go?  I don't like it.

But what I really don't like is why they didn't come see me when they were here in S.C.

[ReVOLver]

But that's not all it's about. We paid Juwan James as well. And I know it's true, because it was posted by that guru of UT recruiting, GatorTom.

If we are paying as many players as I see alleged on rival boards, I'd like to see the proof come out. Seriously. If there is proof, it needs to be known.

[droner]

If we are paying as many players as I see alleged on rival boards, I'd like to see the proof come out. Seriously. If there is proof, it needs to be known.

And we should be a lot better.

[ReVOLver]

And we should be a lot better.

That's an easy one to answer... Kiffin is paying players and Phil didn't. Try to keep up. 

[murfvol]

The thing that perturbs me about this is it seems to violate Slive's in-house policy. My guess is Spurrier or Meyer is the source of these charges. If so Slive should jump them about not running everything through him first.

Of course, if Slive isn't into being fair...

[ReVOLver]

The thing that perturbs me about this is it seems to violate Slive's in-house policy. My guess is Spurrier or Meyer is the source of these charges. If so Slive should jump them about not running everything through him first.

Of course, if Slive isn't into being fair...

Seriously? Where is the public criticism that violates Slive's policy? If we don't know who the source was, it doesn't violate Slive's policy.

I think I should probably go get some work done... you guys are in full tinfoil hat mode today. 

[Inspector Vol]

My disdain for Slive is like many others based off a perceived dislike for Kiffin and subsequent "new" rules.  

The reason I question his leadership ability is how he has dealt with the SEC officials fiasco, fining Urban (that was monumentally stupid) etc.
He looks like someone who wants total control, micromanages, and that is not a good fit for a conference commissioner.

I am not sure if there is any proof of any involvement by Slive, unless you have heard something that I haven't. It may be natural to think that, though, because it sounds like (and again, I'm going off of a 15 min radio spot) that other schools complained and usually the chain of command would be the SEC office first. But that doesn't mean that Slive is behind it. I want to tread lightly here, but the rhetoric I read from a lot of UT fans... not just you and not just here... concerning Slive is on the level of Bammer's obsession with Roy Kramer in the 90s and I find that disturbing.

[ReVOLver]

My disdain for Slive is like many others based off a perceived dislike for Kiffin and subsequent "new" rules.  

The reason I question his leadership ability is how he has dealt with the SEC officials fiasco, fining Urban (that was monumentally stupid) etc.
He looks like someone who wants total control, micromanages, and that is not a good fit for a conference commissioner.

I happen to agree with all of what you say right there.

I'm just not sure how any of it correlates to this particular topic at hand.

[Inspector Vol]

Well just for clarity my original post pertained to the topic at hand, with a dash of an opinion about Slive's ability or lack thereof to lead this conference.

You extracted my Slive comment only, in response, so I clarified my thoughts on the matter. That is all.

I happen to agree with all of what you say right there.

I'm just not sure how any of it correlates to this particular topic at hand.

[ReVOLver]

Well just for clarity my original post pertained to the topic at hand, with a dash of an opinion about Slive's ability or lack thereof to lead this conference.

You extracted my Slive comment only, in response, so I clarified my thoughts on the matter. That is all.

Fair enough. I extracted your Slive comment because it was the "one of these things is not like the other" but hey... who am I to get in the way of a good "we're the victim" thread.