Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

http://www.presnapread.com/n-c-a-a-crac ... ing-sites/

So here’s the news of the day: the N.C.A.A. has decided that institutions may not subscribe to recruiting sites like Rivals.com, deciding that such Web sites are not media organizations but scouting services. That the N.C.A.A. has decided that such sites fit into the latter category makes them off-limits, in the sense that Rivals or Scout.com provide recruiting videos not available to the general public. Let’s see if we can make sense of this decision.

For starters, are the recruiting videos really not available to the general public?

According to those more familiar with how these recruiting sites work – Bryan Fischer of CBS is a great example – it’s not just about the videos but the interaction between the sites and the teams they cover. For example, according to Fischer, team-specific sites – say, a Georgia-centric site – often share information with coaches that may or may not be made available to its other paying members.

several examples suggesting an explanation of the ruling are included in the article.

Does this make any sense? WTF are they talking about and how does this affect us...

Big blow to OSU and UW who used those sites to get their big-time recruits.

This ruling seems crazy to me. Per CBS's Bryan Fischer every school that paid for a Rival's subscription must report this as a secondary violation.

WTF!


https://twitter.com/BryanDFischer/statu ... 770416128#

This sounds like an April fools joke...just stupid! And what does it solve other than hurt schools that aren't in recruiting hotbeds or that recruit nationally!

I wonder what our coaches think?

Well, this makes me think the worst that could happen to us regarding Flennory and Lyles is a secondary violation barring the discovery of any actual wrong-doing.

I'd like to hear some of the 24/7 guys chime in on this since it appears that they too are effected by this.

Evidently does not apply to 247.

http://twitter.com/JHopkins247

So a loophole might be that each individual coach now goes home and gets a personal subscription to each site? The NCAA seems clueless here.

Duck07 wrote:Well, this makes me think the worst that could happen to us regarding Flennory and Lyles is a secondary violation barring the discovery of any actual wrong-doing.

I'd like to hear some of the 24/7 guys chime in on this since it appears that they too are effected by this.

I'm on the same line of thinking as you. I'd expect the NCAA to come out with an expanded, and hopefully clarified, definition of "booster(s)" as well

I'm way confused on this one. Happens a lot with the NCAA but this ones way out there.

Is the ruling based on the fact that paying subscribers get to view non-high school film of the authletes? IE - Film from camps???

Destroyer77 wrote:So a loophole might be that each individual coach now goes home and gets a personal subscription to each site? The NCAA seems clueless here.

Just this case? The NCAA is clueless in about 80% of stuff they are involved in, and are really on concerned with how much money they make.

buckmarkduck wrote:

Destroyer77 wrote:So a loophole might be that each individual coach now goes home and gets a personal subscription to each site? The NCAA seems clueless here.

Just this case? The NCAA is clueless in about 80% of stuff they are involved in, and are really on concerned with how much money they make.

They are still stuck in the 80s mentality when trying to deal with stuff going pertaining to recruiting services, boosters, and social media.

how are people confused by this? it's a meaningless rule and can't be enforced. how is this confusing?

hines wrote:how are people confused by this? it's a meaningless rule and can't be enforced. how is this confusing?

If it is meaningless and not enforcable, why did they enact it?