On Wed, 12 Apr 1995, Leigh Torbin wrote:
 
>         The way I read the article is that this is a sweet old lady, the
> nice motherly, nurtuing type, who is a sucker for hungry, broke kids. She
> does comment also that she was unaware of the NCAA regulations.
>         The fact that the receipts are generally lower when she works shows
> that she regularly lets people in for free and these people could be anyone,
> not nesecarilly athletes only.
>         My understanding is that if she will openly admit to letting in a
> multitude of non-athletes, then she in no way treated the hockey players
> better than any other student. There's nothing wrong with being overly
> nice to an athlete, so long as you're equally nice to the hung over
> freshman, who staggers into the breakfast line flat broke. If this is the
> case then I don't believe that an NCAA infraction has occurred.
 
This argument is flawed for two reasons:
 
1)  Just because the woman was motherly and let in all hungry students
doesn't make it right.  There were other students who legally paid for
and received their meals.  Given the facts Ryan has provided, this was
clearly a case of nonpermissible benefits, as the student athlete was
able to receive a free meal by an institutional employee that wasn't
available to the entire student population.
 
2)  Even if the woman was unaware of the NCAA regulations, I would hope
that the student-athletes were aware of a basic rule like the Benefits,
Gifts, and Services Rule.  I know the Maine compliance department has
taken a beating in recent times, but this is an essential piece of
information that all NCAA student-athletes must be aware of, including
hungry hockey players.
 
---
Robb Dunn                                          |GO BEARS!
The University of Michigan                         [log in to unmask]
Division of Kinesiology/Department of Athletics    |W: 313-764-9429
Sport Facilities Research Laboratory               |   313-764-4597 FAX