Ever since Bill Riley was canned at UMass-Lowell for waving cash around
in the locker room, I've been concerned about what activities we (as fans)
can/cannot legally do in the eyes of the NC$$. Now it's pretty obvious that
offering $$ incentives to win games is a no-no, but what if I buy a player
a victory beer in a bar ?? What if I invite him home for dinner ?? Since
these are "benefits not available to the University community at large," have
I jeopardized the program ?? If Steve Alford (former IU basketball player)
can be censured by the NC$$ for appearing on a charity calendar, have hockey
players who make a brief appearance at a Youth Hockey Tournament also stepped
over the line ?? Despite some pointed questions at various hockey functions
I've attended since the Lowell incident, I've never gotten anything but vague
and ambivalent non-answers. For many months I've been agitating behind the
scenes for someone to address the "Friends of UNH Hockey" booster organization
on the capriciousness of NC$$ regulations.
Well, it finally happened.
Each NC$$ school is now required to have a "Compliance Coordinator" - at
UNH it's Asst. Coach Dave O'Connor. He spoke and answered questions at the
May meeting of the Friends executive committee, and I think what he had to say
will surprise a lot of people on the List. Be aware, however, that I was not
in attendance, and the comments that follow are paraphrased responses to SOME
of the questions I'd asked my proxy to bring up. Briefly:
* Any activities/events that a booster organization sponsors for its players
MUST be organized on a TEAM-WIDE basis, i.e., I (as a member of The Friends
of UNH Hockey boosters) cannot invite an individual player over for dinner
unless I invite the whole team. It's still unclear to me how this rules
interpretation applies to, say, a friend of one of the players who lives
in the same dorm (let's call him "Brad") and buys his hockey-playing buddy
a beer - does Brad have to invite the whole team down to the local watering
hole ?? What if the player was already there, and Brad spots him as he
comes in ?? Does it matter whether Brad belongs to an "official" booster
organization of some sort ?? What if no money is involved ?? Say Brad
invites a player to his parent's beach house for the weekend - must the
whole team come along ?? How does this interpretation change if Brad is
not a fellow student, but an alumnus instead ??
* Not only must the entire team benefit, any activity/event/gift of monetary
value must be funneled through the Athletic Department. So, now that I've
planned my dinner party for 25, I must determine the total cost in advance,
forward that amount to the athletic department, then wait several weeks
while the $$ is processed and (eventually) returned to me in reimbursement
for the expense of the meal. No wonder the NC$$ has been accused of being
a Kafka novel come to life !! This procedure ensures, however, that the
annual team-wide events sponsored by the Friends such as the Face-Off Feed
in September, the New Year's Day Brunch, and the annual Awards Banquet are
OK in the eyes of the NC$$ since the money is indeed funneled through the
athletic department as above. A secondary benefit of this requirement is
that $$ returning from the Ath. Dept. *cannot* be used as reimbursement
for alcohol-related expenses = no beer at Friends functions for the team.
NOTE: This may be a UNH, rather than a NC$$, mandate. Thus we have a
classic Catch-22: Brad can't buy his buddy a beer unless he buys one for
the whole team by submitting the total cost to the athletic department in
advance who, of course, can't allow that money to be spent on beer. How
can the NC$$ persist in calling its charges "student-athletes" when it
won't allow them the same privileges afforded every other "student" ??
[As an aside, it's also not clear to me how this interpretation affects
what's allowed by individuals who "sponsor" particular players in some
way, e.g., as Charlie Shub has mentioned he and his family have done for
hockey playing cadets at the Air Force Academy. Is this allowed only if
ALL the players are "sponsored" more/less in the same fashion, i.e., a
fixed amount of money is dispersed by the Academy to each sponsoring
family ?? I guess they can't serve beer or wine with dinner either :-) ]
Obviously, this just scratches the surface of the various nuances involved
in the byzantine administrative labyrinth that's the modern NC$$. Now that
y'all know that each school has its own "Compliance Coordinator" in place, I'd
encourage those of you with better access than I to their school's athletic
department and/or hockey office ( Carol ? , Bill ? , Mike ? ) to ask some
pointed questions to try and fill in the obvious gaps I've left in my second-
hand summary above. I'm looking forward to comments and clarifications in the
days ahead :-)
In other news, Coach O'Connor reported that it's generally believed that
the NC$$ will reinstate a third full-time hockey coach at its next meeting in
January. Evidently most schools are planning to get around the current
restrictions by, get this, paying a full year's salary to the affected coach
in a lump sum before 1 August when the new rule limiting hockey coaching
staffs is scheduled to go into effect. Since most school's fiscal year begins
1 July, they have a whole month to squeeze in a year's worth of salary :-)
Cheers from the Chesapeake - Jim
|