I had a few thoughts bouncing around in my head about this whole NC$$ vs.
booster thing, and Jim Love's electronic tongue-lashing has galvanized me
into passing them along :-) :-)
My thanks also to Charlie Shub for his explanation of how sponsorship works
at the Air Force Academy (and presumably at the other service academies as
well). However, sponsorship occurs at other colleges (and in other sports),
and this would seem to violate the NC$$'s idea/rule that benefits available
to college athletes must also be available to the general student body. My
understanding (and admittedly, this is secondhand) is that such sponsorship
is within the rules, as long as the monetary value is deducted from whatever
financial aid the college is providing to the player. This is much like the
situation where a college student (athlete or no) on financial aid gets a
job, and his or her wages are used to reduce the value of the aid package.
Thus, sponsorship in this case would not be providing a "benefit" to the
player at all, at least from a monetary point of view. Of course, whatever
sponsorship is set up would have to be pretty tightly controlled by the
college -- presumably by the athletic department.
[ And the sponsorship can't involve any of the no-nos that Arthur just
listed either ]
It does seem ludicrous for the NC$$ to get bent out of shape if a booster
invites a college athlete over for dinner -- especially since the same
booster is completely free to invite non-athletes over, or to chauffer them
around, or even to buy them a new car if he or she so desires. But,
although they probably have overreacted, the NC$$ has had to get a little
strict about the amount of involvement boosters can have with their
respective teams. The reason "booster" is such a dirty word to NC$$
officials is that there is a long and sordid history of boosters at various
schools who have stepped way out of line in supporting their favorite teams.
There are any number of instances of boosters "supporting" their team by
giving players money, buying them clothes and cars, giving them jobs at
grossly inflated wages, and so on. If this were to go unchecked, those
schools which happened to have a nice supply of rich boosters would have an
unfair recruiting advantage over those that did not. ("Wow, a car? For me?
And all I have to do is sign this letter of intent?") So, although NC$$-
bashing is in vogue right now (with good reason), we can also thank the
overzealous boosters for helping to put college athletics in this mess.
Most of the sleazy-booster escapades that have taken place have involved
football or men's basketball teams. In this day and age of win-at-all-
costs, it's remarkable that college hockey has been hardly touched at all by
booster scandals. I can think of only one situation where the actions of a
hockey booster got a school in trouble with the NC$$ -- and you can be sure
this isn't due to any lack of vigilance on the part of the NC$$'s secret
police. Wouldn't it be nice if the NC$$ took into account how clean a sport
college hockey is, relative to football and men's basketball, when it came
time to make those cuts they're so fond of making?
Ah, yes... Pipe Dreams R Us...
--
Bill Fenwick
Cornell '86 and probably '94
LET'S GO RED!!
"You know what ticks me off about men? ... Stress makes them eat less and women
eat more."
--"Sylvia"
|
