John Haeussler wrote:
>The following is taken from a pamphlet that I received with my season
>tickets. ...
>SELECTED NC$$ RULES EVERY ALUMNUS OR FRIEND OF THE UNIVERSITY
>SHOULD KNOW.
>...
>You are considered a "booster" if you do or have done any of the
>following:
>...
> 2. Made a donation to the men's or women's athletic program or
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    the institution's general fund.
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>...
>BASIC POINTS YOU SHOULD KNOW
> 1. A booster of a Division I institution is prohibited from
>    making in-person on or off-campus recruiting contact with a
>    prospect and his or her parents or legal guardians.  (Contact
>    is defined as any face-to-face encounter with a prospect or a
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    prospect's parents during which any dialogue occurs in excess
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    of an exchange of a greeting.)
 
So if I give or have ever given BU's general fund a donation (I *have*)
then I am a BU booster ? (I am *not* to anyone but a simpleton or an
NC$$ official.)
Since they consider me a booster, if I happen to meet a hockey prospect
(I might not ever *know* he is one - that knowledge sure isn't noted
as an element of this *crime*), then if I say more than hello to him,
this is a technical violation?
I guess all of us who've ever given a dime to Alma Mater had better
adopt a policy of not speaking to any male who even *might* be a prospect
because who knows.
Of course if I secretly hated BU (I'm a closet Harvard fan - NOT) I'd
immediately go door-to-door to every known high school hockey star's
address with one of my Harvey friends trailing me so he could turn me
in. Boy I bet that would finish BU!
Does all this strike anyone else as patently absurd? Since BU sure as
hell doesn't control me just because I gave them a few bucks (hell,
Silber and Co. couldn't control me when I was a *student*), it violates
all logic and equity to punish BU or hapless players because of my acts.
 
Paulette Dwen added:
>...  but considering how much problems boosters can potentially
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> cause, without even realizing it, ...
  ^^^^^
 
I think this puts the skate on the wrong foot. The NC$$ is causing
problems with "rules" that are overly broad and, if enforced as written,
then ridiculous. Now if a rule doesn't really mean what it says or it
is an attempt to control people outside of NC$$ or university control,
clearly something is *very* wrong.
 
Can some of our NC$$ Rule "lawyers" provide any insight? Were those
"warnings" to Michigan and Cornell fans off-base or is the NC$$ really
that stupid and full of itself?
Dave Carroll                   "Hey, hockey wiz, want some candy?"
[log in to unmask]          "Book him, Danno - Booster 1."
[log in to unmask]   from a recent episode of NC$$-Five-O