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