nice article, i wish i could finish it. go ahead and post the hole thing. it would just be a minor violation.
If Lane Kiffin can get a secondary violation, then so can I by god.
A few weeks back,
Ole Miss made some headlines for a secondary violation because coach Houston Nutt allowed a reporter to accompany his staff for a day-in-the-life recruiting story, in which the coaches talked about recruits who were mentioned in such detail in the story that even though their names weren't used, it was apparent who they were.
The story was published before signing day. Two years ago, I wrote a book in which I spent an entire year with the Rebels' football staff to show what goes on inside a college football war room as a program puts together a recruiting class. That got me wondering whether the violation in Nutt's case was due to the fact that the story was published before signing day, and my book, in which the names and details were all there in the quotes and stories, did not come out until eight months after signing day. Must be, I thought. (When I had begun working on the book, the one thing I had agreed on with the Ole Miss staff was that I wouldn't publish anything until after signing day.) And I do recall seeing other stories over the years about reporters spending some time with college programs on the eve of signing day. Maybe things have changed? This past February, I spent signing day at UCLA. The Bruins compliance people had one caveat for the story: If a UCLA coach was on the phone with a recruit that day and that player's paperwork hadn't been faxed in yet, either the assistant had to leave the room or I did. So it had to be timing, no?
That was one of a handful of questions I tried to ask the NCAA the other day. I tried to get some answers or explanations over the phone but instead ended up getting them resolved via e-mail last Wednesday afternoon:
Me at 4:27 p.m.: And in terms of 13.10, if the media is in the presence of the coaches for a story about recruiting wouldn't that be a violation if there is any interaction by the coaches with recruits while the media is there? Or is it OK as long as the story is not published or aired until AFTER signing day?
Christopher Radford of the NCAA at 4:54: Coaches aren't allowed to publicize any contact with recruits, so as far as media presence goes, it is a violation if the coach talks about a specific prospect to a reporter, whether the story is published or not.
Me at 4:59: No, I'm talking about if the coach lets the reporter just observe and play fly-on-the-wall while they're going about their daily business and calling recruits.
Radford at 5:25: Theoretically, yes
Me at 5:42: Theoretically it would be a violation, regardless of whether the story came out before or AFTER signing day, does the timing matter?
Radford at 6: Timing does not matter.
It all can be pretty mind-numbing because there are so many things you start to believe sound like violations, even if they appear so meaningless. I asked Radford about situations involving coaches communicating with recruits attending their practices and in camp settings where the media also is present and could easily pick up on the banter. "Hypothetical situations are difficult to put in black and white because it's impossible to determine intent," Radford wrote. "For example, if a school is having a camp with recruits, it would be a blatant violation if they publicized it to media. But if a reporter is hiding in bushes and snaps photos of the camp, the school isn't necessarily in violation."
As silly as all this stuff sounds now, you have to believe it's only going to get more farcical next year and the year after.
