Want to know how overblown the rules are? My nephew is a freshman football player in high school. He wants to go to my alma mater's bowl game. I can't take him or buy tickets because I am a athletic sponsor (donor). If I do, it would be considered a secondary violation, even though I am his uncle. Because in the NCAA eyes, I would be persuading him to 'attend' my alma mater. In my eyes, I just am taking my nephew to a football game for him to enjoy. Very picky with their rules.
At what point do the secondary violations, the new investigation and any other violation(s) that come out of it, add up to "lack of institutional control"?
I'm starting to sweat...
This is wrong.
Not only do you not have to be a family member, you could be an old family friend. If you can prove a relationship that preexists the football skills of the kid, you can give him food, money etc and it is no violation. Otherwise Michael Oher never could have gone to Ole Miss because his surrogate parents were engaging in all sorts of violations to push him away from the UT school they hate.
If I remember correctly, they were heavily investigated for exactly that. Oher had to prove that he decided to go to Ole Miss because it's what he wanted to do. It was very much a violation for his parents (as donors) to pursuade him one way or the other.
May not be right, but that's the way it is.
let's remember, an alabama booster took julio jones and another player on a fishing trip and the NCAA essentially gave them a pass so long as JJ paid the guy back the money he spent on the trip.
as long as kiffin and co. didn't tell these girls to go do this, it's nothing to worry about.
but, i've been wrong before.