-
New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.
- Thread starter FairfaxBuckeye
- Start date
sandgk
Watson, Crick & A Twist
Muck - I think the rule you linked is not the only operative NCAA regulation under which there would be a problem for Ohio State, the athletes, or their family members had money ended up in the family member's hands, or of the athlete's themselves. It is the correct rule (or one of them) to cite for the use of Pittman or Well's name in promotion of the fundraiser - if such a thing had happened.
The Bylaw (I believe) that applies is - Boosters, as the fundraiser as originally devised would have provided benefits to the parents of enrolled student-athletes. (Interestingly, the parents could also themselves be considered boosters, so the pasta dinner organizers -- had they handed cash to Mother Wells or Mother Pittman -- would have created an instance of boosters helping boosters).
As for Nightmare's question:
So the positive answer to Nightmare's question is that the Wells and Pittman parents and families would have to do it the old fashioned way, with a loan (i.e., a credit card) - as long that is as the future earnings, or current reputation of the players in question, were not considered in the approval of said loan.
The Bylaw (I believe) that applies is - Boosters, as the fundraiser as originally devised would have provided benefits to the parents of enrolled student-athletes. (Interestingly, the parents could also themselves be considered boosters, so the pasta dinner organizers -- had they handed cash to Mother Wells or Mother Pittman -- would have created an instance of boosters helping boosters).
As for Nightmare's question:
So if the athlete himself is a parent then his (or her) spouse and children get help - but all parents can obtain from the University is a reduced rate and a guarantee of a room.
So the positive answer to Nightmare's question is that the Wells and Pittman parents and families would have to do it the old fashioned way, with a loan (i.e., a credit card) - as long that is as the future earnings, or current reputation of the players in question, were not considered in the approval of said loan.
Upvote
0
CookyPuss
Screw Blue
sandgk;697679; said:
Thanks, I stand corrected. I wasn't thinking of the parents as being boosters, but that is true:
So, even though I have not affiliation whatsoever with tOSU, have never attended a class there, never worked there, and have never donated any money to the athletics department or booster clubs; I could not out of the goodness of my heart send them a Christmas card with $10 in it to help with their travel costs simply because I only know of them because of their sons. Wow, things are much stricter than I realized.
I think the other alternative that would be available would be a loan from friends/family (those they had prior relationship with before the boys got famous for playing football). If all their friends/fam are broke, then it is the conventional loan or credit card.
Upvote
0
osugrad21;696885; said:
I'm gonna stick with stick with this being a stupid thing to do. I won't repeat what others have posted about what is permissable and will only note that we have talked about and posted all of these rules before.
First, I don't take any comfort in the fact that no violation took place. No violation took place only because of the phone call to Bollman and thank God Mom had the presence of mind to make that call. No phone call and an infraction would have taken place.
Second, these kids are sitting through numerous lectures detailing the NCAA rules to them. They know to ask in advance before they attend any functions and to get permission. They have a compliance officer assigned to help them understand the implications of their behavior.
I really don't know what happened at the Ginn Sr fundraiser and I can't comment Grad21, but I know that these kids should not have been at this function and they should have known better.
By the way, I happen to think that the NCAA rule in this regard is complete rubbish. To think that a kids folks can't get donations from others so that they can attend a game is outrageous to me. But, so is losing a national championship game because our two best running backs are taken out by a silly infraction.
A final thought. Compare Mrs Wells to Mrs Clarett. Chalk and cheese. Thank you Mrs Wells!
Upvote
0
CookyPuss
Screw Blue
Steve19;697723; said:
I don't think it was a fund raiser, but a birthday celebration or function to honor him as a coach. The money given to him was a tribute and a spontaneous cultural showing of respect. Very different situation than a planned dinner to raise funds. Steve is right that these guys should have known better. I can plead ignorance, since I never made it past pee wee league.
Upvote
0
23Skidoo
It's so Japaneasy
MuckFich06;697745; said:
Another thing to consider is that in Ginn Sr.'s case, he was receiving money. I don't think there are any restrictions on players giving monetary gifts in this fashion? I'm pretty sure they're essentially allowed to spend their money as they see fit.
Furthermore, we all know Troy and Ted Jr. knew Ginn Sr. long before they were under the auspices of The Ohio State University. And, as such, these types of exchanges are likely "exempt."
Upvote
0
Steve19;697723; said:
I see your side Steve...and I really don't disagree. I guess what I took issue with is the veracity of the statement that they "damn well knew better."
I don't buy that.
I don't see two guys who decided they were more important than the team or the NC game. I see two kids who never fathomed that such an event could be a problem. Would you have asked? You say so. Would I have asked? I would think so.
However, as I stated earlier, you nor I carry the same processes of logic as these kids. Therefore, I would bet my life savings that they honestly had no clue. Should they have known? Most likely...but did you know it was a violation for them to be there? What if they attended their church during a fundraiser to pay for a young cousin's operation or to buy groceries for the elderly? Is that a violation? Who really knows?
I get your point though...they should have asked. I'll give you that one. However, I will still disagree with the statement that they should have "damn well known better."
As I said in the beginning, obviously they didn't.
23Skidoo;697764; said:
How so? Even if it was a birthday party, TG's father was the recipient of money...perhaps the attendance of the other players sparked more people to come and join in on the giving? Who knows? Its all BS...
Upvote
0
Just traded some PMs and emails with friends of the families...yes they are on BP 
Let me explain a point that might clear this up somewhat...prior relationship. As many of these folks knew both players WELL before they were even considered prospects or, in some cases, even out of diapers, the folks involved assumed that a prior relationship was just cause to allow this form of fundraising. If there is a prior relationship with these SA's its all legit...however, that burden of proof is likely not worth the effort it would take prior to the game.
The Parent aspect of the Booster definition above refers to parents of other players...for instance, Mr. Leinart supporting Dwayne Jarrett is not allowed. However, Mr. Leinart can give his son any amount of money or gifts as often as he chooses.
...and for anyone wondering, I was told that both families will be in attendance at the game.
As usual, there are always multiple sides to a story...
Let me explain a point that might clear this up somewhat...prior relationship. As many of these folks knew both players WELL before they were even considered prospects or, in some cases, even out of diapers, the folks involved assumed that a prior relationship was just cause to allow this form of fundraising. If there is a prior relationship with these SA's its all legit...however, that burden of proof is likely not worth the effort it would take prior to the game.
The Parent aspect of the Booster definition above refers to parents of other players...for instance, Mr. Leinart supporting Dwayne Jarrett is not allowed. However, Mr. Leinart can give his son any amount of money or gifts as often as he chooses.
...and for anyone wondering, I was told that both families will be in attendance at the game.
As usual, there are always multiple sides to a story...
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Per the NCAA Manual:
16.11.1.3 Loan from Established Family Friend. A student-athlete may receive a loan from an established family friend without such arrangement constituting an extra benefit, provided:
(Adopted: 1/11/94)(a) The loan is not offered to the student-athlete based in any degree on his or her athletics ability or
reputation;
(b) The individual providing the loan is not considered a representative of the institution?s athletics
interests; and
(c) The relationship between the individual providing the loan and the student-athlete existed prior
to the initiation of the student-athlete?s recruitment by the member institution.
Also....Permissable:
(g) Fund raisers for student-athletes (or their immediate family members) under the following
extreme circumstances:
(1) Extreme circumstances should be extraordinary in the result of events beyond the student athlete's
control (e.g., life-threatening illness, natural disaster);
(2) The proceeds must be designated for a specific purpose (e.g., payment of medical bills, purchase
of medical equipment, replacement of items lost in a fire, etc.)
(3) The proceeds may not be given directly to the beneficiaries, but must be disbursed through or
paid directly to another entity, with receipt kept on file by the institution; and
(4) The excess proceeds must be given to a not-for-profit organization with the receipt kept on file
by the institution.
Based on the above, I would certainly say there is a reasonable amount of wiggle room for interpretation...
16.11.1.3 Loan from Established Family Friend. A student-athlete may receive a loan from an established family friend without such arrangement constituting an extra benefit, provided:
(Adopted: 1/11/94)(a) The loan is not offered to the student-athlete based in any degree on his or her athletics ability or
reputation;
(b) The individual providing the loan is not considered a representative of the institution?s athletics
interests; and
(c) The relationship between the individual providing the loan and the student-athlete existed prior
to the initiation of the student-athlete?s recruitment by the member institution.
Also....Permissable:
(g) Fund raisers for student-athletes (or their immediate family members) under the following
extreme circumstances:
(1) Extreme circumstances should be extraordinary in the result of events beyond the student athlete's
control (e.g., life-threatening illness, natural disaster);
(2) The proceeds must be designated for a specific purpose (e.g., payment of medical bills, purchase
of medical equipment, replacement of items lost in a fire, etc.)
(3) The proceeds may not be given directly to the beneficiaries, but must be disbursed through or
paid directly to another entity, with receipt kept on file by the institution; and
(4) The excess proceeds must be given to a not-for-profit organization with the receipt kept on file
by the institution.
Based on the above, I would certainly say there is a reasonable amount of wiggle room for interpretation...
Upvote
0
23Skidoo
It's so Japaneasy
osugrad21;697788; said:
There have been past events (loans from "family friends" and the like) where a relationship established prior to college was a key factor and exempted actions that otherwise would have been violations. I recall this being a specific event here about 2 years ago, and the NCAA investigated and specifically said that there was no violation because the player and benefactor knew eachother prior to college. Please don't make me look them up...
Obviously TS and TGII were more than acquainted with his father beforehand, and they were the ones giving money. Which makes it even more dubious.
If you're going to claim it was a promotional thing -- it would seem to me the burden of proof is on the prosecution in that case. Not only that, but can you prove there was anyone at that party who didn't know Ginn Sr. before his son and Troy came to The Ohio State University?
I don't know about you, but I'm not terribly knowledgeable about exactly what happened in this specific incident. If such proof exists, then there seems to be a dichotomy. But again, the burden of proof would be on the alleging party.
Last edited:
Upvote
0