Griffyn Carpenter

[sectionee]

Valpo's AD says he sees nothing wrong with what I'm doing.  So we shall continue the course.

[BigDWSU]

It applies to all

Valpo's AD says he sees nothing wrong with what I'm doing.  So we shall continue the course.

You should probably check with Valpo's compliance office.  ADs are not as up to date on all compliance issues as the people who get paid to do the job.  I am one of the admins of WSU's Raider Nation board.  I was planning on starting a blog feature to interview incoming recruits just like you are doing.  I talked to WSU's compliance office several times last year and they shot it down for the reasons mentioned above in the post I made.  Unless you are eligible to receive media credentials at a game you are not considered a legit media source.  You are considered a booster.  Interacting with a recruit is an NCAA violation when you are a booster.  My guess is that Inside the Hall has media credetials and is allowed to talk to recruits as long as they are just interviewing them.  If they try to influence a players college decision they are breaking NCAA rules. 

I am not trying to bust your chops with my post.  I am just sharing what I have been told in the past my our compliance office.

[sectionee]

Here is part of the message I got form ML.  I'll leave it here and just keep doing what I'm doing unless they say otherwise.
 

I don't see where you have spoken to any of the staff or current players about any of our recruits.  So, as far as I can tell you haven't done anything that is contrary to NCAA rules or would separate you from other members of the media.

I have copied our Compliance Director on this response in case there is something that I have missed in the rules.

I enjoy reading you blog.

Thanks for checking on the rules.

Mark L

[valpopal]

The only point where I see this issue arising would be in the one question where you ask Vucic about playing alongside Vashil Fernandez. As of now, despite reports here or in the media and Vashil's indications on Facebook or Twitter--as well as our personal knowledge or evidence he is on campus, living in Valpo, taking classes, and apparently active in informal games with the other players--I have yet to see an official VU announcement of his status as a member of the team. Indeed, things appear confusing since with him we believe there are presently more players than scholarship spots.

Nevertheless, if Vashil is already an enrolled student at VU, he should be eligible for discussion in your blog as well. Every other player interviewed has been formally announced or, in the case of Carpenter, is not a recruit but a walk-on hopeful. I see no problems with interviewing them at all.

In any case, I enjoy the blog and applaud what you are doing.

[crusaderjoe]

It applies to all

Valpo's AD says he sees nothing wrong with what I'm doing.  So we shall continue the course.

You should probably check with Valpo's compliance office.  ADs are not as up to date on all compliance issues as the people who get paid to do the job.  I am one of the admins of WSU's Raider Nation board.  I was planning on starting a blog feature to interview incoming recruits just like you are doing.  I talked to WSU's compliance office several times last year and they shot it down for the reasons mentioned above in the post I made.  Unless you are eligible to receive media credentials at a game you are not considered a legit media source.  You are considered a booster.  Interacting with a recruit is an NCAA violation when you are a booster.  My guess is that Inside the Hall has media credetials and is allowed to talk to recruits as long as they are just interviewing them.  If they try to influence a players college decision they are breaking NCAA rules. 

I am not trying to bust your chops with my post.  I am just sharing what I have been told in the past my our compliance office.

I tend to agree with this.  I am not implying that the AD is wrong.  However, just to be absolutely safe and to cover your arse, to determine whether you qualify as a "booster" or an "athletics representative" of the University your answer should come from someone with designation from VU's Compliance Department, particularly if you are a member of the Crusader Club currently or have donated any amount of money to Valpo athletics in the past. 

[valpopal]

BIGDWSU: "Interacting with a recruit is an NCAA violation when you are a booster.  My guess is that Inside the Hall has media credetials and is allowed to talk to recruits as long as they are just interviewing them.  If they try to influence a players college decision they are breaking NCAA rules."

As far as I can tell from looking at the Section EE blog, nobody was a "recruit" when interviewed: all already had been officially announced or declared he was a hopeful walk-on (Carpenter). Therefore, none could have been "influenced in their college decision" by the interview. 

[valpo04]

I tend to agree with this.  I am not implying that the AD is wrong.  However, just to be absolutely safe and to cover your arse, to determine whether you qualify as a "booster" or an "athletics representative" of the University your answer should come from someone with designation from VU's Compliance Department, particularly if you are a member of the Crusader Club currently or have donated any amount of money to Valpo athletics in the past. 

ee has already posted that ML is having the Compliance Office look it over as well...

Here is part of the message I got form ML.  I'll leave it here and just keep doing what I'm doing unless they say otherwise.
 

I don't see where you have spoken to any of the staff or current players about any of our recruits.  So, as far as I can tell you haven't done anything that is contrary to NCAA rules or would separate you from other members of the media.

I have copied our Compliance Director on this response in case there is something that I have missed in the rules.

I enjoy reading you blog.

Thanks for checking on the rules.

Mark L

[BigDWSU]

BIGDWSU: "Interacting with a recruit is an NCAA violation when you are a booster.  My guess is that Inside the Hall has media credetials and is allowed to talk to recruits as long as they are just interviewing them.  If they try to influence a players college decision they are breaking NCAA rules."

As far as I can tell from looking at the Section EE blog, nobody was a "recruit" when interviewed: all already had been officially announced or declared he was a hopeful walk-on (Carpenter). Therefore, none could have been "influenced in their college decision" by the interview. 

Until a student athlete signs their LOI, they are still considered a recruit in the eyes of the NCAA.  It doesn't matter if they have declared their intentions to attend Valpo or any other institution.  They can always change their mind until they sign their LOI and enroll for classes. 

[sectionee]

Compliance and the AD's office are both aware of what I'm writing.  If they say to stop then I will stop.  The message from ML came at 9:45am, plenty of time for compliance to get back to me today.  Until I hear something I will keep doing what I'm doing.  I don't believe I've done anything wrong and until someone at the university tells me otherwise I'm not to worried about it. 

I did mention Vashil to Vucic which maybe wasn't right?  Besides that I'm pretty sure I'm in the clear. 
Jakolis = signed when interviewed
Buggs = obviously signed
Vucic = obviously signed
Johnson = a graduate
Bogan = signed when interviewed
Carpenter = I believe had registered already (I'm checking into that, but if anything my interview would steer him away from Valpo. He also was not recruited by the university.)
Homer Drew = Retired
CSU Assistant Coach Larry DeSimpelare = coach

Obviously the last thing I want to do is cause trouble for VU.  If asked to stop, then obviously I will stop the interviews.  I'm glad most of you enjoy reading them. I really enjoy doing them.  In regards to what someone else posted: all our family donations go directly to the Valpo Fund (make your gift here: https://www.valpo.edu/givetovu/form/).

[valpopal]

BIGDWSU: "Interacting with a recruit is an NCAA violation when you are a booster.  My guess is that Inside the Hall has media credetials and is allowed to talk to recruits as long as they are just interviewing them.  If they try to influence a players college decision they are breaking NCAA rules."

As far as I can tell from looking at the Section EE blog, nobody was a "recruit" when interviewed: all already had been officially announced or declared he was a hopeful walk-on (Carpenter). Therefore, none could have been "influenced in their college decision" by the interview.  

Until a student athlete signs their LOI, they are still considered a recruit in the eyes of the NCAA.  It doesn't matter if they have declared their intentions to attend Valpo or any other institution.  They can always change their mind until they sign their LOI and enroll for classes.  

I agree, but this doesn't apply here. The scholarship players interviewed by SECTION EE were transfer players who already were announced officially by the university athletics department and enrolled at VU for summer classes.

[valpo84]

There are key distinctions to be made. First is sectionee a "booster". The rules spell that out. Second, is he legitimate media. This is an important debate in the blogosphere and has seen melt downs by certain members of MSM who get scooped by bloggers. The Deadspin writers had a great debate with a certain famous author, who has since embraced social media. If someone has media credentials to games or who can apply and receive them that is one indication. What happens if they have media credentials, write something deemed "critical" by the AD's/PR office and then have those credentials pulled? Are they less "legitimate"?

The second point is are they "recruits" or students.

The third issue is whether the University is staying up to date on contacts with student-athletes. Are they providing thorough media relations training, warning/banning about twitters, facebooks, etc. One way to make sure you are compliant and to be considered legitimate is to go through the PR Director in the AD office for permission to interview athletes if you are not doing that already. First, it's a good job to keep them informed, but also the PR Director can remind the athlete what he can and can't say about incoming or recruited players. Nonetheless, AD offices at other schools can be very protective and in that case, a good way to show you are legitimate is to use your resources.

Keep up the good work as a legitimate source for Valpo sports news where the locals aren't covering it well enough. It also helps them get better.

[valpofan56]

This is an important debate in the blogosphere and has seen melt downs by certain members of MSM who get scooped by bloggers.

I'm assuming MSM means mainstream media?  But I couldn't help but chuckle to myself because in the medical community MSM has an entirely different meaning.

[BigDWSU]

BIGDWSU: "Interacting with a recruit is an NCAA violation when you are a booster.  My guess is that Inside the Hall has media credetials and is allowed to talk to recruits as long as they are just interviewing them.  If they try to influence a players college decision they are breaking NCAA rules."

As far as I can tell from looking at the Section EE blog, nobody was a "recruit" when interviewed: all already had been officially announced or declared he was a hopeful walk-on (Carpenter). Therefore, none could have been "influenced in their college decision" by the interview.  

Until a student athlete signs their LOI, they are still considered a recruit in the eyes of the NCAA.  It doesn't matter if they have declared their intentions to attend Valpo or any other institution.  They can always change their mind until they sign their LOI and enroll for classes.  

I agree, but this doesn't apply here. The scholarship players interviewed by SECTION EE were transfer players who already were announced officially by the university athletics department and enrolled at VU for summer classes.

If you notice, I never questioned if SECTIONEE could interview current players or players enrolled at Valpo.  I brought up that he shouldn't be contacting Griffyn Carpenter (the topic of this thread) because he is still in high school and has not signed a LOI to Valpo yet.

[sectionee]

Griffyn has graduated high school and is already registered at Valpo.

[sectionee]

If I am going to walk on to the team, may I sign a National Letter of Intent?
No. An institution is strictly prohibited from allowing you to sign a National Letter of Intent if you are a non-scholarship walk-on. In order for a National Letter of Intent it be considered valid, it must be accompanied by an athletics financial aid award letter, which lists the terms and conditions of the award, including the amount and duration of the financial aid. The athletics financial aid offer must be signed by both the student and his or her parent or legal guardian. Simply put, there must be an athletics scholarship for a National Letter of Intent to be valid.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/nli/NLI/Frequently+Asked+Questions/Signing+the+National+Letter+of+Intent/If+I+am+going+to+walk+on+to+the+team,+may+I+sign+a+National+Letter+of+Intent

[crusaderjoe]

I tend to agree with this.  I am not implying that the AD is wrong.  However, just to be absolutely safe and to cover your arse, to determine whether you qualify as a "booster" or an "athletics representative" of the University your answer should come from someone with designation from VU's Compliance Department, particularly if you are a member of the Crusader Club currently or have donated any amount of money to Valpo athletics in the past. 

ee has already posted that ML is having the Compliance Office look it over as well...

Here is part of the message I got form ML.  I'll leave it here and just keep doing what I'm doing unless they say otherwise.
 

I don't see where you have spoken to any of the staff or current players about any of our recruits.  So, as far as I can tell you haven't done anything that is contrary to NCAA rules or would separate you from other members of the media.

I have copied our Compliance Director on this response in case there is something that I have missed in the rules.

I enjoy reading you blog.

Thanks for checking on the rules.

Mark L

Right--I understand the compliance director was copied on the AD's response.  All I was suggesting is that now that this issue has been formally raised on this board, to fully protect himself, sectionee should get a formal answer to his questions or concerns from a compliance officer directly.  Not saying anything was done wrong, but since the issue was raised this is the best course of action.  A copy of an email is not enough IMO.

[valpo04]

I tend to agree with this.  I am not implying that the AD is wrong.  However, just to be absolutely safe and to cover your arse, to determine whether you qualify as a "booster" or an "athletics representative" of the University your answer should come from someone with designation from VU's Compliance Department, particularly if you are a member of the Crusader Club currently or have donated any amount of money to Valpo athletics in the past. 

ee has already posted that ML is having the Compliance Office look it over as well...

Here is part of the message I got form ML.  I'll leave it here and just keep doing what I'm doing unless they say otherwise.
 

I don't see where you have spoken to any of the staff or current players about any of our recruits.  So, as far as I can tell you haven't done anything that is contrary to NCAA rules or would separate you from other members of the media.

I have copied our Compliance Director on this response in case there is something that I have missed in the rules.

I enjoy reading you blog.

Thanks for checking on the rules.

Mark L

Right--I understand the compliance director was copied on the AD's response.  All I was suggesting is that now that this issue has been formally raised on this board, to fully protect himself, sectionee should get a formal answer to his questions or concerns from a compliance officer directly.  Not saying anything was done wrong, but since the issue was raised this is the best course of action.  A copy of an email is not enough IMO.

Perhaps we can get a more formal statement from the Compliance Office like the examples we have seen from other schools.  If we could get something like that on the Athletics site and to copy and have here, that would clear everything up for sectionee as well as anyone else who may in the future want to do something similar. 

[valpopal]

BIGDWSU: "Interacting with a recruit is an NCAA violation when you are a booster.  My guess is that Inside the Hall has media credetials and is allowed to talk to recruits as long as they are just interviewing them.  If they try to influence a players college decision they are breaking NCAA rules."

As far as I can tell from looking at the Section EE blog, nobody was a "recruit" when interviewed: all already had been officially announced or declared he was a hopeful walk-on (Carpenter). Therefore, none could have been "influenced in their college decision" by the interview. 

Until a student athlete signs their LOI, they are still considered a recruit in the eyes of the NCAA.  It doesn't matter if they have declared their intentions to attend Valpo or any other institution.  They can always change their mind until they sign their LOI and enroll for classes. 

I agree, but this doesn't apply here. The scholarship players interviewed by SECTION EE were transfer players who already were announced officially by the university athletics department and enrolled at VU for summer classes.

If you notice, I never questioned if SECTIONEE could interview current players or players enrolled at Valpo.  I brought up that he shouldn't be contacting Griffyn Carpenter (the topic of this thread) because he is still in high school and has not signed a LOI to Valpo yet.

Carpenter has enrolled as a student at VU; therefore, as I mentioned, he doesn't apply to your concerns either.

[lowposter]

Slightly off topic, but not too far.  Indications are a LoI must be accompanied by an athletic financial aid award letter which outlines the amount and terms.

Do D1 schools mix and match athletic with academic scholarships?  In other words, one incoming freshman is a 4.0 student and if he was not a athlete, might be on full academic scholarship.  Can a D1 school mix and combine the awards?  Back in the day, some schools would offer a 50% ride...not sure if that occurs now or not.

BTW, might this occur, along with financial aid for "preferred walkons?

lowposter

[ValpoHoops]

Slightly off topic, but not too far.  Indications are a LoI must be accompanied by an athletic financial aid award letter which outlines the amount and terms.

Do D1 schools mix and match athletic with academic scholarships?  In other words, one incoming freshman is a 4.0 student and if he was not a athlete, might be on full academic scholarship.  Can a D1 school mix and combine the awards?  Back in the day, some schools would offer a 50% ride...not sure if that occurs now or not.

BTW, might this occur, along with financial aid for "preferred walkons?

lowposter

In some sports, scholarships can be chopped up, but in men's and women's basketball (and FBS football...not sure about FCS) they are all-or-nothing deals. Men's basketball gets 13, so you can only have 13 "scholarship" players in a season. How a school arrives at the 13 is probably up to them...my guess would be the basketball team would simply get a "refund" if a player got a $4,000 academic scholarship.

However, with the economy and scholarship money being how they are now, I would guess that most schools wouldn't offer academic money to someone who they already know is going to be on an athletic full ride. (again, the other sports, this is different)

[valpotx]

We had athletic and academic scholarships in baseball, and I assume that is still the case

[Crusader03]

So, looks like ee-Gate is cleared up?  Big thanks to BigDWSU for policing the Valpo blogs!

[sectionee]

   nothing wrong with a little controversy to strum up publicity for my blog. LOL

[valporun]

We had athletic and academic scholarships in baseball, and I assume that is still the case

It's easier to "chop up" scholarship dollars in a sport, like baseball, softball, track, where the roster isn't exclusively limited by the NCAA to how many scholarship athletes you can have. Unlike football and basketball, where those coaches would purposely stockpile to 'redshirt' as needed, if the roster size wasn't limited.
What I mean is if say Jim Calhoun could do it, he would stockpile his roster with players that he could keep for 5 years, and stagger how he redshirts them for winning the Big East or making deep drives to the NCAA championships.

[ValpoHoops]

Basketball rosters can be as large as a coach wants them to be. Mens basketball gets 13 scholarships at a division 1 school and is not allowed to divide them. Which is why most schools have a roster around 12-15