Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="SWC75, post: 235747, member: 289"] Digger Phelps and another guy were just going at it on ESPN over Samuels. (Digger again got hot under the collar and Bob ley ahd to change the subject). Diggers said that 30 years ago he told every prospect and their family that hte kid was due, tuition, books, room and board and if he wanted any spending meoneyh, they would arrange for a job he would actually do and pay the taxes on it. The other guy said "That was 30 years ago" Digger: "That hasn't changed in 30 years!!!" The other guy cited the prior relaitonship" clause, which is contained in the article you posted: The NCAA rulebook states an "extra benefit" is: "Any special arrangement by an institution employee or a representative of the institution's athletic interest (a booster) to provide a student-athlete (or a student-athlete's relative or friend) a benefit that is not generally available to other students and their relatives and/or friends." Curtis Malone, who said he believes he did nothing wrong, is not a booster of K-State, nor is he an employee of the institution, and because of that, it's important to delve further into the rulebook. Malone, who isn't an agent, knew Samuels and his mother well before he became a student athlete at K-State. So the issue of pre-existing relationships comes into play. The NCAA rulebook says the following in regard to pre-existing relationships: "The origin and duration of a relationship and the consistency of benefits provided during the relationship are key factors. Prior to initial full-time collegiate enrollment, a prospective student-athlete may receive normal and reasonable living expenses from an individual with whom the student-athlete has an established relationship (high-school coach, non-scholastic athletics team coach, family of a teammate), even if the relationship developed as a result of athletics participation, provided: •The individual is not an agent, •The individual is not an athletics representative of a particular institution involved in recruiting the prospect, and •Such living expenses are consistent with the types of expenses provided by the individual as a part of normal living arrangements (e.g., housing, meals, occasional spending money, use of the family car). "It also noted that a current student-athlete who, prior to initial collegiate enrollment, has been receiving normal and reasonable living expenses from an individual with whom he or she has an established relationship may continue to receive occasional benefits (e.g., meals during campus visits, reasonable entertainment) from an individual or family with whom the student-athlete has an established relationship. Such expenses may not include educational expenses associated with a grant-in-aid (i.e., tuition and fees, room and board, and required course-related books)." My own feeling is that the NCAA needs to be concerned about two things: inducements to go to a school or change schools or things done to keep a player eligible who should not be eligible. An AAU coach sending $200 to a fifth year senior wouldn't seem to fit in either category. You also have to wonder why the $200 was needed. They say it was for food and his family. It would seem to suggest that college athletes are "cash poor" even if they are getting a valuable scholarship. I also wonder what the value of a scholarship is to the Kentucky types who are not there to get a degree. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?