Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="leftytg, post: 690721, member: 2651"]
I don't see how the analysis would change.  I think we can all acknowledge the unlikelihood of random fans sending copious amounts of snail mail to a recruit's home (for a number of reasons - people are lazy, tracking down addresses is work, not to mention if the address is unlisted, stamps cost money, etc).  Twitter is unique because it is essentially effortless, costs nothing, and you get the gratification of seeing the recruit interact with you.
 
To spell it out better, I have no issue with the NCAA regulating the contact coaching staffs can have.  That seems fair game to me.  My issue is the insanely overbroad definition they use to determine if someone is a booster.  There is nothing against the NCAA rulebook about a fan tweeting a recruit.  The NCAA bars boosters from tweeting at recruits.  The problem is that, by the lunacy of the NCAA's definition of booster, pretty much anyone with a pulse who is also a fan amounts to a booster.  I'd like to see the NCAA tighten up the definition of booster to include only those who have close ties to the school/program. 
 
I'm not going to take this off subject and start a debate on where that line should be and who should/shouldn't be considered a booster.  I'm simply saying that Joe Schmoe Syracuse fan who is part of a fan website, like this one, shouldn't be considered a booster.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?