Post-collegiates with NCAA teams

One time, a hockey stick shattered my cup when I got cross checked and my ball sack hemoraged to the size of a jumbo grapefruit. it took the doctors 6 hours to piece back the seven shattered pieces of my left testi.

One time, a hockey stick shattered my cup when I got cross checked and my ball sack hemoraged to the size of a jumbo grapefruit. it took the doctors 6 hours to piece back the seven shattered pieces of my left testi.

>>>>...and even if the redshirting athlete paid for the gas, the volunteer coach cannot drive the student athlete to compete while redshirting without that student athlete then transgressing the redshirt rule and be in danger of being charged with one year of eligibility used.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Let me get this straight. I'm not from the US so I'm tryinng to interpret these posts. In a democratic society someone can't take another person his his car, his own car, and drive them somewhere like an athletic track. Or someone can't go to a public track, or a track with permission, and do his own training with the same group he was once in. What if he wants that coach to still be a personal coach or simply wants to join in and do the same session as the college guys. I don't know if I interpreting all these posts correctly but this is what it all sounds like to me. Surely a lawyer would have a field day with this if these are the rules.

before michael jordan made his nba comeback he said he got in shape by working out with his college team north carolina.

in college wrestling you can work out with the team, after your eligibility is up.

Let me get this straight. I'm not from the US so I'm tryinng to interpret these posts. In a democratic society someone can't take another person his his car, his own car, and drive them somewhere like an athletic track. Or someone can't go to a public track, or a track with permission, and do his own training with the same group he was once in. What if he wants that coach to still be a personal coach or simply wants to join in and do the same session as the college guys. I don't know if I interpreting all these posts correctly but this is what it all sounds like to me. Surely a lawyer would have a field day with this if these are the rules.

An athlete (and the coach) have agreed to abide by the NCAA rules. So democracy has nothing to do with it. The rules are essentially, as far as rides and such go, that if the general student body can't get driven to the track, neither can the athletes.

As far as the training aspects go, I think that whatever is on the books, there is some room for interpretation. If you're Carl Lewis, the NCAA would probably forbid you from training with the team, as that would be an unfair recruiting advantage. If you're a former athlete who never got to conference (just to pick a level of performance), but the coach is willing to train you, they probably won't care. I've seen this occur, and nobody was bothered by it. Certainly the collegiates didn't gain any advantage from having one more guy at the back of the group.

The pros can still be trained by the coach (witness Wetmore et al.), but not with the team.

Thanks for the help, I do find it interesting with respect to the recruiting advantage, as far as I am concerned if the rule didn't exist it isn't any more of an advantage then having a good team to train with. If good post-collegiate athletes are attracted to a university coach, great, if you are a rival school and don't like it then put yourself out there to develop a post collegiate group as well.

OK - but what about the fact that there is a rule there, which some pay attention to and others ignore? Some compliance officers are much more diligent than others. But the other point to make is that it doesn't often just end with the post collegiates showing up to work out - they get involved with all sorts of matters, such as recruiting, hosting, transporting, coaching, providing all sorts of material advantages that in essence form a whole social network of support that goes well beyond allowable benefits permissible under NCAA rules - which, of course, they don't want to admit to or talk about. I'm not loosing any sleep over it, but it's out there.

just think about it practically...you've been on a team with some of these guys for 3 years, 4 if you readshirted...you're best friends with the seniors on the team.

a.) you come back and go on some training runs, or even workouts, not as a coach, just as a friend. is this a violation?

b.) you are an assistant coach, you share an apartment with a guy on the team. Are you allowed to drive your roomate to get pizza on a saturday night? are you allowed to live with him? where do the rules end? there have got to be hundreds of situations like this.

Scenario one: if you go run with your former teammates on a run that you arrange by yourself and them, then there is no violation as far as I know. If you come to a formal team practice conducted under the direction of the university coach, I'm sad to say that is a violation. I really dislike this rule.

Scenario two: If you are an assistant coach you should not be sharing an apartment with a guy on the team. That's not a violation, that's common sense. The reason that it is common sense is that there will be a lot of situations that will come up that will put both parties in conflict with NCAA rules. No, a coach can't loan his car to a team member. No, a coach can't loan a team member twenty bucks til Thursday. No, a coach can't drive team members on social outings or share one of the two tickets someone gave him to the Knicks game. In other words, the two could share an apartment, but that doesn't absolve either party from complying with the NCAA rules that govern coach/athlete relationships.

Not to sound even more paranoid, but I'm not sure the coach/athlete roommate thing would be possible at all. Merely by having a coach make it possible for an athlete to afford the apartment might be enough for a really picky NCAA investigator to take issue. I mean, I can imagine a violation in which the coach is essentially picking up most of the rent so that the athlete has some really nice place to live. Granted, not likely in track and field, but I've heard of more paranoid examples.

I'm not an expert, just thinking out loud.

what if in scenario b the coach is not a paid assistant, but a volunteer assistant coach? does this make a difference?

From the NCAA vantage point, no. A coach is a coach, whether a head coach, an assistant coach, a part-time coach, or a volunteer coach.

perspective wrote:

From the NCAA vantage point, no. A coach is a coach, whether a head coach, an assistant coach, a part-time coach, or a volunteer coach.

i personally think that you are taking these rules a bit too seriously. i don't have a rulebook in front of me, but i think there are substantial restrictions on what alumni can do as well. i assume these restrictions on alumni would prohibit things like providing transportation to a meet for a redshirt athlete, providing rent, meals, etc.

so in theory, if a guy graduates and continues to date a girl on the track team, any meal he buys her is a violation, any ride to practice, etc.

or if i'm off-base for some reason in that example, two teamates, both male, one redshirts and stays five years, the other runs four years and lives in the college town a fifth year just for fun. if they are roommates, wouldn't you have the same problem as if the graduate were a coach?

i just don't think the ncaa is going to care unless there is some reason to believe rent is being subsidized or there is a wide pattern of some sort with respect to meals/rides/etc.

You just shifted from the responsibilities and limitations on coaches to non-issues of recent graduates. Coaches should know and comply to the rules of the NCAA. If they don't, they are either stupid or like to have their own way so will play stupid in order to do so.

Boyfriends and girlfriends and mommies and daddies can drive student athletes to meets, proms, airports at will. NCAA coaches however have many rules to abide by. They can drive eligible student athletes on their squad list to meets, but they can't provide transportation for Saturday night pizza or when the student is redshirting - and it doesn't matter if the coach is full time or volunteer.

That's all simple stuff that any coach worth his salt knows, and if he chooses to ignore it, runs the risk of embarassing his athletes, himself, and the school he works for if someone blows a whistle on him. (Look out for the disgruntled athlete who got injured or the administrator who is zealous in the application of rules.)

>>>>>>>An athlete (and the coach) have agreed to abide by the NCAA rules. So democracy has nothing to do with it. The rules are essentially, as far as rides and such go, that if the general student body can't get driven to the track, neither can the athletes.

As far as the training aspects go, I think that whatever is on the books, there is some room for interpretation. If you're Carl Lewis, the NCAA would probably forbid you from training with the team, as that would be an unfair recruiting advantage. If you're a former athlete who never got to conference (just to pick a level of performance), but the coach is willing to train you, they probably won't care. I've seen this occur, and nobody was bothered by it. Certainly the collegiates didn't gain any advantage from having one more guy at the back of the group.

The pros can still be trained by the coach (witness Wetmore et al.), but not with the team.

_________________________________________________________________

Thanks for that.

>>>>>>You just shifted from the responsibilities and limitations on coaches to non-issues of recent graduates. Coaches should know and comply to the rules of the NCAA. If they don't, they are either stupid or like to have their own way so will play stupid in order to do so.

Boyfriends and girlfriends and mommies and daddies can drive student athletes to meets, proms, airports at will. NCAA coaches however have many rules to abide by. They can drive eligible student athletes on their squad list to meets, but they can't provide transportation for Saturday night pizza or when the student is redshirting - and it doesn't matter if the coach is full time or volunteer.

That's all simple stuff that any coach worth his salt knows, and if he chooses to ignore it, runs the risk of embarassing his athletes, himself, and the school he works for if someone blows a whistle on him. (Look out for the disgruntled athlete who got injured or the administrator who is zealous in the application of rules.)

__________________________________________________________________________________

I can't see how all these rules can be policed. Surely they are in direct violation of one's constitutional democratic rights as governed by the law of the land and surely no-one, including the NCAA, would be above that. Any of these rules been tested in court?

People talk about "redshirt", maybe you have the "brownshirts" as well, that color of the old Nazi's, or is that the NCAA. Maybe the president of the NCAA should become president of the USA, and turn it into a dictatorship.

If you're not American some of these stupid rules sound absolutely ridiculous and extremely funny. You don't know how funny these are to someone unfamilar with such situations.

but isn't it true that alumni can't do these things either?

It's not as bad as you make it sound. Maybe there's a bit of culture gap here.

The NCAA is a voluntary organization that educational institutions choose to join.

If someone doesn't want to comply with the rules of NCAA sport - no problem, they just shouldn't compete within NCAA sport.