Why can't coaches talk about possible recruits?

[michigancat]

How does this protect the athlete?

I really don't know.

[fatty fat fat]

i think opcat asked the same question once...

[sys]

too many coaches were taking advantage.  savaging kids, calling their mothers whores, etc.

be glad the ncaa stepped in.

[michigancat]

too many coaches were taking advantage. savaging kids, calling their mothers whores, etc.

be glad the ncaa stepped in.

Works for me!

[Andy]

too many coaches were taking advantage.  savaging kids, calling their mothers whores, etc.

be glad the ncaa stepped in.

ROFL i wanna know who called someone's mom a whore

[Charlie Don't Surf]

They changed or tightened that rule up about 9 or 10 years ago.

The main problems then dealt with local tv crews showing up during a recruit's visit and coaches commenting on the recruit's abilities and areas where additional work or skill development is needed.

About all a coaching staff can now comment on is to confirm if they are recruiting a prospect.

[michigancat]

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/sports/colleges/kansas_state_university/14485422.htm

“It’s all speculation. The media don’t know how well I know coach Huggins,” Hill said. “I hope that’s not the reason he brought me here. He (Huggins) said it wasn’t about Michael Beasley.”

Huggins admits that hiring Hill could provide a nice fringe benefit in regards to Beasley. But that wasn’t the sole purpose in bringing Hill aboard, and insinuating it was the only reason to add him infuriates Huggins.

“It makes me mad because it demeans what Dalonte can do for the program,” Huggins said. “Dalonte has prepared to be a coach. He did a great job at Charlotte. He does a great job relating to guys, he knows the game. He has the package. He can coach.

“To infer it’s all about Michael Beasley, it’s not — not that anybody wouldn’t want Mike.

Nice article from Richman.  Next thing you know, Huggins will be calling mombeazy a whore.

[MrWhite]

calling their mothers whores, etc.

Was she?

[michigancat]

An institutional staff member may not comment generally about the prospect’s ability or the contribution the prospect might make to the institution’s team.

I think the "Who wouldn't want Michael Beasley?" comment violated this portion of the rule.

[Dan Rydell]

An institutional staff member may not comment generally about the prospect’s ability or the contribution the prospect might make to the institution’s team.

I think the "Who wouldn't want Michael Beasley?" comment violated this portion of the rule.

That's a stretch.  The comment is very vague...in fact, it's a question, not even a comment.  He could be talking about any number of things....maybe a school would want Beasley because he's a good guy.  Huggy's not talking about his ability or the contribution he might make.  He's just asking what schools wouldn't want Michael Beasley.

[michigancat]

An institutional staff member may not comment generally about the prospect’s ability or the contribution the prospect might make to the institution’s team.

I think the "Who wouldn't want Michael Beasley?" comment violated this portion of the rule.

That's a stretch. The comment is very vague...in fact, it's a question, not even a comment. He could be talking about any number of things....maybe a school would want Beasley because he's a good guy. Huggy's not talking about his ability or the contribution he might make. He's just asking what schools wouldn't want Michael Beasley.

Here's the exact quote:

“To infer it’s all about Michael Beasley, it’s not — not that anybody wouldn’t want Mike."

You're right, it's a stretch - he's just implying he's good.  Either way, I'm surprised he addressed the "Mike" situation head on.

[chum1]

The assumption that his comment is obviously based upon is that schools would want Beasley because of the contribution he would make to the team.  Huggins did not include this assumption in his comments, though.  And, as slimz says, even if he did, it is really vague and could be interpreted in different ways.

[pissclams]

Can someone who isn't banned check Phog and see the meltdown over there about this?
I'm assuming Tom has started a thread (now at 39 pages) with links to sources he knows within the NCAA who are currently putting together KSU's sanctions because of Huggins' comments about Beasley.

[michigancat]

Can someone who isn't banned check Phog

 

[fatty fat fat]

Can someone who isn't banned check Phog and see the meltdown over there about this?
I'm assuming Tom has started a thread (now at 39 pages) with links to sources he knows within the NCAA who are currently putting together KSU's sanctions because of Huggins' comments about Beasley.

23 posts and counting.

[pissclams]

Ha, I knew it. Thanks for checkin' 

[Andy]

started by doc of course