NCAA must be cogitating over this one.

[JS]

Louisville takes out a billboard near Mercedes Russell's house.

Would like to see Ms. Russell in the Big East, and it's wonderfully imaginative -- but kinda like a new bond dreamed up by Michael Milken is imaginative.

Pushing the envelope for sure. What's next? A Super-PAC to flood her local TV market with ads touting Cardinals basketball?

 

[alexrgct]

Pathetic. Permissible...but pathetic.

 

[Icebear]

We will see if it is considered permissible. Hard to believe it would be if you can't make game shirts with players names on them or post their name on the overhead screen. Strange interpretation of the rules if it is legal.

 

[JS]

Strange interpretation of the rules if it is legal.

I think Louisville has probably satisfied itself this is in a loophole or at least a gray area of the current rules. But in addition to the examples you cite, the institution is supposed to avoid publicity of its recruitment of particular student athletes -- coaches can't comment on them to the media other than to say whether they're being recruited or not, can't alert the press about visits, etc. In general, there are existing rules designed to keep media attention, as a possibly undesirable pressure-builder or influence, off the recruitment.

Reading this, I started mentally writing the "new rule." Seems obvious to me the NCAA can't tolerate public advertising by boosters or the institution itself targeting particular student-athletes. So the thrust of the new rule will be simple and say just that. The only tricky part will be to define "targeting." Infomercials about a program are OK. But relevant factors might include geographical placement, timing, or content of ads indicating a specific student-athlete is the target.

 

[VAUConnFan]

If it is ruled impermissable, Louisville digs itself into a deep hole. If ruled permissable, it opens up a new can of worms. If it lures and hooks recruits, then the entire recruiting landscape changes.

Hats off to Louisville for trying something imaginative and different. One would have to believe that if the idea was hatched and implemented thru the athletic department, it was fully vetted thru their compliance office. The Super PAC angle came to mind also. What if a Louisville Super PAC of some kind emboldened and empowered by recent high court developments is behind all this? Talk about an unlevel playing field...

 

[rbny1]

It just ups the pressure on an elite high school player and takes recruiting to a whole new level of marketing and commercialization. Ugh!

 

[cohenzone]

On the men's side, many years ago, when Lefty Driesel (sp?) was coach at Maryland, he famously had a billboard sign aimed at getting Tom Roy of South Windsor High who UConn really wanted. Whether or not the billboard sealed the deal, I don't know, but Roy indeed wound up at Maryland. Of course, the NCAA has gone through many evolutions since then.

 

[Icebear]

And another school for TN to cancel.

 

[UcMiami]

Interesting, but hard to see how the NCAA could ban a school from non-specific school advertising anywhere it wants to advertise. It would certainly not stand up in court. And ... a lot of people don't like billboards and other roadside advertising so it could just as easily backfire when aimed at one particular individual.

 

[MilfordHusky]

What's next? Moving in next door and doing neighborly things like mowing their lawn and baking brownies for the family?

 

[JS]

Interesting, but hard to see how the NCAA could ban a school from non-specific school advertising anywhere it wants to advertise. It would certainly not stand up in court.

NCAA is not the government and has no obligation to guarantee free speech. As a private organization, it can regulate the speech of its member institutions if they want to stay members, and it does so all the time by telling them how and when they can talk to recruits.

If they violate its rules, it can impose very expensive sanctions including loss of post-season play, and worse. You don't often see universities, no matter how well-heeled, litigating over recruiting violations. One reason is that as college sports are currently structured, the members need the NCAA and can't afford to become members in bad standing or non-members. For another reason, the vast majority of individuals and institutions that sue the NCAA lose. There is a tendency of the courts to uphold regulations adopted by administrative authorities unless those regulations are clearly arbitrary and unreasonable.

Now, if NCAA adopts rules that are unreasonable, and enough members agree on that, the rules can be reformed by pressure from within. And successful, or favorably settled, lawsuits become possible. One avenue is to allege an unreasonable restraint of trade, a violation of the antitrust laws. Another is to allege breach of contract, covenant of fair dealing, etc. based on what the institution was signing on for (i.e. reasonable regulation) when it agreed to abide by the Constitution and By-Laws of the NCAA.

So I think an NCAA rule against targeting particular recruits with advertising would be bulletproof. The key will be to distinguish targeting from general advertising of the program. As with any rules, there will be gray areas, and the rules will need to establish reasonable factors and criteria for identifying what is forbidden.

I certainly don't think the argument that a school can engage in "non-specific school advertising anywhere it wants" has a prayer of succeeding under a reasonably focused NCAA rule or in a court challenge of that rule when you're talking about a unique billboard on the road between a recruit's home and her high school.

 

[alexrgct]

Interesting, but hard to see how the NCAA could ban a school from non-specific school advertising anywhere it wants to advertise. It would certainly not stand up in court. And ... a lot of people don't like billboards and other roadside advertising so it could just as easily backfire when aimed at one particular individual.

This, in my view, is exactly why I believe it's permissible. Louisville theoretically has the right to advertise its school anywhere that will sell them the ad space to do so. However, it's clear what the intent is, and it's certainly not in the spirit of NCAA guidance on the matter. That being said, the letter of the "law" is the letter of "law."

What I'd suggest is that the letter be changed as follows:

If you choose to advertise your school in a location, you must continue to pay for that advertising for a number of years. So if you want to have a billboard in Oregon (you know, because there's definitely an opportunity for a lot of Oregonian high schoolers to be lured to Kentucky for college, and this had nothing to do with Mercedes at all), that's fine, but you have to commit to keeping that billboard up and paying for it long after Mercedes has made her decision.

 

[alexrgct]

NCAA is not the government and has no obligation to guarantee free speech. As a private organization, it can regulate the speech of its member institutions if they want to stay members, and it does so all the time by telling them how and when they can talk to recruits.

The problem, though, is that the NCAA regulates specifically collegiate sports, not the promotion of higher education in general, and if they can't prove intent (which they may or may not be able to, depending on what paper trail or potential whistle blowers exist), they could open themselves up to legal action. That's why I thought what I proposed above was a fair compromise.

 

[Icebear]

I didn't notice there was a LINK to the article embedded in the opening line. Having read the content of the article I would agree that it is marginal but likely legal under NCAA rules given the content. It is so overtly over the top, however, I would likely be seen as manipulative and contact the coach immediiately and say no thanks.

If a coach and program is willing to be that manipulative I would have to ask myself how would they likely turn that type of behavior against me if I joined the team.

 

[UConnCat]

The NCAA has a rule on its books (13.4.3.1) that prohibits promotional or advertising materials designed to solicit a recruit. Rule is set forth below. There is precedent for what Louisville has reportedly done (billboards in hometowns of prized recruits) and it involved Mississippi State and its football program. MSU placed billboards advertising its program in strategic locations. According to the linked story, MSU self-reported the billboards as an NCAA violation to the SEC.

http://djournal.com/view/full_story/19044944/article-Some-MSU-billboards-violated-NCAA-rules


Recruiting Advertisements. The publication of advertising or promotional material, by or on behalf of a member institution, designed to solicit the enrollment of a prospective student-athlete is not permitted … Accordingly, a member institution may not buy or arrange to have space in game programs or other printed materials published to provide information concerning the athletics participation or evaluation of prospective student-athletes (e.g., recruiting publications) for any purpose whatsoever, including advertisements ... Violations of this bylaw shall be considered institutional violations per Constitution 2.8.1; however, they shall not affect the prospective student-athlete’s eligibility.

 

[Icebear]

The NCAA has a rule on its books (13.4.3.1) that prohibits promotional or advertising materials designed to solicit a recruit. Rule is set forth below. There is precedent for what Louisville has reportedly done (billboards in hometowns of prized recruits) and it involved Mississippi State and its football program. MSU placed billboards advertising its program in strategic locations. According to the linked story, MSU self-reported the billboards as an NCAA violation to the SEC.

http://djournal.com/view/full_story/19044944/article-Some-MSU-billboards-violated-NCAA-rules

Interesting that there is a ruling so directly on point and I would guess that Louisville will be hustling today to make a self report to the conference and the NCAA. I would say that the Louisville billboard is even further across the line than the MSU board.

Good find, Cat.

 

[alexrgct]

Interesting that there is a ruling so directly on point and I would guess that Louisville will be hustling today to make a self report to the conference and the NCAA. I would say that the Louisville billboard is even further across the line than the MSU board.

Good find, Cat.

Disagree. The Miss St billboard was an advertisement for the football program, not the school itself. It said "come play with the best" with pictures of football players.

My understanding is that the Louisville billboard was a generic advertisement for the school, not a specific sports program.

 

[Icebear]

Disagree. The Miss St billboard was an advertisement for the football program, not the school itself. It said "come play with the best" with pictures of football players.

My understanding is that the Louisville billboard was a generic advertisement for the school, not a specific sports program.

I would disagree because of the picture of the two members of the women's basketball team. A picture is worth a thousand words.

 

[UConnCat]

Based on the link in the OP, the billboard reportedly includes images of Shoni Schimmel and Bria Smith and states: "Louisville basketball supports its athletes from coast to coast."

 

[cohenzone]

I'm pretty sure the Tom Roy billboard was specifically aimed at him and would not fly today.

 

[Icebear]

I'm pretty sure the Tom Roy billboard was specifically aimed at him and would not fly today.

Who? Tom Roy?

 

[alexrgct]

I would disagree because of the picture of the two members of the women's basketball team. A picture is worth a thousand words.

My apologies- misremembered that detail from the article.

In that case, yes, it absolutely is an issue. I don't understand why they wouldn't have just put up a generic Louisville billboard. Would have more or less the same impact AND provide enough of a gray area not to be a violation.

 

[UConnCat]

And another school for TN to cancel.

Summitt once said she'd consider a series with UL because Jeff Walz "does things the right way." After this stunt we should expect to hear "there's a reason we don't play them."

 

[cohenzone]

Who? Tom Roy?

Read my earlier post on this thread. Big star at South Windsor High in the early 70s. 6'9" hs aa. Maryland wanted him very badly and got him. Had a decent college career. My kids went to SW high in late 80s early 90s and Tom Roy stuff was all over the trophy case.

 

[Icebear]

My apologies- misremembered that detail from the article.

In that case, yes, it absolutely is an issue. I don't understand why they wouldn't have just put up a generic Louisville billboard. Would have more or less the same impact AND provide enough of a gray area not to be a violation.

No apologies necessary. I agreed with your broader points until Cat came up with the specifics on MSU and I remembered Shoni and Bria being in the report of the billboard.