Good Idea? Should states be able to sue boosters who cause violations?

[Justin Tyme]

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Nobody in Alabama is going to do that.

 

[trojanfan12]

Because the School has to Allow the Boosters to Break the Rules First.

You cannot have a Booster breaking the Rules without the School first Allowing him to Break the Rules.

A bum on the Street cannot Harm a College Football Program because the School would Never allow that person Access to the Program.

Every Booster is ALLOWED Access to the Program by the School.

Instead of Suing maybe they should Police themselves more... But that would cost Money, Suing is about Making Money.

Whether we like it or not, boosters are part of college athletics. They are a big part of what funds the programs. There are rules in place that have been set up by the NCAA and the boosters are well aware of those rules. So, if they choose to break those rules, that's on them and the school should be allowed to sue as long as there is no proof that the school was complicit.

I disagree that the schools are automatically complicit for allowing boosters access to the program. That would be like saying stores can't prosecute shoplifters because they were complicit by allowing the shoplifter access to the store.

 

[trojanfan12]

Take Reggie Bush. He cost the university and the football program dearly, but that wasn't something USC did. They pay the punishment, but they were basically defrauded by Reggie Bush, who presented himself falsely.

But if USC were to sue Reggie Bush, it would just hurt them in recruiting and not accomplish much. So it'll never happen.

Agree. The bold is the issue. Ideally, USC should, at the least, be able to sue him for the cost of the 3 years worth of scholarships that he was given.

But, as you point out, it likely kills their future recruiting, thus hurting the program. The only way suing players would work as a deterrent is if every school agreed to do that and there's no way that's happening.

 

[trojanfan12]

You are missing the Point.

The NCAA had no Proof, they just Punished USC because they "Should Have Known". It is why they lost in a Court Of Law.

Lets just say USC Could sue Reggie Bush.
If the NCAA can Punish for No Reason, No Proof, and No legitimate Explanation.

How can USC then Sue the Player? They Need a Reason, They Need Proof, They Need an Explanation.

It is why McNair Sued the NCAA and Won, in Court you need Proof.

So how could USC even Win... The Judge would say you should sue the NCAA.

I think what you may be missing is that there was proof that the Bush family took things they weren't supposed to, thus harming USC. However, there was no proof that USC knew about it and to make matters worse for the NCAA, there wasn't even any logical reason for USC to know about it or be complicit. After all, the whole point was to get Reggie to leave school a year early, which obviously doesn't help USC.

McNair won his case because the NCAA had no proof that USC knew anything or was complicit. There was plenty of proof that the Bush family took stuff.

But as 4d20 points out, USC suing Bush wouldn't accomplish much more than hurting future recruiting.

 

[TexasExes98]

Let the school have the capability to sue the boosters, but in return, the boosters should be able to sue the school for producing a shitty coach and product. Works both ways.....

 

[BamaDude]

I like Wild Turkey's idea! I thought of the IRS angle and suing the players/boosters involved years ago, but never considered the RICO angle. Kudos for that!

 

[theboardref]

New Oklahoma law allows schools to sue athletic boosters

Recently Oklahoma signed into law that universities would be able to sue boosters who help invite or encourage the opportunity for potential sanctions resulting in financial hardships?




Do you think is a good idea? Should it be done across the board?

I think it depends on the severity of the infraction. I think a ton of people accidently break the rules and had no idea. When I was in college I worked at a burger joint, and pretty much all athletes were in there all the time. We even got a,"oh I don't pay for food I am a football player" comment once, and this was absolute bs. Still I have seen this at least 4-5 times where there is a family comes in and sees a football player in line, they offer to pay for his food if he doesn't mind sitting with them and talking football with them. As simple as that is, that is an infraction. While I personally would never even think about doing such a thing, I think most people are none the wiser that it is a violation.

Now if we are talking housing, cars, etc something major to be sued for, I am all on board. But for small scale mistakes, nah.

 

[Rolltide94]

Sue...ain't nobody got time for that shit...

 

[jjc2009]

Yes, but then again, a lot of boosters would drag inside names into the mess too, those state institutions are playing with fire.

 

[jjc2009]

Whether we like it or not, boosters are part of college athletics. They are a big part of what funds the programs. There are rules in place that have been set up by the NCAA and the boosters are well aware of those rules. So, if they choose to break those rules, that's on them and the school should be allowed to sue as long as there is no proof that the school was complicit.

I disagree that the schools are automatically complicit for allowing boosters access to the program. That would be like saying stores can't prosecute shoplifters because they were complicit by allowing the shoplifter access to the store.

Yeah, but then you have the Nevin Shapiro's of the world who start acting like they are owed the world. Also, what of the ones who demand a seat at the decision table on coaching hirings? Just because you're a weathy backer doesn't mean you know jack shit about who should coach the team.

 

[trojanfan12]

Yeah, but then you have the Nevin Shapiro's of the world who start acting like they are owed the world.

The Nevin Shapiro's of the world are, fortunately, few and far between.

Also, what of the ones who demand a seat at the decision table on coaching hirings? Just because you're a weathy backer doesn't mean you know jack shit about who should coach the team.

This is a completely different issue. If the school wants to allow some booster to have input on coach hirings, that's up to the school. As far as I know, it's not an NCAA violation. I personally don't like that and wouldn't allow it if I were an AD or university president. But it's not a violation that I'm aware of.

I'd rather allow some rich fat cat input on coaching hire decisions than have them risking getting the program in trouble for giving stuff to players that they're not supposed to.

 

[USCDoom]

I disagree that the schools are automatically complicit for allowing boosters access to the program. That would be like saying stores can't prosecute shoplifters because they were complicit by allowing the shoplifter access to the store.

You are forgetting one Major Point. Customers do not Pay the Store to Enter. Every booster First Payed the School.

What is to Stop a school from taking someones money waiting till they mess up and suing them for more money?

Or better Yet, I am a booster, I decide not to be a booster, and now I am being sued for hurting the program.

This is a Lawyers Wet Dream which makes it a Nightmare for Everyone else...

 

[trojanfan12]

You are forgetting one Major Point. Customers do not Pay the Store to Enter. Every booster First Payed the School.

What is to Stop a school from taking someones money waiting till they mess up and suing them for more money?

Or better Yet, I am a booster, I decide not to be a booster, and now I am being sued for hurting the program.

This is a Lawyers Wet Dream which makes it a Nightmare for Everyone else...

I still disagree because while the boosters may have paid for the access they receive, they also know that there are rules that come along with that access.

If they choose to violate those rules, then they open themselves up to possible consequences for violating those rules. That could be anything from limiting their access, to denying them access altogether, to suing them.

The only way that I know of that they could sue a booster for deciding they no longer wanted to be a booster would be if there were a contract. Since there is no contract that I'm aware of, they couldn't be sued because there has been no agreement made or signed that they have to donate X amount of dollars.

 

[USCDoom]

I still disagree because while the boosters may have paid for the access they receive, they also know that there are rules that come along with that access.

If they choose to violate those rules, then they open themselves up to possible consequences for violating those rules. That could be anything from limiting their access, to denying them access altogether, to suing them.

The only way that I know of that they could sue a booster for deciding they no longer wanted to be a booster would be if there were a contract. Since there is no contract that I'm aware of, they couldn't be sued because there has been no agreement made or signed that they have to donate X amount of dollars.

So should a school be able to sue a former student who broke the rules and got kicked out? They knew the rules, were in some way paid to follow the rules.

Can Fans, Alums, Supporters, etc. then Sue the School for allowing a Corrupt Booster on Campus? One they accepted Money from but did not Vet or Police? Can Future Players affected by the punishment sue the school for allowing this person access in exchange for money?

If I work at a Nuclear Facility and accept money from someone for access and tell them the rules, if they break them, I GET TO SUE?!?!?!?

There is Only ONE Reason for a Booster.

You solve problems at the Source. Dont want a Booster to harm your program, Do not Accept their Money.

Plus, if this was a Criminal Trial, Schools would be 100% complicit in the Crimes of the Booster.

Think about it like this.
I allow a Child Molester access to a Kids Party for Money, Tell him the Rules "No Molesting", leave him on his own, and then Sue Him when he Molests...

 

[trojanfan12]

So should a school be able to sue a former student who broke the rules and got kicked out? They knew the rules, were in some way paid to follow the rules.

Can Fans, Alums, Supporters, etc. then Sue the School for allowing a Corrupt Booster on Campus? One they accepted Money from but did not Vet or Police? Can Future Players affected by the punishment sue the school for allowing this person access in exchange for money?

If I work at a Nuclear Facility and accept money from someone for access and tell them the rules, if they break them, I GET TO SUE?!?!?!?

There is Only ONE Reason for a Booster.

You solve problems at the Source. Dont want a Booster to harm your program, Do not Accept their Money.

Plus, if this was a Criminal Trial, Schools would be 100% complicit in the Crimes of the Booster.

Think about it like this.
I allow a Child Molester access to a Kids Party for Money, Tell him the Rules "No Molesting", leave him on his own, and then Sue Him when he Molests...

Seriously?!? C'mon Doom. You're better than this.

 

[USCDoom]

Seriously?!? C'mon Doom. You're better than this.

People who are in some way party responsible for someone elses misdeeds cannot sue that person. In a court of Law there is no way they can get around the Fact they accept Money and cannot prove they Policed them. This alone negates any change of a case being brought. They would have to Prove they Tried to prevent it, for they are the ones responsible for their access, which they would not have if not for the payment.

In Principle, allowing people to benefit from allowing bad people to do bad things is asinine.
Why cant the schools be Tasked to Policing Boosters if they are going to accept money from them?
The Truth is the ONLY Reason schools have never Policed Boosters is to give the school Deniability. Now instead of Fixing that, they want to Sue. To Hell With That!

Again lets go to the Root of the Problem. You want to accept Money from Someone for Access, then the Policing is on You. Dont want to, Dont accept Money.

 

[trojanfan12]

People who are in some way party responsible for someone elses misdeeds cannot sue that person. In a court of Law there is no way they can get around the Fact they accept Money and cannot prove they Policed them. This alone negates any change of a case being brought. They would have to Prove they Tried to prevent it, for they are the ones responsible for their access, which they would not have if not for the payment.

In Principle, allowing people to benefit from allowing bad people to do bad things is asinine.
Why cant the schools be Tasked to Policing Boosters if they are going to accept money from them?
The Truth is the ONLY Reason schools have never Policed Boosters is to give the school Deniability. Now instead of Fixing that, they want to Sue. To Hell With That!

Again lets go to the Root of the Problem. You want to accept Money from Someone for Access, then the Policing is on You. Dont want to, Dont accept Money.

Your hypotheticals were ridiculously extreme. In the case of the student, for example, of course the school can't sue. The school wasn't harmed. The student receives his consequences for violating school rules, gets kicked out and is replaced by someone else.

What consequence does the booster suffer for breaking the rules? The player?

Look at the Reggie Bush scandal. What consequences did he suffer? USC making him persona non grata at the school and being stripped of his Heisman? I'm sure he's drying his tears over that with $100 bills courtesy of the NFL career that USC helped him achieve.

What consequences did his stepdad suffer? Lloyd Lake? The guy who actually provided the money, etc. (forget his name)?

Meanwhile, USC gets hit with, at the time, the worst sanctions since SMU? Hell yes USC should be able to sue. They should be able to sue for the cost of Reggie's 3 years of scholarships, the cost of the scholarships that they were stripped of and at least a portion of the lost bowl revenue.

You wanna know how to stop the boosters from giving players shit they're not supposed to and players from taking it? That's how. Make them actually suffer real consequences for their actions.

As I stated earlier in the thread though, it won't happen. For it to work, all schools would have to be willing to do it and that's not happening.