×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NCAA to Tighten Twitter Rules

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the not-until-you-turn-pro-kid dept.

Education 116

theodp writes "Facebook and Twitter have made student athletes more accessible than ever, but Tweets that catch the watchful eye of the NCAA could be all that's needed to bring down a successful college athletic program. Among the allegations leveled against the Univ. of North Carolina by the NCAA is a failure to 'adequately and consistently monitor social networking activity,' which the NCAA argues would have caused the school to detect other violations sooner than they did. To cope with the daunting task of monitoring hundreds of accounts on a daily basis, some sports programs are turning to software like UDiligence, while others are opting for a simpler approach, such as having a coach frequently check on posts from the team's players."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

116 comments

Sorry MSU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36794354)

My dad says I have to go to Auburn, something about 200k.

OH BOY SPAWTS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36794360)

+ Twitter = 'News For Nerds'?

Re:OH BOY SPAWTS (4, Insightful)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794576)

I think the slashdot angle is the crackdown on freedom of speech. Granted, the NCAA isn't the federal government, but that kind of makes it even worse, that a giant multi-million dollar "corporation" can tell the people it exploits what they can or can't say.

Re:OH BOY SPAWTS (1)

Anonymus (2267354) | about 2 years ago | (#36797854)

The NCAA isn't a "corporation" it's an association. The "crackdown on freedom of speech" includes monitoring to make sure the college student players are not taking money/gifts under the table, discussing drug use or underage alcohol consumption, etc. You know, things that they agree to when they sign up to be non-professional sports player in university.

Yeah, they'll probably also get caught using it for making themselves look better, but in general it's about protecting the (often immature and stupid) players themselves from scandal as much as it is protecting the organization.

See: http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/NCAA/Legislation+and+Governance/Eligibility+and+Recruiting/index.html [ncaa.org]

Republicans edge US nearer debt crisis (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36794364)

As deadline nears, Republican party is still blocking President Obama's compromise package, including $1tn from higher taxes

A week of high brinkmanship on Capitol Hill opened today with neither side in the impasse over the US debt ceiling prepared to budge and with the US just days away from a potentially catastrophic default.

The White House called a temporary cessation of hostilities, with meetings that have been going on almost solidly for more than a week suspended over the weekend to allow tempers to cool. But despite the hiatus, there was no sign from either the Republicans or Democrats that they were preparing to compromise.

In interviews on the Sunday political shows, the White House budget director, Jack Lew, made clear that tax rises for the rich would have to be on the table – a demand that the Tea party-steeled Republicans have doggedly refused to contemplate. "Can we get a balanced package together? It's not fair to ask senior citizens to pay a price, to ask families paying for the college education of their children to pay a price, but leave the most privileged out of the equation," he told ABC's This Week.

Lew said he was confident a deal would be done but criticised right-wing Republicans, who are taking the crisis to the brink. "The debt will be extended. Notwithstanding the voices of a few who are willing to play with Armageddon, responsible leaders in Washington are not."

Those "voices of a few" include that of the presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, who confirmed last week that she would vote against raising the debt ceiling, whatever the outcome of the talks.

The US treasury has until 2 August to raise the limit on its debt from the current $14.3tn (£9tn) or risk running out of federal money immediately. Analysts say that in order to give Congress time to prepare the legislative paperwork needed to raise the ceiling, a deal would have to be close to fruition by as early as this Friday.

Re:Republicans edge US nearer debt crisis (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36794932)

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion.That is “trillion” with a “T.” That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President’s budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.

Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we’ll spend on Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.

Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America’s priorities.

Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006

What gives them the right? (4, Insightful)

nebaz (453974) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794366)

Why should students in the NCAA be any more monitored than regular students? (As in, why at all?). As is, the NCAA athletes often bring in major revenue to schools (for football programs at least) and are not allowed to benefit from it at all, does the NCAA consider them their slaves?

Re:What gives them the right? (3, Insightful)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794400)

Why should students in the NCAA be any more monitored than regular students? (As in, why at all?). As is, the NCAA athletes often bring in major revenue to schools (for football programs at least) and are not allowed to benefit from it at all, does the NCAA consider them their slaves?

Simple, we are moving more and more towards a police state.and away from freedom of the press. The NCAA does not want to be publicly criticized when it is anyone's legal right to criticize them. Heaven forefend should a player criticize the holy NCAA!

Re:What gives them the right? (1)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | about 2 years ago | (#36797684)

It's not about legal rights. It's not about freedom of the press.

Just because you have the right to criticize doesn't mean there aren't repercussions to doing so. You criticize your meal ticket/benefactor at your own risk. This has always been true, it's not at all new.

And it's not about a police state when it isn't the police telling you you can't do it.

Anyway, this isn't about criticizing the NCAA, it's about monitoring the athletes so signs of rule-breaking can be caught earlier. It likely won't go anywhere as schools aren't really interested in enforcing the rules anyway. It'll just be one more way the NCAA can later punish a school after infractions. As all schools will be mostly ignoring stuff like this, it'll be easy pickens to selectively punish some schools for it if they think they are not on the level.

Re:What gives them the right? (4, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794408)

Why should students in the NCAA be any more monitored than regular students? (As in, why at all?). As is, the NCAA athletes often bring in major revenue to schools (for football programs at least) and are not allowed to benefit from it at all, does the NCAA consider them their slaves?

Because there is some myth that star college athletes are not in it for the money, but the pure joy of clean, gentlemanly competition and the excitement of the game.

It's the same myth that has made the idea that pro athletes don't / should not use enhancing drugs and therapies.

It's the myth that competition isn't about winning.

Re:What gives them the right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36794438)

What I don't get is, what's the big deal about social media? Who's reading their mail and tapping their phones already? Isn't the only difference that whatever is going on is more public?

I don't give an aerial sex act about "sports", but freedom of speech IS and issue.

Re:What gives them the right? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36794660)

It's the myth that competition isn't about winning.

Actually it is. Competition, in the classic sense, is about performing at ones best and pitting oneself against another is a great way to do it.

The NCAA and college sports are about winning - by any means possible. You see, there's a lot of stupid people with way too much money who give it to schools that win but may not necessarily compete well.

Here's an example from my own past of what I mean in terms of the difference between "winning" and "competing".

*wavy line* wavy lines*wavy lines*

I was competing at a swim meet. And the way it worked out, I was the only one swimming in this particular event in my age group. I swam my heart out to get the best time I could because I was competing with myself. I swam better times when I was racing someone else - when you see someone next to you in the next lane, you swim faster.

I "won". BUT, I could have "won" even if I doggy paddled the 100 and did it in 10 minutes because of the way the age groups worked.

Coming home with my ribbon for "First Place" my Mom was soooooo proud. I explained why I didn't give a shit. She said, "But you still won!" and loved to show my "First Place" ribbon to family. When she did that, I wanted to die of embarrassment because it wasn't a "win" to me - I got it on a technicality and BFD!

I guess I can see how people get the win at any cost mentality, but I don't understand how it can be satisfying.

Re:What gives them the right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36794914)

You simply have to think further:

The origin of competition is natural selection. And all sports and game events are simply training for such real competitions for survival.

So not winning would mean death in the long run.
Now you can understand, why it might feel bad, and be a "at all cost" thing, can you? ;)

Granted, it's hard to justify, why exactly swimming would give you an advantage in natural selection.
But for other things, it's clear and obvious. I'm sure you can think of many of those. Just look at what's most important to you...
And unless you live the life of a servant (see below)... there you have it. :)

But some people found a way to fool all others into thinking it's not a race and that you don't have to win. But they themselves still ran. So their competitors lost. Without even realizing what it meant for them. And the tricksters won.
And other people found a way to fool others into running for them. Which nowadays is what most people call a "job". With a "boss".
Most people are that kind of fool nowadays, as you might have guessed. ;)

Re:What gives them the right? (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | about 2 years ago | (#36796486)

>>Granted, it's hard to justify, why exactly swimming would give you an advantage in natural selection.

All of evolutionary psychology is hard to justify.

EPers confuse "making shit up" with "doing science".

Re:What gives them the right? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794916)

I "won". BUT, I could have "won" even if I doggy paddled the 100 and did it in 10 minutes because of the way the age groups worked.

Everyone gets a trophy. My kids have not won anything, but do have a stack of trophies and ribbons.

Coming home with my ribbon for "First Place" my Mom was soooooo proud. I explained why I didn't give a shit. She said, "But you still won!" and loved to show my "First Place" ribbon to family. When she did that, I wanted to die of embarrassment because it wasn't a "win" to me - I got it on a technicality and BFD!

I guess I can see how people get the win at any cost mentality, but I don't understand how it can be satisfying.

It isn't. My kids simply don't care about their stack of trophies and ribbons more than an hour after they get them. Despite all the talk about this being a sports obsessed overcompetitive nation, we are at least officially trying our formal best to destroy that competitive spirit.

On the other hand, my son is extraordinarily proud of his video game accomplishments... probably because they're the most "real" form of competition he will likely every have, at least until he's much older.

Re:What gives them the right? (1)

EdIII (1114411) | about 2 years ago | (#36796110)

On the other hand, my son is extraordinarily proud of his video game accomplishments... probably because they're the most "real" form of competition he will likely every have, at least until he's much older.

Sometimes that can be an understatement. I have played Halo against college students and others my own age and held my own. In fact, in my age group, I am almost god like. I once played against a 13 year old. After about 15 minutes he asked if I had really played before or if I was just lying.

These "video games" can be harder than you think. It ain't Donkey Kong anymore.

If your son is winning victories against South Koreans in Starcraft....... let's just say he made it to the majors and is a top player :)

Re:What gives them the right? (1)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#36799098)

These "video games" can be harder than you think. It ain't Donkey Kong anymore.

Donkey Kong was not watered down, nor most FPS. Other than grindfest MMORPGs (is there any other kind?) games have not been watered down into "everyone's a winner" yet. Give them time, the same poison that ruined baseball will eventually spread to Halo; everyone will "win the game".

Re:What gives them the right? (4, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794824)

It's the same myth that has made the idea that pro athletes don't / should not use enhancing drugs and therapies.

This is to prevent a race to the bottom, where the only way to win is by completely destroying your health. It's also because pro sports are a commercial enterprise, and most fans aren't interested in being a party to death sports. It's the same reason the NFL issued new rules to reduce brain injuries last year, even though such hits are exciting to watch, and have nothing to do with a taboo such as drugs. (Granted, whether these new rules will be initially successful, or will - more likely - require further tweaking, is another matter).

Re:What gives them the right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36795218)

It's also because pro sports are a commercial enterprise, and most fans aren't interested in being a party to death sports.

Yeah, that's why mixed martial arts is not growing at all. People just aren't interested in seeing others get the shit kicked out of them and possibly suffering life threatening injuries.

Re:What gives them the right? (2)

errhuman (2226852) | more than 2 years ago | (#36795490)

[Citation needed] AFAIK injury rates are much much higher for NFL or Rugby than they are for just about every other sport.

Re:What gives them the right? (1)

ShakaUVM (157947) | about 2 years ago | (#36796522)

>>AFAIK injury rates are much much higher for NFL or Rugby than they are for just about every other sport.

That's because having your face mashed into a pulp doesn't count as an "injury" in MMA. An injury is something so serious you can't fight any more.

Jason Von Flue, an acquaintance of mine, came back from a match with black eyes, a split lip and damage all over his body, but he didn't bitch about it once. Whereas a soccer player would fall over and cry on the pitch, rocking back and forth crying for his momma if someone even so much as shoved him the wrong way. No NFL player takes the kind of punishment a MMA fighter does without leaving the field.

Rugby, on the other hand, is another word for MMA in the UK.

Re:What gives them the right? (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | about 2 years ago | (#36797648)

I imagine a rugby fan would watch MMA and call them a bunch of wussies for it only being 1 on 1. "There's 20 lads in a scrum, this ponce can't even handle one?!"

Re:What gives them the right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36795468)

It's also because pro sports are a commercial enterprise, and most fans aren't interested in being a party to death sports.

Sounds like we should just let the free market sort it out, then, instead of the government arbitrarily abusing its power by banning doping.

Re:What gives them the right? (3, Insightful)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#36795754)

Because there is some myth that star college athletes are not in it for the money, but the pure joy of clean, gentlemanly competition and the excitement of the game.

The NCAA is free to set rules and regulations for their scholarships based on their values, and the students are free to not seek NCAA scholarships if they disagree or can't accept those rules.

There is no myth here, merely (some) students who pretend to accept those values but secretly don't. That's a character flaw in the students, not the NCAA's sportsmanship values, or some myth about reality.

It's the same myth that has made the idea that pro athletes don't / should not use enhancing drugs and therapies.

That's not a myth either, that's a rule. If pro athletes don't like the rules of the competitions they enter, then they are free to found their own sporting associations and compete in their own games, where they make up the rules so that they can use prohibited drugs and therapies and anything else they like. But if they want to compete in someone else's games, then they have to follow someone else's rules, duh.

Forget rights: Academic principles (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36796386)

The NCAA is free to set rules and regulations for their scholarships based on their values

...and the universities are free to refuse to accept students on those scholarships if they require them to violate their fundamental principles which should include mutual respect and a reasonable degree of privacy. Monitoring all a student's communications should never be acceptable for a university no matter how much money is at stake.

Why can't these rules be enforced in the same manner as most other university rules? You trust the students to a sensible degree and accept that you will not catch every violator but those you do catch have extremely strong sanctions taken against them e.g. being kicked out of the sports program.

Re:What gives them the right? (1)

ironjaw33 (1645357) | about 2 years ago | (#36796410)

The NCAA is free to set rules and regulations for their scholarships based on their values, and the students are free to not seek NCAA scholarships if they disagree or can't accept those rules.

The problem is that the NCAA has a defacto monopoly over college sports. There's also the NAIA, but they're mostly limited to a handful of small schools and attract little athletic talent. If you want to be an NCAA athlete, you have to sign all the compliance stuff and abide by their rules, whether you are on scholarship or not (most NCAA athletes do not receive any athletic scholarship money). This situation is no different than being a subservient customer of an ISP who engages in traffic shaping, DNS hijacking, and bandwidth caps because there is no alternative competitor to run to.

Re:What gives them the right? (2)

the_raptor (652941) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794416)

Exactly. If the NCAA had of alleged the Univ. of North Carolina had failed to 'adequately and consistently monitor student athletes via phone taps and private investigators' they would be regarded as insane. Sure what the athletes do could embarrass the university or the NCAA, but that is only cause to kick offenders off teams, not have them tracked and monitored.

Sports teams and universities have no duty to ACTIVELY monitor athletes (or other students) to prevent violations. They only have a moral (and sometimes legal) duty to deal openly and fairly when violations come to their attention.

If they can't trust a particular athlete to not do illegal drugs and have sex with under-age teens or something that person should just not be on the team.

Re:What gives them the right? (4, Informative)

mysidia (191772) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794470)

had failed to 'adequately and consistently monitor student athletes via phone taps and private investigators' they would be regarded as insane.

There's a difference: telephone conversations are private. Twitter posts are public.

Sports teams and universities have no duty to ACTIVELY monitor athletes (or other students) to prevent violations. They only have a moral (and sometimes legal) duty to deal openly and fairly when violations come to their attention.

Yes... "when violations come to their attention". They have a duty to be paying attention though, which includes consuming major publications, such as local newspapers, major news networks, and (yes) Twitter, for possibly inappropriate statements students have provided for public consumption using their name that is associated with the University and the Football program.

This is not about 'monitoring' students; it's about monitoring public venues to protect the image of their brand, and their football team members are part of their brand -- whatever publicity their football team members create has an effect on the University and Football associations' images in the public eye.

Re:What gives them the right? (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794584)

So what about students of arts programs or journalism programs or science programs or history programs?

Re:What gives them the right? (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794656)

So what about students of arts programs or journalism programs or science programs or history programs?

There are not billions of $$s in current profits to protect for student art, journalism, science, and history programs. There is not a big association that sets rules of behavior art students at all schools must follow or be suspended.

And not much news coverage of non-athletes at a university, so the public at large doesn't associate the student with the university, unless they are some type of ambassador.

If just some art/history/science student makes a stupid posting to Twitter, for the most part it only immediately financially hurts the student.

I'm not suggesting their 'keeping their eyes peeled' is for altruistic reasons.

Now, obviously, if the student has some leadership capacity, such as 'Student Government President', or 'Research Fellow' in XXX... it will reflect more poorly on the student, and we would probably never hear of it --- they'd get disciplined or ousted in private when their unseemly Twitter post was discovered

This article has occured, most likely, because it _is_ athletes. The very reason they might target athletes specifically.

Re:What gives them the right? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36794970)

The same holds true for teachers and professors. They have both been fired for things they said publicly outside of the school/university.

Re:What gives them the right? (1)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 2 years ago | (#36795828)

The same holds true for teachers and professors. They have both been fired for things they said publicly outside of the school/university.

I thought the whole point of tenure was to protect the freedom of speech of professors.

Re:What gives them the right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36794770)

Why just Twitter? Any public forum on the Internet could used inappropriately. Clearly, it is the responsibilty of the schools to monitor all Internet usage by college athletes. They could even be posting under a.pseudonym or 'handle'. The only reasonable solution is to install advanced ai monitoring software on the Internet backbones.

Re:What gives them the right? (2)

stinerman (812158) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794418)

I don't particularly know why the NCAA would need to be able to do stuff like this. I do know that if the NFL and NBA had developmental leagues (like MLB and the NHL), there would be no reason for it. If you're a good high school football player, you have to play college football for 3 years until you can be drafted (well technically you just have to be 3 years removed from high school). There'd be no reason for players to violate NCAA policy if they didn't have to go through the NCAA. They could just go to the AA football team and play for money until they were ready for the NFL.

Re:What gives them the right? (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 2 years ago | (#36795136)

You seem to be unaware that players in AA (base) ball are under the same strictures as players in the Majors - because they're all part of the same organization.

Re:What gives them the right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36794432)

Why should students in the NCAA be any more monitored than regular students? (As in, why at all?). As is, the NCAA athletes often bring in major revenue to schools (for football programs at least) and are not allowed to benefit from it at all, does the NCAA consider them their slaves?

Monitoring of students should be done by parents, legal guardians and baby sitters.

Coaches and NCAA administrators should stick with monitoring sports activities in gyms and sports arenas. Also, schools should not be allowed to profit from sports, which would completely eliminate the motivation for monitoring.

Re:What gives them the right? (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794486)

Monitoring of students should be done by parents, legal guardians and baby sitters.

College students usually don't have legal guardians or baby sitters; most are 18, the age of majority, or older.

Re:What gives them the right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36794550)

College students usually don't have legal guardians or baby sitters; most are 18, the age of majority, or older.

If people over 18 don't need baby-sitters, then why is the NCAA trying impose baby-sitting standards on schools and athletes?

Re:What gives them the right? (0)

Khyber (864651) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794606)

I got some news for you, pal. The majority of college students around me are 16 or 17.

Re:What gives them the right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36795522)

I got some news for you, pal. You're what is commonly referred to as an outlier [wikipedia.org]. You don't matter.

Re:What gives them the right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36796246)

That's not standard age for college students and you know it.

Re:What gives them the right? (1)

Khyber (864651) | about 2 years ago | (#36797370)

Actually, it is. Especially for the summer-born ones that started Kindergarten at 4 or 5.

Re:What gives them the right? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36794462)

Simple: Racial profiling.
Most of them are uneducated minorities with out of control egos, and most minorities are criminals.

As for slaves.....if the shackles fit. Yessuh Massuh.

Re:What gives them the right? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36794526)

What gives them the right?

The theory goes that participation in the NCAA-affiliated athletic programs is a *voluntary* choice for the student, and that as a condition of participation in that program, the student athlete voluntarily gives up certain right/privileges. It's also not a permanent renunciation of rights, as the student can get out from under the requirements at any time by quitting the athletic program. (Of course, that probably also means quitting college and/or repaying the school for loans, as they're probably on an athletic scholarship, but theoretically they're free to do so.)

It's also voluntary at the college's level too. As far as I know, there's nothing legislating that schools be members of the NCAA. It's just that NCAA-affiliated schools can't play games against non-NCAA schools. And all of the bowl games and championships are NCAA-affiliated. And there's a large chunk of change/advertising/bargaining clout that goes along with NCAA membership. So they're not required to do so (and can theoretically pull out any time they wanted to), but practically there's no way anything but purely intramural sports college is *not* going to be NCAA affiliated.

Theoretically, NCAA rules are supposed to keep the games fair and in keeping with the thought that the participants are amateur "student-athletes". There's a bunch of rules against drug use (steriods, etc.) for example. And minimum grade/academic progress requirements. There's also rules against accepting money/kickbacks/endorsement deals from companies, as well as rules about what's acceptable and not in recruiting (what you can and can't offer a prospective player) so that all colleges compete on a level playing field. (The article is a little thin on details, but I gather this last point is what's the biggest issue for Twitter: "improper contact" between coaches/players and recruits).

The philosophy behind it is sound (keep the games fair and "collegiate" ), but I have to admit there are some bone-headed rules. As an example, I know of track athlete who had to refuse the prize after winning her hometown's Thanksgiving Day fun-run because had she accepted it, she would risk losing her amateur status under NCAA rules. The prize she had to refuse? A frozen turkey.

Re:What gives them the right? (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794646)

In practice, of course, NCAA rules are approximately as effective in ensuring that collegiate competition occurs among 'amateur student-athletes' as Olympic rules are in encouraging similar fantasies of 'amateur' competition.

Luckily, as long as we keep pretending, there is room for rampant hypocrisy and more or less continual rule breaking, so that's a win...

Re:What gives them the right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36796452)

The NCAA is a Corporation, plain and simple. Either you play by their rules, or your don't get to play that fancy sport that you are gifted to play.

Look into college football video clips released less than 72 hours after initial broadcast. If a clip is over a certain amount of time, they can sanction and/or sue your ass for breach of contract. I know this, because my roommate had to throw together a clip video for the web, his first one at his new job, and it just happened to be over the time length allowed. The NCAA came down on his company fast and hard for the longer than allowed release.

The NCAA are about as draconian as they come. Can't imagine professional sports are any better...

Re:What gives them the right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36797594)

I work at a major SEC school's athletics department as an applications developer. One of the things we are currently working on is an algorithm to detect offensive content on twitter and Facebook.

  I always assumed we were doing this on our own accord as our athletites represent our school and we don't want them telling the world about their genitals or how wasted they got last night. Evidently this is an NCAA thng.

  More on subject, yes, to my understanding becoming an NCAA athlete means you have signed your right to things like this away.

Re:What gives them the right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36799092)

simpleton...college students are slaves, they pay to work hard...studying, competing, etc. And the NCAA regulates that student athletes are worthy of the responsibility and public view they recieve

Sources will leak. (4, Interesting)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794368)

You could just get drunk and blab to TMZ [tmz.com].

Players will start having 2 twitter accounts, 1 for friends, 1 for 'fans'.

Or how about you actually punish schools? No more of this "aww, you did something illegal yesterday, we'll just mark all those Ws as Ls". If NCAA actually wanted to stop violations they'd cancel OSU's foot ball season. No vacating 2010 wins. No small fines. Cancel their season. You play 0 games. You get 0 revenue.

"It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal! You [violated the rules] so you get nothing! You lose! Good day, sir! "

Re:Sources will leak. (2, Interesting)

stinerman (812158) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794434)

Die-hard OSU football fan here.

It pays to note that OSU unilaterally decided to vacate their wins from last year. The NCAA had nothing to do with that.

It also pays to note that the players involved in the rule-breaking were simply selling their own possessions. Sure that's against the rules, but it's a pretty shitty rule. A friend of mine pointed out that they must have this rule or else schools could simply buy each player a $100,000 trophy that they could sell...which would get around the ban on paying the students. Fair enough, but this only lends more credence to the idea that college football (and to a lesser extent, basketball) programs should not be the de-facto minor league for the pros.

Re:Sources will leak. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36794650)

Nice Wonka reference

Re:Sources will leak. (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 2 years ago | (#36795148)

Or how about you actually punish schools?

If the school did something wrong, that would be a viable plan. By what they're doing is monitoring student's Twitter feeds to find when students or agents violate the rules, not just schools.

Athletics are more important than academics? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36794382)

Fuck, is anyone really surprised? This is exactly the sort of shit that happens when you let people who are athletically talented, but often academically deficient, into universities solely for the purpose of playing some game. Of course they won't exhibit good judgment when using social media sites. They'll say and write really fucking stupid stuff, because many of them are just really fucking stupid people.

While there might be some marketing or brand recognition benefit to getting the institution's name blared all over the place during the various football bowls or March Madness, none of this truly helps the academic side of things. Any good academic-oriented school will be more than able to make itself widely known based on merit alone.

It'd be one thing if academically-gifted students who also enjoyed sport formed clubs and played games on the side. I enjoyed rugby as a youth, and participated in organized games even up into university, as relief from my studies. But it's a totally different situation when some of the stupidest athletes around are brought in to an academic setting just to play a sport. They are a drain in every way, from their negative presence on campus, to their costly scholarships, to the ill repute they bring to the academic institution.

Re:Athletics are more important than academics? (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794466)

There is no reason to mix sports and education.

Hire NON-STUDENT teams that make money, scrap ALL non-profit student sports and let them do their hobbies on their own dime.

Re:Athletics are more important than academics? (1, Flamebait)

lexsird (1208192) | more than 2 years ago | (#36795928)

While attending jr college in my home town, I was dismayed at the baseball program and how it was holy. I hate the jocks, they got treatment that nobody else did, they could miss classes or NOT EVEN ATTEND THEM AT ALL. It wasn't just that, they imported people from other countries. Ours is a poor community and it would have been great if some local kids got the free ride that these non English speaking tools got.

I think our fascination and worship of sports will be our downfall. Putting it with academia is a horrible mistake. It has NO place currently the way it is now anywhere near academia.

Re:Athletics are more important than academics? (1)

boneglorious (718907) | more than 2 years ago | (#36795070)

That's why I like Cal Tech: their sports department has no influence on the admissions process, so to be on their team, you have to legitimately get into Cal Tech. And *damn* the basketball team looked happy on February 22, 2011, when they won their first conference game since 1985. :D

Re:Athletics are more important than academics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36795612)

Fuck, is anyone really surprised? This is exactly the sort of shit that happens when you let people who are athletically talented, but often academically deficient, into universities solely for the purpose of playing some game. Of course they won't exhibit good judgment when using social media sites. They'll say and write really fucking stupid stuff, because many of them are just really fucking stupid people.

While there might be some marketing or brand recognition benefit to getting the institution's name blared all over the place during the various football bowls or March Madness, none of this truly helps the academic side of things. Any good academic-oriented school will be more than able to make itself widely known based on merit alone.

It'd be one thing if academically-gifted students who also enjoyed sport formed clubs and played games on the side. I enjoyed rugby as a youth, and participated in organized games even up into university, as relief from my studies. But it's a totally different situation when some of the stupidest athletes around are brought in to an academic setting just to play a sport. They are a drain in every way, from their negative presence on campus, to their costly scholarships, to the ill repute they bring to the academic institution.

Holy crap, it IS rocket science to play a sport as well as these kids do. It takes a tremendous amount of brain power to play up to your potential and calling these people really fucking stupid is totally missing the point!

The wrong battle? (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794412)

Clearly, by being an athlete these students have given up the idea that anything they do is personal. These glorified High School students should try to spend their college time finding out who they are, by being placed under an oppressive regime where their decisions are made for them.

And of course, the problem in this case is Twitter. It doesn't lie with a competitive college culture that prizes showmanship, machismo, and how much money they bring into the campus over personal growth, getting an education, and networking for the future. The best approach to the problem is not to shape students into better people, but to get them to shut up about their transgressions lest the Alumnis hear about it and decide to cut their funding.

Re:The wrong battle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36795040)

It doesn't lie with a competitive college culture that prizes showmanship, machismo, and how much money they bring into the campus

Scientists are judged by the honors and academic prizes they win, the effectiveness of their self promotion and how much grant money they bring into the university. How is sports any different. At college students learn to become professionals in their chosen field. College sports programs teach students to become professionals in their chosen sport, a very lucrative career.

It is ridiculous to call them glorified high school students because they choose to study a sport. Would you say that about a theater major, or music, or dance simply because they are choosing to enter entertainment related fields?

Re:The wrong battle? (1)

cgenman (325138) | about 2 years ago | (#36797188)

All 1st year college students are glorified high school students. I didn't mean to single out athletes in that regard. The point is that they're in a position in their development where they need to be making their own decisions and their own mistakes. And being watched and guarded (and sheltered) continuously during that time is basically the opposite of what they need to do to cross over into adulthood.

And yeah, University Professors being judged by how many papers they publish is also a misappropriation of value.

Twitter et al will clean up the NCAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36794430)

more than anything else, the constant fear of some dumbass player shooting off his mouth is going to shut down all the payola in "amateur" sports. Players having instant constant access to the public must be a nightmare for coaches anyway.

Solution to piss off NCAA and monitors (4, Interesting)

Cito (1725214) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794456)

Everyone register fake twitter names similar to NCAA players, If you are a college student sign up and create about 5 or 6 or more different twitter/facebook accounts. let them monitor a fake one while you twitter or facebook under pseudonyms. I personally have like 6 twitter accounts and 4 facebook accounts, at my college some professors wanted us to give them our facebook and/or twitter names so I always give the fake ones. it drives them mad when sometimes they realize it isn't a real account as it's not used or has random text tweeted from a perl script from a random freeshell account. And to help others I've made dozens of accounts using similar names to people that want to obfuscate the profile a little bit, not fool proof but does help make it more difficult when googling for a person's twitter or facebook as 9 times out of 10 you will get 10-20 fake profiles I or others have created as top results before you ever get to the real person. But I always advise people making multiple accounts, using free anon proxy websites, just to help spam up search engines with false profiles and for giving the fake profiles to military/school/employers

Re:Solution to piss off NCAA and monitors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36794654)

Why would a professor ask for a Facebook profile? I certainly wouldn't give them one.

Re:Solution to piss off NCAA and monitors (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794794)

Why would a professor ask for a Facebook profile? I certainly wouldn't give them one.

Attractive member of the appropriate sex : obvious

Mostly its used after cheating is suspected. So, vlm and Anonymous Coward turned in rather similar "hello_world.c" programs last week... lets see if there is anything incriminating on their "walls"; perhaps vlm was dumb enough to write, "hey Anonymous, lets meet at the computer lab at 6pm tonight to work on the assignment together, OK?"

The other part is some profs actually have FB profiles and twitter profiles and they don't mind people asking them questions if they know who the heck they are. But they're not going to help their competitive coworker's students, or just some crazy random dude off the internet. Preemptively friending or whatevering all your students is a pretty easy way to work around this. On something more modern like google+ you just put them all in circles by class.

Re:Solution to piss off NCAA and monitors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36797366)

When I was an undergrad TA (a bit over a year ago), we actually did check Facebook to confirm two people were Facebook friends when we found overly similar homeworks. It's not a guaranteed way to check, but it can verify that they do indeed at least know each other. (This was more of a fun thing the TAs would do to check. The professor always personally handled any possible cheating.)

player should be payed for practice at least mini (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794478)

player should be payed for practice at least mini wage and what other student workers are payed.

There's a reason they are called "players". (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36794706)

Work and play, you should learn the difference. Then maybe one day you will not work just so you can send your hard earned money to these adult children who PLAY for money.

Re:player should be payed for practice at least mi (1)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794754)

I used to think that way too, until I realized they are getting paid, their tuition, room and board are being paid fro by the college for them to play a sport for the college

What? (2)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794490)

Since when is "failure to 'adequately and consistently monitor social networking activity,'" something that is required?
Sounds more like something that would be illegal then something that they are legally bound to do.

I wonder why? (3, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794498)

I wonder how many of these violations have to do with kids complaining about doing work with no pay. When I was in school I worked in a lab and gained valuable skills like working with people from various backgrounds, writing assembly language programs to interface devices, playing with equipment that is available no where else but in a research lab, learning to disassemble and fix such equipment, learning to build novel equipment, learning to solve problems on the fly. Writing reports for NASA. You know what? Unlike the NCAA slaves, um, student athletes, I got paid a fair wage. There was never any question that I was there for the experience, that was priceless, but we are in America and in America people are generally paid for their work. And scholarships are not grants. Scholarships pay for education, not being an entertainer. I understand that we have to have rules to that the schools with the most money do not get the best players by giving them the best hookers and drugs. I understand that a free market pay structure would create animosity amongst the player who are too young to understand that even if you do the same work, you are not necessarily worth the same pay. But would mandating that each student who is part of the team for an official NCAA game shall receive, say, $20, really kill them? It is becoming clear that being an NCAA player is the antithesis to being a college student.

What is sad is that for most sports, only 3% of high school players will go to an NCAA school, and of those, only 1% will go to any pro venue. So in from high school, all these kids are told they are working for opportunity, but all they are working for is to have their lives controlled by the lords of the manor who get all the money. I suppose some people like that. And 99.7% of peasants are left with nothing.

Re:I wonder why? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794836)

I understand that we have to have rules to that the schools with the most money do not get the best players by giving them the best... drugs.

Perhaps you were working at the wrong lab? The chemistry labs were the worst, I swear all those guys did all day at internship lab rat jobs was manufacture smoking implements out of the glassware. You'd think with the money they got, they could buy professionally mfgrd devices, but no.... I was not part of that scene, but the kids in that scene spent an inordinate amount of time at the beginning and end of each year, discussing which summer internships and which lab jobs were the "best". I can't blame them, you take "the best and brightest" kids and assign them beaker washing duties for 3 months, they're going to fill their brains up with something...

Re:I wonder why? (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 2 years ago | (#36795530)

I wonder how many of these violations have to do with kids complaining about doing work with no pay. When I was in school I worked in a lab and gained valuable skills like working with people from various backgrounds, writing assembly language programs to interface devices, playing with equipment that is available no where else but in a research lab, learning to disassemble and fix such equipment, learning to build novel equipment, learning to solve problems on the fly. Writing reports for NASA. You know what? Unlike the NCAA slaves, um, student athletes, I got paid a fair wage. There was never any question that I was there for the experience, that was priceless, but we are in America and in America people are generally paid for their work. And scholarships are not grants. Scholarships pay for education, not being an entertainer.

However, a scholarship, plus the stipend, training table meals, books, fees, tutors and the opportunity to actually get a degree essentially for playing a sport isn't bad remuneration. Yes, many fail to see the big picture and that is their own, and the school's, failing to put academics first. may have the mistaken belief they will have a pro career that makes them rich. many, however, actually do graduate and become productive members of society. Those who graduate from schools where football is a religion have the added benefit of a network of former fans and alumni to tap into for jobs.

football and slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36794532)

i'm in love...

Violations (2)

funkatron (912521) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794596)

The article mentions "violations" a lot. Does this mean something? Or more precisely, what is being violated?

Re:Violations (1)

boneglorious (718907) | about 2 years ago | (#36797378)

Yeah, the article didn't specify anything, nor did a link it contained that *seemed* like it ought to explain more about that...Hm...

For the benefit of the 90% of non-USian readers... (2, Interesting)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794640)

... what the hell is the NCAA?

I gather it's some sort of "sports" thing. Surely if you don't want your whole life dictated by them, you just don't need to play their game?

Find a different game to play. One that's fun, and doesn't require you to sign yourself up to a life of servitude.

Re:For the benefit of the 90% of non-USian readers (3, Informative)

king neckbeard (1801738) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794662)

The NCAA is the National Collegiate Athletic Association. It's the organization that all serious college sports teams in the US belong to. If your sport or college is not part of the NCAA, you almost certainly aren't going to get a scholarship for it.

Re:For the benefit of the 90% of non-USian readers (4, Insightful)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794676)

Well, then that means that you'll have to get a scholarship for being, you know, a scholar. Maybe they should concentrate on studying, instead of playing catch with their friends.

Re:For the benefit of the 90% of non-USian readers (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36794894)

Marvel at the fair, balanced moderation on Slashdot. Suggest that scholarships be awarded to scholars, and suffer the wrath of jockmods.

Re:For the benefit of the 90% of non-USian readers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36794920)

LOL, yeah. From an outside point of view, the US educational system seems totally deranged. What are they doing!?

Re:For the benefit of the 90% of non-USian readers (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36795654)

Americans aren't good at distinguishing such things. If you aren't good at war, then what good are you?

Re:For the benefit of the 90% of non-USian readers (1)

ironjaw33 (1645357) | about 2 years ago | (#36796540)

Well, then that means that you'll have to get a scholarship for being, you know, a scholar. Maybe they should concentrate on studying, instead of playing catch with their friends.

You're overgeneralizing -- not all athletes are lacking in the scholarship department. Where I went as an undergrad, a highly selective public school on the US east coast, the student athletes had a higher average GPA than the student body as a whole. I was on an NCAA D1 team that qualified for the NCAA national championships for all four years of my eligibility and even finished in the top 10 during one year. I still managed to make the Dean's List several times. Furthermore, a large majority of my teammates have gone on to graduate school to earn MDs, JDs, and PhDs.

It takes a lot of effort and discipline to perform at such a high level, including some serious time management skills to handle school work while practicing 30 hours a week and frequent travel to competitions. When I got to graduate school, I was surprised at how lazy most of the students were because they had so much extra time than I did when I was an undergrad.

by the way... (1)

KingAlanI (1270538) | about 2 years ago | (#36796560)

Even the US military academies (Air Force, Army, Navy), where the scholarship is in exchange for a military service commitment, are NCAA participants.

Re:For the benefit of the 90% of non-USian readers (3, Informative)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794880)

I gather it's some sort of "sports" thing. Surely if you don't want your whole life dictated by them, you just don't need to play their game?

Find a different game to play. One that's fun, and doesn't require you to sign yourself up to a life of servitude.

Sorry, but as a parent I can objectively say that even little league has become kind of "office-spaced" or "dilbert-ified". Check out some individual field/facility rules for compulsory volunteering, scheduling, etc.

Americans use their talents and skills to organize all the fun out of any group activity; Sport, business, hobby, anything.

Re:For the benefit of the 90% of non-USian readers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36795206)

Find a different game to play. One that's fun, and doesn't require you to sign yourself up to a life of servitude.

That sort of thinking's how we ended up with cricket - four times the tedium and none of the money. As for signing up for a life of servitude, most of us didn't, and look where it got us.

In this case, I think they're right. There's no benefit to society in allowing the pointless to tweet, and athletics scholarships are about they best way we've got of weeding them out. IQ tests may be discredited, but sporting ability can't be denied.

Re:For the benefit of the 90% of non-USian readers (1)

NonSequor (230139) | more than 2 years ago | (#36795296)

I think that the implicit assumption is that anyone who needs to have the abbreviations explained to them isn't going to be interested in the story anyway.

Big Brother (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36794686)

Will be watching your favorite team players. Coming to you soon!

Once again, south park gets it right.... (1)

markass530 (870112) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794782)

Their recent episode about Cartman Starting a Crack Baby Sports league, hit's a home run about why/how the NCAA is such a fucked up corporation.

Should have defined the abbreviation NCAA. (2)

grahammm (9083) | more than 2 years ago | (#36794800)

Nowhere in the summary or article does it define the abbreviation NCAA. As I had not previously encountered the abbreviation and the articles talked about college athletes in North Carolina, I assumed that it meant "North Carolina Athletic Association".

Irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36795356)

Isn't it ironic that tweets re: not getting paid are going to be censored by ...shoving the job onto a coach's plate, or buying an off-the-shelf program and shoving the job onto IT's plate. They couldn't very well hire someone, now could they? What kind of example would that be?

Fucking twitter.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36795436)

Fucking twitter, how does it work?

This would worry me if I was a 12 year old girl. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36795470)

But since I'm an adult male I have to ask "What is 'Facebook' and 'Twitter'"?

All of you who love shows such as 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy' should be able to answer the question.

Am I the only one who doesn't understand? (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 2 years ago | (#36798070)

Okay - I get a general idea of what the NCAA is after googling. I gather it's a sort of college sports league which is associated with the sport.

What confuses me is why Twitter (and facebook and or any other social media service) should be seen as a problem. I'm pretty certain they're not gainigna competitive advantage within the sport. And I presume they're allowed to use these in some aspect, just not for specific purposes. So what are the "violations"? Does this stretch as far as IRC? Usenet? letters to newspapers?

Just use your father's twitter account! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36798136)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cam_Newton#Eligibility_controversy

Uh yeah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#36798530)

I'm tired of all the crybabies in sports, especially the NCAA itself. I'm hereby starting my own personal boycott of all organized college-level athletic competitions. Not a big fans of the pros, but at least they're honest about their greed. :-)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...