forums

Ruiz potentially suing the NCAA….

RVACane said:
We told them to take a little taste and then **** off. The summary is nuts by the way. There’s no misconduct by Ruiz and they’re crying because we didn’t fold and tell Ruiz to stay away. I mean talk about trying to do the SEC a favor… And over this piddling ****.

I don’t think they can force disassociation just penalize us if we don’t if they demand it. What’s a COI? I know that as a Certificate of Insurance. Lol
Click to expand...


The NCAA COI is the Committee on Infractions.
 
Advertisement
Wake_Cane said:
At a glance this would not be a good move by Ruiz. I can't figure the guy out at times I think he's got his **** very much together and is toying with everyone else and then times like this I think he's heading for a self inflicted wound. It's not immediately clear to me what the legal cause of action he could even bring here, and he when this first broke he made public remarks saying he has not been harmed/injured in any way by the NCAA's action and those tweets are the first things the NCAA would attach to their motion to dismiss the suit...
Click to expand...


My suspicion is that he will be arguing something along the lines of this - that when he is acting on behalf of the company, trying to sign two well-known influencers with millions of followers, his actions cannot be deemed to be those of a "booster". That could also explain why the NCAA actions do not hurt him AS AN INDIVIDUAL, but could hurt the company and/or him as a corporate officer.

Having said that...I'm not so certain on the merits. In his favor, I would imagine that decades of "booster rulings" by the NCAA involve INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE who gave money to athletes, and not "businesses" in the classic sense. Going against that...I think the NCAA has defined "booster" pretty broadly.

Here's an interesting thought exercise. If you took all the "booster" language out of the ruling (and the most "booster-consistent" language is when the NCAA says that Ruiz "promoted Miami" when he talked to the Cavinders over dinner), would the NCAA still be able to impose a penalty on the school? In other words, let's pretend that the person who went to the AD/Football Head Coach celebration was just the VP of Marketing for Dr. Pepper (who is not a UM booster at all). And then let's say EVERYTHING ELSE HAPPENED exactly as described in the ruling.

You would still have: (a) coach had some form of communication with recruits that factually described that Dr. Pepper is a legitimate business, (b) coach provided a "recruiting profile" document to Dr. Pepper that was otherwise prepared internally for recruiting purposes, and (c) a dinner still transpired. So you would have the elements of an extra (improper) benefit being provided by the Dr. Pepper VP of Marketing, as well as a communication by the coach which may or may not be proper (and certainly the NCAA feels it is improper). IN THAT CASE, would the definition of "booster" have any bearing?

It's an interesting discussion. Obviously, Mr. Ruiz wanted to sign two well-known influencers to help the LifeWallet brand. And given his support of athletes at other institutions, we could opine on whether he would have signed the Cavinders even if they chose another school (probably, but maybe for less money if they are less available to do promotional work). But no matter how you twist it or turn it, if the TRUE issues the NCAA has are (a) the dinner, and (b) the coach communication, then we come right back around to the original issue, which seems unavoidable.

BUT...one dinner and ONE violation would (or should) result in a lighter penalty than what we received.

Discuss....
 
TheOriginalCane said:
My suspicion is that he will be arguing something along the lines of this - that when he is acting on behalf of the company, trying to sign two well-known influencers with millions of followers, his actions cannot be deemed to be those of a "booster". That could also explain why the NCAA actions do not hurt him AS AN INDIVIDUAL, but could hurt the company and/or him as a corporate officer.

Having said that...I'm not so certain on the merits. In his favor, I would imagine that decades of "booster rulings" by the NCAA involve INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE who gave money to athletes, and not "businesses" in the classic sense. Going against that...I think the NCAA has defined "booster" pretty broadly.

Here's an interesting thought exercise. If you took all the "booster" language out of the ruling (and the most "booster-consistent" language is when the NCAA says that Ruiz "promoted Miami" when he talked to the Cavinders over dinner), would the NCAA still be able to impose a penalty on the school? In other words, let's pretend that the person who went to the AD/Football Head Coach celebration was just the VP of Marketing for Dr. Pepper (who is not a UM booster at all). And then let's say EVERYTHING ELSE HAPPENED exactly as described in the ruling.

You would still have: (a) coach had some form of communication with recruits that factually described that Dr. Pepper is a legitimate business, (b) coach provided a "recruiting profile" document to Dr. Pepper that was otherwise prepared internally for recruiting purposes, and (c) a dinner still transpired. So you would have the elements of an extra (improper) benefit being provided by the Dr. Pepper VP of Marketing, as well as a communication by the coach which may or may not be proper (and certainly the NCAA feels it is improper). IN THAT CASE, would the definition of "booster" have any bearing?

It's an interesting discussion. Obviously, Mr. Ruiz wanted to sign two well-known influencers to help the LifeWallet brand. And given his support of athletes at other institutions, we could opine on whether he would have signed the Cavinders even if they chose another school (probably, but maybe for less money if they are less available to do promotional work). But no matter how you twist it or turn it, if the TRUE issues the NCAA has are (a) the dinner, and (b) the coach communication, then we come right back around to the original issue, which seems unavoidable.

BUT...one dinner and ONE violation would (or should) result in a lighter penalty than what we received.

Discuss....
Click to expand...
In my opinion the usage of the booster language isn't actually the problem because he pretty much is. in your hypo is the Dr Pep VP also a season ticket holder with floor seats? I take all of your points though, but I think the issue is that the concept of a booster itself and how its defined by NCAA bylaws is now badly outdated and should be rebuilt from scratch to reflect new era.
 
Wake_Cane said:
In my opinion the usage of the booster language isn't actually the problem because he pretty much is. in your hypo is the Dr Pep VP also a season ticket holder with floor seats? I take all of your points though, but I think the issue is that the concept of a booster itself and how its defined by NCAA bylaws is now badly outdated and should be rebuilt from scratch to reflect new era.
Click to expand...
He can be both a booster and an NIL businessman and they can be separate functions or roles. His company has athletes at other schools so if the NCAA had their way, he’d give nil deals to everyone but kids at Miami because he’s a Miami donor. That’s not happening in the real non-NCAA world.
 
Wake_Cane said:
In my opinion the usage of the booster language isn't actually the problem because he pretty much is. in your hypo is the Dr Pep VP also a season ticket holder with floor seats? I take all of your points though, but I think the issue is that the concept of a booster itself and how its defined by NCAA bylaws is now badly outdated and should be rebuilt from scratch to reflect new era.
Click to expand...


Exactly. I don't profess to be an expert in "booster law", but I'm a UM alum and a UM donor and a football season ticketholder, and I've been told for decades that I'm a "booster". And I've never argued. And if I AM A BOOSTER, then I can't see how John Ruiz is not a booster.

And, YES, a thousand times YES, the "booster" definition and rules need to be updated.

And to @RVACane 's point, the rules ESPECIALLY need to be rewritten if a person's business can do NIL deals with athletes at EVERY COLLEGE CAMPUS except the one where he or she went to school.

Ridiculous.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Exactly. I don't profess to be an expert in "booster law", but I'm a UM alum and a UM donor and a football season ticketholder, and I've been told for decades that I'm a "booster". And I've never argued. And if I AM A BOOSTER, then I can't see how John Ruiz is not a booster.

And, YES, a thousand times YES, the "booster" definition and rules need to be updated.

And to @RVACane 's point, the rules ESPECIALLY need to be rewritten if a person's business can do NIL deals with athletes at EVERY COLLEGE CAMPUS except the one where he or she went to school.

Ridiculous.
Click to expand...
are you telling me that I am a booster also? ****. i feel i've made it in life.
 
rsa coral gables said:
are you telling me that I am a booster also? ****. i feel i've made it in life.
Click to expand...
FD42C9CF-C5EC-43A2-88F8-4C2DBF8EA631.gif
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Nope. You are wrong.

Here is what happened.

First, two "things" happened at roughly the same time. One is that the Cavinders were in the Portal and had an unofficial visit set up with Miami. Separately, UM had an event to introduce Dan and Mario to the UM community, and then included Jim and Katie in that event as well.

Second, Katie met John Ruiz FOR THE FIRST TIME at this Dan-Mario introductory event, and a communication began. The point of this is not to definitively establish "who initiated contact", but to point out that an ONGOING CONVERSATION arose. Which is exactly what happens at these events, at every college in the country.

Now, let's be VERY specific. The NCAA chose to word its findings in a particular way. To incite MAXIMUM conclusions of "bad things". Nefarious activity. Dark shadows that would give rise to the OBVIOUS CONCLUSION that what happened was clearly against the rules that the NCAA refused to clarify in advance.

Examples?

---Jim and Katie received "late invitations". WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT? Because after whiffing on its attempt to nail football, the NCAA is attempting to manufacture causality between what they DID FIND (a women's basketball violation) and the evil Miami NIL efforts that have clearly impacted football more than any other UM sport (there ARE more football players than basketball players, but I digress).

---The NCAA's language about the "true intent" of the event, whether it was a "university wide celebration" or a horrible event for "boosters and donors". There's a difference? Good lord, I've gone to B-School and Law School celebrations in which there was a hope (or expectation) that money would be donated. But to read the NCAA's language, they make it sound like poor poor Katie was tricked into coming to a booster/donor function that she had no intent to join otherwise.

---The "NIL guy" quote? What? I'm sure that's the ONLY thing Katie ever said about Mr. Ruiz, right? And I'm sure the NCAA only tightly quoted that phrase, completely out of context, in a good-hearted effort to be completely accurate and not-at-all-misleading, right? Give me a mother****ing break. Do you want to know how to spin something your way, while NOT misleading people? You provide THE WHOLE QUOTE, and then you put the key phrases in ALL CAPS or bold or BOTH. Unless, of course, the whole quote doesn't help the NCAA?

I could go on and on. And probably will in a separate post. But the fact remains, there is a pretty clear chain of events (regardless of how the NCAA tries to spin it into dark and evil behavior):

---Ruiz family attended a UM event they were invited to, and have conversations with coaches (permissible). They discuss some recruits with a coach (permissible), even though the NCAA attempts to make it sound horrible (how did the evil Ruiz family KNOW that the Cavinders were being recruited, they could not have possibly figured it out by reading websites, right?).

---Katie Meier DOES DUE DILIGENCE on the Ruiz family (as she SHOULD do in a post-Nevin-world-landscape).

---In the back-and-forth, John Ruiz indicates that on the abbreviated visit, which Katie was not even 100% involved in (due to other obligations), the Cavinder's NIL agent has indicated that the twins are ENTHUSIASTIC about talking with him, but have some time constraints.

---Now let's analyze two elements that you seem to think are so nefarious. (A) Katie Meier told John Ruiz that she would make sure the Cavinders "know who you are". But, as already established, the Cavinders already knew who John Ruiz was. So the issue of whether Katie's comments are just bluster is worth discussing. At no point is she setting up a meeting, discussing money, or doing a first introduction. So all she is doing FOR MILLIONAIRE TWINS WHO ALREADY HAVE MAJOR BUSINESS DEALINGS AND PROBABLY GET PHONE CALLS ALL THE TIME is saying "hey, I'll let them know that you are a businessman in South Florida, not just some rando looking to meet hot young girls". (B) Katie Meier then asks an assistant coach to let the Cavinder twins know that John Ruiz is a LEGITIMATE BUSINESSMAN. Which is true. So she's just vouching for him. "Yes, I've met the man, yes, he has a business that is about to go public, yes, he's not some creepy guy like you encounter at Penn State or Ohio State or Michigan State".

---So what's the NCAA's next brilliant conclusion? "As a result of the assistant coach's call, the prospects agreed to meet with the booster." REALLY? Who admitted this? Clearly, the Cavinders are saying otherwise. We have no idea whether the Cavinders even met with the NCAA. But, suddenly, the NCAA has created CAUSALITY. And for what? Because Katie and/or the assistant coach are conveying that John Ruiz is a legit businessperson? You know, since I heard NOTHING about how Katie arranged the meeting, or set the terms, or pushed a connection...

I'll wrap this up by focusing on a few key takeaways here.

First, the NCAA keeps talking about Katie Meier "making introductions". But, clearly, Mr. Ruiz had already made his own introductions BEFORE Katie (and/or her assistant) said a word. And what Katie (and/or her assistant) did was to VOUCH for Mr. Ruiz's legitimacy. It's like if Slingblade Billy Napier told Jaden Rashada "hey, you know that Collective that has been calling you nonstop, yeah, they are completely legit and have paid every NIL deal that they have promised to recruits". That's not an introduction, that's telling a recruit that THIS ONE is above-board and trustworthy.

Second, if the issue is Katie Meier (and/or her assistant) MAKING THE CALL, and not, you know, the SUBSTANCE of the call, then it's a technical violation. How the NCAA keeps turning the phone call into an "introduction" when no "introduction" was made, I have no idea. But, yeah, if the phone call is wrong JUST BECAUSE IT HAPPENED, then I guess there's no further discussion to be had.

Third, take note of the selective way that the NCAA tells its story. For instance, how Katie felt "uncomfortable" with the situation? Could it be that Katie thought it was WRONG? Of course! Because that's what the NCAA WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE. But could it be because NIL was BRAND-NEW and because Katie had never dealt with high-profile recruits who were ALREADY MILLIONAIRES, and that maybe she just wasn't accustomed to situations where women's sports could enjoy the same kind of attention and support and benefits that men's football and basketball had received FOR DECADES?

The point of all of this is simple. Words can be used in a very powerful way, to get you to pre-judge a situation, and maybe even your own conclusions. I am not trying to pull a Tucker Carlson and convince you that the Cavinders were just on a sightseeing tour of South Florida. But what I am trying to say is that the NCAA has cherry-picked its "quoted words" and conclusory language to convince the world that there was a causality between Katie (and/or her assistant coach) vouching for John Ruiz to a family that has probably already received more NIL overtures from unknown people than 99.9% of all other college athletes.

And it is RIDICULOUS for Miami fans to just swallow the NCAA bait hook-line-and-sinker and accept the NCAA's clearly biased characterization on its face value.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but didn't the NCAA declare that this case has no precedential value because the rule at issue has since been changed and the conduct complained of is no longer a violation?
 
This may sound simplistic, but last I checked the NCAA could do whatever they please. They make the rules. They decide what a booster is, who can talk to whom, and generally what's permissible. And not only do they make the rules, they make up the punishments as they go. They can and do decide that school B deserves a harsher penalty than School A got for the same infraction because reasons. Last time they came for Miami they spent years and discovered the truth was not nearly as bad as the allegations. Then they nailed us anyway.
 
kryptonite said:
This may sound simplistic, but last I checked the NCAA could do whatever they please. They make the rules. They decide what a booster is, who can talk to whom, and generally what's permissible. And not only do they make the rules, they make up the punishments as they go. They can and do decide that school B deserves a harsher penalty than School A got for the same infraction because reasons. Last time they came for Miami they spent years and discovered the truth was not nearly as bad as the allegations. Then they nailed us anyway.
Click to expand...
They make rules not laws
 
Advertisement
kryptonite said:
Yeah, but if you want to play you have to follow their rules.
Click to expand...

Unless the rule is overruled by a state or federal ruling. That’s why NIL is wild (one reason). States like CA can start paying before enrolling in college. FL you currently can’t. The NCAA can’t regulate it because that’s all state level now that they lost the NIL case.

If Ruiz were to win this I think it would be apocalyptic for the NCAA.
 
mirvin88 said:
Unless the rule is overruled by a state or federal ruling. That’s why NIL is wild (one reason). States like CA can start paying before enrolling in college. FL you currently can’t. The NCAA can’t regulate it because that’s all state level now that they lost the NIL case.

If Ruiz were to win this I think it would be apocalyptic for the NCAA.
Click to expand...
We'll see in a few years, but I'm betting the NCAA is going to find a way to hold on to power. A multi-billion dollar company with squadrons of lawyers is a tough thing to take power from.
 
Back
Top