re: Here is the unredacted NOA

quote:

---

I understand what you are saying here but it depends on how valuable of hunting land it is I guess. If it's some random cow pasture in Rankin county, big deal. If it's land at or near Tara Hunting Camp, big difference because membership at that camp is big bucks (pun intended).

---

quote:

---

Nutt's attorneys can subpoena them and business records would be my first guess

---

quote:

---

Here is the unredacted NOA by AshLSU
quote:
that these players didn't just happenstance on this booster. It requires effort from a coaching staff member or recruiter to offer this "benefit" to the player. Who obviously would show interest if they liked hunting. Then the staff member says "great! I'll hook you up!" The recruiter then puts the player in touch with the booster who gives free access to his land. Which everyone else who uses it, probably has to pay dues to hunt. And obviously, only star football players are allowed free access. No one else. Oh how trivial huh? But it's an orchestrated repeated benefit. It's not just a one time occurrence. Then, you put that with the hotel plan used repeatedly by players and families. The car loan setup. Everybody's got to put a little something in the kitty. People keep trying to pick each violation out like it's a singular issue. Saying "c'mon! That's not that bad!" It's an accumulation. An obvious network. It's cheating on an elevated scale that everyone was in on.


You missed the point of the post.

I was pointing out that I can understand why someone would feel "it's no big deal" if the hunting land in question was some random cow pasture in the middle of nowhere that the kid was allowed to hunt because he had never been hunting and wanted to try it.

I was also pointing out that I understand how it can be seen as a big deal especially if said hunting grounds was at a lucrative hunting camp or in a prime hunting location.

I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be a violation, just pointing out that there is a difference between the two scenarios.

For instance, I personally would not care if scenario one was allowed and it happened at all schools. No one is going to choose a school based solely on the fact that he has been given permission to hunt some random cow pasture/woods area in a random area. It's not exactly a prime selling point.

However, I could see a kid choosing a school because one of the benefits is he is given access to hunt at a lucrative camp or lucrative hunting grounds. That would be a selling point.

I understand why the NCAA doesn't allow either scenario though as regulating the different versions would be impossible.

---