Comments on: Division III Releases Social Networking Rule Change for Communicating with Prospective Student-Athletes

By: Linda

Linda — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 21:21:51 +0000

It seems that while they are trying to have enough control of the communication with the prospective students in order to prevent disinformation, they are making things complicated by their own rules… I guess it’s for a good purpose and I believe that things will change in the future, when using online communities will become more and more widespread.

By: wilhb81

wilhb81 — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 06:29:20 +0000

Rachel, your post awakening my thoughts here. Even though the Division III are free to use the Twitter and Facebook as the platform to publicize game results and other athletics news, however how far would you think this will bring the improvement to the players themselves?

By: Fritz McDonald

Fritz McDonald — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 20:29:24 +0000

I like Kyle’s distinction. I’m wondering if the Council is making the same distinction…texting is personal, tweets public. Our TeensTalk research told us that prospective students didn’t like it when schools texted them first, before establishing a relationship with them.

Thanks for the post, Rachel!

By: Kyle Johnson

Kyle Johnson — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:34:21 +0000

I don’t think there is a conflict at the end. Both Twitter and Facebook have private communication methods as well as public ones. So tweeting the score of a game when a perspective athlete is following you is different than direct messaging them (or maybe even @’ing them given the way Twitter filters things now). Ditto for a post on your fan page versus posting something on the prospective student’s wall (which is individual communication) or sending something to their inbox.

By: George

George — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:21:06 +0000

Concerning the apparent conflict – Does that mean that only the “school” can use these social platforms and not the individual when communicating with prospective students??

By: TimN

TimN — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:18:49 +0000

I guess it’s mostly good. But the last bit makes it seem like if @hockeycoach is tweeting, that’s possibly a violation? I get the feeling that last bit was tacked on or remaining from some earlier version. Because the rest of it — perish the thought — actually reeks of common sense!

Thanks for the excellent summation!