We had an interesting debate like that on a couple of UCLA boards after uber recruit Shabazz Muhammad told an Arizona recruiting site that during his visit to UA on May 8th he "spoke to Derrick Williams by phone" and he told the kid what a great place it was to play. That's recruiting, which is a violation for a former player because he's deemed to be a booster.
But it's not clear Williams IS a former player yet, he's in the draft for good, but on May 8th was he still a current player, or a former one? I know it's something papers and media were looking into because classes ended May4th, but finals ended May 12th and people were unsure of Williams' status since he was in school through end of semester. It's been over a week and I haven't seen an article declaring it a violation so I assume people looked and determined he was a current player until May 12th.
But it was very similar to the situation where then UCLA assistant Scott Duncan and a UW assistant spoke on record to an SI reporter about a recruit who hadn't signed with either school, which IS a violation and both schools had to self report it. Minor violation but one they should have known the rule on. They both said because of the nature of the story, recruiting, they forgot they weren't allowed to mention the kids by name even if the reporter did.
All that said I don't think it's the inadvertent violations people really worry about it's the blatantly intentional ones like paying kids, having someone take a test for them, grades getting changed, arranging jobs for parents of recruits and things of that nature. I don't think anybody cared if USC or TOSU was giving people free soda, it was the other stuff they did that got them in trouble.
