Jay Jones, the NCAA's Director of Academic Affairs and Membership Affairs for Division III, took some time to address the recent confusion regarding Twitter and whether or not it could be used by Division III coaches to communicate with recruits.

Here are the questions we asked Mr. Jones, and his unedited answers on the matter:

So Division III coaches will understand better, what was the motivation behind defining Twitter differently for them than the other divisions?

"NCAA Divisions I, II and III members commonly propose and adopt rules and legislation that are division-specific. One year after the Division I text messaging ban took place, Division III adopted that ban and included within their proposal more stringent language that also strictly prohibits the use of social networking sites within the athletics recruiting process, including e-mail functions. This legislation's adoption was based on the urging of Division III student-athlete advisory committee. Unlike Division I, Division III still operates on a one vote per school majority rules process to adopt legislation. So, within Division III, there was a purposeful step taken to not define various parts and pieces of different technologies, but instead to strictly limit electronically transmitted correspondence that may be sent by, or on behalf of, a member of the institution's athletics department staff to a prospective student-athlete to e-mail and facsimiles."

What if a Division III coach has an individual Twitter account that is not used to communicate with prospects, but rather just to use it as a tool to let people know what they are doing?

"Within Division III, social networking of any type that has an athletics nexus or athletics information and engagement with prospective student-athletes is not permissible. Therefore, information through a social networking site that with an athletics focus in which prospective student-athletes are allowed to be members are not permissible. A coach would need to be able to ensure that if athletics information were being delivered through a social networking site that it is not being made available to prospective student-athletes. Some social networking sites have the capability to limit whom views the information, while other sites may not."

Are there any other clarification or things that you would want to communicate to our Division III coaches and athletic directors to eliminate any future confusion on Twitter?

"The Division III membership adopted this change in 2008 by a vote of 362 supporting institutions and 72 institutions in opposition. At that time, within the package of materials that was provided to institutions prior to the vote, there was information that clearly noted that instead of attempting to anticipate what other technologies may be developed, the proposal defines the permitted forms of communication and prohibits all other communication. Thus, the proposal was clear that for new technology to be permissible, there would have to be new legislation allowing the new form of communication. The issue for Division III was less about technology and more about recruiting. Our members were concerned about the level of intrusion in a young person's life related to recruiting, which is why limits were placed on how often coaches can contact recruits."

Editor's Note: We want to thank Jay Jones for his candor and quick response to our questions, which allows us to pass that important information on to our readers in a timely manner.  It is our hope that Mr. Jones' statements help bring clarity and understanding to this developing technology for Division III coaches and Athletic Directors that the NCAA and Selling for Coaches serves.