Goodbye Oregon Football

#678
#678
2011132958.jpg


"I am, and should, not be responsible for my actions"
 
#680
#680
Orange_Crush said:
I do, however, find the following, which I believe is enough to fry UO.
Click to expand...

There is gray area in 13.2.1. The rule does not say that a person who has been paid for a service from the institution can't help out a PSA on their own behalf. Lyles says that he would have done the same thing for Seastrunk no matter what school he went to. If he's telling the truth, this means that him being paid for information and videos had nothing to do with compelling him to help Seastrunk in additional ways.

"cash" and "tangible items" in the other list is in reference to players receiving items. Not vendors.

BearCat204 said:
And Oregon wants you to believe that they just made a paperwork mistake and then tried to clear it up.
Click to expand...

Unless you have inside information that isn't public, you don't know what Oregon's side of the story is. You've reached your conclusion without hearing it because, as you clarified, you have personal reasons for wanting to see Oregon sanctioned.

BearCat204 said:
Oregon will burn and Kelly will be without a job this time next year(actually depends on how slow the AA will be with this). I dont see how anyone can read the bylaws and recruiting rules and come up with a conclusion that Oregon and/or Kelly did nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

Some of the rules leave gray area. I'm not alone in pointing this out. You like to cite articles that cast a negative light but you ignore those that support my observation. Charles Robinson, who started this story, among several other well-known sports-writers concur that it's not clear what, if any, rules were broken.

Maybe they will be hammered. Maybe not. It depends on how the rules are interpreted and what other mitigating circumstances there might be (like running Lyles activities by the NCAA while it was occurring). The bottom line here is that your conclusion is wishful thinking rather than objective knowledge of what will happen.

Orange_Crush said:
OU paid a friend of a recruit, which is expressly prohibited by the rules.
If Lyles is deemed a representative of OU (not sure how he couldn't with the hand-written notes), then everything Lyles did (like petition courts for change of guardianship, suggest a recruit move out of state to skirt eligibility issues...), OU is considered to have done.
Click to expand...

It's the same gray area as the other rule. According to Lyles, when he helped Seastrunk, he was representing himself. Not the UO. He says that he would have done the same thing regardless of where Seastrunk wanted to go and that it was up to the PSA to decide where to go and the program to recruit them.

droski said:
recruiting services cannot be involved in the recruiting process. they are supposed to be like reporters to the recruits.
Click to expand...

Recruiting services, by the nature of what they do, are automatically involved in the recruiting process and with the PSAs. If you mean they are not allowed to promote one school for pay, I agree. To date, there is no evidence that Lyles did that. He has repeatedly denied steering recruits.

droski said:
if you listen to what lyles says he specifically said he didn't FORCE the players to go somewhere. helping them go somewhere liek he did with seastrunks LOI and james' eligibility is absolutely a violation.
Click to expand...

It's not clear that it is a violation. Lyles said that he would have helped Seastrunk in this way regardless of which school he wanted to go to. It's not against the rules for PSAs to get help from people they know if it's because the person wants to help them.

droski said:
he's saying he can't steer anyone anywhere because they are adults. similar to your father saying he can't tell you what to do after you move out of the house. i'm sure you father has no influence over your decisions when you were 17 right?
Click to expand...

He couldn't steer them (and didn't want to). He didn't try. How do you think that this point doesn't speak favorably to Oregon's position? Does it not clarify that Lyles was not working for Oregon in a recruiting capacity?

droski said:
yes paying a taxi driver makes them a booster by ncaa rules.

you don't get it. you are a booster if you give money to the university OR if you take money from the university. this is very clear.
Click to expand...

Cite the rule if you think this is true.

IPorange said:
The real problem here is that some fans get so wrapped up in their team that they begin to see themselves as part of that team. Thus, because THEY didn't cheat or break rules personally, they assume their team has not either. I mean, they're the same thing, right?
Click to expand...

I think it's the exact opposite situation. Fans dislike various teams for personal reasons. Many UT fans in this thread have been quite open about wanting Oregon to have sanctions for their own reasons (apart from any rule violations).

As an Oregon fan, I at least want the facts to be considered objectively. There's nothing homer about not wanting your team to be convicted by mob rule and sensationalist journalism.
 
#681
#681
wheaton4prez said:
There is gray area in 13.2.1. The rule does not say that a person who has been paid for a service from the institution can't help out a PSA on their own behalf. Lyles says that he would have done the same thing for Seastrunk no matter what school he went to. If he's telling the truth, this means that him being paid for information and videos had nothing to do with compelling him to help Seastrunk in additional ways.

"cash" and "tangible items" in the other list is in reference to players receiving items. Not vendors.



Unless you have inside information that isn't public, you don't know what Oregon's side of the story is. You've reached your conclusion without hearing it because, as you clarified, you have personal reasons for wanting to see Oregon sanctioned.



Some of the rules leave gray area. I'm not alone in pointing this out. You like to cite articles that cast a negative light but you ignore those that support my observation. Charles Robinson, who started this story, among several other well-known sports-writers concur that it's not clear what, if any, rules were broken.

Maybe they will be hammered. Maybe not. It depends on how the rules are interpreted and what other mitigating circumstances there might be (like running Lyles activities by the NCAA while it was occurring). The bottom line here is that your conclusion is wishful thinking rather than objective knowledge of what will happen.



It's the same gray area as the other rule. According to Lyles, when he helped Seastrunk, he was representing himself. Not the UO. He says that he would have done the same thing regardless of where Seastrunk wanted to go and that it was up to the PSA to decide where to go and the program to recruit them.



Recruiting services, by the nature of what they do, are automatically involved in the recruiting process and with the PSAs. If you mean they are not allowed to promote one school for pay, I agree. To date, there is no evidence that Lyles did that. He has repeatedly denied steering recruits.



It's not clear that it is a violation. Lyles said that he would have helped Seastrunk in this way regardless of which school he wanted to go to. It's not against the rules for PSAs to get help from people they know if it's because the person wants to help them.



He couldn't steer them (and didn't want to). He didn't try. How do you think that this point doesn't speak favorably to Oregon's position? Does it not clarify that Lyles was not working for Oregon in a recruiting capacity?



Cite the rule if you think this is true.



I think it's the exact opposite situation. Fans dislike various teams for personal reasons. Many UT fans in this thread have been quite open about wanting Oregon to have sanctions for their own reasons (apart from any rule violations).

As an Oregon fan, I at least want the facts to be considered objectively. There's nothing homer about not wanting your team to be convicted by mob rule and sensationalist journalism.
Click to expand...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DVAsmrwdtQ[/youtube]
 
#690
#690
The only reason I would like to see the ducks get roto-rootered by the NCAA is to get rid of irrational, shiz talking fans that have their heads buried in the sand. Before several smack talking fans showed up and the attitude of those fans, I at worst was indifferent about Oregon.

Wanna talk football? Fine. Even some good natured ribbing is fine. Wanna come here and run your man garage? Reap the venom from the opposing fans on their own site, I might add. Same would go for UT fans on another team's site.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#692
#692
wheaton4prez said:
There is gray area in 13.2.1. The rule does not say that a person who has been paid for a service from the institution can't help out a PSA on their own behalf. Lyles says that he would have done the same thing for Seastrunk no matter what school he went to. If he's telling the truth, this means that him being paid for information and videos had nothing to do with compelling him to help Seastrunk in additional ways.

"cash" and "tangible items" in the other list is in reference to players receiving items. Not vendors.



Unless you have inside information that isn't public, you don't know what Oregon's side of the story is. You've reached your conclusion without hearing it because, as you clarified, you have personal reasons for wanting to see Oregon sanctioned.



Some of the rules leave gray area. I'm not alone in pointing this out. You like to cite articles that cast a negative light but you ignore those that support my observation. Charles Robinson, who started this story, among several other well-known sports-writers concur that it's not clear what, if any, rules were broken.

Maybe they will be hammered. Maybe not. It depends on how the rules are interpreted and what other mitigating circumstances there might be (like running Lyles activities by the NCAA while it was occurring). The bottom line here is that your conclusion is wishful thinking rather than objective knowledge of what will happen.



It's the same gray area as the other rule. According to Lyles, when he helped Seastrunk, he was representing himself. Not the UO. He says that he would have done the same thing regardless of where Seastrunk wanted to go and that it was up to the PSA to decide where to go and the program to recruit them.



Recruiting services, by the nature of what they do, are automatically involved in the recruiting process and with the PSAs. If you mean they are not allowed to promote one school for pay, I agree. To date, there is no evidence that Lyles did that. He has repeatedly denied steering recruits.



It's not clear that it is a violation. Lyles said that he would have helped Seastrunk in this way regardless of which school he wanted to go to. It's not against the rules for PSAs to get help from people they know if it's because the person wants to help them.



He couldn't steer them (and didn't want to). He didn't try. How do you think that this point doesn't speak favorably to Oregon's position? Does it not clarify that Lyles was not working for Oregon in a recruiting capacity?



Cite the rule if you think this is true.



I think it's the exact opposite situation. Fans dislike various teams for personal reasons. Many UT fans in this thread have been quite open about wanting Oregon to have sanctions for their own reasons (apart from any rule violations).

As an Oregon fan, I at least want the facts to be considered objectively. There's nothing homer about not wanting your team to be convicted by mob rule and sensationalist journalism.
Click to expand...

wow............... do you have a job/life? I don't have enough time to READ your posts, much less WRITE them.
 
#694
#694
wheaton4prez said:
It's the same gray area as the other rule. According to Lyles, when he helped Seastrunk, he was representing himself. Not the UO. He says that he would have done the same thing regardless of where Seastrunk wanted to go and that it was up to the PSA to decide where to go and the program to recruit them.



Recruiting services, by the nature of what they do, are automatically involved in the recruiting process and with the PSAs. If you mean they are not allowed to promote one school for pay, I agree. To date, there is no evidence that Lyles did that. He has repeatedly denied steering recruits.



It's not clear that it is a violation. Lyles said that he would have helped Seastrunk in this way regardless of which school he wanted to go to. It's not against the rules for PSAs to get help from people they know if it's because the person wants to help them.



He couldn't steer them (and didn't want to). He didn't try. How do you think that this point doesn't speak favorably to Oregon's position? Does it not clarify that Lyles was not working for Oregon in a recruiting capacity?



Cite the rule if you think this is true.

.
Click to expand...

it doesn't matter if lyles woudl have done it anyway (which you must admit sounds like bs). oregon paid him. therefore he cannot be involved in the recruiting process.

name a single recruiting service that has set up recruiting visits? asking a kid where he is going to go to school is not the same as helping him go to said school.

do you seriously think he's going to say "kelly paid me to get them to oregon?"

You are a booster or by NCAA definition a "Representative of Athletics Interest if you:
Are assisting or have been requested (by the Athletic staff) to assist in the recruitment of prospects.
 
#695
#695
According to duckterritory Asst. Director of Football ops Josh Gibson has been relieved of duties. I though chip didn't do anything wrong?
 
#700
#700
CountVolcula said:
The dominos begin to fall
Click to expand...

He was going to take another job because Oregon's awesomeness made him feel inadequate, so the ducks dismissed him before he could commit the offense (pun intended) of leaving the infallible UO. Has nothing to do with the dastardly smear campaign designed to impune the amazingly pristine ducks. They are without a doubt the greatest college football university of all time.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top