I have read this before. It has been out in the open for a year now. I think they should change the rule to prevent this, but right now the rules allow it. Oregon was not the only school these guys talked up to those athletes. They were one of many schools.
So you think the Ducks are so dumb that they intentionally cheated above ground? A bank robber walks into a bank, hands the teller his ID and his debit card. Draws $100 out of his own account, and then produces a hand gun and tells her to put the rest of the money in the bag. You think the Ducks are that guy? Hey, we're cheating, we don't give a shit if anyone knows?
the question I have on this story is if so many programs use these sorts of services (which doesn't seem to be disputed... they wouldn't exist if they didn't get paid), how come only the dollars the Ducks have laid out are being publicly sited? My best guess is other schools aren't being so forthcoming about their expenses as I'm sure the amount paid by Auburn, USC, Florida etc... would be deemed newsworthy whether their payments were comparatively little or exorbitant. STOMP
From the NCAA bylaw which PERMITS THIS EXACT THING) 13.14.3 Recruiting or Scouting Services. An institution may subscribe to a recruiting or scouting service involving prospective student-athletes, provided the institution does not purchase more than one annual subscription to a particular service and the service: (Adopted: 1/1/02, Revised: 1/16/10) (a) Is made available to all institutions desiring to subscribe and at the same fee rate for all subscribers; (b) Publicly identifies all applicable rates; (c) Disseminates information (e.g., reports, profiles) about prospective student-athletes at least four times per calendar year; (d) Publicly identifies the geographical scope of the service (e.g., local, regional, national) and reflects broad-based coverage of the geographical area in the information it disseminates; (e) Provides individual analysis beyond demographic information or rankings for each prospective student-athlete in the information it disseminates; (Revised: 4/13/10) (f ) Provides access to samples or previews of the information it disseminates before purchase of a subscription; and (g) Provides video that is restricted to regularly scheduled (regular-season) high school, preparatory school or two-year college contests and for which the institution made no prior arrangements for recording. (Note: This provision is applicable only if the subscription includes video services.)
I think some of you "doth protest too much" when it comes to declaring the football team's innocence. Maybe Oregon did nothing wrong -- and I'm certainly willing to believe that -- but if the NCAA is sending investigators I would say that it doesn't look great for them.
I dont have enough information to have an opinion. I cant say that Oregon is squeaky clean, cause I just dont know. I dont know the man, but Chip Kelly doesnt strike me as someone who puts individuls ahead of the team. Obviously I want there to be nothing wrong. But if they did something wrong I am sure they will get what they deserve, and wont have reason to argue it. I can say though that if nothing is found from this, they will probably be pretty close to squeaky clean after this. Once you get put in the same sentence as Auburn, USC, and other schools... you are under the microscope, and are being watched very very closely. But yes to be grouped together with alleged cheaters, does not help the image of the Team, Coach, and University.
So then, to me, the crux of the issue will be--exactly what did Lyles provide the Ducks, and does the $25K paid to him match what other schools paid him for the same services.
Bottom line? You don't want the NCAA investigators sniffing around your program. You never know what they'll come up with. And the NCAA feels strongly enough to investigate Oregon. Where there's smoke.......
The issue to me is that Lyles is more than just a "recruiting service." He also had close ties to the players that eventually ended up at Oregon. Specifically Seastrunk and James. He characterized himself as an "adviser" to James I believe.
Nope. I think the Ducks know there's no way to prove that they paid him to convince Seastrunk to go to Oregon, so they aren't worried. It's more like a robber walked into a bank with a ski mask, and knew that the police would not arrive for several days to stop him or investigate, and though they may find some evidence. He knew he was careful enough that he was reasonably sure that there wouldn't be enough evidence to get a conviction.
Lyles worked with a lot of players that landed at schools all over the country which sort of debunks the myth that he was funneling players to the Oregon program. The reason this is a "big deal" is because the amount of money Oregon paid is public and people know how much it is. Other than that there's basically nothing to go on and what they did isn't even against the rules. And even if you want to believe for one second Oregon did something wrong here(which doesn't look like the case), more than likely there's no paper trail and all that has to happen is Lache Seastrunk saying Lyles didn't funnel him to Oregon. Boom, over. Nothing will come of this.
http://blog.oregonlive.com/behindducksbeat/2011/03/oregon_ducks_release_documents.html Game. Set. Match. Nothing to see here.
Game set match? I'm not saying they did anything wrong. Most likely they didn't. But a street agent working out an invoice for something like that doesn't seem like the end all evidence there was no wrong doing. What SHOULD he have put on the invoice? For: Lache's commitment. Of course not. They would obviously look to hide it in a different manner. Again, I am not saying they did anything wrong. I have no clue. My guess is no. Or something borderline that is easy to get away with. But an invoice for highlight tapes hardly makes me think, oh, well, that's what it's for.
