NCAA Investigation update (Ducks ready to Pounce)

Wheels · Nov 30, 2012

Not sure if this will be more relevant here, or on the Beavers forum (CC Tlong )

NCAA investigation update

Scott Reed
Duck Sports Authority

Over the past few months there have been very few new tidbits of information regarding the ongoing NCAA investigation into the Oregon football program and its use of scouting services. The lack of information, combined with the relatively low number of commits for the 2013 recruiting class has caused a great deal of concern amongst some Duck fans.

RECRUITING IMPACT

The biggest concern amongst Duck fans and the NCAA investigation surrounds the potential impact the story is having on recruiting.

It is a fear stoked by the fanning of some outlets who have speculated and used various anecdotal knowledge to speculate that it "must" be having some impact. One of those pieces of anecdotal evidence surrounds the number of recruits currently committed to the Ducks and the current ranking in the Rivals database. Is that though legitimate? In the 2012 recruiting cycle, the Ducks had just 10 commitments prior to the month of November.

Adam Gorney, of Rivals.com, is not so sure that the lack of commitments has anything to do with the NCAA investigation. "I have never gotten the impression that Oregon's perceived slow start in recruiting has much to do with the NCAA investigation. I'm not even sure many of Oregon's top targets know specific details of what's going on," Gorney told Duck Sports Authority on Wednesday.

That is exactly what we have noted as well. There have been no indications from recruits that the NCAA investigation is having any impact on their decision making process. Oregon has always been a "slow player" in the recruiting game. A team that starts slow and finishes strong pulling in very good recruiting classes. Remarkably consistent, the Ducks had just 10 commitments prior to November for the 2011 class. In 2010, that number was even lower with just seven commitments prior to November.

The reality is that Oregon is recruiting the same as always. "My belief is that Oregon always moves later than most, takes their time recruiting kids and then pounces much later than others," Gorney said. "If there is one concern out there that I've heard it's that kids are wary Chip Kelly might leave for the NFL. That rumor was stoked after last season and once it's out there it's tough to put back in the box," he continued.

Yet, here the Ducks stand, with the same number of commitments that they always seem to have at this point in the recruiting cycle.

But what do we know about the investigation itself?

WHAT WE KNOW

It is important to note that the law firm handling this for Oregon is well known for their approach to NCAA investigations; when they find violations, they advise the university to self impose sanctions based on their knowledge of NCAA history in similar violations. Oregon has not yet publicly self-imposed any sanctions. What we have seen is a "Proposed Agreement of Findings" and later reference to "Summary Disposition."

There is some mention in the most recently released documents of the possibility that Oregon may be considered a "repeat offender" in this investigation. That depends largely on whether the NCAA will consider the potential violations they are investigating to have occurred during the five year window after the J.J. Arrington violation. If the NCAA concludes that any current violations began prior to 2009, they could also deem Oregon a repeat offender. If they do, then Oregon would not be eligible for Summary Disposition.

The February release contained documents that were heavily redacted. But there were some pieces of information that can still help us understand a little bit better where this investigation is at at the moment.

One of the more relevant pieces of information says "It is agreed that from 2009 through 2011, the institutions football program exceeded the permissible limit on coaches by one when..." and then there are some redacted portions leading to the rest of the paragraph which goes on to say "engaged in recruiting activities as outlined in Finding Nos. 1-a, 1-b, 1-f and 4-a."

Clearly there is a person named in that paragraph who is subject to privacy laws as an employee of the university. State law allows organizations to redact the names of employees especially if it pertains to their personnel record. Because this person was deemed an impermissible coach for recruiting purposes, that implies that the person engaged in those activities was not one of the 11 coaches on staff that are allowed to recruit. However, the person was very likely a University of Oregon employee.

As Athletic Director Rob Mullens said in his statement the NCAA draft document contains student information protected by law under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and other information protected under Oregon Revised Statutes and Oregon Administrative Rules that legally must be redacted.

Furthermore, that paragraph alone explains the redacted portions of four other paragraphs (the aforementioned 1-a, 1-b, 1-f, 4-a). As such, what this tells us about those redacted portions is that there were student-athletes who the unnamed employee (coach) had contact with during recruiting activities. The redacted portions simply protect their privacy, as granted through FERPA laws. If the circumstances surrounding the recruiting activities were made public, it is very likely that the names could then be inferred based on information about their recruitment.

Later in the draft, the NCAA states: "It is agreed that from 2008 through 2011, the scope and nature of the violations set forth in Finding Nos. 2, 3-c and 4 demonstrate that the athletics department failed to adequately monitor (1) the football program's use of recruiting or scouting services."

Okay, now we know that finding 1 relates to the employee acting as a coach and finding numbers 2 and 4 deal specifically with the program's use of scouting services.

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

Over the past year, there have been several cases in the spotlight which highlight how the NCAA is handling sanctions. Forget, for a moment, the harshness of the Penn State penalties. Those are not relevant as they have no relation whatsoever to the Oregon investigation. What is more relevant is how the NCAA is handling things such as extra benefits and "boosters" in the recruiting world. There are a few higher profile extra benefits cases at Boise State, LSU and South Carolina. South Carolina's were probably the most egregious, Yet they escaped with fairly minor sanctions. The Gamecock program provided over $50,000 in extra benefits to 12 athletes (10 football, 2 track and field) and were hit with the loss of 3 scholarships per year for two years. They also had their official visits cut from 56 to 30 for one academic year.

More interestingly, though, in this case is the recent development at Tennessee. After the Oregon investigation began, the NCAA discovered an extra benefit paid by a University of Tennessee coach, Willie Mack Garza, during Lane Kiffin's tenure, to a prospective student athlete. The coach paid for a plane ticket for the recruit and his mother prior to the beginning of his senior year in high school. A university is not allowed to pay for a trip by a student-athlete prior to the beginning of his senior year, and they are never permitted to pay for a family member to visit. Possibly lost during the Ducks exceptional 2012 season was that the NCAA handed down sanctions for this violation.

The reason, of course, that this is relevant to Oregon's investigation is that the "middle man" who received the money then used it to pay for the flight is none other than Willie Lyles.

The most damaging part of the NCAA report is that Lyles was considered a booster for Tennessee due to the payment and his involvement in the recruiting of players to Tennessee. The penalties, announced November 16 of this year, are not severe. Tennessee will have their existing probation (for other violations that occurred during Kiffin's tenure) extended by two years, the number of official visits for the 2012-13 academic year will be reduced from 51 to 47 and there will be a reduction in evaluation days for the coaches. In addition, Tennessee can't provide free tickets to recruits for its first two Southeastern Conference games next season. That's it.
Click to expand...

read the rest here

http://oregon.rivals.com/barrier_no...t=content.asp&cid=1442884&fid=&tid=&mid=&rid=

STOMP · Nov 30, 2012

ready to pounce

http://oregon.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1442884

STOMP

STOMP · Nov 30, 2012

Re: ready to pounce

feel free to delete this thread as Wheels got it too

STOMP

Wheels · Nov 30, 2012

Re: ready to pounce

STOMP said: ↑

feel free to delete this thread as Wheels got it too

STOMP
Click to expand...

I liked your thread title better

Rhal · Nov 30, 2012

The problem is trying to figurd out what thr ncaa is going to do. There is no ryme or reason behind there punishments so it could be nothing or a slap on the wrist or severe sanctions. You never know when it comes to the ncaa

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

BLAZER PROPHET · Nov 30, 2012

While I've given up trying to guess what the sanctions will be, I still like to think it won't be too painful.

Log in or Sign up

NCAA Investigation update (Ducks ready to Pounce)

Wheels Is That A Challenge?!?!1! Staff Member Global Moderator

STOMP mere fan

STOMP mere fan

Wheels Is That A Challenge?!?!1! Staff Member Global Moderator

Rhal Well-Known Member

BLAZER PROPHET Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

NCAA Investigation update (Ducks ready to Pounce)

Moderators

Wheels Is That A Challenge?!?!1! Staff Member Global Moderator

STOMP mere fan

STOMP mere fan

Wheels Is That A Challenge?!?!1! Staff Member Global Moderator

Rhal Well-Known Member

BLAZER PROPHET Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches