Best post of the thread! 

samueljhale wrote: BENNY, Why have you yet to answer the question asked many times? What benefit did any athlete receive?
85, I appreciate all the work you have put in over the last few pages but your wasting your time, I live in beaver country and most of them are lazy, ignorant, and can't think for themselves.
The difference between ducks and beavers; ducks want to be the best by beating the best, beavers want to be considered good by default.

To be fair, benefits to student athletes is not a requirement before wins can be vacated.

See Penn State.

If a student athlete competes while ineligible, then wins could be vacated as well.

I doubt that happens in this case.


---------------------------------------------
--- samueljhale wrote:

BENNY, Why have you yet to answer the question asked many times? What benefit did any athlete receive?
85, I appreciate all the work you have put in over the last few pages but your wasting your time, I live in beaver country and most of them are lazy, ignorant, and can't think for themselves.
The difference between ducks and beavers; ducks want to be the best by beating the best, beavers want to be considered good by default.

---------------------------------------------

Penn St was a very special case. Even then, they probably could have won in court if they wanted to drag it out for a few years. In all other case, an ineligible player or player was used in games. Spinney is in some dream world where he hopes that history can be changed. I watched when Oklahoma beat Oregon in the Holiday. The Sooners vacating the win didn't change the fact they won the game.

Oklahoma used a QB in the game that was taking money from a car dealership. USC had players playing that were in essence, paid professionals (Reggie Bush). Ohio St players were taking cash for gear and trading for tatoos. Even that probably wouldn't have got them the hammer if Tressel wasn't covering it up for two + years....See the difference Spinney? I doubt it.

---------------------------------------------
--- WinTheDayNStuff wrote:

To be fair, benefits to student athletes is not a requirement before wins can be vacated.

See Penn State.

If a student athlete competes while ineligible, then wins could be vacated as well.

I doubt that happens in this case.


---------------------------------------------
--- samueljhale wrote:

BENNY, Why have you yet to answer the question asked many times? What benefit did any athlete receive?
85, I appreciate all the work you have put in over the last few pages but your wasting your time, I live in beaver country and most of them are lazy, ignorant, and can't think for themselves.
The difference between ducks and beavers; ducks want to be the best by beating the best, beavers want to be considered good by default.

---------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------

samueljhale wrote: BENNY, Why have you yet to answer the question asked many times? What benefit did any athlete receive?
85, I appreciate all the work you have put in over the last few pages but your wasting your time, I live in beaver country and most of them are lazy, ignorant, and can't think for themselves.
The difference between ducks and beavers; ducks want to be the best by beating the best, beavers want to be considered good by default.

As soon as Mullens raises the curtain on all the redactions, we'll be able to answer if they received anything.   Right now only Mullens and a select few know the answer to that which certainly does not make that a fair question.

---------------------------------------------
--- bennybeaver wrote:


<blockquote dir="ltr"><strong>samueljhale wrote:</strong> BENNY, Why have you yet to answer the question asked many times? What benefit did any athlete receive?
85, I appreciate all the work you have put in over the last few pages but your wasting your time, I live in beaver country and most of them are lazy, ignorant, and can't think for themselves.
The difference between ducks and beavers; ducks want to be the best by beating the best, beavers want to be considered good by default.</blockquote>
As soon as Mullens raises the curtain on all the redactions, we'll be able to answer if they received anything.   Right now only Mullens and a select few know the answer to that which certainly does not make that a fair question.

---------------------------------------------


Not true at all benny. Everyone here is POSITIVE that you believe that YOU KNOW what secret dastardly evil things are hidden by those redactions.

Seriously, you do win the award for the Most Obsessed Duck Hater ever!

Congrats on that life time achievement award!

So your answer to the question " do you know what oregon''s side of the story is". Is no you don't.

Your "guesses about oregon's troubles are just that at this point. Pure wishing and hopong

---------------------------------------------
--- bennybeaver wrote:


<blockquote dir="ltr"><strong>samueljhale wrote:</strong> BENNY, Why have you yet to answer the question asked many times? What benefit did any athlete receive?
85, I appreciate all the work you have put in over the last few pages but your wasting your time, I live in beaver country and most of them are lazy, ignorant, and can't think for themselves.
The difference between ducks and beavers; ducks want to be the best by beating the best, beavers want to be considered good by default.</blockquote>
As soon as Mullens raises the curtain on all the redactions, we'll be able to answer if they received anything.   Right now only Mullens and a select few know the answer to that which certainly does not make that a fair question.

---------------------------------------------

Now that you have made an effort, let's proceed to discuss the details of the law. The quotes I provide are from a link that refers to your Buckley quote. The link is from the most negative perspective of FERPA and the "right to know" motive of journalists (EXACTLY the situation for publication of the document that had information redacted by Oregon related to students regarding the NCAA investigation. Please take the time to read ALL of the details and my comments to understand that even in the most narrow and negative perspective possible, Oregon was STILL obligated to redact what they did under FERPA!

---------------------------------------------
--- bennybeaver wrote:

<span style="font-size: medium;"/>
<blockquote dir="ltr"><strong>Green85 wrote:</strong> Let's review ...
you posted about FERPA and how Oregon was "hiding behind" a law that did not apply.   Uhh no.   Could be.....not was.

I told you that there have been MANY documents published about the extension of FERPA and the legal counsel that has advised institutions to interpret FERPA in the widest possible terms to limit liablity.

<strong>That certainly looks like a weak excuse to redact given that no institution has ever been penalized in the 36 year history of FERPA.  right?    </strong>

I then provided a simple link so you could start learning about FERPA. I quoted information that explained the concept of FERPA and the definition of records covered by the law.

Here are a few questions to test your understanding of FERPA:

1. True or False FERPA covers privacy for student records.

<strong>Yes for academic records.   Not necessarily for all other records</strong>

2. True or False FERPA covers privacy for records maintained by the school.

<strong>Yes for academic records. Not necessarily for all other records</strong>

 3. True or False FERPA covers any information directly related to the student's education, including grades and academic status.

<strong>Yes for academic records. Not necessarily for all other records</strong>

4. True or False Athletic Depratments offer scholarshipS to athletes and maintain records.

<strong>Obviously</strong>

The answers to those questions will help you understand the application of FERPA and the NECESSARY redaction of student names and information from the public documents released by the University of Oregon.

<strong>Doesn't the "myths and reality" section seems to indicate as I stated previously that things Lyles attending a student recruiting visit would not need to be redacted?   </strong>

"The “directly relate” prong of FERPA is widely misunderstood or ignored, but it substantially narrows the scope of what FERPA covers. To be a confidential FERPA record, a document must not merely mention a student; it must actually be about that student."

>> If somehow you think that a recruiting visit by a prospective student-athlete is NOT about a student, then I can't help you understand the application of the law. And add the following:

"Congressional discussion in the course of amending the law in December 1974 sheds some light on the intentions of FERPA’s main sponsors, Buckley and Rhode Island Sen. Claiborne Pell. In addition to Buckley and Pell’s formal joint statement explaining the amendments, there was an enlightening exchange between Pell and New Hampshire Sen. Thomas McIntyre. McIntyre asked Pell to confirm McIntyre’s understanding that “education record” was intended to encompass “everything in institutional records maintained for each student in the normal course of business and used by the institution in making decisions that affect the life of the student.”18 Pell agreed with McIntyre’s understanding of the law’s intent.

This understanding comports with Buckley’s original concern that parents needed more access to the records schools used to make academic and disciplinary decisions about students. It also suggests the law was not intended to apply to documents that only tangentially refer to students or that have no bearing on schools’ decisions about students."

>> Read that carefully and note that the explanation refers to "making decisions that affect the life of the student" ... please tell me you understnad how recruiting AFFECTS the life of a prospective student-athlete. In addition, please tell me you understand that YOUR OWN ALLEGATION that the wrong-doing on the part of Oregon and Lyles in recruiting WILL AFFECT the eligiblity of a student-athlete is plain enough to have the names and other information redacted as they were in the published document. IT IS VERY PLAIN AND SIMPLE how FERPA was applied CORRECTLY for the document released by the Oregon AD.

<b><b><span style="font-family: tradegothic-boldcondtwenty; font-size: xx-large;"><b><span style="font-family: tradegothic-boldcondtwenty; font-size: xx-large;"/></b></span></b& gt;</b><p align="left"><span style="font-size: medium;"><strong>Myth</strong> </span>

<span style="font-size: medium;"><strong>Any document kept by a school or college that contains a student’s name is a confidential education record.</strong></span>

<span style="font-size: medium;"><strong>Reality

</strong></span>

<span style="font-size: medium;"><strong><span style="font-family: tradegothic-boldcondtwenty;"><span style="font-family: tradegothic-boldcondtwenty;"/></span> ;<span style="font-family: tradegothic-boldcondtwenty;"><span style="font-family: tradegothic-boldcondtwenty;"/></span> ;<span style="font-family: tradegothic;"><span style="font-family: tradegothic;"><span style="font-family: tradegothic;"/></span></span>& lt;/strong></span><p align="left"><span style="font-size: medium;"><strong>Ferpa classifies records as confidential only if they “directly relate” </strong><strong>to an identifiable student. courts have ordered the release of records </strong><strong>including parking tickets and complaints against school employees – </strong><strong>even though the records mention students – because they are not the “education records” of particular students.</strong></span>

>> I addressed this earlier in my quote about how the recruiting information "directly relates to the student" and how the records "affect decision about the student's life" - both of which are clear requirements to apply FERPA.

<span style="font-size: medium;"><strong>So why wouldn't a parking ticket and say attending a recruiting visit with Lyles be lumped in the same category?   Seems to me like they would be.</strong></span>

>> You keep referring to recruiting visits with Lyles as if you KNOW that is in the redacted information. You DON'T KNOW THAT! IN fact the redacted portions could be about ANYTHING in th recruiting process for ANY student-athlete and it would fall under FERPA as "directly related to the student" and "affect decisions about the life of the student" as decribed previously.

<span style="font-size: medium;"><strong>Also solidifying my opinion that this simply looks questionable is another "myth and reality" from your linked website</strong></span>




<span style="font-size: medium;"><strong><span style="font-family: tradegothic-boldcondtwenty;"><span style="font-family: tradegothic-boldcondtwenty;"/></span> ;</strong></span><p align="left"><span style="font-size: medium;"><strong>Myth

</strong></span>

<p align="left"><span style="font-size: medium;"><strong>Schools that slip up and release records they shouldn’t have released </strong><strong>will lose all of their federal funding.</strong></span>

<span style="font-size: medium;"><strong>Reality</strong& gt;</span>

<span style="font-size: medium;"><strong><span style="font-family: tradegothic-boldcondtwenty;"><span style="font-family: tradegothic-boldcondtwenty;"/></span> ;</strong></span><p align="left"/><p align="left"><span style="font-size: medium;"><strong>Ferpa and the department of education’s ferpa rules say this </strong></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><strong>is an extreme remedy which has never been used in the 36-year history </strong><strong>of FERPA.  It is proper only if the school cannot be brought into voluntary compliance with the law. The Department has issued some </strong><strong>150 letter notices alerting schools to potential FERPA violations, </strong><strong>yet has never financially penalized any of them.</strong></span>

>> The THREAT was written into the law. The violation of the law by an institution carries a minimum of a public relations fiasco for a school that violates the privacy of a student. Note the following quotes from the same link regarding the law and the rights of the student:

"Fifth, FERPA is waivable. An adult student can always consent to the disclosure of his education records to anyone (as can parents of minors), so journalists who have the cooperation of their sources should consider obtaining written FERPA releases if records are being withheld.

Sixth, FERPA precludes release of information only by the educational institution itself through its employees or agents. Students are not “agents” of the schools they attend, and so they can disclose what they know – for example, the details of a disciplinary proceeding in which they are involved – without implicating FERPA."

>> Note that ANY journalist can seek the cooperation of any student for the waiver to release information. AND any student can provide first hand accounts of any observed behavior without violating FERPA. Which means a journalist could go directly to LaMichael James today to ask about ever detail of his recruitment by Oregon. They can also go directly to Lache Seatrunk to get every detail of his recruting process. In fact there are quotes from Lache Seastrunk regarding his recruiting experience with Oregon ... unfortunately for people with hope for the most negative aspects and outcome, Seastrunk is QUOTED as saying he was NOT steered or influenced to attend Oregon ... by Lyles or anyone else.


I have not responded to your other stuff ... and never intended to do so in this thread. I only responded to your allegation about Oregon and FERPA.

I encourage you to take some time to read about FERPA and the legal counsel offered to administrators that are tasked with the liability of institutions that fall under this law.


Thanks for the better link

</blockquote>

>> Thanks for taking some time to learn something. Hopefully after reading my responses in this post you have a better understanding of how FERPA was correctly applied by its very definition.

---------------------------------------------

Ducksatbat wrote:
Not true at all benny. Everyone here is POSITIVE that you believe that YOU KNOW what secret dastardly evil things are hidden by those redactions.

Seriously, you do win the award for the Most Obsessed Duck Hater ever!

Congrats on that life time achievement award!

How many times have you been warned about the stalking activities now Ducksatbat?

Says the obsessed Beavis with over 9,000 posts on a Rival site!

---------------------------------------------
--- bennybeaver wrote:


<blockquote dir="ltr"><strong>Ducksatbat wrote:</strong>
Not true at all benny. Everyone here is POSITIVE that you believe that YOU KNOW what secret dastardly evil things are hidden by those redactions.

Seriously, you do win the award for the Most Obsessed Duck Hater ever!

Congrats on that life time achievement award!</blockquote>How many times have you been warned about the stalking activities now Ducksatbat?

---------------------------------------------