There has been no more evidence supplied, or even talked about, showing that the PLAYER (or his family) received a cent of these funds than was presented for Cam Newton... a case that was settled by the NCAA in a DAY, on a player that actually took snaps for the school in question for a full YEAR!!!



If you all STILL don't see the CLEAR double standard the NCAA holds in favor of the SEC... or at LEAST against the Pac

RipAndRattle wrote: I think Stanford and UCLA is going to run that league for a few years

The hell they are

We just need a little more experience on the DL and OL

We almost beat the trees even with things the way they were on that day

dirtysouthbucks wrote:

lowiq wrote: socky a lot of programs will try and either work out a punishment the ncaa agrees to or dispute the allegations totally.

we dont really know what the deal has been here so far because the people in charge havent been giving daily updates to keep oregons problem in the national news.

using uga as an example say they are accused of breaking an ncaa rule.

the ncaa comes in and investigates and finds they did indeed break the rule.

uga offers to forfiet 5 scholarships and self impose a bowl ban.

the ncaa is satisfied with our punishment and thats the end of it. no hearing needed.

on the other hand we either say we didnt do it or offer a self punishment they arent satisfied with then you go before the hearing panel.

ha, no kidding....

however, to be fair, oregon hasn't gotten the constant attention of espn like OSU had received.  Our misery occurred during a pretty slow time of year and I can recall OSU showing up on college football live day after day for weeks just to talk about the scandal.  this without gene smith's dundering press conferences...

LOL I remember those months on espn. EVERY single show led with the story day after day, month after month as if it was the most egregious story ever in history. Oregon and Miami stories got like a week even though they were far worst. Penn State took the torch for all that sickness that happened. The Cam Newton stuff was the most ridiculous I've ever seen the NCAA though. They made all types of loopholes and new rules in that case. Joe Schad was a complete weasel in those emails he sent back and forth with Auburn

dirtysouthbucks wrote: ha, no kidding....

however, to be fair, oregon hasn't gotten the constant attention of espn like OSU had received.  Our misery occurred during a pretty slow time of year and I can recall OSU showing up on college football live day after day for weeks just to talk about the scandal.  this without gene smith's dundering press conferences...

Oregon will never get the kind of attention OSU receives.  while certain media folk remain perpetually hot and bothered about them notwithstanding their pretty reliable losses aginst the very best teams they face going back several seasons, the truth is that not enough folks outside of their rather smallish localized fan base really care much about them one way or the other. it has li'l to do with time of year. yup --they're trendy and fun to watch and will be that way as long as Chip Kelly hangs, but then the jig will be up.

TroyKidd wrote:

RipAndRattle wrote: I think Stanford and UCLA is going to run that league for a few years

The hell they are

We just need a little more experience on the DL and OL

We almost beat the trees even with things the way they were on that day

  you have been consistently losing to the trees since Harbaugh was there and now David Shaw.

calibuckeyefan wrote:

TroyKidd wrote:

RipAndRattle wrote: I think Stanford and UCLA is going to run that league for a few years

The hell they are

We just need a little more experience on the DL and OL

We almost beat the trees even with things the way they were on that day

  you have been consistently losing to the trees since Harbaugh was there and now David Shaw.

Yea? 
But not next year buddy!!  We're bringing da heat next year!

And remember that time frame matches our NCAA pains.  We're not going to live THAT forever

The trees are losing a lot on D.  We'll see how tough they are next year

lakeeriebuckeye wrote: Chip Kelly to the Browns?

I was listening to one of many sports talks shows on Sirius last night driving and the Eagles really want him bad, I guess. They think he has what it takes to coach in the NFL.

TroyKidd wrote:

calibuckeyefan wrote:

TroyKidd wrote:

RipAndRattle wrote: I think Stanford and UCLA is going to run that league for a few years

The hell they are

We just need a little more experience on the DL and OL

We almost beat the trees even with things the way they were on that day

  you have been consistently losing to the trees since Harbaugh was there and now David Shaw.

Yea? 
But not next year buddy!!  We're bringing da heat next year!

And remember that time frame matches our NCAA pains.  We're not going to live THAT forever

The trees are losing a lot on D.  We'll see how tough they are next year

we shall see..
i agree though  USC will be back soon..   and the media's "change of guard in LA" stories after UCLA beat SC this year are a little premature...

jim mora or lane kiffin.

if im an athletic director i know which one i would prefer.

also after watching him down here for several years there is no way in he.. that ed orgeron is close to my program when im already on probation.

lou holtz is the only coach i have ever seen down here that ignored rules worse than orgeron and we have had a few doozies.

lowiq wrote: jim mora or lane kiffin.

if im an athletic director i know which one i would prefer.

 

It's very hard to make a call on Kiffin with all that is going on

10 ships a year for 3 years is/was unheard of.


Add to that the magnifying glass being put on Kiffin like no coach I've ever seen.  All of the stuff he's getting in trouble for amounts to very little.

TroyKidd wrote:

lowiq wrote: jim mora or lane kiffin.

if im an athletic director i know which one i would prefer.

 

It's very hard to make a call on Kiffin with all that is going on

10 ships a year for 3 years is/was unheard of.


Add to that the magnifying glass being put on Kiffin like no coach I've ever seen.  All of the stuff he's getting in trouble for amounts to very little.

Gee, Pete Carroll never complained when he was packing up for Seattle.

I hope Nike fights for Oregon and brings Sankey and Emmert to justice. Expose the corruption and begin to blow the entire thing out in the open. Watch the SEC begin to crumble when they no longer have their cronies protecting them while they go after every other top program. 

This year certainly benefited the SEC. 

Do what Gene Smith was to incompetent to do.

Don't be surprised if Chip Kelly pulls a Pete Carrol and bolts for the NFL

lakeeriebuckeye wrote: Chip Kelly to the Browns?

The Oregon and Auburn comparisons are WRONG!

Oregon reported payment to a recruiting service above and beyond typical payments for such services, they then had to hurry and ask for some sort of proof of such services, the proof was pathetic, and the man who supplied the "recruiting info", the same man helping a recruit find a college, appears quite shady.

Cam Newton - reported the Mississippi State was willing to pay/was asked to pay for his services (a significant amount). One can assume that if that's the case, Cam went to who was willing/did pay him the amount requested... But NO paper trail existed and NO ONE came forward to admit payment!!! The NCAA hands were tied on actually punishing Newton or Auburn because no one would talk... It was still a COMPLETE joke that he was only suspended from participating for 24hrs (a complete joke)!!!

I think Auburn has plenty of dirty/shady/deep pocket boosters... But if players don't talk or display credible evidence, boosters don't talk, coaches don't talk, and there is no paper trail... What can the NCAA do? Nothing!!!

I always thought Oregon was clean... With the allure of AMAZING facilities, new uniforms every week and a flashy up-tempo offense being enough to land grade A talent... But the PAPER TRAIL points to them being dirty!

buckEYEdr2B wrote: The Oregon and Auburn comparisons are WRONG!

Oregon reported payment to a recruiting service above and beyond typical payments for such services, they then had to hurry and ask for some sort of proof of such services, the proof was pathetic, and the man who supplied the "recruiting info", the same man helping a recruit find a college, appears quite shady.

Cam Newton - reported the Mississippi State was willing to pay/was asked to pay for his services (a significant amount). One can assume that if that's the case, Cam went to who was willing/did pay him the amount requested... But NO paper trail existed and NO ONE came forward to admit payment!!! The NCAA hands were tied on actually punishing Newton or Auburn because no one would talk... It was still a COMPLETE joke that he was only suspended from participating for 24hrs (a complete joke)!!!

I think Auburn has plenty of dirty/shady/deep pocket boosters... But if players don't talk or display credible evidence, boosters don't talk, coaches don't talk, and there is no paper trail... What can the NCAA do? Nothing!!!

I always thought Oregon was clean... With the allure of AMAZING facilities, new uniforms every week and a flashy up-tempo offense being enough to land grade A talent... But the PAPER TRAIL points to them being dirty!

Oregon paid a "scouting service"  Other schools paid the same "scouting service" as well as other "scouting services"  That is a completely LEGITIMATE thing to pay for so the fact that there is ANY payment of ANY size should not be an issue.

As you have pointed out the payment is, in fact, NOT the issue.  It is the suspicious nature of the service or lack there-of


The NCAA is assuming there was payment to the player due to the suspicious nature of the payment (or at least everyone else including you is)   The circumstances around Cam were JUST as suspicious.


The NCAA is about to bust Oregon for what is, in fact, a legitimate payment UNLESS it can be PROVEN the kid got paid from the same funds.

I've seen NO such proof. 

So why doesn't the NCAA take evidence of Cam's friend, whoever, being paid for doing contract construction work job (some other legitimate thing) and bust Auburn with that?

I don't even know where to start with this.... How are you?

Oregon admitting payment to a handler for $25,000 (more than normal for scouting services) and the handler unable to explain the payment, leads to Oregon in significant trouble.... NOT the player! If the NCAA can not prove the player got any money, it doesn't matter because they'll hammer the institution!

But you want the NCAA to punish Auburn because of contract work Cecil Newton had done on his church? Do you understand the absurdity of that statement? I think the Newton's got paid exactly what they wanted... But I don't think there's anyway the NCAA can prove it!

---------------------------------------------
--- TroyKidd wrote:

buckEYEdr2B wrote: The Oregon and Auburn comparisons are WRONG!

Oregon reported payment to a recruiting service above and beyond typical payments for such services, they then had to hurry and ask for some sort of proof of such services, the proof was pathetic, and the man who supplied the "recruiting info", the same man helping a recruit find a college, appears quite shady.

Cam Newton - reported the Mississippi State was willing to pay/was asked to pay for his services (a significant amount). One can assume that if that's the case, Cam went to who was willing/did pay him the amount requested... But NO paper trail existed and NO ONE came forward to admit payment!!! The NCAA hands were tied on actually punishing Newton or Auburn because no one would talk... It was still a COMPLETE joke that he was only suspended from participating for 24hrs (a complete joke)!!!

I think Auburn has plenty of dirty/shady/deep pocket boosters... But if players don't talk or display credible evidence, boosters don't talk, coaches don't talk, and there is no paper trail... What can the NCAA do? Nothing!!!

I always thought Oregon was clean... With the allure of AMAZING facilities, new uniforms every week and a flashy up-tempo offense being enough to land grade A talent... But the PAPER TRAIL points to them being dirty!

Oregon paid a "scouting service"  Other schools paid the same "scouting service" as well as other "scouting services"  That is a completely LEGITIMATE thing to pay for so the fact that there is ANY payment of ANY size should not be an issue.

As you have pointed out the payment is, in fact, NOT the issue.  It is the suspicious nature of the service or lack there-of


The NCAA is assuming there was payment to the player due to the suspicious nature of the payment (or at least everyone else including you is)   The circumstances around Cam were JUST as suspicious.


The NCAA is about to bust Oregon for what is, in fact, a legitimate payment UNLESS it can be PROVEN the kid got paid from the same funds.

I've seen NO such proof. 

So why doesn't the NCAA take evidence of Cam's friend, whoever, being paid for doing contract construction work job (some other legitimate thing) and bust Auburn with that?

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

buckEYEdr2B wrote: I don't even know where to start with this.... How are you?

Oregon admitting payment to a handler for $25,000 (more than normal for scouting services) and the handler unable to explain the payment, leads to Oregon in significant trouble.... NOT the player! If the NCAA can not prove the player got any money, it doesn't matter because they'll hammer the institution!

 

And that is the double standard 

For Au OSU and many others the NCAA has to PROVE the money was recieved by the player.  If a third party like a car dealer got paid, there's no foul, is there?

For Oregon and USC the NCAA just makes whatever assumptions they feel like and they hammer away.


And no I'm not saying the assumption was that Reggie got paid. 
There the assumption was that Pete knew.

Whether or not the assumption is correct is irrelevant.  For the NCAA to take action there should be PROOF commensurate with the punishment/infraction

RipAndRattle wrote: Oregon doesnt have the history or support like OSU does.

buhkeiz wrote:

RipAndRattle wrote: Oregon is not going to recover from this.

Just like OSU....

Wait!

They don't have the history but they have just as much support with Nike giving kids free sh!t..

The NCAA doesn't have to have proof . It's not a court of law .
 As for Cam , Just by his dad asking for money he shouldn't of been playing any where in the NCAA . His dad asking for a tee shirt or shorts is enough to get them in trouble . let alone $180,000.00 . I've been through this when my son signed his letter of intent for football . No I can't have a Shirt but I can buy one if I want . It's a long list of dos and don'ts . A parent asking for anything that everyone else isn't getting is a big DON"T .

buckEYEdr2B wrote: I don't even know where to start with this.... How are you?

Oregon admitting payment to a handler for $25,000 (more than normal for scouting services) and the handler unable to explain the payment, leads to Oregon in significant trouble.... NOT the player! If the NCAA can not prove the player got any money, it doesn't matter because they'll hammer the institution!

But you want the NCAA to punish Auburn because of contract work Cecil Newton had done on his church? Do you understand the absurdity of that statement? I think the Newton's got paid exactly what they wanted... But I don't think there's anyway the NCAA can prove it!

---------------------------------------------
--- TroyKidd wrote:

buckEYEdr2B wrote: The Oregon and Auburn comparisons are WRONG!

Oregon reported payment to a recruiting service above and beyond typical payments for such services, they then had to hurry and ask for some sort of proof of such services, the proof was pathetic, and the man who supplied the "recruiting info", the same man helping a recruit find a college, appears quite shady.

Cam Newton - reported the Mississippi State was willing to pay/was asked to pay for his services (a significant amount). One can assume that if that's the case, Cam went to who was willing/did pay him the amount requested... But NO paper trail existed and NO ONE came forward to admit payment!!! The NCAA hands were tied on actually punishing Newton or Auburn because no one would talk... It was still a COMPLETE joke that he was only suspended from participating for 24hrs (a complete joke)!!!

I think Auburn has plenty of dirty/shady/deep pocket boosters... But if players don't talk or display credible evidence, boosters don't talk, coaches don't talk, and there is no paper trail... What can the NCAA do? Nothing!!!

I always thought Oregon was clean... With the allure of AMAZING facilities, new uniforms every week and a flashy up-tempo offense being enough to land grade A talent... But the PAPER TRAIL points to them being dirty!

Oregon paid a "scouting service"  Other schools paid the same "scouting service" as well as other "scouting services"  That is a completely LEGITIMATE thing to pay for so the fact that there is ANY payment of ANY size should not be an issue.

As you have pointed out the payment is, in fact, NOT the issue.  It is the suspicious nature of the service or lack there-of


The NCAA is assuming there was payment to the player due to the suspicious nature of the payment (or at least everyone else including you is)   The circumstances around Cam were JUST as suspicious.


The NCAA is about to bust Oregon for what is, in fact, a legitimate payment UNLESS it can be PROVEN the kid got paid from the same funds.

I've seen NO such proof. 

So why doesn't the NCAA take evidence of Cam's friend, whoever, being paid for doing contract construction work job (some other legitimate thing) and bust Auburn with that?

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

---------------------------------------------
--- buckEYEdr2B wrote:

I don't even know where to start with this.... How are you?

Oregon admitting payment to a handler for $25,000 (more than normal for scouting services) and the handler unable to explain the payment, leads to Oregon in significant trouble.... NOT the player! If the NCAA can not prove the player got any money, it doesn't matter because they'll hammer the institution!

But you want the NCAA to punish Auburn because of contract work Cecil Newton had done on his church? Do you understand the absurdity of that statement? I think the Newton's got paid exactly what they wanted... But I don't think there's anyway the NCAA can prove it!

---------------------------------------------
--- TroyKidd wrote:

buckEYEdr2B wrote: The Oregon and Auburn comparisons are WRONG!

Oregon reported payment to a recruiting service above and beyond typical payments for such services, they then had to hurry and ask for some sort of proof of such services, the proof was pathetic, and the man who supplied the "recruiting info", the same man helping a recruit find a college, appears quite shady.

Cam Newton - reported the Mississippi State was willing to pay/was asked to pay for his services (a significant amount). One can assume that if that's the case, Cam went to who was willing/did pay him the amount requested... But NO paper trail existed and NO ONE came forward to admit payment!!! The NCAA hands were tied on actually punishing Newton or Auburn because no one would talk... It was still a COMPLETE joke that he was only suspended from participating for 24hrs (a complete joke)!!!

I think Auburn has plenty of dirty/shady/deep pocket boosters... But if players don't talk or display credible evidence, boosters don't talk, coaches don't talk, and there is no paper trail... What can the NCAA do? Nothing!!!

I always thought Oregon was clean... With the allure of AMAZING facilities, new uniforms every week and a flashy up-tempo offense being enough to land grade A talent... But the PAPER TRAIL points to them being dirty!

Oregon paid a "scouting service"  Other schools paid the same "scouting service" as well as other "scouting services"  That is a completely LEGITIMATE thing to pay for so the fact that there is ANY payment of ANY size should not be an issue.

As you have pointed out the payment is, in fact, NOT the issue.  It is the suspicious nature of the service or lack there-of


The NCAA is assuming there was payment to the player due to the suspicious nature of the payment (or at least everyone else including you is)   The circumstances around Cam were JUST as suspicious.


The NCAA is about to bust Oregon for what is, in fact, a legitimate payment UNLESS it can be PROVEN the kid got paid from the same funds.

I've seen NO such proof. 

So why doesn't the NCAA take evidence of Cam's friend, whoever, being paid for doing contract construction work job (some other legitimate thing) and bust Auburn with that?

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

---------------------------------------------
Oregon paid Willy Lyle 25k for nothing. Magically, Laque Seastrunk who is very close to Willy changes his mind and commits to Oregon. U of O accounting asks Chip what the 25k was for. Chip makes numerous cell phone calls to Willy. Magically, Willy produces a bogus recruiting report which, by the way, costs way more than the 5-7k he had charged USC and LSU. Oh yeah, Willy admits on a radio interview that he was paid for steering Laque to Oregon. Tons of Payola proof. This is not a court of law. Oregon is going down.