Damaging Lyles Information

[L Perry]

I kinda disagree, wheaton - doesn't this, in fact, dispel the "Booster" angle some have suggested? After all, how can one individual be a "booster" when he is in fact, sending a number of kids in different directions?

The "agent" angle is another, more plausible indictment. How "agent" and "recruiting service" and "7-on7 camps" come together on the recruiting trail will have to be settled in the courts.

(IMHO, even though the judicial system tends to not to want to get involved in the NCAA's doings, they may HAVE to have the Supreme Court get involved, if for nothing other than helping redefine what is permissible or not vis a vis recruiting practices.)

Anyway, bottom line for me in this recent development is a positive for the Ducks.

I would welcome a rebuttal.

I doubt the NCAA gets the Supreme Court involved since they can deem whatever is legal in recruiting.

It more than likely would not be the NCAA who instigated any legal action!

Yeah, I kind of misworded what I was trying to say. I was basically trying to say that the Supreme Court is highly unlikely to play a role in the changing recruiting rules since the NCAA has ultimate say of what's legal.

Unless the NCAA has an antitrust suit filed against them . . ..

But I doubt a lot of schools will try to sue the NCAA.

It would most likely be a scouting service or camp provider who did it. Or possibly a State, as they are mostly public schools.

[Coastal Duck]

I kinda disagree, wheaton - doesn't this, in fact, dispel the "Booster" angle some have suggested? After all, how can one individual be a "booster" when he is in fact, sending a number of kids in different directions?

The "agent" angle is another, more plausible indictment. How "agent" and "recruiting service" and "7-on7 camps" come together on the recruiting trail will have to be settled in the courts.

(IMHO, even though the judicial system tends to not to want to get involved in the NCAA's doings, they may HAVE to have the Supreme Court get involved, if for nothing other than helping redefine what is permissible or not vis a vis recruiting practices.)

Anyway, bottom line for me in this recent development is a positive for the Ducks.

I would welcome a rebuttal.

I doubt the NCAA gets the Supreme Court involved since they can deem whatever is legal in recruiting.

It more than likely would not be the NCAA who instigated any legal action!

Yeah, I kind of misworded what I was trying to say. I was basically trying to say that the Supreme Court is highly unlikely to play a role in the changing recruiting rules since the NCAA has ultimate say of what's legal.

Unless the NCAA has an antitrust suit filed against them . . ..

But I doubt a lot of schools will try to sue the NCAA.

Unless the NCAA has an antitrust suit filed against them . . .. [/quote]
But I doubt a lot of schools will try to sue the NCAA.[/quote]

It may come from Congress, especially if you throw in a couple of well-heeled campaign donors to congressmen with close ties to the Departments of Justice and/or Education.

What kind of influence they can generate remains to be seen.

[wlduck]

I don't see how Lyles going from potentially being a Booster to potentially offering pay-for-play schemes is a positive development for the Ducks.

Either way, there are potential problems for the Ducks. Before this report came out, it was looking plausible that Texas HS Coaches had some kind of territorial beef with Lyles and that he really isn't a bad guy. With these new statements, he's not looking so good, imo.

Not saying I agree, but I think the implication is if he is selling players to the highest bidder, he can't be a booster for Oregon. Since there is enough evidence to get Oregon in trouble if he is a "booster" by NCAA standards, that would be good. If he is not a booster, they would have to prove we flat out bought Seastrunk, which would be difficult as long as we can prove we got something- even if it's not much- for our 25K.

[wheaton4prez]

I don't know. The two seem closely related to me.

To prove he's a booster you have to prove that he steered Seastrunk to Oregon. To prove it was pay-for-play you have to prove that he was paid to steer Seastrunk to Oregon.

[wlduck]

I don't know. The two seem closely related to me.

To prove he's a booster you have to prove that he steered Seastrunk to Oregon. To prove it was pay-for-play you have to prove that he was paid to steer Seastrunk to Oregon.

Not exactly. To be a booster, it would only be required to prove that he ever acted on the universities behalf at any time. So there could still be violations if Lyles was found to be a booster by definition, but no proof was found that he steered Lache, or took money from Lache. In that case, the violations would probably center around Campbell's campus visits with Lyles.

The jeopardy for Oregon in this case lies much more to do with Lyles being defined as a booster than with an outright purchase of Lache. That will require a "smoking gun" that even if it happened, would be hard to find.

[wheaton4prez]

I don't see how Lyles possibly shopping a guy to LSU rules out the possibility that he is a booster by that definition of it. He could still have acted on the universities behalf at some time.

Also not sure he can be deemed a booster without tying him to a booster activity. If there's no proof that he steered Seastrunk, what would he have done that made him a booster?

[wvduck34]

From what I heard, he lived at home with his parents. God, maybe the 25 K was a loan on a down payment
for a house. I am so sick of this scouting analyst/street agent/Jetsgangmember-switchblade!
No seriously NCAA, either accuse the Ducks, or get f-ing lost!! How long does due process take!!

[greenyellow]

I don't see how Lyles possibly shopping a guy to LSU rules out the possibility that he is a booster by that definition of it. He could still have acted on the universities behalf at some time.

Also not sure he can be deemed a booster without tying him to a booster activity. If there's no proof that he steered Seastrunk, what would he have done that made him a booster?

With both LMJ and Lache, to a certain extent, defending their actions and affiliations, I'm doubting if anything really happened between Lyles and the UO to get them here.