Remember that "Level 10" Yahoo story?
Moderators: greenyellow, UOducksTK1
- TheMaehlMan
- Junior
- Posts: 1874
- Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 4:21 pm
- Location: Eugene, OR
Re: Remember that "Level 10" Yahoo story?
Now the rumor is that Robinson's "ten story" is about the U. Something about players being paid.

Going to miss the Maehl Man
-
karlhungis
- All Pac-12
- Posts: 7990
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:08 am
Re: Remember that "Level 10" Yahoo story?
He must have a lot of dirt for this to be a 10.
OregonFan4life -
My source just said Chip is officially back!
It will be announced at Autzen press conference tomorrow afternoon!
My source just said Chip is officially back!
It will be announced at Autzen press conference tomorrow afternoon!
-
chapelhillduck
- Senior
- Posts: 2367
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 8:15 am
-
karlhungis
- All Pac-12
- Posts: 7990
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:08 am
Re: Remember that "Level 10" Yahoo story?
Everything seemed to take place back in 2002 and 2003 timeframe. I am curious if they can do anything about this.chapelhillduck wrote:http://sports.yahoo.com/investigations/ ... its_081611
Um yeah...level 10 or higher. Damn
OregonFan4life -
My source just said Chip is officially back!
It will be announced at Autzen press conference tomorrow afternoon!
My source just said Chip is officially back!
It will be announced at Autzen press conference tomorrow afternoon!
-
chapelhillduck
- Senior
- Posts: 2367
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 8:15 am
Re: Remember that "Level 10" Yahoo story?
There's definitely smoke from 2008/09/10, like actually paying a basketball recruitkarlhungis wrote:Everything seemed to take place back in 2002 and 2003 timeframe. I am curious if they can do anything about this.chapelhillduck wrote:http://sports.yahoo.com/investigations/ ... its_081611
Um yeah...level 10 or higher. Damn
- wheaton4prez
- Senior
- Posts: 3568
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:36 pm
- wheaton4prez
- Senior
- Posts: 3568
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:36 pm
Re: Remember that "Level 10" Yahoo story?
No wonder the NCAA is taking so long to figure out the Lyles case. The Miami case probably needs about 50 people to sort out. 
- Elduderino
- Senior
- Posts: 2242
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:19 pm
- Location: CA
Re: Remember that "Level 10" Yahoo story?
No s***!!! I'd like to formally welcome the return of "The U." It is indeed all about you today. I've missed you.wheaton4prez wrote:No wonder the NCAA is taking so long to figure out the Lyles case. The Miami case probably needs about 50 people to sort out.
AKA: CAgrown
-
RanDux
- Senior
- Posts: 2840
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:19 pm
- Location: Happy Valley, OR
Re: Remember that "Level 10" Yahoo story?
http://sports.yahoo.com/investigations/ ... its_081611
Wow. Unbelievable that it could go on unchecked for so long. Miami is going to get whacked.
Wow. Unbelievable that it could go on unchecked for so long. Miami is going to get whacked.
-
DarronThomas5
- Four Star Recruit
- Posts: 889
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:51 pm
Re: Remember that "Level 10" Yahoo story?
This could actually be a death penalty. What I'm reading here compared to the "Pony Excess" 30 for 30 on SMU sounds just about the same. I guess with SMU it involved their entire booster base and not just one guy but this is fraudulent, dirty, Ponzi money we're talking about with Miami.

-
woundedknees
- All-American
- Posts: 12821
- Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:06 pm
Re: Remember that "Level 10" Yahoo story?
Listen... ! Is that the sound of a large chunk of Florida disappearing into the Bermuda Triangle?
Autzen Stadium... Where great teams go to die...Hard!


- Black_and_Yellow
- One Star Recruit
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 12:37 am
Re: Remember that "Level 10" Yahoo story?
I don't know if they will get the SMU death penalty, but they will probably get the U death penalty. Multiple year television ban, 5 year bowl ban, get their total scholies limited to like 40-50 (and cap recuiting classes at 10-12 for like 4-5 years). I never thought we would ever see the death penalty or anything close to it again, The U proved me wrong.



- wheaton4prez
- Senior
- Posts: 3568
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:36 pm
Re: Remember that "Level 10" Yahoo story?
I hope they don't get a death penalty. There's no sense in punishing different people for something others did years ago.
Those responsible should be held accountable/fired. A USC-like penalty and move on, imo.
Those responsible should be held accountable/fired. A USC-like penalty and move on, imo.
- Black_and_Yellow
- One Star Recruit
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 12:37 am
Re: Remember that "Level 10" Yahoo story?
This isn't even close to USC. This wasn't a couple players, this was large portions of the FB and BB teams. For almost a decade this went on. Multiple coaches were involved. The guy was a direct booster of the school giving large sums of money. This was the institution not only looking the other way, but in some cases helping to facilitate the violations. The guy was part owner of a sports agency company and Miami found out, but did nothing. There is no way to adequately punish the institution that doesn't effect the players there in some way. Also some of this stuff is older, but there was plenty of violations happening recently. Hopefully they allow current players transfer without having to sit out a year, or atleast the ones that didn't part take in the violations. USC's violation looks like an assualt compared to the U, who is a serial killer with bodies buried in the backyard.wheaton4prez wrote:I hope they don't get a death penalty. There's no sense in punishing different people for something others did years ago.
Those responsible should be held accountable/fired. A USC-like penalty and move on, imo.



- wheaton4prez
- Senior
- Posts: 3568
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:36 pm
Re: Remember that "Level 10" Yahoo story?
I wasn't comparing what they did to USC. I think that the penalty to USC should be about the max that the NCAA applies. Beyond that and it's punishing people who aren't responsible more than those who are. That just doesn't make any sense.
A greater penalty would not provide a greater deterrent. So, what function would it serve?
A greater penalty would not provide a greater deterrent. So, what function would it serve?