Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

Bad news tonight, according to ESPN Will Lyles at one time told Texas A&M coaches that it would take more than $80K to sign Patrick Peterson (who later signed with LSU). Not a direct blow to UO but definitely a blow to Lyles credibility as a legit scouting service, which makes the $25K look that much more suspicious.

Does look bad but with unless there's evidence to back it up, it's going to be hard to prove that he actually got any type of payment or asked for it.

Elduderino wrote:Bad news tonight, according to ESPN Will Lyles at one time told Texas A&M coaches that it would take more than $80K to sign Patrick Peterson (who later signed with LSU). Not a direct blow to UO but definitely a blow to Lyles credibility as a legit scouting service, which makes the $25K look that much more suspicious.

He supposedly told A coach who told no one else at A&M. Who waited how long to say anything? What makes this persons accusations damaging? Is he beyond reproach, for some reason?
The veracity of all the accusations against Lyles to this point, leaves quite a bit to be desired IMO.

L Perry wrote:

Elduderino wrote:Bad news tonight, according to ESPN Will Lyles at one time told Texas A&M coaches that it would take more than $80K to sign Patrick Peterson (who later signed with LSU). Not a direct blow to UO but definitely a blow to Lyles credibility as a legit scouting service, which makes the $25K look that much more suspicious.

He supposedly told A coach who told no one else at A&M. Who waited how long to say anything? What makes this persons accusations damaging? Is he beyond reproach, for some reason?
The veracity of all the accusations against Lyles to this point, leaves quite a bit to be desired IMO.

Also, the coach doesn't specifically say whether Lyles is asking for the money himself or just telling the TAMU coach that $80,000 is what he's heard Patterson is going for. To me, it sounds like he's relaying information instead of demanding a payment for Patterson's services.

Sounds pretty bad to me. I think that the reason it's damaging is that this guy doesn't apparently have any connection to the other guys that have bagged on Lyles.

It was looking like a Texas HS Coach vs. Lyles type of thing. But, this calls that theory into question, imo.

wheaton4prez wrote:Sounds pretty bad to me. I think that the reason it's damaging is that this guy doesn't apparently have any connection to the other guys that have bagged on Lyles.

It was looking like a Texas HS Coach vs. Lyles type of thing. But, this calls that theory into question, imo.

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.

Coastal Duck wrote:

wheaton4prez wrote:Sounds pretty bad to me. I think that the reason it's damaging is that this guy doesn't apparently have any connection to the other guys that have bagged on Lyles.

It was looking like a Texas HS Coach vs. Lyles type of thing. But, this calls that theory into question, imo.

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.

greenyellow wrote:

Coastal Duck wrote:

wheaton4prez wrote:Sounds pretty bad to me. I think that the reason it's damaging is that this guy doesn't apparently have any connection to the other guys that have bagged on Lyles.

It was looking like a Texas HS Coach vs. Lyles type of thing. But, this calls that theory into question, imo.

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.

SCOTUS would have to agree to see the case, not the other way around. Although, I suppose if you're arguing that the ncaa is a corrupt organization than I imagine they very well could force something onto the docket

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.

greenyellow wrote:

Coastal Duck wrote:

wheaton4prez wrote:Sounds pretty bad to me. I think that the reason it's damaging is that this guy doesn't apparently have any connection to the other guys that have bagged on Lyles.

It was looking like a Texas HS Coach vs. Lyles type of thing. But, this calls that theory into question, imo.

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!

L Perry wrote:

greenyellow wrote:

Coastal Duck wrote:

wheaton4prez wrote:Sounds pretty bad to me. I think that the reason it's damaging is that this guy doesn't apparently have any connection to the other guys that have bagged on Lyles.

It was looking like a Texas HS Coach vs. Lyles type of thing. But, this calls that theory into question, imo.

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.

hm, Patrick Peterson said he have no connection or said nothing was going on between him and Lyles

I think 2/3's of everything out there is just people wanting their 15 minutes of fame, or because of bitterness towards someone or some institution are planting seeds.

greenyellow wrote:

L Perry wrote:

greenyellow wrote:

Coastal Duck wrote:

wheaton4prez wrote:Sounds pretty bad to me. I think that the reason it's damaging is that this guy doesn't apparently have any connection to the other guys that have bagged on Lyles.

It was looking like a Texas HS Coach vs. Lyles type of thing. But, this calls that theory into question, imo.

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 . . ..

Coastal Duck wrote:

greenyellow wrote:

L Perry wrote:

greenyellow wrote:

Coastal Duck wrote:

wheaton4prez wrote:Sounds pretty bad to me. I think that the reason it's damaging is that this guy doesn't apparently have any connection to the other guys that have bagged on Lyles.

It was looking like a Texas HS Coach vs. Lyles type of thing. But, this calls that theory into question, imo.

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.