Wednesday, July 27, 2011

July 27, 2011
(This was a response, once again, to Rob Moseley playing devils advocate)


The point is pretty simple… Lyles tries to justify his poor material to Oregon by saying that he “rushed it” together. He uses that concept to paint a picture of a cover-up.

Yet, we now know that the material that wasn’t rushed was also garbage. He contradicts himself within the same article. Oregon’s material was “rushed together” which was in “stark contrast to LSU.” That statement is entirely inaccurate. What LSU got was not in stark contrast to what Oregon got as far as written material. He attempts to paint the picture that, given the proper information by the school of what was needed, that his information is better, more complete. Again, this just isn’t true.

For the life of me, I cannot see why there is no mention ANYwhere, other than by Jason Whitlock, that this second Yahoo article looks more like a Lyles problem. The timing of his talking, combined with the timing of the 94 minute call to Josh Gibson along with the wild inaccuracies in the article itself make it clear that the “jilted lover” was doing anything and everything he could to hurt his ex.

I am further confounded as to why Yahoo did not attempt to verify the truth of his insinuation that LSU got much better information before they went public. Everyone wanted to believe him, so they took a few facts and ran with those withtout verifying the entire truthfulness of those statements.

Truthfully, without a “cover-up” angle, this story is pretty boring… which is why people took the word of Lyles without any verification of Lyles’ credibility. Lyles attempted to paint himself in the 1 week media barrage as some kind of “innocent victim” who was “screwed over” by Oregon. Without the cover-up angle, this is nothing more than a few secondary violations involving paperwork from Oregon’s perspective.

I have said all along that I believe the NCAA is involved in this not as an investigation of Oregon… they have ALWAYS been interested in Lyles.

And, guess what, there is recent evidence to support this. In a recent article about the NCAA’s pending legislation comes this ststement:

“It’s broader than Cam Newton,” said Potuto, a former chair of the NCAA’s Committee on Infractions. “Cam Newton is one of the reasons for it but it’s broader than that because there are other situations in which third parties are interceding with regard to prospects or student-athletes. If you’re a booster, then you’re covered by NCAA legislation with regard to contact with prospects or giving prospects money or giving extra benefits to athletes. If you’re defined as an agent, you’re covered by NCAA legislation. But there is a whole category of people who do not have an association with a particular institution but are involved with prospects or student-athletes.”

As well as this:

“Although many governing bodies have attempted to impose regulations on these individuals and their activities, the competitive nature of the industry has resulted in finding ways to skirt the rules. These third parties operate free of any governing body’s jurisdiction, and historically they do not trigger the NCAA definition of an agent. For the NCAA to regulate these individuals, the cabinet believes the definition of an agent must be expanded.”

Those two statements paint a pretty clear picture, the NCAA is looking to re-define what an “agent” is in light of Willie Lyles… it further tells us something very important… that Lyles fell outside the definition of an agent or a booster… and THAT is what they are attempting to do right now… re-define people like Lyles to get them out of the game…
But that just ain’t sexy…


Post a Comment