Wednesday, July 27, 2011

July 27, 2011
Some real problems with his story:

So I am going to break down the inaccuracies point by point:

“Dodging questions about the ongoing NCAA investigation”

There was no “dodging” involved. Coach Kelly made a statement at the beginning of the press conference that mirrored the released statement. He is not permitted to answer these questions at this time. Dodging implies he is allowed to answer them, but chose not to.

“Ducks coach Chip Kelly did little to clarify the role recruiting services play in his program.”

This was not the point of media day, the point was to talk about the upcoming football season. It was clear from all indications prior to today, that these questions would not be answered.

“Specifically, Kelly sidestepped all questions regarding a $25,000 payment to Houston-based Will Lyles' recruiting service ? Complete Scouting Services (CSS).”

Again, he did not side-step any question, he simply made the statements regarding his inability to answer them.

“Lyles has told Yahoo! Sports that Oregon... paid for his influence with top recruits” This is a completely inaccurate reflection of what Lyles told Yahoo... what he told them was that “I look back at it now and they paid for what they saw as my access and influence with recruits,” Now, I think the writer might be intelligent enough to deduce the truth of what Lyles said here... he is stating that, LOOKING back, in his OPINION, he THINKS Oregon paid for influence. He never indicates that Oregon directly told him that they were only paying for access.

“and his ability to aid prospects through the signing and eligibility process. That simultaneous role is believed to be a focus of the NCAA probe.”

This statement is an outright fabrication. Lyles never said any such thing.

It's too bad that the early part of your story deals in such bad recollection of reality and that the writer doesn't make any real effort to research your information before printing.

An even bigger problem is that the reporter who asked the question which dovetailed from Tedford's answer absolutely blundered the situation. He should have immediately asked that question of Tedford. The fact is, if he feels the Head Coach should know his recruiting services personally, why did he not have the intestinal fortitude to ask the tough question of that Head Coach? I think that question is rather rhetorical as we all know that particular reporter has no intestinal fortitude.


  1. Thank you for blogging what's in my head, and what I've been telling anybody who'll listen.

    One additional point that seems to have completely gone overlooked by the "main stream" media. Lyles says that he realized, in retrospect, that Oregon must have actually paid for his influence. In other words, Lyles doesn't believe his "recruiting services" are worth $25,000, and thus is admitting to being a fraud. Then, he wonders where his second $25,000 is, and bitches to Canzano about flipping burgers or whatnot (because, apparently, he wasn't paid for work he didn't do, and that revelation cost him his "business").

    When I attended journalism school at the UO, I took a class (that is no longer required) called "Information Gathering" (or "Info Hell" to those of us who suffered through it). The primary tenet of that class was to learn to say "prove it" to every single factual assertion in a story. The Yahoo story, which Canzano called "excellent journalism" or some such, is one of the worst reporting hack jobs I've ever read. At no point does the writer ask Lyles to "prove it."

    After Lyles' comment, the writer should have asked, "so,Mr. Lyles, are you saying that what you provided was NOT worth $25,000? And if it wasn't, have you kept the money? And if you have kept the money, why is that not fraud?"

    Then, when Lyles hems and haws, the writer should have asked "If you billed Oregon $25,000 for services that you did not believe were worth $25,000, and in fact you've told me that you didn't actually provide until asked to throw something together, doesn't that mean that you knowingly sent Oregon a $25,000 invoice for street agent services?"

    I won't speculate as to the answers Lyles might have given, but the failure of the writer to ask the questions renders the entire article irrelevant.

    Worse, the media has devolved to the point where "reporters" (and I use the term loosely anymore) do not actually investigate and report - they merely regurgitate somebody else's "report." And when they do manage to interview someone, they don't challenge the interviewee.