Oregon

hawkeyebob62

Well-Known Member
Boy, did they get smacked hard (sarcasm intended).

Why did the NCAA even take the time? What's the point? No bowl ban, ONE scholarship penalty for each season?!
 
Boy, did they get smacked hard (sarcasm intended).

Why did the NCAA even take the time? What's the point? No bowl ban, ONE scholarship penalty for each season?!

Can someone post a reply reminding me what the issue was? Did this have to do with the recruiting agency they used?
 
so...

buying a player cost Auburn nothing

buying a player cost Oregon a tiny bit

i don't get it.
 
The powers that be at Iowa - that recruiting apparatus - still playing it safe. Perhaps they should reconsider their risk calculus.
 
Oregon completely cooperated with the investigation, using a scouting service is a huge gray area, there was no evidence that the recruit was swayed by Lyles, Chip Kelly took the fall on this one and got the "show clause" and that is all she wrote folks.

Now if Oregon and Kelly would have lied like someone in the Big Ten conference then maybe there would have been a bigger penalty.

What cracks me up actually is that they got anything when the NCAA said that there was no evidence that the recruit was swayed...not sure what Kelly did to take all the blame, but it is what happened.
 
The powers that be at Iowa - that recruiting apparatus - still playing it safe. Perhaps they should reconsider their risk calculus.

Yep. It's a risk/reward scenario, and if Oregon, Auburn, etc. are any indication, the risks aren't that great.
 
I think the risk/reward scenario also hinges on what type of national success your program is having at the time of the infraction.
 
Top