Let’s Discuss the Boston Marathon Bombing…

Funny, my brother was saying same thing two weeks ago , and linking concerns to long-term economic prospects…”prepare to live off big game, fish, “i.e. “stock up on peanut butter”
,

At S-I, Mandel thinks the Ducks will get disciplinary actions similar to Ohio State’s. Again, an author emphasizes the suspension of belief required to support the NCAA’s intial take on the Lyle’s saga:

“Stewart, how do the recent NCAA findings on Oregon stack up to the findings on Ohio State a few years ago? If we look at the actual athlete infractions, they seem fairly similar.
— Dan Wise, Minneapolis

I do see a parallel between the two cases, though it may differ from the parallel you mention. Right up until the day Ohio State received its sanctions, our focus was entirely on TattooGate and Jim Tressel’s handling of it. As of July 2011, that was the NCAA’s sole focus, too. As a result, the school — having dismissed Tressel — believed it would get off lightly, and I was inclined to agree. But at the 11th hour that November, the enforcement staff tacked on the charge that the school failed to monitor well-known booster Bobby DiGeronimo, whose $200 payments for attending a charity event and questionable employment practices got a few players suspended that season. While the dollar amounts involved were far less than those in the tattoo deal, many have theorized that the broadening of the case may have pushed it over the edge to merit a bowl ban in December.

Similarly, when I read the initial Oregon reports on Tuesday, I thought the program was incredibly fortunate. For two years, this scandal revolved almost entirely around the school’s suspicious $25,000 payment to Will Lyles in March 2011, and the enforcement staff’s finding on that matter is the least sinister interpretation possible. We are told that, “none of the underlying violations were intentional in nature,” and that “There is no information in the record that Lyles coerced or directed any prospect to ultimately choose Oregon.” They even chastise the media for “sensationalizing” the $25,000 figure, noting this is a perfectly reasonable price tag for a legitimate recruiting service, which Oregon and Lyles have somehow convinced the NCAA it was. Their sole crime in the matter, therefore, was essentially administrative; Lyles failed to provide quarterly written reports, as required by rule. This view requires an incredible suspension of disbelief, but that’s the language in the parties’ since-rejected summary disposition, and it will likely be the same in the forthcoming Notice of Allegations.

But the real cause for concern comes later in the document, particularly Finding 3, which was so heavily redacted that initial reports did not even attempt to decipher it. However, compliance expert John Infante tweeted Tuesday that, based on the bylaws cited, this section “relates to gifts provided by Lyles to prospects. Those gifts included clothing, cash and ‘free or reduced-cost services, rentals or purchases of any type.'” Mind you, Lyles was defined as a “representative of athletic interests” (a booster) for Oregon as early as 2008. Much like Ohio State/DiGeronimo, the program is charged with failure to monitor Lyles. “Based on the failure to monitor charge later, the clothing given was [Oregon] athletic apparel Lyles somehow got his hands on,” Infante tweeted. But remember, Lyles wasn’t steering anyone to Oregon. Really.

So while the original recruiting service violation that prompted the investigation is now minimized (Oregon, in fact, is arguing it should be deemed secondary), the totality of the violations — extra benefits; impermissible phone calls; an extra coach participating in recruiting; and failure to monitor by both coach and program — seems likely to result in significant sanctions. My guess: a one-year bowl ban (like Ohio State’s), mild scholarship reductions and recruiting restrictions such as a limit on official visits and/or coaches’ evaluation dates and home visits (some of which the school offered to self-impose).

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130417/spring-games-scandals-mailbag/#ixzz2QlGY0xsv