Oregon paid pair with ties to recruits

Submitted by pasadenablue on

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=cr-oregon030311

 

Apparently, they paid 28k+ to people assocated with recruits...

 

Money shot:

According to State of Oregon expenditure records, the university paid $25,000 to Will Lyles of Complete Scouting Services in Houston, and $3,745 to Baron Flenory of New Level Athletics. Lyles is a former athletic trainer who recently was serving as a mentor to highly touted Ducks running back recruit Lache Seastrunk. Meanwhile, Flenory runs the Badger Sports Elite 7-on-7 football camps which have featured several celebrated Ducks signees including running back DeAnthony Thomas, defensive back Cliff Harris, defensive back Dior Mathis and wideout Tacoi Sumler. Flenory had a personal training relationship with recent Ducks signee Anthony Wallace.

If true, this is some bad joojoo for the ducks.

 

EDIT:

As it turns out, this isn't the first puff of smoke regarding these two characters.

http://recruitocosm.fantake.com/2010/12/10/street-agents-in-texas-some-new-competition-for-will-lyles/

That was posted 3 months ago!

Jon06

March 4th, 2011 at 12:06 AM ^

but, like usc and ohio state (and presumably auburn), they probably won't. it's too bad the ncaa is so motivated by money. crushing just one of those programs with sanctions would go a long way toward cleaning up the sport. i can just imagine dantonio going libyan in the aftermath, ridding his team of criminal elements lest george w. emmert invade lansing next.

justingoblue

March 3rd, 2011 at 7:45 PM ^

I don't know how big of a deal this is going to be. If it's on the annual expenditures list for the university, you'd have to think they at least made sure it was defensible.

Blue_Sox

March 3rd, 2011 at 7:47 PM ^

Both of the participants in the MNC cheated their way into the game? I can't tell what's worse: that it happened or that I'm not at all surprised by it. 

pasadenablue

March 3rd, 2011 at 8:21 PM ^

You do have to admit that there is a big difference between paying boosters and players stretching too much. It's like the difference between getting ticketed for driving 10 over the limit, and driving drunk. Both are moving violations, but one is way worse.

elaydin

March 4th, 2011 at 11:21 AM ^

Careful.  If you think Michigan is any cleaner than most other midwest programs, you're drinking the blue Kool-aid.  Flenory has connections to Michigan as well.  He has even conducted camps at Michigan.

All schools pay these "scouts".  However, most just pay them about 1k, not the 20 something Oregon seems to be paying them.

Don

March 3rd, 2011 at 8:27 PM ^

I'm not going to neg you, but if you're trying to equate what got us into hot water with what Oregon is apparently doing, you're just being silly.

You might as well say that jaywalking is in the same class of criminality as burglary.

WolvinLA2

March 3rd, 2011 at 8:49 PM ^

Come on, we over-practiced (maybe intentionally or maybe not) by 20 minutes, allotted for stretching.  This is likely a misunderstanding of the rules, if anything.  This does not make us a dirty program by any stretch. 

Do you honestly believe that we are not a "clean" program because of this?

david from wyoming

March 3rd, 2011 at 8:57 PM ^

We absolutely got dinged for a relatively small infraction, but the fact is the program is on probation currently. You can try to justify that however you want, and I'm not even sure that I would call us a dirty program, but one more time...my point is that Michigan football is not a "clean" program. We broke a (dumb) rule and are on probation.

/pointsdontmatter

WolvinLA2

March 3rd, 2011 at 9:20 PM ^

OK, but if you yourself agree that it's a dumb rule, doesn't that mean we remain a clean program?  Obvisously this is a relative term, and it's subjective, but you seem to imply that any school that is on probation for any reason isn't a clean program.  Does that mean that Auburn is clean because they aren't on probation??  Or any other program that isn't currently on probation?  I don't believe OSU is a "clean" program, they have secondary violations out their ass every year, but they aren't actually on probation, so does that preclude them from being dirty? 

Honestly, your criiteria (criterium, perhaps) are a little wacky, and inaccurate, IMO.

mejunglechop

March 3rd, 2011 at 11:04 PM ^

First of all, again, it wasn't just for practicing too much. Secondly, having limitations on how much players can practice and when isn't dumb, neither are the limitations on how many coaches you can have and what counts as a coach. Innocent or not, it stinks and it's embarrassing and it makes the program less clean than it should be.

Don

March 3rd, 2011 at 11:29 PM ^

You feel personally embarrassed over Practicegate? Have you stopped wearing Michigan apparel? Do you feel ashamed to tell people you have a degree from Michigan because of this? Do you feel embarrassed over what Bud Middaugh did back when he was baseball coach? Are you embarrassed over Webber and Bullock and Traylor taking money? Are you embarrassed that Harry Kipke arranged to have no-work jobs provided for some of his players back in the '30s and that he was booted in part because of ethical issues? Are you embarrassed because Lloyd Carr allowed Mario Manningham to stay with the team even though it was patently obvious that MM was a doper? How about David Terrell and his bomb-ass dick? That's a lot of embarrassing.

BigBlue02

March 3rd, 2011 at 11:49 PM ^

Incorrect. Players exposing themselves to others and failing drug tests regularly was before 3 years ago, therefore practicegate is way more embarrassing. I swear people think the only bad things that have ever happened to the program happened in the past 3 years.

jmblue

March 4th, 2011 at 12:56 AM ^

Here's the thing though, Don.  Very few people know about any of the other stuff you've mentioned.  Conversely, the fact that we're on probation for the first time ever is going to be mentioned ad nauseum for the next three years.  Rival fans will never let it go.  And that just sucks.

mejunglechop

March 4th, 2011 at 1:27 AM ^

I don't get your point. The Middaugh stuff happened in the 80s.The Fab 5 was 20 years ago. The Harry Kipke stuff was over 70. So yeah, unlike what just got us put us on probation, that stuff didn't come down last year and I'd expect Michigan fans to know better and be more intellectually honest.

johnvand

March 3rd, 2011 at 9:24 PM ^

Guess it depends on your definition of "clean"

I wouldn't consider practicing too much as a "dirty" act.  Much like UCF who got in trouble for making t-shirts for the offensive linemen... Not really dirty.

Doctoring grades, paying recruits, covering up crimes, paying for unofficial visits and reporting it after they're officially students so you can black out all the names, etc.  Those are dirty acts, IMO

Things that you know you're doing, and know you have to cover up.

/queuetypicalanalogy

I wouldn't need to cover up doing 55 in a 45 zone.

I would need to cover up stabbing some dude in the pinky toe.

 

Shades of gray I guess, but how I see things.  Probation? yes, we're in that bucket.  Dirty? no we're not in that bucket.

Don

March 3rd, 2011 at 11:21 PM ^

If you're saying that Michigan isn't "clean," then you're saying Michigan is dirty. Or would you say we're slightly soiled? Smudged? Dusty perhaps?

Bo Schembechler did not hide the fact that he knowingly flouted NCAA rules about letting unauthorized players eat at the training table early in his career here. In fact, he outright enjoyed thumbing his nose at the NCAA at the time. I guess that made us a dirty program back then too.

BrownJuggernaut

March 3rd, 2011 at 9:17 PM ^

Doesn't this remind you of the first steroid implications in baseball or when the whole Tiger Woods scandal started? You hoped to hell that the rumors weren't true because it had significance for your favorite team or athlete. It casts a whole black eye on the sport, and you just hope that it hasn't infested what you believe is holy. 

As far as Michigan being clean, I know we're under probation, but I still would like to believe that in the greater scheme of NCAA violators, we're on the cleaner end of the spectrum. I would like to believe.

SKIP TO MY BLUE

March 3rd, 2011 at 10:55 PM ^

Just seems like all the teams that have competed for MNC the past few years have shown that cheating or walking that fine gray line makes them winners, whether it's Medical Redshirts, dropping players, recruiting violations, tats, arrests, etc. USC, LSU, BAMA, Gators, Oregon tOSU and Auburn have all had run ins with the law or NCAA lately.

EDIT: I was trying to respond to BlueSox comment about 2011 MNC teams in trouble, guess I have not mastered this new thing called a laptop.

Wolvercane

March 4th, 2011 at 2:28 AM ^

 

"A handful of FBS football coaches surveyed by ESPN.com on Thursday said recruiting services typically charge $5,000 or less per season for video footage and information about high school prospects."

I am sticking with my original hypothesis that the Nike money is burning holes in Oregon's pockets. And if you are going to spend 4-fold on a "scouting" service, you better get some extra benefits from it!

Also what I would like to know is why was Lyles afflilation with the recruiting service terminated? Did they figure out what he was doing? Or did he figure he could make more money being a "street agent" instead and decided to leave? Can't wait to find out the answers to these questions. 

JohnnyBlue

March 3rd, 2011 at 7:51 PM ^

I wounder what the chances are if they go down USC style that we may bag the Traverse City Tackle (forget his name).  Didn't anyone from USC get the option to  transfer without the penalty of sitting out after they got in trouble?

Mgobowl

March 3rd, 2011 at 7:57 PM ^

I'm not sure about newly signed recruits, but I believe at USC anyone with 2 or less years of elegibility was allowed to transfer without penalty and would be immediately eligible. This was because those players would be prevented from participating in bowl games during remainder of their college careers.

WolvinLA2

March 3rd, 2011 at 8:13 PM ^

Yeah, but it really wouldn't matter with an offensive linemen.  Jake Fisher was going to RS his first year at either school, so if Oregon gets in trouble, he could transfer anywhere he wants and redshirt the same as he would have had he signed with that school originally.  If he decides tomorrow to "transfer" to Michigan, he would come in no different than if he had signed his LOI with us - he wasn't going to play as a true freshman anyway.

BrewCityBlue

March 3rd, 2011 at 8:23 PM ^

There was another thread a day or two ago with a link to a story about Will Lyles and Baron Flenery.

Article basically discussed college football's "street agents" and their rise to eventually be somewhat like the College bball "street agents".

Basically comparing these new 7 on 7 camps that are popping up all over to the AAU scene in college bball.

This whole deal certainly seems a little shady, but, as someone who was waiting on some news for a top program to get lambasted like we were, i'm quite disappointed. Who knows what will come of it, but as someone else mentioned, if it's on their official books, this would be one hell of a screwup if it actually ends up costing them anything.

Edit: i don't think the link i was referring to was actually referenced on an mgoblog thread - went back and found it and i'll paste the link below. It's from December of 2010 but it talks about Flenory and Lyles, along with street agents and 7on7 camps and gets into some interesting stuff that i was fairly naieve about...

http://recruitocosm.fantake.com/2010/12/10/street-agents-in-texas-some-…

 

NateVolk

March 3rd, 2011 at 8:23 PM ^

Or Oregon is using the official books as a shield.  The defense is: we hired them to do x, they did x, all legal.  Never mind that x could probably be done cheaper and easier in house. Also never mind that we knew we would be getting more for our money than data collection. 

It is slick way for a university to buy influence with the influential people in a player's world.  As long as the work that you bought isn't scrutinized, it's all good.

I know Universities do pay for recruiting services that are more detailed than rivals or scout. The issue is: did the service extend beyond evaluation?