Lyles Timeline by Loudquack (247)

Moderators: greenyellow, Autzenoise, UOducksTK1

Post Reply
Destroyer77
Five Star Recruit
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:49 pm

Lyles Timeline by Loudquack (247)

Post by Destroyer77 »

Courtesy of Loudquack96, posted and copied with permission. http://oregon.247sports.com/Board/45/Sh ... 1#a2973540

I posted this at another site, but wanted to share here as well...

Let me say I am writing this not to find absolution or condemnation for UO, but more for consolidating my understanding of the situation and sharing it with all of you. I do not pretend to know all the facts or to understand all the nuances of the NCAA rules, nor does it include the UO’s take on events because we haven’t heard that yet. I merely hope it helps provide a framework for the discussion of the “facts” and issues as they have been presented so far and I look forward to your informed responses, or corrections.

The following is the timeline as it’s been presented so far from the Yahoo articles and various eDuck posters and other sources / links etc. For the latter, I exclusively used the administrators and links to information to try to cut down on the speculation and guesswork. If you have additional info to add I’d like to add it.

The Timeline:

2007: Kelly meets Lyles for first time

December, 2007: Lyles counsels family of LMJ about College eligibility

February 2008: LMJ signs with Oregon

Spring 2008: Lyles meets Seastrunk for first time at 7 on 7 camp at Texas A&M

August 1, 2009: 2009-2010 NCAA Div. 1 Manual rules go into effect. Recruiting service rules are not comprehensive or detailed.

October 4, 2009: Lache Seastrunk visits Cal with Lyles and potentially Lache’s mom (according to eDuck).

October 10, 2009: Lache Seastrunk visits LSU with Lyles for Florida game (according to Yahoo July 1 story picture). Cassius Marsh and Trovon Reed also attend.

October 31, 2009: Lache Seastrunk visits UO with Donate Williams, Matt Sherrard and Trovon Reed, trip organized by Lyles. Lyles later recieves "Thank You" notes from UO staff for helping set up the visit.

December 2009: According to Lyles' July 1 interview Oregon agrees to be Lyle’s first client for scouting services for class of 2011. No fee discussed.

Pre-January 2010: Lyles files founding documents of his company. This places him under the jurisdiction of the NCAA as an active recruiting service provider.

January 2010: Will Lyles leaves ESS in Florida officially. NCAA Bylaw 13.14.3 revision adopted effective immediately" which makes the 2010-2011 rule effective. Seastrunk set to sign with USC, but opened up his recruiting when Carroll takes Seahawks job. Auburn, according to Seastrunk's interview in educk magazine, had stopped talking to him at this point (Auburn had by this time recieved commitment from Michael Dyer, a 5-star RB). Oregon appears to be 3rd on his list, but first two options aren't available.

January 7-17, 2010: Lyles communicates with UO staff about Seastrunk’s LOI, and process for using his grandparent’s signature.

Late January 2010: Lyles approaches Kelly again about purchasing national package, Kelly suggests terms comparable with the “best paying service”.

February 3, 2010: Seastrunk signs LOI with Oregon

February 22, 2010: Invoice for 2011 scouting services sent to UO by CSS

March 29, 2010: Invoice paid in full by UO, for next 12 months (Presumably Feb 2010 – January 2011) Lyles provides UO with verbal reports and contributed to a spreadsheet, and collected and delivered film on 50 players. According to Lyles, UO tells him they don’t need written material until the 2011-12 recruiting cycle.

At some point presumably close to the same billing cycle as UO, LSU Pays $6000 for JC package and Cal pays $5000 for Texas package

August 1, 2010: 2010-2011 NCAA Div. 1 Manual rules go into effect, expanding recruiting service rules to include itemized requirements for deliverables.

Early February 2011: According to Lyles’ July 1 interview with Yahoo, UO verbally agrees to buy 1 more year at $25,000. Oregon asked for an invoice and then forwarded the bylaws requiring written information

February 17, 2011: Kelly / Gibson request first written materials according to Lyles. Prior to this Lyles provided verbal info and film

February 22, 2011: Lyles sends “2010 National High School Evaluation Booklet” with players from class of 2009.

March 3, 2011: Yahoo Sports reports initial Lyles story

March, 2011: UO hires lawyer “The Cleaner”, ex NCAA enforcement personnel.

Early May 2011: Lyles speaks to NCAA enforcement

June 2, 2011: Lyles speaks with Gibson for 94 minutes about the 2011-12 service. Gibson wouldn’t commit.

July 1, 2011: Yahoo Sports Lyle’s interview

The timeline brings up a few observations and questions, which I have tried to explain below.

Observation #1

Everyone should review the differences of section 13.14.3 in the Div. 1 Manual from 2009-2010, and 2010-2011. These are the Constitution and Operating Bylaws governing the processes surrounding college athletics including recruiting. Even though these rules go into effect on August 1st every year, According to a document uncovered by BGoldeneye and written by ICE-Miller a law firm that works with NCAA compliance, this is their analysis of the old rule and why it was changed…

http://www.icemiller.com/publications/L ... y_2011.pdf

“Previously, Bylaw 13.14.3”…

13.14.3 Recruiting Services. (2009-2010 effective 8.1.2009)

13.14.3.1 Published Recruiting Services: An institution may subscribe to a regularly published scouting service involving prospective student-athletes, provided this service is made available to all institutions desiring to subscribe and at the same fee rate for all subscribers.

“focused primarily on the general use of recruiting services, in that the service must be available to all institutions and any video service utilized must be taken at regularly scheduled high schools or two-year college games in order for an NCAA school to subscribe. However, there was a concern that under the provisions of the rule as written, it permitted some individuals (with close ties or heavy influence with premier prospects) to create a recruiting “service” that some schools felt obligated to subscribe to (and pay high fees) in order to recruit and have access to the prospects these services (i.e., individual owners) had relationships with. Technically, these companies satisfied the requirements of the old Bylaw 13.14.3, even though it is questionable whether they intended to provide a service that merely provided information, instead of influencing the recruiting process Thus, in January 2010, NCAA Bylaw 13.14.3 was revised by the enactment of NCAA Proposal 2009-59. It was noted in the proposal’s rationale statement that because some services actually provided little if any information related to the evaluation of talent, minimal requirements for scouting services were necessary. The Proposal 2009-59, also acknowledged the value of recruiting and scouting services and the need to protect the “integrity of the recruiting process.” NCAA Bylaw 13.14.3 – Recruiting or Scouting Services now reads as follows:…”

13.14.3 Recruiting or Scouting Services. (2010-2011 immediately effective January 2010)

An institution may subscribe to a recruiting or scouting service involving prospective student-athletes, provided the institution does not purchase more than one annual subscription to a particular service and the service: (Adopted: 1/1/02, Revised: 1/16/10)

(a) Is made available to all institutions desiring to subscribe and at the same fee rate for all subscribers;
(b) Publicly identifies all applicable rates;
(c) Disseminates information (e.g., reports, profiles) about prospective student-athletes at least four times per calendar year;
(d) Publicly identifies the geographical scope of the service (e.g., local, regional, national) and reflects broad-based coverage of the geographical area in the information it disseminates;
(e) Provides individual analysis beyond demographic information or rankings for each prospective student-athlete in the information it disseminates; (Revised: 4/13/10)
(f) Provides access to samples or previews of the information it disseminates before purchase of a subscription; and
(g) Provides video that is restricted to regularly scheduled (regular-season) high school, preparatory school or two-year college contests and for which the institution made no prior arrangements for recording. (Note: This provision is applicable only if the subscription includes video services.)

ICE Miller continues…“The provisions in the bylaw regarding new criteria were a great step toward reducing the types of abuses identified above. However, despite the inclusion of numerous factors that must be present in order for an institution to subscribe to an entity that describes itself as a recruiting or scouting service, it stops short of providing an actual definition of a recruiting or scouting service. Unfortunately, the absence of a definition has resulted in many companies that do not meet the criteria of the new bylaw, but do provide information regarding prospects to institutions on a subscription basis, to be deemed a recruiting or scouting service, even though they have no intent to provide recruiting information. The only thing the NCAA has published regarding whether a company should be considered a recruiting or scouting service has been archived. The archived interpretation basically says an entity would be considered a recruiting service if the entity (or a part of the entity) is primarily focused on providing information or evaluation about prospective student-athletes to college coaches. This interpretation is a bit vague and leaves room for interpretation by both the companies and the colleges coaches they work with and whether the NCAA criteria would apply.”

It is now clear that for the year we used Lyles there should not have been confusion as to which set of rules we were under, it was the 2010-2011 rules.

Observation #2

Since the 2010-2011 rules apply for the whole or part of recruiting period, then it’s pretty clear that Lyles services were lacking.

Referring to the list in observation #1…

13.14.3 Recruiting or Scouting Services. (2010-2011 effective 8.1.2010)

(a) it could be argued that the same service and information was available to any university. However, the oral nature of the delivery probably runs afoul of the intent of the language since it does not provide a consistent delivery of information.

(b) It appears the rates weren’t publicly identified until after the story broke, then a list was placed on the website.

(c) What is the definition of disseminates, reports, and profiles in the mind of the NCAA? I think they will tell you the intent was written reports and profiles either in hard copy or online similar to the “published” services in the 2009-2010 Manual. However, you could open up a grey area and make the case that phone conversations are a form of dissemination, and reports and profiles can be conveyed in that manner. The rules do not seem to spell out that you have to have written materials…but a FAQ sheet about recruiting services from 8.3.06 does clearly state that scouting services are not allowed to call coaches to discuss recruits. “coaches may only receive information from published services”. This FAQ sheet was posted by an eDuck member, but when I tried to find it on the NCAA website, I could not. It does not appear to be a part of the 2010-2011 manual. Could the coaches be expected to know this was the interpretation if the info was so hard to find? Shouldn’t have compliance made a phone call for an explanation?

(d) From what we can tell, the geographic boundaries were identified.

(e) We have not seen anything that provides analysis except the outdated report that was allegedly a last minute piece thrown together by Lyles.

(f) We have not seen a sample…for a while the packet of outdated material was speculated to be a sample, but that appears not to be the case if Lyles is correct.

(g) No video has been provided to the public eye, but both Lyles and UO have said they sent / received video of over 50 PSA’s.

Did the timeline of compliance rules, effective dates and durations trip the Ducks up, did they make Lyles believe he needed to produce and offer less than he actually did. Combine that with starting a new business and a new head coach and I could certainly see where things could get fuzzy. The rules are the rules though, but which set were we working under?

Observation #3

One of the largest issues is whether Lyles was considered a representative of the University.

The NCAA regulation about this is…

13.02.14 Representative of Athletics Interests.

A "representative of the institution's athletics interests" is an individual, independent agency, corporate entity (e.g., apparel or equipment manufacturer) or other organization who is known (or who should have been known) by a member of the institution's executive or athletics administration to: (Revised: 2/16/00)

(a) Have participated in or to be a member of an agency or organization promoting the institution's intercollegiate athletics program;

(b) Have made financial contributions to the athletics department or to an athletics booster organization of that institution;

(c) Be assisting or to have been requested (by the athletics department staff) to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes;

(d) Be assisting or to have assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student-athletes or their families; or

(e) Have been involved otherwise in promoting the institution's athletics program.

So far the answer seems to be clearly no in the case of a, b, d and not so clear on c and to a lesser degree e.

The issue with (c) seems to be twofold, organizing visits for recruits (yet not paying for them) and facilitating with eligibility or LOI issues.

If Lyles was exclusively providing these services for Oregon as a benefit (i.e. not providing it to the PSA regardless of chosen school) I could imagine it could be construed that he was working as our representative. It is clear however that Lyle’s never felt he was doing these things for the school as much as for the PSA to get into the school of their choice. His intentions seemed noble even if they crossed the line.

We know that he and the university both deny a quid pro quo arrangement of payment for “steering” services, and during the recruiting process for Lache in 2010 there was no employment of Lyles by the UO. There is no evidence that Lyles “steered” players to Oregon for $$$$.

But there doesn’t need to be an agreement between UO and Lyles to make the NCAA consider Lyles a booster. This is where the note cards scare me, because they could be innocent and damning at the same time. CK could have written them as a thank you for helping to get everyone’s schedule coordinated for the visit even though potentially UO didn’t ask for the service. In doing so, did he (Lyles) cross the line and therefore unwillingly become a booster?

We also know that both Cal and LSU paid for Lyle’s packages, and both were visited by one of Lyle’s arranged groups with Lyle’s himself. Therefore the service was not biased towards or exclusive to Oregon, or aimed at recruiting for Oregon…he was arranging trips for these kids to universities they were interested in. That doesn’t absolve him of being a booster though because in doing so he may be considered a booster of all three universities.

The FAQ from 8.3.06 states…

“It is not permissible for a recruiting / scouting service or employees of such services to act as intermediary between a prospect and an NCAA institution (e.g. assist in arranging recruiting contacts, relaying information other than personal information.”

This could be applicable towards the arranged trips or Lyle’s “concierge services” where he chauffeurs the coaches to schools to see kids and as I remember may have actually visited some families to introduce coaches. But again, is this information specifically in an FAQ (8.3.06) that does not seem to appear in the manual, and does not seem to be prohibited by bylaws in the manual.

Lastly, did he ever promote the university or the athletics program? I fail to see any evidence that he has promoted UO over any other university or in any overt way to sway a recruit.

This post has been edited 5 times, most recently by loudquack96 on 7/5/2011 at 7:37 PM
User avatar
spinseeker
Freshman
Posts: 1420
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:32 am
Location: Springfield
Contact:

Re: Lyles Timeline by Loudquack (247)

Post by spinseeker »

Good job. Nice write up.

I hope the note doesn't cause problems. It's just a basic courtesy that anyone tripping to Oregon would get. It's not like Chip asked him to set it up. Just acknowledged after the fact that he was glad they came. It's gOttawa help that he took all of them to two other schools first.
TualatinDuck
Senior
Posts: 2440
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:23 am
Location: Tualatin

Re: Lyles Timeline by Loudquack (247)

Post by TualatinDuck »

Spin, this is my sticking point. If this is truely about Oregon, I think the NCAA will "find" an issue. What I see though is that it seems more that this is about Lyles himself and how he ran his service. I dont know though it just feels like the Cal and LSU payments along with Trovon going to Auburn, Cassius (2010 commit, not sure Lyles real involvement with him but the photos exist) going to UCLA and Trevon Randle to LSU not only saves our bacon, but makes the focus on Lyles.

Thats 2 5* 1 4* and 1 3* to major division 1 schools. If they want to call Lyles a booster, they have to apply that to every University one of his kids went to. How can they justify busting only 1 school he sent a kid to? Just my opinion.
"And I can be the warrior for those who are frail and weak,
And I can be the compass for those that search and seek." ~Lem Absher
User avatar
pezsez1
All Pac-12
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 10:30 pm
Location: RIP CITY

Re: Lyles Timeline by Loudquack (247)

Post by pezsez1 »

Agreed, Tualitin.

I've said it all along... Lyles was not representing the UO's interests. He was representing his own. He ran a business. He was not a booster.

He may have also been representing the recruits' interests, but that's separate from representing the UO's interests. He helped students get to where they wanted to go. He did not help schools recruit student athletes.

It's maddening that the media can't connect these simple dots. The mere fact Oregon hired "The Cleaner" in March and still hasn't self-reported any violations speaks much louder than CK's refusal to comment on the situation.
Willie Taggart is a dick.
oregonpride
Two Star Recruit
Posts: 162
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:32 am

Re: Lyles Timeline by Loudquack (247)

Post by oregonpride »

Could it be that the media doesn't care to connect the dots but rather run with their agenda? That is the media we have in our country now. Facts are debatable and opinion is fact unfortunately.
User avatar
greenyellow
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 35678
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:54 pm
Location: Eugene, OR

Re: Lyles Timeline by Loudquack (247)

Post by greenyellow »

oregonpride wrote:Could it be that the media doesn't care to connect the dots but rather run with their agenda? That is the media we have in our country now. Facts are debatable and opinion is fact unfortunately.
Yep, that's why I have a hard time listening or reading news without being a bit skeptical of the writer's motives and/or biases.
Image
matty24
One Star Recruit
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Lyles Timeline by Loudquack (247)

Post by matty24 »

Destroyer- Thanks for the timeline I really needed it today. I have refused to listen to sports radio and watch espn just for the simple fact that I don't know all the facts and hearing speculation from the media outlets does not calm my nerves. I would Like tyo ask the question why everyone seems to now believe this Lyles character when he was interviewed by the NCAA then later aftre he realizes that we are making him look incompetent he tells a different story to Yahoo sports. I know this is not a court of law but wow which story do you believe. Anyway Thanks for the info. Keep the faith boys and GO DUCKS!!!
User avatar
MFRDuckFan
Senior
Posts: 4848
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:52 pm
Location: Medford

Re: Lyles Timeline by Loudquack (247)

Post by MFRDuckFan »

spinseeker wrote:Good job. Nice write up.

I hope the note doesn't cause problems. It's just a basic courtesy that anyone tripping to Oregon would get. It's not like Chip asked him to set it up. Just acknowledged after the fact that he was glad they came. It's gOttawa help that he took all of them to two other schools first.
The notes were written by the same person, so we're guessing an intern which helps Chip as he did NOT personally write it and therefore subjective content. Technically, the intern should have legally footnoted Chip's & Tom's names with their own name which confirms the named individual did not write the note, but since it's just a thank you note, the rules can be flexible unless you work for a law firm. I.E. Chip Kelly by John Doe.
User avatar
Quack_12
Four Star Recruit
Posts: 881
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:31 am
Location: Eugene, OR

Re: Lyles Timeline by Loudquack (247)

Post by Quack_12 »

WOW is all I gotta say my eyes kinda hurt now from being on the computer allll day and thats was a great great great write I thought A+. LIke dude said its good to hear this from what everyone has been saying and makes me feel a lil better. GO DUCKS hoping for the best.
hecknic
High School Drop Out
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:39 pm

Re: Lyles Timeline by Loudquack (247)

Post by hecknic »

Awesome timeline, hands down the best fact filled piece of writing I've seen. Does anyone know how schools are notified when an update to a bylaw is put into effect immediately? They are sitting on the 2009-2010 manual, expecting to be working off the 2010-2011 manual at the beginning of August 2010. And then out of the blue a change is immediately made. Wonder how that process works. I'm sure the NCAA has a wonderful system in place.

Also, any idea when they recieve the new manuals each year? A month before the effective date maybe? Beginning of calendar year?

I always enjoy reading fans comments, especially when they are as informed as this post (and this website for that matter). Thank you for some great insight.
Destroyer77
Five Star Recruit
Posts: 1030
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:49 pm

Re: Lyles Timeline by Loudquack (247)

Post by Destroyer77 »

All of the credit goes to poster Loudquack96. I cut and pasted his work from 247 with permission. I only wish I could research as well as he.
loudquack96
High School Drop Out
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 3:21 pm

Re: Lyles Timeline by Loudquack (247)

Post by loudquack96 »

Thanks 77, I decided to post the latest info in a new post. It clears some things up and adds info to the timeline.
Post Reply