Lane Kiffin (HC Ole/Young Miss & Twitter Troll King)

[JCOSU86]

If you ever go, stay away from the boiled peanuts.

Stay away from the boiled peanuts?!!??!!??

DON'T MAKE ME HUNT YOU DOWN!!!!1111!!!

 

[Gatorubet]

I refused to admit that I mispoke at first, but now admit that in fact you SEC guys on this thread were not condoning violating recruiting rules, nor did post #117 have anything to do with SEC fans on this thread condoning violating recruiting rules.

Moving on, do you admit that this SEC practice is contrary to the SEC Code of Ethics? Along those lines, do you admit that the same is unethical?

I'm trying to see if you'll actually speak out against a clear violation of the SEC's Code of Ethics, rather than simply respond by saying, "The Big Ten does bad things too," which has been your usual response so far in this thread.

FIFY

 

[JCOSU86]

"Your honor, opposing counsel is clearly not answering the question"

So you admit that this SEC practice is contrary to the SEC Code of Ethics? Along those lines, do you admit that the same is unethical?

I'm trying to see if you'll actually speak out against a clear violation of the SEC's Code of Ethics, rather than simply respond by saying, "The Big Ten does bad things too," which has been your usual response so far in this thread.

 

[Wingate1217]

I'm trying to see if you'll actually speak out against a clear violation of the SEC's Code of Ethics, rather than simply respond by saying, "The Big Ten does bad things too," which has been your usual response so far in this thread.

SEC Code of Ethics? Sounds like an oxymoron.....

 

[buckeyesin07]

FIFY

You're not seeing the forest for the trees. By the way, nice job on ducking the question yet again--you may set a BP record for that in one thread by the time you're finished. So congrats. Repeat after me: it's ok, and doesn't make you any less of a fan, to actually admit that your conference regularly violates its own Code of Ethics.

 

[BigWoof31]

Urrbody needs to cool out in this thread.
Damn, at least wait till after the spring games to bring the hate!

 

[JCOSU86]

Woof: No hate here. Well, no more than normal

Let me ask you point-blank. Do you think that the over-signing of football recruits by SEC members violates their own Code of Ethics?

Simple question.

 

[Gatorubet]

You're not seeing the forest for the trees. By the way, nice job on ducking the question yet again--you may set a BP record for that in one thread by the time you're finished. So congrats. Repeat after me: it's ok, and doesn't make you any less of a fan, to actually admit that your conference regularly violates its own Code of Ethics.

Since you seem to lack the capacity to admit that you were wrong in saying that the SEC fans in this thread were condoning recruiting practices not condones by Big 10 fans, I will not respond to you.

Accusing me of ducking a question when you refuse to answer my earlier question is a hypocritical and a seeminly juvenile response.

 

[JCOSU86]

Since you seem to lack the capacity to admit that you were wrong in saying that the SEC fans in this thread were condoning recruiting practices not condones by Big 10 fans, I will not respond to you.

Accusing me of ducking a question when you refuse to answer my earlier question is a hypocritical and a seeminly juvenile response.

Since you refuse to condemn it, we are forced to believe that you tacitly condone it. Isn't it part of that "don't take no for an answer / aggressive recruiting" that was talked about earlier?
I don't know what is so hard about this. Is it by saying "no, I don't condone it" make the SEC seem unethical and "yes I condone it, but what can you do?" kind of proves our point?

 

[BigWoof31]

Woof: No hate here. Well, no more than normal

Let me ask you point-blank. Do you think that the over-signing of football recruits by SEC members violates their own Code of Ethics?

Simple question.

Yes! I think Nutt was batshit crazy before and he still is. If I was an Ole Miss Alum I'd be pissed. This makes the program a laughing stock, negates alot of the good feelings they had from an impressive Cotton Bowl Win and will hurt them in future recruiting classes.

 

[Roger Goodell]

Not accepting defeat is one thing...

Continuing to badger a kid and refusing to respect his repeated answers of no is over the line and where we do not see eye to eye, Gator.

Or is that inaccurate? Do you disagree with this approach of Meyer's?

 

[JCOSU86]

Yes! I think Nutt was batshit crazy before and he still is. If I was an Ole Miss Alum I'd be pissed. This makes the program a laughing stock, negates alot of the good feelings they had from an impressive Cotton Bowl Win and will hurt them in future recruiting classes.

Thanks. But I disagree with your conclusion. This has been happening for years and it hasn't hurt any of you yet.

 

[BigWoof31]

Thanks. But I disagree with your conclusion. This has been happening for years and it hasn't hurt any of you yet.

Let me add some more meat to that bone - our league gets alot of [censored] for the bowl season "S-E-C" chants and alot of people don't understand or think its silly that we have a kind of, collective success mentality. (please don't go there - i'm sure there are 10 other threads with pages of debate on the topic).

We need to be better at our collective brow beating. Kiffin got a slap on the wrist but we need to express our embarassment at what Ole Miss did.

 

[Gatorubet]

Woof: No hate here. Well, no more than normal

Let me ask you point-blank. Do you think that the over-signing of football recruits by SEC members violates their own Code of Ethics?

Simple question.

I disagree taht it is simple, but let me give it a go. I do not think in and of itself the fact that an average of three or four more kids per team are signed by the SEC than by your conference is in and of itself proof of violating the SEC Code of Ethics. We do have a greater rate of non-retention of athletes.

My gut reaction is that it is hard to see how signing 37 kids would not be a violation, since I have not heard of any reason for a class that size because of mass defections of players due to injury academics or players entering the draft, and that big a number seems to indicate you were going after a bunch of non-qualifiers. One big problem I have is I do not know what the exact definition of "over signing" is, unless it means you take more kids in your recruiting class (kids sending in a LOI) than are given scholarships to your institution.

By definition would it be a violation (assuming you were within the total allowed for one year) if all of the kids were signed and given schollies, but some underperforming upper classmen let go to make it work? I mean, it is my appreciation that all scholarships are a year to year deal, and not a four year ride. I understand that it is generally understood that it will be 4 years gig absent some player misconduct, academic problem or injury causing the kid to lose it, but I am not sure if booting Bubba no 1 for a faster Bubba #2 is a violation under the rules, but it would concern me morally if the kid is giving his best (and just not good enough) and is launched for a new recruit.

Problem is, you are asking if it is a violation of the oversign rules to oversign, and I do not know the definition of "oversign" under the Code
For example, that is like you asking me two years ago whether Urban contacting recruit X violated SEC Phone Contact Rules when Urban sent a text message without giving me the definition of "phone contact" under those non-contact rules.

I'm not being purposely evasive, I just don't know what the applications are of the rather broad statements used in the Code of Ethics. The applications are usually figured out by decisons issued after a violation is alleged, sort of like case law defining the meaning of a statute.

 

[Dryden]

I disagree taht it is simple, but let me give it a go. I do not think in and of itself the fact that an average of three or four more kids per team are signed by the SEC than by your conference is in and of itself proof of violating the SEC Code of Ethics. We do have a greater rate of non-retention of athletes.

My gut reaction is that it is hard to see how signing 37 kids would not be a violation, since I have not heard of any reason for a class that size because of mass defections of players due to injury academics or players entering the draft, and that big a number seems to indicate you were going after a bunch of non-qualifiers. One big problem I have is I do not know what the exact definition of "over signing" is, unless it means you take more kids in your recruiting class (kids sending in a LOI) than are given scholarships to your institution.

By definition would it be a violation (assuming you were within the total allowed for one year) if all of the kids were signed and given schollies, but some underperforming upper classmen let go to make it work? I mean, it is my appreciation that all scholarships are a year to year deal, and not a four year ride. I understand that it is generally understood that it will be 4 years gig absent some player misconduct, academic problem or injury causing the kid to lose it, but I am not sure if booting Bubba no 1 for a faster Bubba #2 is a violation under the rules, but it would concern me morally if the kid is giving his best (and just not good enough) and is launched for a new recruit.

Problem is, you are asking if it is a violation of the oversign rules to oversign, and I do not know the definition of "oversign" under the Code
For example, that is like you asking me two years ago whether Urban contacting recruit X violated SEC Phone Contact Rules when Urban sent a text message without giving me the definition of "phone contact" under those non-contact rules.

I'm not being purposely evasive, I just don't know what the applications are of the rather broad statements used in the Code of Ethics. The applications are usually figured out by decisons issued after a violation is alleged, sort of like case law defining the meaning of a statute.

Leave it to the lawyers to write a five paragraph response for "I don't know." :tongue2: