[Canard]

[quote author=Canard link=topic=8755.msg73648#msg73648 date=1383753679]
You don't really mean this do you?

Richie Incognito is not a product of the Oregon football program. He was in Eugene less than a week, interviewed, vetted, and disinvited. Apparently, that boot doesn't send a message of its own?

Belloti was into so-called "reclamation projects."  Kelly wasn't and Helfrich is not. Everyone signed by those two have qualified for school and cleared the NCAA clearinghouse. No gray shirts and only a smattering of JC players have been signed too. Your "win at all costs" meme doesn't fit Oregon nearly as well as it does a lot other places you could have chosen.

Just because a player doesn't go to Stanford does it make it the case that he is some sort of thug. Are you suggesting that players like Mariota, Huff, DAT, IEO, are as yet undetected criminals, bullies, or bad teammates simply because they went to Oregon?

Your point, if there was one, is off target this week. We are not the thugs you think we are.

Why so defensive?  It is as much a fact that my post didn't say Incognito was product of Oregon as much as one that Icognito was welcomed into the Oregon program at some point.  Nothing was said about any Oregon football player being a criminal, bully, or bad teammate, was there?  So why this sanctimony?

It isn't possible to argue Oregon values academics and good citizen behavior in its football players more than winning football games.  And it isn't possible to argue Stanford will make similar compromises. 

Oregon certainly has its share of role-model student athletes like Marcus Mariota.  That doesn't change the fact Oregon, and most of Stanford's peers have embraced thug players in the name of winning football games.  It also doesn't change the fact that there is an anti-intellectual bias in the football culture that Stanford has an opportunity to significantly chip away at as past its time in the wake of the Martin/Incognito incident, by beating Oregon tomorrow.
[/quote]

Forgive me for thinking that since you linked Incognito to his briefest collegiate connection that you meant something by that association.

"It isn't possible. . .?" Those are bold and unsubstantiated claims. If you were paying attention, a much tighter ship has been run since Belloti was in charge. LaGarette Blount served a 10 game suspension. Masoli was kicked off the team. Cliff Harris was kicked off the team. How can such actions be construed as winning counting for more than citizenship does?

If Oregon over signed players, forced medical hardship retirements, and otherwise ran players off for perceived non-performance, I'd readily agree that we are a win at all costs program. However, we are not. Compared with many SEC and Big XIi programs, we're minor saints.

And it is entirely possible to argue the case that Stanford has compromised its own academic standards to win. It can hardly be realistic that the football players possess academic profiles that neatly track those of the general undergraduate population. I remember reading at several sources that Harbaugh petitioned the admissions office for a relaxation of standards compared to where they were in the decidedly not winning Teevins/Harris years.

I realize that you guys cherish the myth that you haven't compromised, but you have done so relative to the Ivies and the University of Chicago, institutions that look rather unstinting on standards about sports by comparison.

Yes, you can be snooty about rather average Oregon, but if you weren't compromising yourselves, you'd be the Duke Football of this coast.

[Canard]

[quote author=Canard link=topic=8755.msg73648#msg73648 date=1383753679]
You don't really mean this do you?

Richie Incognito is not a product of the Oregon football program. He was in Eugene less than a week, interviewed, vetted, and disinvited. Apparently, that boot doesn't send a message of its own?

Belloti was into so-called "reclamation projects."  Kelly wasn't and Helfrich is not. Everyone signed by those two have qualified for school and cleared the NCAA clearinghouse. No gray shirts and only a smattering of JC players have been signed too. Your "win at all costs" meme doesn't fit Oregon nearly as well as it does a lot other places you could have chosen.

Just because a player doesn't go to Stanford does it make it the case that he is some sort of thug. Are you suggesting that players like Mariota, Huff, DAT, IEO, are as yet undetected criminals, bullies, or bad teammates simply because they went to Oregon?

Your point, if there was one, is off target this week. We are not the thugs you think we are.

Why so defensive?  It is as much a fact that my post didn't say Incognito was product of Oregon as much as one that Icognito was welcomed into the Oregon program at some point.  Nothing was said about any Oregon football player being a criminal, bully, or bad teammate, was there?  So why this sanctimony?

It isn't possible to argue Oregon values academics and good citizen behavior in its football players more than winning football games.  And it isn't possible to argue Stanford will make similar compromises. 

Oregon certainly has its share of role-model student athletes like Marcus Mariota.  That doesn't change the fact Oregon, and most of Stanford's peers have embraced thug players in the name of winning football games.  It also doesn't change the fact that there is an anti-intellectual bias in the football culture that Stanford has an opportunity to significantly chip away at as past its time in the wake of the Martin/Incognito incident, by beating Oregon tomorrow.
[/quote]

Forgive me for thinking that since you linked Incognito to his briefest collegiate connection that you meant something by that association.

"It isn't possible. . .?" Those are bold and unsubstantiated claims. If you were paying attention, a much tighter ship has been run since Belloti was in charge. LaGarette Blount served a 10 game suspension. Masoli was kicked off the team. Cliff Harris was kicked off the team. How can such actions be construed as winning counting for more than citizenship does?

If Oregon over signed players, forced medical hardship retirements, and otherwise ran players off for perceived non-performance, I'd readily agree that we are a win at all costs program. However, we are not. Compared with many SEC and Big XIi programs, we're minor saints.

And it is entirely possible to argue the case that Stanford has compromised its own academic standards to win. It can hardly be realistic that the football players possess academic profiles that neatly track those of the general undergraduate population. I remember reading at several sources that Harbaugh petitioned the admissions office for a relaxation of standards compared to where they were in the decidedly not winning Teevins/Harris years.

I realize that you guys cherish the myth that you haven't compromised, but you have done so relative to the Ivies and the University of Chicago, institutions that look rather unstinting on standards about sports by comparison.

Yes, you can be snooty about rather average Oregon, but if you weren't compromising yourselves, you'd be the Duke Football of this coast.