[DucksAreRoostingInTheTree]

[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]

An interesting argument but I don't think it'll hold water to many people outside the Farm. If Stanford beats Oregon it won't be viewed as anything more than 1 good college football team beating another good team, and vice versa if Oregon beats Stanford. There is no intellectual battle to be won here and no one will associate a win by Stanford with some kind of moral victory involving intellectuals over thugs as it pertains to the NFL, since Incognito has zilch to do with Oregon. More likely they'll associate it with another errant field goal by Maldonado and Stanford's solid defense.

I agree that it probably can't be argued that the Oregon football program values academics over results on the field, but I believe there is merit in arguing that it values good citizenship and character above said results. Take for instance the case of Colt Lyerla. Does anyone really think he 'voluntarily' left the Oregon program? He was a coke snorter, the team found out, and most likely he got the boot while being allowed to frame it as his own personal decision. Also there is Cliff Harris, who was dismissed from the team for bad behavior. Both of these players were NFL talent that squandered their futures with stupid behavior.  Both were dismissed from Oregon despite the talent they left on the table.

[DucksAreRoostingInTheTree]

[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]

An interesting argument but I don't think it'll hold water to many people outside the Farm. If Stanford beats Oregon it won't be viewed as anything more than 1 good college football team beating another good team, and vice versa if Oregon beats Stanford. There is no intellectual battle to be won here and no one will associate a win by Stanford with some kind of moral victory involving intellectuals over thugs as it pertains to the NFL, since Incognito has zilch to do with Oregon. More likely they'll associate it with another errant field goal by Maldonado and Stanford's solid defense.

I agree that it probably can't be argued that the Oregon football program values academics over results on the field, but I believe there is merit in arguing that it values good citizenship and character above said results. Take for instance the case of Colt Lyerla. Does anyone really think he 'voluntarily' left the Oregon program? He was a coke snorter, the team found out, and most likely he got the boot while being allowed to frame it as his own personal decision. Also there is Cliff Harris, who was dismissed from the team for bad behavior. Both of these players were NFL talent that squandered their futures with stupid behavior.  Both were dismissed from Oregon despite the talent they left on the table.