I'm grasping?? You picked out the only portion of the OP that fit your agenda and tried to use it to define the intention of the thread. Not to mention, Lasalle only included the bit that you used to explain what the OTL was about...not as a defining topic of his thread. Now get your thread going...I'm sure it'll be riveted with facts.
Well who tha phuck picks out the part that weakens an argument? That's like criticizing politicians for giving their friends jobs...expect them to give 'em to enemies? I was way more in line with the topic than you posting sexual battery shyt in a thread for TJ so I really have no clue how you choose to define the topic to be confined to any particular part of the opening post- that's really funny. You say I picked a "part" yet use your picking another "part" to say my "part" wasn't the "part" but that's kewl cause this is where I "part".
Yeah, that was typical clevah Tiga in that other thread. You could see that I was responding to an FSU troll, in the most non combative way possible. But naw, you need to find an example...however weak it is...to 'strengthen' your argument. And like I said, Lasalle's mention of the OTL topic was filler. The intention of his thread/his OP are clear. If you try to 'strengthen' your argument with filler, good luck. Basically this thread has gone from one extreme to LSU-SIU, back to the other (intended) extreme, to LSU-SIU again...I mean Tiga.
:shock: You crossing threads now? Better than injecting posts from other threads in different forums, no? Jeez, quit crying you're making me feel bad.
Uh, YOU did that. Don't know what you're talking about... Not crying. Just tiring of the intentional chit stirring without any true substance, and with a total disregard for the facts presented. Your MO is clear.
I posted links to support my statements, not sure how you missed 'em. My stance on oversigning is as I've expressed. Just cause you don't agree with my feelings about oversigning and/or specific situations doesn't make them shyt stirring, don't confuse the two. And if personal attacks help bolster your popularity here, I'm glad to contribute.
I'm not, and as I've stated, if you'd start a thread about oversigning, you'd probably find a LOT agree with you, or at least can understand the argument. But the "facts" you have listed here don't prove anything to do with THIS situation. The rules were changed after NSD, period. Had that not been the case, even with the Zach Lee situation we would've had room for Porter and Fordham. But you won't acknowledge those facts. Instead, you isolate a descriptive half sentence of the OP, that was descriptive to the OTL episode, not this thread, to 'strengthen' your argument...when the entire OP was about the hatchet job by ESPN, where they too refused to acknowledge facts readily available before following thru on their LSU/Les Miles smear campaign. THAT, ma friend, is what I take offense to. That tells me you will argue with a fencepost about what color the sky is, regardless of the hue du jour. You've pointed out that there are loopholes, and you're right. However, that doesn't make it anything but legal. It's the NCAA that needs to step up THEIR game. The OTL should've been throwing mud at THEM. Instead, they chose to pick one decent example, Porter, and use only half the facts. Then they chose to pick a terrible example, Garrett, without bothering to do any research on his claims, or even mention that his fat arse was way outta shape, and his scholly is conditional on him contributing to the football team. Like I said, it'd be one thing if schollies were for four years, period, but they're not. Neither are academic schollies, but I've yet to hear anyone bitch about that when a kid skips class all semester, flunks, and gets his scholly yanked. Gotta live up to their end of the deal, and Garrett clearly didn't. If you wanna have this discussion, in THIS thread, why haven't you been willing to discuss THESE points? The answer is because they destroy your 'argument'. So you sidestep them. Every point you've made has been addressed, such as the SEC rule and the NCAA rules that are now in place. Why won't you address these points?
I entered this when it was said scholarships were renewed annually and said Porter's wasn't. I'll stand on that. Why wouldn't you acknowledge what you said was wrong. His was pulled before the "annual renewal". No they're for ONE year but his wasn't allowed for that period, my whole contention. I can understand Garrett's more and why I haven't raised issue with his- make sense? And I thought I did address the SEC rule. It was in place when Porter signed -and Miles did oversign. Even with the loophole he couldn't work it cause he facked up. And academic scholarships are not the same- much clearer and measurable criteria to revoke without subjective opinions.
Because I believe he was asked to postpone his, after a change in a rule...AFTER NSD. Yes. But again, this thread is about ESPN's smear campaign against LSU/Miles, which was almost 100% pertaining to GARRETT. That's why I think a thread about oversigning would be a great idea. But this is (was, still is IMO) a thread discussing the smear job by ESPN. SI has also been introduced into the thread, because it's on topic. Only because the rule changed after NSD! The SEC rule was explained away by BHelm. He posted it, I already quoted it once. Are you telling me athletic schollies don't have criteria for the athlete to adhere to? I just think the NCAA shouldn't go around changing rules after NSD, that will GREATLY NEGATIVELY IMPACT that particular class. If they wanna change the rules, fine...probably necessary. But don't do it at a time when a school was perfectly within the confines of the rule at NSD, and is now forced to take action that will negatively affect the signees. You do understand someone had to be the one (more than one) to take the grayshirt or leave, I know. It's unfortunate that it had to be that way, but in relation to the topic, ESPN and SI should enter all the facts about the situation in their shows/articles, instead of intentionally smearing a program/coach...especially when that program/coach isn't NEARLY the most agregious offenders of this newly instituted rule. I said earlier in the thread, if LSU was the only big name school doing this, I might understand them singling out LSU. But Alabama, Auburn, Arky, all worse offenders of the rule. Why not Bama/Saban? Auburn/Chizic-Tubby? Arky/Petrino and Nutt? And for that matter, why not Nutt at OM where he signed thirty friggin seven?? I've also mentioned money in this thread. These coaches/programs are gonna do whatever it takes, hopefully within the confines of the rules. But they are gonna skirt the rules...because of the money involved. Like it or not, that's life. At NSD last year, Miles/LSU were within the rules. Period. The rules then changed, and THAT'S where this all went awry. And that doesn't count Garrett, who was the feature of the OTL episode in question. Even you come close to admitting you can understand the Garrett thing. THAT'S the main thrust of the whole ESPN OTL crap. They interviewed Garrett. Had they interviewed Porter, it would be a different thing. But Porter wouldn't have had much bad to say, so they wouldn't have much of a show there. That, too, is all about the money. Ratings. But it's also agregiously devoid of some important facts that tell the whole story. Thus, the thread title and original intent of the thread.
