this thread has the potential to turn into one of the great all time klanhorn blimpelations.

quote:

---

Explain his influence that lead to boxes, and boxes, and boxes of correspondence with the NCAA after his time as infractions chair.

---

You haven't a clue how the NCAA is organized and operates do you? Every council and committee is made up of representatives from the member schools. For example, Guy Bailey is on the Board of Directors. But of course he would never generate any correspondence, work papers, or any materials dealing with his work on that committee. Scott Lazenby from A&M Corpus Christi serves on the Progress Towards Degree Waivers committee. No paperwork, correspondence, follow-ups with those responsibilities, right? Of course not! And if he did it must be violations stuff on other Southland Conference members, right? That Wright might generate materials and workpapers while serving on other committes and councils isn't really out the question except to the conspiracy theorist.

Do you understand what a conspiracy theory is?

I don't think you do.

As I said on another thread yesterday I have no doubt cheating goes on everywhere. Yes...that includes UT. But the assertion that Wright's writings are included in Infractions Committee reports thru the mid-90's are factually incorrect.

[This message has been edited by texasfight68 (edited 6/9/2011 2:07p).]

Have you looked at any of these cases in the 90's that have repeatedly been posted to make sure? Or are you just continuing to deflect? I mean specific cases are being referenced, this isn't a non-specific, unprovable assertion being made here.

bonfire posts factual evidence. texasfight responds with hypotheticals.

quote:

---

this isn't a non-specific, unprovable assertion being made here.

---

Excellent point, Frankie. The individual making the assertion that Wright's writings are on Committee of Infractions reports in the mid-90's should do a little cut and paste. If that can be done then I'll gladly accept the premise that a dozen years after no longer serving on the Committee on Infractions that Charles Alan Wright was able to Jedi mind trick the 10 members of that committee into doing what he wanted.

He's given you the cases. Since you're the one claiming what he says is untrue how about you get off your boyfriend's ass and look 'em up?

quote:

---

Do you understand what a conspiracy theory is?

I don't think you do.

---

Indeed a failing on my part.

One of many, unfortunately.

You know my wife?

quote:

---

The individual making the assertion that Wright's writings are on Committee of Infractions reports in the mid-90's should do a little cut and paste.

---

He did you unbelievable ****ing dunce.

GOD DAMMIT!!!! I ****ING LOVE when stupid ass fans come on here and keep deflecting! MAKES MY ****ING DAY!!!! WOOOOOOOOO!!!! I've got a ****ing chubby!

rrj2012 - I'll make a little wager with you. If you can cut and paste something from a Committee on Infractions report that was written by Wright, released after Wright left the committee, and has previously been posted in this thread I'll donate $500 to The Mercy Project. I know how to contact Chris Field because I donated $350 bucks during jorts flag football event. Deal?

Hey, everybody look. He donates to good causes.

The OP showed that Wright was involved in the Administrative Review Panel which was created in 1993 to grant waivers. It was also created as an appellate court (For lack of a better term) for the infractions committee. Does not satisfy the terms of your wager, but he was still reviewing cases from the committee on Infractions

I'll take your response then as a "yes" and you must comply with all 3 conditions in order for me to pay up.

I conceded that what you are specifically asking for is not in this thread, but may be in the link the OP provided, however, you cannot deny that he was still involved with Infractions Committee if he was in their "appellate court"

This reads from the 512 playbook: Try to deflect the discussion into some meaningless side discussion away from anything anti-whorn. If that doesn't work try to put qualifiers on what is required before anything can be trusted or considered correct. If/when the OP complies with those qualifiers, move the goalposts and resent the qualifiers. Then deflect some more. Repeat.

quote:

---

You can't be serious.


"Well, it's not TECHNICALLY run by the UT staff, it's just showcasing all things longhorn athletics and had to be licensed by the UT Staff and they are instrumental in producing the content they need for programming"

---

Whatever your personal opinion of what should and shouldn't be allowed the rule does not prohibit networks that showcase a team from covering high school athletics or athletes. The network is being staffed by ESPN employees. And even if UT staff were working directly on the network it wouldn't be a violation of the rule you sited unless they were involved arranging the appearance by the high school athlete. The only other stipulation is that no coaches are on that particular program. The LHN can easily cover high school sports without violating this rule. It doesn't matter if you think that is a loophole.

quote:

---

Whatever your personal opinion of what should and shouldn't be allowed the rule does not prohibit networks that showcase a team from covering high school athletics or athletes. The network is being staffed by ESPN employees. And even if UT staff were working directly on the network it wouldn't be a violation of the rule you sited unless they were involved arranging the appearance by the high school athlete. The only other stipulation is that no coaches are on that particular program. The LHN can easily cover high school sports without violating this rule. It doesn't matter if you think that is a loophole.

---

Translation: Hey, its not our fault the rules are written so loosely. I understand the spirit of the rule is to promote a level playing field for all schools, but hey, "We're Texas"

Who cares?

The network is just going to cause more people to hate them, and it sure as hell won't help them win on the field.


[This message has been edited by The Blue Gatorade Effect (edited 6/9/2011 3:54p).]

quote:

---

Whatever your personal opinion of what should and shouldn't be allowed the rule does not prohibit networks that showcase a team from covering high school athletics or athletes

---

Which could not be further from the original topic of the thread.

quote:

---

Translation: Hey, its not our fault the rules are written so loosely. I understand the spirit of the rule is to promote a level playing field for all schools, but hey, "We're Texas"

---

The rule exists to keep the universities from direct contact with high school students. ESPN staff producing a show on high school basketball that then runs on the LHN does not give the UT staff any extra contact with recruits.

quote:

---

Who cares?

The network is just going to cause more people to hate them, and it sure as hell won't help them win on the field.

---

It's going to cause more people to follow in our footsteps. If you think your administration, and any other one that can, isn't trying to find some version of their own network you're kidding yourself. Why do you think A&M isn't pushing this unfairness issue?

quote:

---

quote:
Whatever your personal opinion of what should and shouldn't be allowed the rule does not prohibit networks that showcase a team from covering high school athletics or athletes

Which could not be further from the original topic of the thread.

---

I can't speak to the OP but the issue with the LHN was brought up by an Aggie. I was simply responding.

do a little research before responding next time
midnight

quote:

---

The rule exists to keep the universities from direct contact with high school students. ESPN staff producing a show on high school basketball that then runs on the LHN does not give the UT staff any extra contact with recruits.

---

If tu obtains economic benefit as a result of the performance of a 3rd party then either a) they're an agent on behalf of those 3rd parties or b) they're making money off amateur athletes, which, in effect, makes them no better than the Willie Lyles' of the world. I guess if that makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside then good for you. Sounds like you boys belong in the SEC a lot more than your uppety aces would like to believe.

Just ready MB's first post and it makes it clear as day. t.u. will be hated by the general public just like lawyers are.

This thread made my day blue star for bonfire 1996

Forgot the star

quote:

---

do a little research before responding next time
midnight

---

On what?! The person I was responding to posted a pretty specific rule and then tried to claim the that stated intent of the LHN to cover some high school sports violates it. In fact it does not.

quote:

---

If tu obtains economic benefit as a result of the performance of a 3rd party then either a) they're an agent on behalf of those 3rd parties or b) they're making money off amateur athletes, which, in effect, makes them no better than the Willie Lyles' of the world.

---

Hey mensa, both our universities are making money off of amateur athletes. And UT’s financial benefit is a result of the coverage, not the particular performance, of any high school team. By your reasoning anyone that makes money from a network covering any event is an agent of anyone else involved that event. That’s ridiculous.

What's Dr. Bryant, Cleve's wife, up to these days since her self-imposed leave of absence from Mack's staff (NOT his payroll)?

She doing "life skills" consulting?

Oh, sorry. The horn deflection injection got me inspired to emulate.

Clinton, Weiner and Cleve...huntin' the beave.

In a thread about Charles Wright and his influence over NCAA infractions, it doesn't surprised me that sips are trying to blimp to whether the bevo network is a violation, the organizational setup of the NCAA, or any other possible topic. Typical.

Frankie, Moe actually said that this new sip network is just another example of sips thumbing their noses at the NCAA, then I cited the specific rule that it violates, and sips have been abusing semantics and loopholes to try and convince themselves that putting recruits on tv on the longhorn network can't somehow influence recruiting and violate NCAA recruiting rules and tv rules.

Yes, they've taken something off topic or tangentially related and focused on arguing against that to deflect from the original topic.

As I understand the original post, he is suggesting not that the other schools such as A&M, SMU, TCU and OU were not cheating but that they and Texas were and Wright saw to it that only they were punished and Texas got off scot free to pursue its dreams.

The entries cited indicate that Wright's contributions to the NCAA began in 1973 and ended in 1999.

So let us see what kind of competitive advantage this hanky panky gave the Horns.

In 1969 and 1970 they won national championships. The wheels started falling off a few years later (about the time Wright got in tight with the NCAA infractions folks) and by 1976 the beloved coach Royal was winning six games a season and was replaced by Fred Akers, who had a few good seasons and lots of mediocre ones and got moved out for David McWilliams, who got the team to one Cotton Bowl, where they took the worst whipping in the school's bowl history that I can recall. It sure was painful to watch Miami run over them. McWilliams gets the bump upstairs and John Mackovic comes in and fields mediocre teams, including one that lost to Rice.

In 1999 or thereabouts, the same time Wright is leaving the NCAA and shredding UT of all its protection, Mack Brown gets hired and things pick up, culminating in a national championship in 2005.

So the Horns won national championships before and after Wright helped them rig the game but were mediocre or worse while he was working his magic--------and while SMU and OU and A&M were running legendarily dishonest programs.

Glad you cleared that up.