- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Chavis deceptive departure to Texas A&M "screams NCAA rules violation"
Posted on 3/3/15 at 9:08 am
Posted on 3/3/15 at 9:08 am
quote:
He's trying to twist the calendar every way possible. First, he turned in his LSU resignation on Jan. 5 and his lawsuit against LSU claims his last day on the LSU payroll was Feb. 4.
Those dates give Chavis the required 30-day notice from LSU so he or Texas A&M don't have to pay the buyout. By not being off the LSU payroll until after Jan. 31, it would also prevent him or the Aggies from paying the buyout.
Yet, there are pictures of Chavis wearing Texas A&M gear while recruiting that hit the Internet Jan. 15 and Jan. 23. In the Jan. 23 photo, Chavis, dressed in a Texas A&M coaching pullover, is giving the camera two "thumbs up" while flanking Northeast Oklahoma Jr. College cornerback Justin Martin
"Chavis story has more holes than his 3rd down defense"
This post was edited on 3/4/15 at 8:33 am
Posted on 3/3/15 at 9:11 am to TigerintheNO
An issue which is not lost on LSU's legal team per reports they have asked Texas A&M to decide which way it wants to go: pay the buyout or be turned in for NCAA violations.
Posted on 3/3/15 at 9:12 am to therick711
[link=(pay the buyout or be turned in for NCAA violations.
)]LINK[/link]
)]LINK[/link]
This post was edited on 3/3/15 at 9:18 am
Posted on 3/3/15 at 9:22 am to SammyTiger
LSU will receive ZERO assistance from the corrupt SEC HQ. In fact I'm quite certain they'll make every attempt to pursue whatever outcome is worse for LSU.
Posted on 3/3/15 at 9:23 am to Earn Your Keep
quote:
LSU will receive ZERO assistance from the corrupt SEC HQ. In fact I'm quite certain they'll make every attempt to pursue whatever outcome is worse for LSU.
Good thing we are doing this in the courts.
Posted on 3/3/15 at 9:23 am to SammyTiger
Put Chavis and A&M on the spot. They have 2 choices: 1. Admit that he was employed by A&M in January and pay LSU $400,000.00 , or 2. Admit that he was employed by LSU until Feb and be guilty of recruiting violations. Which would you choose? As part of the lawsuit, LSU's lawyers could send them discovery documents forcing them to answer these questions within 15 days. The answers would be interesting.
Posted on 3/3/15 at 9:24 am to therick711
quote:
they have asked Texas A&M to decide which way it wants to go: pay the buyout or be turned in for NCAA violations
I wish he had gone to Bama.
Posted on 3/3/15 at 9:41 am to therick711
quote:
An issue which is not lost on LSU's legal team per reports they have asked Texas A&M to decide which way it wants to go: pay the buyout or be turned in for NCAA violations.
We shouldn't even give them the choice. We should decide which option WE want and then pursue that one. I vote for sanctions.
Posted on 3/3/15 at 9:45 am to Earn Your Keep
Raise your hand if you think Coach O wasn't recruiting for us before he was officially hired
Posted on 3/3/15 at 9:46 am to kstev21
quote:
Raise your hand if you think Coach O wasn't recruiting for us before he was officially hired
There's a difference between not being employed by the school you're recruiting for and being employed by a rival of the school you're recruiting for.
Posted on 3/3/15 at 9:48 am to white_mj
quote:
Im not a law student or anything,
believe me, that is a good thing. dey stupid
Posted on 3/3/15 at 9:53 am to kstev21
quote:
Raise your hand if you think Coach O wasn't recruiting for us before he was officially hired
May be splitting hairs some but there seems to be a difference between a currently engaged college coach and one who is not employed and seemingly free to engage in maintaining personal relationships built up in prior positions. Freedom of association would seem to be the most compelling argument.
Posted on 3/3/15 at 10:01 am to kstev21
quote:
Raise your hand if you think Coach O wasn't recruiting for us before he was officially hired
Coach O wasn't employed by any school at the time and he was free to talk to whoever he wanted to talk to. Nothing wrong with continuing to keep your ties to certain places strong knowing that you'll eventually be back in the thick of recruiting those areas. He most likely just told certain people he was going to end up at LSU. Unlike Chavis, who worked for LSU and was recruiting for another school in the process. Not only is that a violation, it's a bullshite, underhanded move by that fat piece of shite. LSU more than compensated that cupcake eating bastard while he was here by making him the highest paid assistant in the NCAA until Muschamp got paid more. Then his little tears went to flying when we wouldn't match that and he tried to screw over the school by flipping kids to A&M before he was actually working for them. So, frick that guy and I hope A&M gets pissed for him dragging them into this situation with potential recruiting violation and fires his fat arse.
Posted on 3/3/15 at 10:02 am to MountainTiger
Could get interesting. The argument here is who he was employed by not if he was employed. Although he was out recruiting for A&M if his argument is correct that he was still technically an employee of LSU does the rule forbid him from recruiting for a team he's not employed by. I know that would not be the intention of the rule but it might be a loophole to avoid a violation.
Posted on 3/3/15 at 10:05 am to tigersbb
quote:
tigersbb
quote:
May be splitting hairs some but there seems to be a difference between a currently engaged college coach and one who is not employed and seemingly free to engage in maintaining personal relationships built up in prior positions. Freedom of association would seem to be the most compelling argument.
TAMU recruits are on record in print as saying he identified himself as TAMU's coach. I think it's also apparent than a notice of intent to resign a position is not, "I'm not working here anymore but my last day isn't for a few weeks so please let me do whatever the heck I want and get paid till then," notice.
Appearing with TAMU Coaches on recruiting visits in TAMU gear while trying to say he was still within his notice period gives you two options:
1.) You're either lying about your notice period and you quit earlier than that, in which you have no case.
2.) You did still consider yourself an LSU Coach and you breached your contract by actively harming LSU while recruiting season was still ongoing, in which you have no case in your suit and will be responsible for damages, nevermind being turned in for violations.
Posted on 3/3/15 at 10:05 am to kstev21
quote:
Raise your hand if you think Coach O wasn't recruiting for us before he was officially hired
Where do you people go to school such that they have not yet disabused you of the fallacy of "using purported or assumed bad behavior to justify other bad behavior"?
Posted on 3/3/15 at 10:07 am to kstev21
quote:
kstev21
quote:
Raise your hand if you think Coach O wasn't recruiting for us before he was officially hired
Did Orgeron take pictures in LSU gear with potential USC targets and/or identify himself in any way to any potential student athletes as a coach at LSU?
Or did he go out of his way in print and radio to indicate he did not have a job and was not a coach at LSU and did not represent them in any way?
Chavis was a current coach. Orgeron was not a current, active coach. The two situation are completely non analogous.
Posted on 3/3/15 at 10:17 am to TigerintheNO
Dear LSU:
Let it go.
Regards,
The Un-butthurt
Let it go.
Regards,
The Un-butthurt
Posted on 3/3/15 at 10:21 am to CoachDon
quote:
CoachDon
Mix in a spacebar, Coarch.
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News