If that comes down, and if Chip Kelly + staff misled recruits on the severity of what's going on as alleged might be the case by SB Nation Seattle back in March... do you think that the players they signed should have the opportunity to get out of their commitments without having to suffer through the normal transfer rules that would cost them a year of eligibility? Remember, with USC (where coaches and the university weren't even directly involved in the football violations it was punished for), players in the program were allowed to transfer without penalty. But it was limited to upperclassmen who would have to spend the rest of their college careers under a post-season ban. How far should things go with Oregon? From the article:Throughout the recruiting season it was well documented in interviews with recruits that the Oregon coaching staff was telling recruits they didn't think any significant sanctions would hit the program. Really? Those coaches knew that the NCAA was investigating Oregon for paying Willie Lyles - as well as a pair of other individuals - $25,000 for access to star recruit Lache Seastrunk. The school maintains that it was paying for Lyles' scouting service, which sent Oregon some useless info and old tapes. Also from the article: Call me overly skeptical but somehow the claim that Oregon's coaches thought they were getting off easy rings hollow. Or maybe it's the fact that Oregon's recently released "Proposed Findings of Violations" was dated Dec. 16, 2011, a full month and half before signing day. In this document, Oregon admits an improper relationship with the aforementioned scouting agency, that too many coaches were on the road recruiting, and that "The athletics department failed to adequately monitor the football program's use of recruiting or scouting services." This document is heavily redacted and remember: It's what Oregon's admitting to up front. This is their position of strength. And it was drafted in mid-December.