KU released info about FBI Subpeonas
-
Ok Mayjay --so your the attorney - tell me it’s going to be ok with Silvio - - -ROCK CHALK ALL DAY LONG BABY
-
@jayballer73 Bill says don’t worry, so I won’t worry. When Bill says to worry, I’ll worry.
-
@jayballer73 You have had enough to deal with lately. So it has to work out okay!
@JayHawkFanToo Organizations are bound in their internal adjudications by their promulgated rules and policies. If they follow their own rules fairly, they can do what they want. If they change the rules with new policies properly adopted under their procedures (notice, etc), their membership has no claim to use prior discarded precedent.
Of course, precedent means squat in real courts, too. No law requires the Supremes to adhere to stare decisis.
-
@dylans For entertainment purposes only -
Kansas basketball coach Bill Self says he is “optimistic” that freshman forward Billy Preston will be able to play in games for KU during the upcoming Big 12 season.
Self said he is “very optimistic” Embiid can return to practice next week.
“But the one most pleasant surprises we’ve had so far has been Carlton Bragg”, Self said. “I feel confident that we have enough punch up front, but we just won’t be very big if we don’t have Cheick."
-
dylans said:
@jayballer73 Bill says don’t worry, so I won’t worry. When Bill says to worry, I’ll worry.
Good enough for me lol - -maybe can relax a little hopefully lol
-
@mayjay Ya been a rough stretch time for some good news - -thanks lol. - -ROCK CHALK ALL DAY LONG BABY
-
mayjay said:
Of course, precedent means squat in real courts, too. No law requires the Supremes to adhere to stare decisis.
Since they SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter of what is or isn’t kosher, they can change their minds and by extension precedent as they see fit, provided a case comes before them that allows them to do so. As I understand judges tend to follow stare decisis or risk having their rulings overridden by an appeals court…or so my lawyer friends tell me.
I have seen several cases when student athletes were unaware that an agent was involved or acting on their behalf and they were not suspended or lost eligibility. Can you provide some information that the NCAA has changed the rules for situation like that of Cam Newton.
-
@JayHawkFanToo I think it’s been mentioned several times
-
JayHawkFanToo said:
One thing we are overlooking is that Silvio did not want to go to Maryland, was not (allegedly) aware of what was going on and true to form he ended up at KU which was his preference all along. So, the apparent conspiracy would involve that University, Adidas and Silvio’s guardian. The Cam Newton case set the precedent that if the athlete was not aware of what was going on he cannot be held liable.
——————
What makes you think anyone is overlooking it? I don’t see any signs of overlooking.
-
HighEliteMajor said:
@dylans For entertainment purposes only -
Kansas basketball coach Bill Self says he is “optimistic” that freshman forward Billy Preston will be able to play in games for KU during the upcoming Big 12 season.
Self said he is “very optimistic” Embiid can return to practice next week.
“But the one most pleasant surprises we’ve had so far has been Carlton Bragg”, Self said. “I feel confident that we have enough punch up front, but we just won’t be very big if we don’t have Cheick."
——————
PHOF
-
He was deemed eligible by the NCAA last year, can they retroactively take that eligibility away? Or would it be more likely that they would deem him ineligible for future seasons? If they checked him out and said he was good, how can they go back and change that after the fact?
-
I don’t have the answer and you raise a very good point. This is the NCAA they make up rules as they go
-
@Camohawk See Derick Rose. Cost Memphis a bunch of games retroactively. The NCAA can pretty much do whatever it wants. On the other hand if the NCAA decides to penalize pretty much every power 5 team for this junk, they could ban together and make their own basketball association separate from the NCAA…with a middle finger flying in the air.
-
@HighEliteMajor Yes it seems different this time. I’ve not heard the word optimistic. Also Bill has been a harder commit to DeSousa’s actually being able to play.
“All our guys were eligible last year, and we haven’t heard anything that that was not the case still,” Self said. "…I’m confident on (him being eligible), and I know Silvio is very confident on it.
Confident is more commital than optimistic. Bill is a wordsmith, gotta read between the lines. This sounds different than your first two examples, but maybe it’s supposed to.
And I was fairly confident Bragg would work out too, so I don’t ding Bill for that pothead not working out. Cheick still doesn’t know how to play basketball, but is wildly athletic - I understand his optimism there also.
Now let me paint myself into a corner. Preston should’ve been allowed to play given the “punishment” Sexton and Ayton received, so I understand Bill’s optimism.
-
@dylans Again, just for entertainment purposes –
Self said KU officials spent the better part of Tuesday attempting to gain clarity so Preston could play. But when that did not happen, Self had no choice but to keep his five-star freshman on the bench. “I’m out of it,” Self said, before adding, “I am confident it’ll get cleared up. But I don’t know the time frame and they haven’t clued me in.”
I remain pessimistic on DeSousa. I just don’t like the overall dynamic with the FBI stuff.
-
I wonder if it is the role of the guardian that could make a difference in SDS’s case. Guardians have fiduciary duties under legal guidelines–violating those (by skimming, self-dealing, etc) is a breach of a legal duty. If SDS did not know, he could be the real victim. In contrast, parents can act pretty much however they want as they see their kids “best interests”. Lots of celebrity kids have sued for emancipation from financially abusive parents who were their business managers, but I don’t think that simply profiting from your unknowing kid’s talents involves a breach of a legal trust in the same way it would for a guardian. The NCAA could decide that it is too hard to determine if a kid knows about a parent’s activity but that a kid is relatively unlikely to be included in a fraudulent guardian’s schemes.
In otber words, the NCAA might be willing to let a kid take the consequences for a parent’s actions, but not for someone who is abusing a formal role by illegally (or at least extra-legally) profiting from that role. When a parent is also involved, it would be more complicated.
The NCAA could decide to make eligibility contingent on severing a guardian’s relationship, just as they make schools sever boosters who commit violations.
All speculation here. There is only one certainty in my mind–we will never know the details because it will be investigated in secret and decided by agreements made behind closed doors.
-
At the very least, this situation IS different. Not because of what Bill has said. But because we have actual depth behind De Sousa. If he can’t play, just means more time for Mitch or Big Dave. Or even more 4 guard.
I’m not worried. It’d be nice to have him. It won’t absolutely kill us if we don’t.
-
mayjay said:
@JayHawkFanToo As previously noted, the NCAA has stated that the Newton approach will not be the rule in the future–kid will be held responsible regardless of lacking actual knowledge when a family member solicits and receives money.
That’s a dangerous rule to put into place. That allows you to punish a student athlete even if they had no knowledge and gained no benefit.
-
While searching for that NCAA statement (which I was not able to find) I found another article with a number of similar case and the athletes were allowed to keep eligibility and were not penalized. Like I said, if the NCAA penalizes an athlete for something he was not aware it would open itself to one big civil lawsuit.
-
This is a dangerous rule NOT to have in place.
The reason why is obvious. A player could just be shielded by his parent/guardian, and keep the player out of the loop. The plausible deniability thing. The parent/guardian takes the money, deposits in the parent/guardian’s account, and gives whatever % to the player upon graduation or whatever.
It’s better to have the rule, with discretion. Put the burden on the player to prove convincingly that the actions of the parent/guardian were purely unilateral and it would be an injustice to penalize the player by lost eligibility. Or something like that.
I would suspect in most every case, including DeSousa’s, that the kid isn’t fully ignorant. He’s just shielded from detail and interactions.
-
@HighEliteMajor oh you’re not wrong. I just choose to see the glass half full. Preston never played. Silvio has and will continue to play unless told otherwise by the NCAA is how I see it. (KUs internal investigation and holding out has been harsher than the NCAA -Alexander, Preston)
-
@JayHawkFanToo just google cam newton law
-
@dylans I think you know I’m more just kidding around on this. DeSousa is an absolute stud and I want to believe …
-
If Silvio can’t play, i could see McCormick stepping up in a big way. We have an embarrassment of riches on the front line.
-
In Silvio’s case he wanted to go to KU and his guardian wanted him to go to Maryland and the money from Under Armour was doled out for this which obviously was not what Silvio wanted to do, so Silvio does have plausible deniability.
-
@JayHawkFanToo That was really hard to do!
-
@mayjay thx!
-
The NCAA did close a loophole but the main but not the only reason Newton’s eligibility was reinstated is still in place. The NCAA could not “prove” that Cam knew of his father’s activities and this is why he was not officially “cleared” only “reinstated” and apparently, if in the future information becomes available (highly unlikely) that Cam knew about it, then the NCAA can retroactively declare him ineligible and take away all the wins in which he played.
Until the Newton incident, for an individual to be considered an agent a formal agreement was required with the athlete and parents were not considered agents so Cam’s father could not have been considered an agent. Now, THAT loophole was eliminated and a parent can be considered an agent but in order to be one and agreement still has to exist and for the athlete to be deemed ineligible, he has to be aware of what is going on. If an athlete is not aware that others, including a parent, are “shopping” him or asking for and receiving benefits on his behalf then he would not lose eligibility, that part has not changed and makes sense since an individual should not be punished because of the actions of others without his permission or knowledge. That is the part that I was trying to find where an athlete could be declared ineligible for action committed by others on his behalf but without his knowledge and TTBOMK that is not the case. Lots of articles describing the case and ensuing changes but I have not seen one that states definitely that an athlete would be ineligible because of the action of others without his knowledge.
If Silvio indeed did not know or participated on the money exchange between Maryland, Adidas, Under Armour and his guardian then he appears to be in good shape.
-
@JayHawkFanToo You missedvthe salient point: a parent “shopping” his kid will be deemed an agent. Period. And the kid will know that. So, if the parent accepts money, it will be imputed to be money to the agent to steer the kid.
Now, if a kid can prove he had no clue his parent was even representing him, well, maybe you have got something there.
-
@mayjay I think you’re right on point there … both “agent” in terms of a sports agent, and “agent” in terms of an agency relationship. It’s assumed or imputed. A presumption. It’s important for the rule to be effective that the player suffer repercussions.
-
mayjay said:
@JayHawkFanToo You missedvthe salient point: a parent “shopping” his kid will be deemed an agent. Period. And the kid will know that. So, if the parent accepts money, it will be imputed to be money to the agent to steer the kid.
Now, if a kid can prove he had no clue his parent was even representing him, well, maybe you have got something there.
As I understand it, the correct wording should be…a parent “shopping” his kid CAN be deemed an agent…where before it could not. Again and as I understand it after reading a number of articles on the subject, there still needs to be a tacit understanding or agreement that the parent is acting as an agent. If the kid has no clue what the parent is doing on his behalf or doing it without his permission then the athlete has a good case to not lose eligibility. Absent evidence such as e-mails, texts or recorded phone conversations, it would be a difficult task for the NCAA to prove knowledge and intent; it was not able to do it with Cam Newton. A good test case is needed to set once and for all the required burden of proof both ways.
