Poor Silvio
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 so I guess I’m a sucker! I don’t understand why that can’t be proved, the online classes, the church donation. My church sends a quarterly statement to me.
-
Even if he did prove it it doesnt change the fact he took money. In their eyes that act alone makes everything else null and void it seems
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 you could be right but if this case goes to court, you have to prove it. If the NCAA cant prove it, they look silly
-
@BeddieKU23 which money did he take, Maryland booster money? Kinda confused about this other booster money. How can adidas guy be considered KU booster?
-
So I read the kusports.com new article about grassola being a KU booster. Not sure how they determined that. That sounds like him being a booster is what can get KU in trouble.
-
@Crimsonorblue22 booster: a keen promoter of a person, organization, or cause
I think employees of Adidas can be considered KU boosters. They want us to do well so they sell more shoes.
-
@tundrahok so they are boosters of all adidas schools? Same with all shoe guys?
-
I have the opinion they only proved the 2500 through the fbi trial. They are also holding Silvio responsible for the 20k payment Gassnola said he agreed to pay Fenny which never actually happened. Those two line up with the report. So one actual payment and one alleged payment is what Silvio is being punished for. Sad situation where alleged payments become part of a 2 yr suspension.
-
Vitale just had a short rant about the NCAA and Silvio on the Duke broadcast. Of course interrupted by a giant Zion alley oop… Basically called the NCAA a joke, but only for taking so long to rule.
-
BeddieKU23 said:
I have the opinion they only proved the 2500 through the fbi trial. They are also holding Silvio responsible for the 20k payment Gassnola said he agreed to pay Fenny which never actually happened. Those two line up with the report. So one actual payment and one alleged payment is what Silvio is being punished for. Sad situation where alleged payments become part of a 2 yr suspension.
and don’t forget the “future” payments that Fenny was promised. That, too, according to the NCAA.
-
@wissox It wasn’t directed particularly at you. I was reacting to the automatic “what about…” that seems to permeate every discussion when anyone gets caught or accused of anything. We saw it with Trump (what about JFK? and HRC’s email servers?), with the idiot Va governor today (what about McConnell and the Confed flag?), with BLM (what about inner city shootings?)… And on and on. And my major point is that people have said “what about KU?” for years.
Every “what about” may or not be a legit question, but they distract from any discussion about an offense or punishment. My sole concern is whether SDS was treated too harshly–not because I think other schools get treated better but because I think the NCAA doesn’t give two shits about individual athletes when they decide to set a brutal example.
Ayton? I have no idea, but I am actually very sure if UAz had consented to the facts we did while Ayton was still in school they would have been treated the same way.
-
How about
no evidence of promises of future payments from a convicted felon to a guardian. Can that be used against a minor kid of the guardian? Or same, no evidence of the 20,000 other than he was going to give him the money?
-
@Crimsonorblue22 None of those transactions he received are going to be through traditional methods of receiving payments. Fenny knew what he was doing was against NCAA rules and so the money would likely be paid to him through methods that are not traceable by the NCAA like wire transfers under different names that don’t directly tie Fenny to that money. Fenny then has the ability to tell the NCAA they can check all his accounts and they’ll never find the $60,000 because it’s likely in a secret account under a different name.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 they don’t have to prove it to punish Silvio?
-
kjayhawks said:
@Texas-Hawk-10 you could be right but if this case goes to court, you have to prove it. If the NCAA cant prove it, they look silly
Why would KU sue though at this point? By the time a jury reached a verdict, Silvio would be long gone from KU. If the NCAA hands out further punishment to KU, then KU could possibly sue the NCAA over those penalties, but it won’t happen to get Silvio reinstated because Silvio wouldn’t benefit from it unless he’s planning on sticking around which is extremely unlikely at this point.
-
Silvios attorney might do something. Silvio is very young, if he could get next year here, he might stay. Hate for him to end up like Preston, Prestons mom screwed him. There needs to be something done about agents. @wissox and i would be great!
-
@Crimsonorblue22 The NCAA isn’t a court room or the legal system. Due process doesn’t apply to them when investigating schools and athletes. With the NCAA, it’s guilty until proven innocent. It would be up to KU to prove what did or did not happen. Gassnola’s testimony about the $60,000 payment from Under Armour and his attempting to pay $20,000 to get out from that deal are pretty damning pieces of evidence against Silvio’s eligibility.
The Cam rule absolutely sucks, but it’s the current rules of the NCAA.
The part that’s troubling for KU is Gassnola being labeled a KU booster. That’s what KU is going to be fighting at this point because that’s where the serious NCAA sanctions would come from. If Silvio’s punishment gets reduced as a result, that’s great, but KU’s focus in fighting this will be on Gassnola and his label as a booster.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 thx!
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 is this new about shoe reps being called boosters?
-
Crimsonorblue22 said:
@Texas-Hawk-10 is this new about shoe reps being called boosters?
I have no idea and I haven’t seen anything about why the NCAA considers Gassnola a booster.
-
This came up awhile ago in some older articles and seems to be the approach that the NCAA is going to take.
-
@BShark better include all schools
-
Crimsonorblue22 said:
@BShark better include all schools
Ha! Nike hid it better sadly. And now Adidas is back to normal too.
-
@Crimsonorblue22 I think anybody who gives a kid money to attend a particular school is considered a booster for that school.
Here’s the NCAA definition.
http://www.ncaa.org/enforcement/role-boosters
Boosters, referred to by the NCAA as “representatives of the institution’s athletic interests,” include anyone who has:
Provided a donation in order to obtain season tickets for any sport at the university. Participated in or has been a member of an organization promoting the university’s athletics programs. Made financial contributions to the athletic department or to a university booster organization. Arranged for or provided employment for enrolled student-athletes. Assisted or has been requested by university staff to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes. Assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student athletes or their families. Been involved otherwise in promoting university athletics.Once an individual is identified as a “representative of the institution’s athletics interests,” the person retains that identity forever.
I don’t think they need to be sanctioned by the university. They are just trying to provide a boost to the school, whether or not they’ve been asked to.
-
Jeff Long says that the NCAA would consider reinstatement if KU announces Gassnola was a booster.
Sorry Silvio, kansas doesnt like you that much
-
Just a follow up, Long was told to say Gassnola was a booster to help facilitate a process for reinstatement
-
The full statement by the NCAA announcing what they laughably term Silvio’s “reinstatement decision” says that the decision was based on facts provided by KU. Whether de Sousa was not a party to the statement of facts would be pretty much the only factor that would allow him to challenge the factual basis for the decision. If he was, his only challenge would be to the severity.
From NCAA.com:
NCAA provides reinstatement decision for Kansas’ Silvio De Sousa February 1, 2019 6:05pm
University of Kansas men’s basketball student-athlete Silvio De Sousa must sit out the remainder of the 2018-19 season and the 2019-20 season because his guardian received payment from a university booster and agent and agreed to receive additional funds from the same person.
According to the facts provided for purposes of the reinstatement request, De Sousa’s guardian received payment of $2,500 from an agent and booster of the school. He agreed to accept additional payment of $20,000 from the same individual and an Adidas employee for securing De Sousa’s enrollment at Kansas.
According to the guidelines adopted by the NCAA Division I membership, when a prospective student-athlete allows a third party to involve himself in the recruitment process, the prospective student-athlete is then responsible for the actions of that person, regardless of whether the prospective student-athlete had knowledge or if benefits were received. Membership guidelines state the starting point for these violations is permanent ineligibility, but the NCAA staff recognized mitigation based on the specific circumstances of this case when making its decision.
When a school discovers an NCAA rules violation has occurred, it must declare the student-athlete ineligible and may request the student-athlete’s eligibility be reinstated. The NCAA staff reviews each student-athlete reinstatement request individually based on its own specific facts. This decision may be appealed to the Division I Student-Athlete Reinstatement Committee, which is comprised of representatives from NCAA schools.
-
@mayjay are they saying KU admitted to all of that? Future payments, sorry I’m confused.
-
@Crimsonorblue22 It looks like it. But whether SDS signed off on that is not known. It does imply from the explanation that the NCAA accepts SDS’ story of not knowing. But the FBI actually cleared Bowen, and that didn’t matter, either.
-
So confusing
-
It doesnt really seem to matter if you prove your innocent. Once a rule is broke it’s over. All or nothing
-
Soooo, the NCAA told us about a month ago that the only way they would consider reinstating DeSouza is if we declared him ineligible, and also we “declare” the Adidas rep T.J. Gassnola a “booster”. And like complete idiots, we did that. That way, the NCAA could ban DeSouza for 2 years, and they could come after our wins, conference title, and Final Four appearance because a KU “booster” gave a guardian money. So, we were misled into screwing ourselves to the wall. This was a despicable act by the guardian, and the NCAA, and might be the most egregious act on the part of the NCAA since it’s inception. Somebody has the knives out for us, and stuck it in deep. Here is our brilliant Athletic Director explaining his complete ignorance of what bastards he was dealing with:
If our conference title, wins and Final Four get set aside, I think Jeff Long should be shown the door.
-
This is so very confusing to me. Surely we had legal help and this is in writing. Why would this be legal and can they go back on their word, legally? They are admitting it isn’t true.
-
KUSTEVE said:
If our conference title, wins and Final Four get set aside, I think Jeff Long should be shown the door.
Dude calm down. Long isn’t going anywhere and he shouldn’t. The NCAA doesn’t need KU to admit Gassnola was a booster to come down on the school. They have plenty of evidence to make that conclusion on their own, regardless of KU’s actions through Silvio’s reinstatement process.
-
Can u imagine going thru this w/sz?
-
To put any of this on Long is Ludicrous to put it nicely. He was likely doing what was recommended by our legal team. He also has in his contract he cant be fired from findings of this FBI probe.
-
Yup. As i was saying earlier, something wasn’t making sense about the punishment and statements. we were missing facts. That new fact about the “booster” designation adds some clarity. The punishment starts making sense.
I was dumbfounded at first that KU would admit to such a thing (Gassnola was a booster), but if you think about it some more, maybe it was intentional. Maybe that simply focuses the punishment to one person (Silvio), and not the institution (Kansas – vacated wins, etc).
I sense that our AD is spewing some subtle B.S. as well. Who the eff knows.
What i do know is that we should now disappear Silvio from the program to wrap this up. the longer it lingers, the fewer potential recruits consider KU.
Nothing about this smells right still…
-
@kjayhawks I’m not going to get into a back and forth with you on this- if you want to shift the blame to the “attorneys” instead of the person who is in charge of the athletic department, then that is your right. But, the fact remains that by declaring Silvio ineligible, and falsely declaring the Adidas rep as a “booster”, the NCAA can now set aside every win we had when Silvio played, including our conference title, and our Final Four Appearance. Furthermore, they can come after our program with both barrels, and they most certainly will. I wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t put us on probation… and probably will ban us from post season play. I don’t think many fans have quite grasped how profound this will affect our program, including you. If you’re fine with what’s certainly going to come, more power to you. But I’m not. If Long had done nothing, we would still have Silvio on the bench. What is ludicrous, imo, is the terrible position he has put our program in.
-
@KUSTEVE I’ve been worried about this all along, I agree with all if your statement except that this is on Long. I highly doubt Long did that without input from dozens of folks including Bill Self.
-
They had to keep this from self and Silvio. Crazy. I still think the legal dept took care of this.
-
@Crimsonorblue22 “part of it in the dark” from Self and SDS. Is interesting
-
@kjayhawks that’s why I’m so confused. I was why are we talking a booster, Maryland booster? It seemed like it was one in the same person, but I couldn’t understand it. So weird.
-
@KUSTEVE Did you know that our AD actually benefits from KU going on probation? Here’s the provision -
“Should the University be placed under any federal, state, NCAA, or Conference investigation leading to restrictions or probation for its football, men’s basketball, women’s basketball or women’s volleyball athletic programs for matters occurring prior to the Effective Date of the Executive, the term of the contract shall be extended equal to the length of the penalties.”
-
@HighEliteMajor which is what I was getting at, Long inherited this mess. He had zip to with it and I’m okay with saying maybe he shouldn’t have done this or that I’m sure there are a gods plenty on his team both interally and out sourced that are telling him just what the hell to do. Not get this really interesting on here but I’ve heard a ton of rumors of Pop retiring and Self to San Antonio as early as at this seasons end.
-
-
@KUSTEVE @kjayhawks Not to interrupt a blood feud…but there may be a subtle point you guys are missing…and it certainly needs more interpretation:
It could be that the “booster” designation as described was for purposes of Silvio’s eligibility this year only, and may have no outcome on past KU games, etc.
I’m no expert of course, but it reads that way. that could mean the NCAA will not go back and punish KU for past wins, championships, etc.
-
@jayhawkcsg Let’s hope your right, no Blood fued here, I get along with @KUSTEVE fine. We just disagree.
-
@HighEliteMajor I’m really at a loss to wrap my head around it once I heard Long’s explanation. I thought it was really weird when we all of a sudden decided to declare Silvio ineligible. And the Adidas rep suddenly becomes a “booster”. And that’s what Long thought would get Silvio declared able to play? What that did was allow the NCAA to take away our victories from last year for using an “ineligible” player, and it will allow them to put us on probation because a 'booster" gave Silvio’s “guardian” money. So, we now will be blamed and held accountable for the 60,000 that our “booster” paid to get Silvio to play Maryland. As crazy as it might seem, the only person that comes out smelling like a rose is Jeff Long. You might be on to something.
-
@kjayhawks Ha. good. Yep, let’s hope nothing else comes of this crap. doubtful, but fingers crossed.
-
@jayhawkcsg but if it’s just like a hypothetical, not a true statement, and all parties know it isn’t true, why do we have to do it.
