Naming names
-
@jayballer73 I concur.
-
jayballer73 said:
Were gonna have to forfeit some games - maybe reduction, I am not that sure about that - but pretty sure we forfeit games.
Which is such a dumb penalty only the NCAA would dish it out. Pretty sure everyone still considers Louisville the 2013 champs even though it was vacated. Reggie Bush still won the Heisman. On and on.
-
It just doesn’t make sense that we get punished much. Our compliance program is a model program largely constructed through NCAA advice and legal counsel. Many schools have come in to mimic our practices.
If Kansas gets slapped, then what school out there shouldn’t get the same? What should our school have done differently to avoid a problem? When there is discovered the slightest problem we pull our players from the game.
If the only real evidence connecting the dots directly to our program is the Townsend communication or Self’s “are we cool”, we should be fine. “Lose chatter” does not warrant a conviction. Obviously, none of us know the complete story. We should know more soon.
-
Marco said:
@HighEliteMajor Which I understand. But what do they really have? They have squat, that’s what. What do you think our punishment will be?
They’ve got more than squat. A lot more. I’m not sure why a recruiting partner paying a player $80,000 to attend is note considered more than squat. I’m not sure why a player getting suspended for a year for violations is not considered more than squat. I’m not sure why folks can’t look at the NCAA definition of a “booster” and see that the Adidas folks plainly qualify. And I’m not sure why folks don’t see the strong possibility that the NCAA is ticked off over the FBI/DOJ mess that was highly embarrassing, created bad press, brought more public scrutiny, threatens their existence etc. And I can see why folks don’t think it a strong possibility that the NCAA is hoping to drive this down a more strict path of enforcement.
I think we lose our FF, we vacate wins, we lose two scholarships for two seasons, and we don’t get to play in an NCAA tourney.
The reason I have that thought, and why I’ve had that thought, is that I believe that the NCAA is serious this time. MU’s punishment was a precursor. If the NCAA isn’t serious, then we skate like the vast majority here believe. I recognize that possibility. I fear that we are an “example to be made.”
-
@HighEliteMajor It’s called lack of proof, man, which is the only thing that they have… Why has Silvio been ruled eligible? And we never played Preston. So quick, what is our punishment going to be?
-
@HighEliteMajor Step away from your prosecutor’s hat for a moment. The 80K was given for him to sign with Maryland. Unless you’re prepared to hold every university accountable who had the relationship with the Adidas rep, then it doesn’t hold water. Tell me how you think KU is accountable for an Adidas rep paying a handler 80 grand to get Silvio to go to Maryland? Even the worst KU critics would have to tie themselves up in knots to claim that. Now, the 2,500 is what is under question, but anything beyond that, imo, is simply wishful thinking.
-
@KUSTEVE And even the 2500, which Silvio denied and still denys knowledge of and for which there is not a shred of evidence. Why would the NCAA reinstate Silvio?
-
@KUSTEVE The $80,000 I was referring to was the money provided to Preston’s mom.
Regarding SDS, a booster paid SDS money to go to Maryland. This makes him ineligible. It doesn’t matter whether Adidas or some other third party paid Maryland or Kansas. It still makes the kid ineligible, and it still means we played an ineligible player. Further, it was our recruiting partner (booster) that did it. Gassnola. Our guy. Bill Self’s guy. So we will be assumed to have that knowledge – he’s our agent. Acting on our behalf. But it’s still a violation either way. @Marco, are you listening?
@Marco I’m pretty much done trying to explain this to you. You seem to simply want to ignore what I have said on this topic. And you don’t understand the concept of “evidence.” When someone testifies under oath, that’s evidence. Text messages are evidence. The circumstances are evidence. And fact finders add up the evidence and come to a conclusion from the evidence. There doesn’t have to be a video or audio. The conclusion is not a high standard, like a criminal trial is. It’s a lower standard. But it’s fine if you want to continue to claim there’s no proof. Try thinking about this … why was SDS ruled ineligible for a year if there was “no proof”? For nothing? Logic … connect the dots. Our recruiting partner, Gassnola, testified that Preston’s mom was paid $89,000. Try reading the definition of a university booster. It will help. Adidas called there recruiting involvements “Black Opps” – one to many “p’s”, but that what they called it. And try to grasp this concept - if you pay a player to come to your college, it is still an NCAA violation even if he doesn’t play (Preston). If other’s pay your player to go somewhere else, and he goes to your school, he’s still ineligible (SDS). Get it?
But I’ve said all this before.
Some snippets below -
Gassnola testified that he paid Preston’s mother, Nicole Player, and her partner $89,000 over the span of almost one year. That included a $30,000 payout made in early November 2016 at a New York hotel and $20,000 in January 2017 in Las Vegas. Gassnola, through his fiancée, wired $20,000 to Player’s partner, Timicha Kirby, in February 2017. Gassnola also sent Player $15,000 in June 2017 and $4,000 in late September 2017. Also Thursday, Gassnola testified he paid the guardian of current KU sophomore Silvio De Sousa $2,500 for online courses so that De Sousa could graduate high school. Gassnola also said he agreed to pay $20,000 to help the guardian repay a Maryland booster who gave him $60,000, but Gassnola never paid, he said.
In the case of the first KU player referenced, whose family was alleged to have received $90,000, the indictment states the agreement to pay the family was made in or around October 2016 “shortly after the student-athlete, who was considered one of the top recruits in his class, unofficially committed to attend the University of Kansas.” On Oct. 1, prized recruit Billy Preston attended KU’s Late Night in the Phog event. He then officially committed to KU in November.
In the email, Gassnola said he attended “Late Night in the Phog” on Oct. 10, 2014 and “met with Coach (Bill) Self.”
Self was asked during KU’s basketball media day in Lawrence about Gassnola’s email, which, according to Yahoo’s Dan Wetzel, also included that Gassnola “talked recruiting targets” and “assured (Self and his staff) we are here to help.”
“No I don’t have any response,” Self said when told of Wetzel’s reporting on Gassnola.
On Monday, they presented text messages to the court between Gassnola and the Kansas coaching staff, the most damning of which came on Sept. 19th, 2017, just days before Kansas — who is supposed to be the victim in this ordeal — announced that they had agreed to a 12-year, $191 million extension on a sponsorship deal with Adidas.
After Gassnola texted Self to thank him for helping get the deal done, Self responded by saying, “Just got to get a couple real guys.”
Gassnola: “In my mind, it’s KU, Bill Self. Everyone else fall into line. Too (expletive) bad. That’s what’s right for Adidas basketball. And I know I’m right. The more you have lottery picks and you happy. That’s how it should work in my mind.”
Self: “That’s how ur (sic) works. At UNC and Duke.”
Gassnola, after acknowledging that it works like this at Kentucky, too: “I promise you I got this. I have never let you down. Except (Deandre). Lol. We will get it right.”
-
@HighEliteMajor Listen, you can say what you will. It was money - was it ever even proven? - that was paid for him to go to Maryland not KU. And the other stuff is alleged - Alleged. Question, why is Silvio eligible to play at KU? I’ll ask again… Why, if there is so much wrongdoing, is Silvio eligible to play this year. You can keep beating the same drum and I will continue to ask the same question, why is he eligible? Why would he be eligible at all?
-
@HighEliteMajor He was eligible when he played. When the facts came out, we sat him for an entire year. The very worst they can do is “take away the wins” when he played. I’m not even sure they’ll do that. But if they end up doing the “forfeit wins” as a punishment, so be it. If the NCAA decides it wants to get serious about corruption, and announce a full investigation into the recruitment benefits received by Zion Williamson from Nike and Dook, then I’ll be more concerned. The fact that the NCAA came out and specifically made an unprecedented direct statement letting everyone know their big, bad investigation was not going to include Zion, Dook, and Nike tells me all i need to know. We are going up against the protection racket of Nike and Dook. The Zion story is so dirty, it’s amazing he didn’t have hundred dollar bills falling out of his socks while playing. There are essentially three different sources that all say Zion and his family received a boatload of money, and not a single peep from the NCAA.
We’re the flagship university for the sworn enemy. I expect no less than a complete railroading from a dirty and corrupt organization, tainted indelibly by the stench of money. At some point, the truth about Nike’s payola system, and Dook and Kentucky’s method of paying huge money to their recruits will come out. The FBI investigation methods and results will come out as well. They were so concerned with an assistant coach at Okie St, they never had time to investigate Zion, even though people are practically falling all over themselves telling tales. You cannot tell me that 3 5star guards all want to play for Tucky at the same time because they “love” Big Blue. At some point, the Nike story is going to come out, and when it does, we’re going to look like pikers. So, get your pound of flesh, NCAA. You’re about to go down a lot harder than us.
-
@Marco There was $2,500 alleged to go to DeSousa’s guardian so DeSousa could take online classes to graduate early and enroll at KU in December. That’s a confirmed, under oath statement. There’s also another $20,000 that didn’t get delivered on KU’s behalf because of the announcement of the Adidas investigation.
-
Arizona or LSU are going to be the NCAA’s sacrificial lamb out of this round of investigations.
KU may get something out of this, but not playing Billy Preston is going go keep KU from taking the brunt of this.
-
Do we even know if Silvio took online classes?
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 Yeah, and again, if so then why is De Sousa going to play for KU this year?
-
@Marco DeSousa is going to play because an appeals committee decided a 2 year suspension was excessive and reduced it to a 1 year suspension. As @HighEliteMajor has pointed out multiple times on this issue, DeSousa will be a junior this season and not a redshirt sophomore. That means the appeals committee did not rescind DeSousa’s suspension, they determined a violation happened in which a 1 year suspension was the appropriate punishment.
That’s why vacating the games DeSousa played in as a freshman and possibly vacating the 2018 Final Four banner is a possibility. KU played a player who was suspended for 1 seasons for something that happened prior to DeSousa arriving at KU.
If you think the NCAA has any issues punishing a school for playing a player the NCAA cleared initially, then I’ll direct you to Derrick Rose and Memphis. Rose was originally cleared by the NCAA Clearinghouse and retroactively ruled ineligible once the organization that administers the SAT ruled his test invalid later on.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 I give you all of those points, but my arguement still stands. Rose’s test score was invalidated due to an official paper trial, so to speak. Am I wrong? The accusations against De Sousa have never been proven.
-
@Marco he lost a year!
-
Texas Hawk 10 said:
Arizona or LSU are going to be the NCAA’s sacrificial lamb out of this round of investigations.
KU may get something out of this, but not playing Billy Preston is going go keep KU from taking the brunt of this.
Agreed. Arizona went ahead and played players that were in question without a second thought. Not a good look. Could be much worse for us than some vague text messages and $2500.
-
@Marco It was never 100% proven that Rose didn’t take the test. His score was tossed after the fact because of an irregularity. Rose also had no obligation to cooperate with the NCAA at that point because he was already out of college basketball at that point.
It was also 100% percent proven that there was an NCAA violation that occurred with Silvio DeSousa. That is why he was suspended and lost his sophomore year of eligibility. The question now for KU is whether or not that is the extent of punishment KU receives from the NCAA or if there are further punishments/sanctions coming.
Going based off of Josh Selby being suspended for 9 games for receiving about $6,000 in benefits from Tennessee. Why would Silvio receive a 2 year suspension for $2,500 in benefits?
That punishment came because Silvio’s name was attached to over $80,000 in benefits received by his guardian prior to Silvio enrolling at KU which is why vacating the games Silvio played in during the 2017-18 season is still a concern.
The fact is KU played a player who was ineligible during the 2017-18 season and vacating the wins that Silvio played in is not a far fetched possibility.
The NCAA is not the legal system. They have zero obligation to use due process when they investigate their cases. They can issue punishment for something probably happening like they did with Derrick Rose. In a legal case, the Derrick Rose situation likely doesn’t get a conviction/judgement in favor of the NCAA/testing agency because that case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
Silvio originally got a 2 year suspension because of the $2,500 Fenny got and then $20,000 he agreed to take from Adidas. http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-provides-reinstatement-decision-kansas-silvio-de-sousa
-
Texas Hawk 10 said:
@Marco DeSousa is going to play because an appeals committee decided a 2 year suspension was excessive and reduced it to a 1 year suspension. As @HighEliteMajor has pointed out multiple times on this issue, DeSousa will be a junior this season and not a redshirt sophomore. That means the appeals committee did not rescind DeSousa’s suspension, they determined a violation happened in which a 1 year suspension was the appropriate punishment.
That’s why vacating the games DeSousa played in as a freshman and possibly vacating the 2018 Final Four banner is a possibility. KU played a player who was suspended for 1 seasons for something that happened prior to DeSousa arriving at KU.
If you think the NCAA has any issues punishing a school for playing a player the NCAA cleared initially, then I’ll direct you to Derrick Rose and Memphis. Rose was originally cleared by the NCAA Clearinghouse and retroactively ruled ineligible once the organization that administers the SAT ruled his test invalid later on.
Isn’t this what they were talking about when the committee was trying to get KU to admit that there WAS a Violation before they would rule on Silvio - and then the reduction AFTER KU came out and admitted the violation? - - seems like I thought I had saw something about they were waitin for KU - - I dunno - thought that played a part with Silvio - -maybe not. - - -ROCK CHALK ALLD AY LONG BABY
-
They’ll probably set aside some wins and a Final Four appearance, but big woop. We watched it- we were there. I’ve always thought the win takeaways were down right silly anyway. It’s like a non punishment punishment.
-
@Crimsonorblue22 Yes, I know… But they also reinstated him. Why would they do that? Why not just rule him ineligible, period? Anyway, we shall see.
-
I can see it going both ways. The KU fan in me sees no sanctions coming. The realist in me thinks something is coming, but nothing too harsh. The pessimist in me sees the death penalty coming.
-
Marco said:
@Crimsonorblue22 Yes, I know… But they also reinstated him. Why would they do that? Why not just rule him ineligible, period? Anyway, we shall see.
The NCAA Infractions Committee initially ruled Silvio DeSousa ineligible for 2 years for violations connected to his guardian. The University of Kansas filed an appeal on behalf of Silvio DeSousa because they believed the punishment to be excessive. This appeal was heard by the NCAA Appeals Committee which is a different group from who handled Silvio’s case the first time. The Appeals Committee determined that the 2 year suspension was excessive for the violation committed and reduced it to a 1 year suspension.
-
Makes us wonder: What if the NCAA punishes us further for the Silvio case?
You are wise in pointing out the differing levels of bureaucracy.
Let’s look at the totality of the situation…
NCAA’s game of “flip-flop” -
NCAA approves Silvio for play
NCAA penalizes Silvio with 2-year ban
NCAA reduces ban to 1-year
NCAA punishes Kansas over the Silvio situation
Can you make sense of all of this? I’m probably leaving out a few decisions to further complicate the Silvio story…
-
Texas Hawk 10 said:
Marco said:
@Crimsonorblue22 Yes, I know… But they also reinstated him. Why would they do that? Why not just rule him ineligible, period? Anyway, we shall see.
The NCAA Infractions Committee initially ruled Silvio DeSousa ineligible for 2 years for violations connected to his guardian. The University of Kansas filed an appeal on behalf of Silvio DeSousa because they believed the punishment to be excessive. This appeal was heard by the NCAA Appeals Committee which is a different group from who handled Silvio’s case the first time. The Appeals Committee determined that the 2 year suspension was excessive for the violation and reduced it to a 1 year suspension.
Okay, they ruled it to be excessive, and I am not trying to argue but only make a point. I guess what I’m getting at is that if the committee ruled it to be excessive then perhaps it felt that there was not much there to begin with, which takes me back to my original point. If there was actual proof that his guardian took cash and or that Silvio knew about it why not from the start just rule him all the way ineligible (not only 2 years, flat out ineligible)? Would that not be what the NCAA would normally do in such a situation?
But they did not do that because there is no proof (and I understand that they usually don’t care about such a thing), though I am quite sure, at this point, that they have belatedly recognized their blunder and I am laughing at them! I believe that we have dodged the entire bullet. The NCAA sawed its own legs off with the original ruling (“We should have just ruled him ineligible!,” they are now screaming) and the committee sawed those legs off even more. Anyway, last I’ll talk about this topic. We shall see.
-
@Marco That’s not what the NCAA does. It’s not a one size fits all punishment. They issue punishments based on the amount of benefits received. Josh Selby received a 9 game suspension in 2010 for receiving about $6,000 in impermissible benefits.
I’ve specifically told you multiple times that it has been proven that Silvio’s guardian did receive impermissible benefits on behalf of Silvio. You can choose to ignore that all you want, but it doesn’t change that TJ Gassnola paid Silvio DeSousa’s guardian and admitted that under oath during the Adidas trial. That is 100% indisputable evidence.
Based on the testimony of a man who plead guilty to defrauding the University of Kansas, Silvio DeSousa’s guardian received somewhere between $62,500 and $82,500 in benefits on DeSousa’s behalf from Under Armour and Adidas. The testimony stated that $60,000 was paid by an Under Armour representative to persuade Silvio to attend Maryland. Silvio did not want to go to Maryland so TJ Gassnola had arranged a $20,000 payment to Silvio’s guardian so he could began paying Under Armour back and Silvio could attend Kansas. Gassnola’s testimony stated that he did not make the $20,000 payment because the FBI investigation of Adidas youth basketball was announced before he could make the dropoff. He did however admit to providing $2,500 to cover the cost of online classes Silvio needed so he could graduate high school early and enroll at KU when he did. It is no longer relevant to the NCAA if Silvio knew about those benefits because of the NCAA closing that loophole after the Cam Newton pay for play case.
Not everyone who is found guilty of receiving impermissible benefits in the eyes of the NCAA is ruled permanently ineligible. The amount the NCAA Infractions Committee determined was connected to Silvio through his guardian warranted a 2 year suspension for Silvio. The NCAA Appeals Committee determined that based on their evidence that a 1 year suspension was the appropriate punishment for the benefits received.
It’s really not that different from the legal system in which the punishment escalates based on the severity and/or number of times a law has been broken.
I think you’re way over thinking and way over complicating the matter.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 Probably, yeah…
-
Given the NCAA has administered it’s ruling and punishment (2 year suspension) and then further adjusted that punishment, deeming it too excessive (now 1 year), wouldn’t further review (to ultimately determine that games must be vacated) be considered double jeopardy?
-
@bskeet that was the players punishment. The U could still be found culpable. Hope not, but with the ncaa who knows?
-
@dylans ah… i get it, but it kind of sucks…
Didn’t know there was a serving of humble pie for everyone involved.
The athlete
The university
The guardian
The shoe company…
… sorry, fell asleep and was dreaming for a moment.
-
So to sum it up, we as a fan base are basically “yeah, we were bad and we’re gonna get spanked, even though everyone else should get spanked too. but we’re the middle kid … so … you know”
But we’re also like Lloyd with Ms. Samsonite … “you’re telling me there’s a chance!”
-
As a university, we’ve had our humble pie served up years ago when we worked with the NCAA to develop a model compliance program.
In more colorful terms… we had our “Cool Hand Luke” moment where Luke was finally broken down by Boss.
But then… we know what happened after that!
-
I saw that UConn got served.
-
Ollie… Ollie… out of here…
-
Cleaver move by UCONN to get reinstated in the Big East before the big news. UCONN proves, once again, that winning a few rings does not make a program a “blue blood.”
Speaking of the Big East… who they going to recruit now for that 12th spot? Makes me wonder if Wichita State is pounding on their door for entry… even though they have more than they can chew in the AAC.
-
https://twitter.com/GaryParrishCBS/status/1149076599041658881
NC State, officially.
-
Hahahahahaha f those guys
-
@BShark NC State didn’t even make all these reporter’s lists as one in trouble.
-
NC State, hit… Kind of feels like a game of Battleship, huh?.. Okay, they got NC State…
-
Love that flimsy excuse that the UNC bogus classes also had non-athletes attending, therefore it wasn’t rigged for the athletes.
I still put this offense as far worse than an athlete or family member receiving a few bucks. The academic fraud cheapens the overall reputation of education and hurts everyone.
-
… You guys know where my rose colored glasses wearing self stands.
-
@drgnslayr 95% of UNC’s athletes participated. At first, it was only for athletes. Then, someone had the brilliant idea of opening it to the student body, so if they got caught, they could claim it was an academic issue- not an athletic one. Ingenious scam.
-
UNC’s fraudulent classes crossed from an NCAA issue to a Department of Education issue once they opened those classes to regular students as well.
-
And are to this day a giant pain in my ass
-
It is now August. Do with this information what you will.
-
@bshark Yay. Jah-lul is over.
-
BShark said:
It is now August. Do with this information what you will.
I’ve understood from most of the posts here that the NCAA has no case, no evidence, and that we’re going to skate. So I’m quite sure we have nothing to worry about … right?
-
@HighEliteMajor My position has not changed.
