Naming names
-
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.
-
I still do not believe anyone gets dinged for this latest round of violations coming out of the ShoeCo investigations.
The NCAA needs the ShoeCos. Every athletic department makes tons of money off ShoeCos. Not just P5. Not just D1. Every athletic department is receiving ShoeCo money. If the NCAA disrupts that relationship, there are a lot of D2 and D3 programs that outright cannot make their athletic budgets work without the money and equipment they receive from ShoeCos. The NCAA knows they would put some programs under if they ran ShoeCos out of the equation.
The only way to avoid doing that is to ding a few players here and there, hit a handful of coaches and boosters, but avoid dinging the schools themselves so they don’t disrupt those lucrative relationships.
-
My question is, are they ever going to wrap the damn thing up? It is all about shoe money and the NCAA - they need to be very careful here, trust me - knows that, and they also can’t help but know that all of the shoe companies are and have been doing it, Nike in particular. You guys know where I stand on this issue, we shall see.
-
I agree. I feel like the NCAA can’t afford to make it look like some programs are targeted while others they avoid from pursuit.
Consider the Zion situation and the Townsend comment. How do we get penalized for that while Zion attended Duke? Did we commit an offense while Duke did not? I realize there are other issues but the overall situation relates to ShoeCo money.
Is the NCAA saying the ShoeCos only throw money at players for a few schools?
I see an idea that the NCAA uses this to create stricter guidelines for all schools.
-
I get your point, but the NCAA can’t put in too many guidelines without squeezing out ShoeCo money, and most non-revenue sports depend on that money (and equipment) to help manage their budgets.
Track and Field, Soccer, Volleyball, Swimming, etc. would all be in significant budget trouble if not for ShoeCo money, as that money pays for the equipment and apparel side of their budget. That’s why there is so much ShoeCo money in each school, and why KU is with Adidas instead of Nike right now. Simply put, Adidas offered KU more for their non-revenue sports than Nike did. That made all of the difference in the contract negotiations.
ShoeCos will continue to do what they want because the NCAA can’t host sports like gymnastics, softball, lacrosse, soccer, baseball, hockey, track and field, etc., or lower divisions without ShoeCo money (even D2 and D3 schools have small contracts with ShoeCos for apparel and equipment).
There’s just too much money in too many people’s hands to shove this genie back into the bottle.
-
Title IX depends on shoe money. Women’s sports would not exist without shoe money.
-
So its all about money. So shocked
-
Texas Hawk 10 said:
Title IX depends on shoe money. Women’s sports would not exist without shoe money.
Neither would craps, if you listen to the number of rollers praying for Baby to get a “new pair of shoes.”
-
If you’re not cheating, you’re not trying! That seems to be the lesson learned here? That goes for Universities, students, parents, coaches, investigators, and the NCAA. Universities and coaches want wins/championships. Parents and students want money for services (I am not saying every parent and student).The NCAA wants to make as much money as possible, while playing favorites. Even investigators have alma maters. Everyone appears to have an agenda?
-
Texas Hawk 10 said:
Title IX depends on shoe money. Women’s sports would not exist without shoe money.
Not just women’s sports. All sports other than football, men’s basketball and (in some cases) women’s basketball. Those are the only sports that could likely survive without ShoeCo money. Smaller sports have no chance.
-
Depressing… and yet reassuring.
-
And the only reason we have the Shoeco money is men’s CBB and football. It’s what we already know.Women’s sports are independently unsustainable. Meaning they lose money.
-
@HighEliteMajor bingo! The only reason they exist in the first place in large part is a federal mandate. Men’s hoops and football subsidize the women’s sports to a huge degree. In our case, Adidas pays to advertise with us in football and men’s basketball. Just as a matter of KU being their flagship that they also pay to outfit all women’s and men’s non-revenue sports.
-
Utah has been punished for KU’s crimes.
-
@BShark Cleveland St must feel slighted…
-
Utah got the book thrown at them. Look at these overwhelming penalties:
$5,000 fine (self-imposed)
8% reduction in official visits in 2018-19 (self-imposed)
A show-cause penalty lasting one year for the associate head coach, including a one-week suspension from Nov. 13-Nov. 19, 2019.
A prohibition of all four countable men’s basketball coaches from off-campus recruiting for a five-day period from July 11-15, 2018 (self-imposed)
A reduction of men’s basketball in-person recruiting days from 130 to 113 for the 2018-19 academic year (self-imposed)
I’m surprised they didn’t take dessert away for a week…
-
I understand Utah self-reported the violations. Stand up guys…
-
KansasComet said:
If you’re not cheating, you’re not trying! That seems to be the lesson learned here?
It’s a feeling felt all through college sports today. Just one more reason why I’d like to see us go the road of character… hard work, focusing on development with the players committed to stay awhile and develop.
It bothers me to experience our school being drug through the dirt.
I feel like we owe it to Naismith and to the game… get off the elite roller coaster of selling out who we are and put our determination to work to build a program built on character. I’m convinced we will win as much as we win now and probably more. And we win on the character scale and that should count for everything!
-
@drgnslayr i think we’re already on the right path. I love our recruits this year. I want the Devontes, the Franks, and the Agbajis of the world- the guys that unpack the bags, and are here for multiple years. No OAD mentality- no guaranteed minutes.
-
I think we were forced to take lower recruits because we missed on all the top shelf players. I haven’t heard or seen any changes in our approach to the game from a coaching style. Maybe this class will show our staff that this is the way to go, but they will have to be on board to doing the extra work to get to a higher level and the coaching staff will have to push them harder (though they are limited by NCAA regs). We will see.
-
@drgnslayr Then I’ll keep cheering when we miss out on Mr. Big Time OAD. Experience wins in the NCAA- show ponies look good, but they don’t win the hardware.
-
A roster of OADs isn’t any good. One or two on an experienced team is a great way to put them over the top.
-
A roster of OADs only works if they are complimentary to each other.
For instance, Duke had tons of talent on this year’s roster, but Williamson, Barrett, and Reddish did not really compliment each other on the floor. Duke would have been better served to have Zion with a guy like Tyler Herro in place of Reddish to help space the floor with shooting without needing the ball in his hands. That would have been a better fit than Barrett and Reddish, who always seemed to be in each other’s way because they played the same style and position.
Duke had similar issues playing Wendell Carter and Marvin Bagley together. They were tremendously talented, but also in each other’s way. Trade either of them for a high skill wing player (Kevin Knox, maybe) and that Duke team becomes virtually unstoppable.
It’s all about making sure the pieces fit because you don’t have enough practice time to force the fit, and the players themselves don’t have enough experience to adjust their style to create a fit.
-
This OAD stuff is easy. When you don’t have bright line rule, you leave yourself open to making poor, emotional decisions. Just say no.
Just look at as a scale. You put the positives on one side, the negatives on the other. Unequivocally, the negatives outweigh the positives. When folks talk about OADs positively, there is citation to remote examples. The remoteness of the positives and the conditions that might make a situation workable, demonstrates why it should not be a strategy.
I’ve long supported the idea of grabbing one if you have an opening/need, and you’re not displacing the type of player that is the core of your program from the starting role. My position now has become even more strict on this. Easy. Just say no.
-
You can develop long term poy type guys (frank) in the same class as the number 1 recruit (Wiggins) and salvage an otherwise doomed season. It’s all about balance that is hard to obtain. You also never know when a guy will go supernova. Those non-presumed OADs are awesome, even though you lose the player - they produced at the highest level (McLemore,Embiid). Presumed OADs that don’t produce, take up minutes and leave any way are the worst (Grimes).
-
KUSTEVE said:
Utah got the book thrown at them. Look at these overwhelming penalties:
$5,000 fine (self-imposed)
8% reduction in official visits in 2018-19 (self-imposed)
A show-cause penalty lasting one year for the associate head coach, including a one-week suspension from Nov. 13-Nov. 19, 2019.
A prohibition of all four countable men’s basketball coaches from off-campus recruiting for a five-day period from July 11-15, 2018 (self-imposed)
A reduction of men’s basketball in-person recruiting days from 130 to 113 for the 2018-19 academic year (self-imposed)
I’m surprised they didn’t take dessert away for a week…
That, my friend, is funny!!
-
I feel like we’ve underutilized most of our players over the years because of not being focused enough on development. I gripe and I gripe and I gripe… and I’m yet to see players executing the very basic elements of the game, like sealing the boards or hedging properly. When players stick around, they tend to improve in the basics some… at least better than OADs.
Look at a player like TRele. That guy was effective and he had so many factors working against him. He wasn’t extremely athletic… no great size… but he brought defense with him. I wouldn’t go so far as to say he mastered defense… but compared to almost every player we’ve had since him, none can compare. In a very different area, Withey is another fine example. Here was a guy that showed up on campus and was a complete klutz. Look what he did with his game by the time he graduated. And he could have reached his potential sooner but he had to chuck down protein shakes like his life depended on it. Kevin Young… the guy was bone skinny. But he understood hustle. He contributed far and above for what he physically brought to the game.
Where is the example of the uber athlete? The OAD? The TAD?
I’m sick of the drama. I’m sick of the prima donnas. I’m sick of dragging our school in the mud. I’m sick of having “cosmetic players.”
I want to see real basketball again. I want us to recruit players that will show up after their homework and work on their game until 2am every night. They can sleep later in life.
These players exist. They are scattered across America… diffused in a landscape of mediocrity.
I want to see players EARN their cred… not the ones who arrive on campus with a herd of media and admirers behind them.
We can’t win big with lower star players if we don’t have the right developmental environment. We haven’t had that environment in the past. We have to deal with the distractions from the frenzy following elite players that probably never watched a Kansas game growing up.
-
@drgnslayr I’ve been thinking the same thing. Our overall D for the past 4 or 5 years has really sucked, and I miss it. Imo alot of it is due to Bill just not having the horses and having to get away from the high-low (and losing his assistants), or am I wrong? I know one thing, I am really looking forward to this season - gonna have some bigs again.
-
@drgnslayr I get where you’re coming from, but you’ve got to take talent. I don’t hate the TAD Dotson. I expect improvement from him next season. His decision making initiating the offense should improve, as should his ability to attack the rim. I hope he’s worked on his shot, it didn’t feel like he could sustain the percentage he shot last year with a bigger sample size (like Sr Miles).
Other impact OAD/TADs - McLemore and Arthur the later of which dropped 20 in the national championship game.
You also never know who’s going to stick around like a Rush or Harrison Barnes type. Recruiting would be easy if you could just have your pick of kids, but all Bill can do is choose among the ones that want to come. Can you freaking believe some kids would rather play at Duke?!?
I can’t money must be involved.
-
This is not that complicated. If a guy is a presumed OAD, you skip him. Period. McLemore and Arthur were not presumed OADs … they were the perfect recruits. Highly ranked guys that were not presumed to turn pro after one season.
If there happens to be a player that comes in, not a presumed OAD, blows the doors off his freshman season, and then goes to the draft, that’s the way it goes. That isn’t really the issue. It’s whether, as a program, we just say no to presumed OADs.
The point is that the garbage that comes with the presumed OADs – the ones that everyone knows are just here for the season – is not worth getting a guy that then stays two years, or whatever, here or there.
-
Q had great size for his position and he was a zero. Actually… a minus. The old saying really is what it is about… “it isn’t the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog.”
I’m with you and excited for our current team. Go to Kusports and read about Braun. That kid is going to be a baller. He’s getting after it and I bet he turns out to be the player I keep talking about.
I hear you. And Devon is a keeper. He wasn’t that top elite coming in and the players I’m talking about. He is at that top talent level we should consider. Even he rides a certain border because of leaving early. The guys who leave early are very disruptive to the continuity of the team. We need the 3, 4 and 5 year guys to produce the “glue” we need.
I realize there is the school rep of being a “blue blood.” Many thinks that means we should be able to fill the roster with top shelf players. And we have been able to score many over these past years. But I don’t think any of them really helped us get anywhere. We didn’t win a title with them. Not a single title. And many of those players brought us trouble… distractions… and then, the total break in continuity by leaving early. They really keep us from developing the team unity we need for several reasons. First… they are treated different from other players. They have their own rules on being pulled from games, etc. Then… they leave early so we have a big hole in our roster where another player would have returned to develop continuity and it is the continuity that truly helps create team unity.
-
@drgnslayr I’m with you on the OADs, have never been a big fan, just don’t see a huge upside. Anyway, that stupid rule will soon be gone the way of the dodo, and I’m glad.
-
I hope you are right on ending OADs. I think they’ve been a huge negative to the game. Not trying to demonize the elites… obviously, they possess some of the best talent and are just trying to get to the pros and start earning a living asap.
-
@drgnslayr Trade Zion for Grimes and last year would’ve been a bit more successful imo. Ie a streak of 15 instead of 0.
-
Very possible, but no guarantees. Team dynamics are complex and there are no certainties.
I like the idea of having a team full of guys who are in a similar boat. The way we create consistent success is through careful recruiting of hungry players with plenty of potential and then have the right development program. I wonder what would happen if we had a sports psychologist somewhere in this formula? Someone specifically looking at team dynamics.
I could see us looking at recruiting players together from the same HS team. Carefully evaluate their relationship, looking for certain characteristics.
-
David Silver said as recently as May that the OAD rule will soon be gone. Once it is, I’m assuming Self won’t have a problem recruiting top shelf guys that want to develop.
-
Last year’s team was flawed. Unless Grimes had come in and been a Ben McLemore or better type player, its unlikely KU’s roster would have gotten us through the Big 12 last season. Even if Grimes had been that good, there’s still a chance that with two strong teams in the conference, KU may not have been able to knock off both. Last year was the perfect storm - flawed KU team, two other programs with one of their best teams in the last two decades (probably the best Texas Tech team ever). I think Tech wins the conference last year even if Grimes had come in and met expectations, unless he played like a top 3 pick (something that even the most optimistic people would not have been thinking last year).
-
justanotherfan said:
Last year’s team was flawed. Unless Grimes had come in and been a Ben McLemore or better type player, its unlikely KU’s roster would have gotten us through the Big 12 last season. Even if Grimes had been that good, there’s still a chance that with two strong teams in the conference, KU may not have been able to knock off both. Last year was the perfect storm - flawed KU team, two other programs with one of their best teams in the last two decades (probably the best Texas Tech team ever). I think Tech wins the conference last year even if Grimes had come in and met expectations, unless he played like a top 3 pick (something that even the most optimistic people would not have been thinking last year).
Last year’s team was so short-handed. No Doke. No Silvio.
I think the season could have turned out differently had we been at full strength.
