NOA response from KU discussion
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 said in NOA response from KU discussion:
The hammer might be about to drop on Duke.
Released a little under 2 hours ago from ESPN.
“Attorneys representing Zion Williamson’s former marketing representative and her company have asked the New Orleans Pelicans star to admit that his mother and stepfather demanded and received gifts, money and other benefits from persons acting on behalf of Adidas and Nike and also from people associated with Duke to influence him to sign with the Blue Devils and to wear Nike or Adidas products.”
The rest of the article goes into the background of the pending lawsuit that’s about to come Zion’s way.
This is about to get real ugly for the NCAA since they cleared Zion after Duke’s “investigation” of Zion’s recruit.
This is a fun quirk in NC law. NC statute says that a SA, defined as someone with remaining eligibility to compete, can sign a contract with a state licensed agent and cancel it within 14 days, no harm no foul. However, it does not mean you get your eligibility back. The agency’s argument is Zion was never an eligible SA to begin with so did not have the ability under the statute to cancel the deal without cause. So seems ripe for discovery for Zion and dook. And using the NCAA’s new authority to use evidence it didn’t collect internally, ripe for sanction. If they want to say KU is at fault for something KU employees had no knowledge of, and that they were actually defrauded, the shoe fits here as well even in the unlikely case that, oh, I don’t know, Jeff Capel who rented a house in Durham he owns to Zion’s family, knew about certain improprieties. Hypothetically of course.
-
@HighEliteMajor Wow, that’s quite a read. I’ve been reading the sports pages today and have little hope that any of this turns out other than bad for KU. Multiple years of probation and losses of scholarships seems imminent. Sucks for all of us. But we deserve what’s possibly coming. It will make us feel better at least if Duke gets it too.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 said in NOA response from KU discussion:
The hammer might be about to drop on Duke.
Released a little under 2 hours ago from ESPN.
“Attorneys representing Zion Williamson’s former marketing representative and her company have asked the New Orleans Pelicans star to admit that his mother and stepfather demanded and received gifts, money and other benefits from persons acting on behalf of Adidas and Nike and also from people associated with Duke to influence him to sign with the Blue Devils and to wear Nike or Adidas products.”
The rest of the article goes into the background of the pending lawsuit that’s about to come Zion’s way.
This is about to get real ugly for the NCAA since they cleared Zion after Duke’s “investigation” of Zion’s recruit.
Good grief. I see Adidas mentioned. That, coupled with the KT statement could add more to our misery. If Adidas gave gifts, etc., who else would it be on behalf of?
@wissox It would make us feel a bit better. Actually quite a bit better. We wouldn’t feel as singled out. But we’re still in the same spot.
-
@HighEliteMajor said in NOA response from KU discussion:
@Texas-Hawk-10 said in NOA response from KU discussion:
The hammer might be about to drop on Duke.
Released a little under 2 hours ago from ESPN.
“Attorneys representing Zion Williamson’s former marketing representative and her company have asked the New Orleans Pelicans star to admit that his mother and stepfather demanded and received gifts, money and other benefits from persons acting on behalf of Adidas and Nike and also from people associated with Duke to influence him to sign with the Blue Devils and to wear Nike or Adidas products.”
The rest of the article goes into the background of the pending lawsuit that’s about to come Zion’s way.
This is about to get real ugly for the NCAA since they cleared Zion after Duke’s “investigation” of Zion’s recruit.
Good grief. I see Adidas mentioned. That, coupled with the KT statement could add more to our misery. If Adidas gave gifts, etc., who else would it be on behalf of?
@wissox It would make us feel a bit better. Actually quite a bit better. We wouldn’t feel as singled out. But we’re still in the same spot.
Adidas offering $200,000 to Zion coming to KU isn’t a new revelation. This doesn’t change anything for KU.
-
Jeez, poor Cleveland State just never can catch a break…
-
@mayjay ??
-
The DOJ investigated this area and found KU as a victim.
Then the NCAA makes detrimental charges against Kansas, directly conflicting with the findings of the Justice Department.
Now the NCAA considers punishing Kansas. And even if they back off now, they have already damaged KU’s reputation and impacted our program. In other words… harm has already been done!
After we see what the NCAA does next, we drag the NCAA into a federal courtroom regardless. Which side of the story will the judge go with? The DOJ findings? Or the NCAA’s largely unsubstantiated claims?
We are now just waiting to eat their lunch!
-
-
@HighEliteMajor said in NOA response from KU discussion:
Good evening. Hope everyone is well. This is a horrible topic for Kansas basketball fans. Truth is important. Not what we want or hope. But “red pill” stuff. Reality. We are staring into the abyss - some thoughts:
- It is important to remember that “going to Court” is not a wild shoot-out. It’s been suggested by many here. It just isn’t that easy to make a reasonable case here. We should all understand that any court “solution” is a long shot at best. Just remember that - a long shot.
- Think about this - remember in the Adidas trial when the judge excluded certain evidence? Remember when the judge wouldn’t even let the defense call coaches to the stand? Heck, the judge wouldn’t even let the wiretapped call with Townsend into evidence, as the defense wanted. Why? It wasn’t relevant to Gatto’s actions. Gatto’s actions. Just like KU’s actions will be the focus in any lawsuit. It’s just not as simple as saying, “look, all of the top schools operate this way” and calling whatever witnesses you want to call. The fact is, the judge won’t let us subpoena Zion. Or coach K. That sounds nice. But those suggesting it just have no clue.
- Very importantly, going to court is also not one-sided. I’m quite sure the NCAA might choose to place Bill Self under oath in a deposition. Think about that. Federal court may not be quite as attractive as you might think, and it certainly may not be that attractive to Bill Self. Think of every question that the NCAA might want to pose to Bill Self to defend their actions. Right, that wouldn’t be pretty - I mean, since “everyone does it.” This “let’s go to court” thing is not as simple as attacking the NCAA. The NCAA will defend with a vengeance. And they would get what they can’t get now, folks under oath. Bill Self under oath.
- And in a court proceeding, the NCAA could then use subpoenas to defend against KU’s attacks. Think about that.
- Even if the NCAA’s perceived selective enforcement was really an issue, the NCAA can easily simply respond and state that they would certainly act if there was proof against other schools that was similar to the proof against Kansas. That the DOJ investigation uncovered information that they wouldn’t have been able to develop. That they have limited resources. And that the supposed acts of other schools is irrelevant as to whether Kansas violated rules. KU would have still violated the rules.
- It would be quite obvious to any judge that this circumstance has not arisen before, meaning this extensive a criminal prosecution, and thus there is no precedent to suggest it has handled others similarly situated, differently.
- Further, and I said this very early on – just because others have committed a crime and didn’t get caught, or the police can’t develop the evidence, doesn’t mean that the one guy that gets caught isn’t going to jail. We hear that a lot now.
- In any court action, the NCAA will correctly say that they have the right to administer “justice” under its governing authority. The NCAA is the representative of the schools. The schools are the shareholders, so to speak, and they make the rules. KU is a shareholder. This is not a debatable item.
- I’m just saying that’s the way it is. This is classic “red pill” stuff.
- I’ve read the “scorched earth” suggestion. It is really not a practical nor advisable solution to go “scorched earth” now, in my opinion. That is, it won’t help. Again, I think some think that this “going to court” thing is just a wide open forum to level accusations. Lawyers can’t do that in court. Lawyers get sanctioned. It’s why during proceedings lawyers are smart and offer “no comment” or a vague discussion of having trust in the process. “Scorched earth” is much better as a persuasive tool to coerce a more reasonable approach from the NCAA. “Scorched earth” as vengeance does us no good. We still lose.
- Early on I think many of you will recall that I suggested that we threaten to “burn it down” when confronted by the NCAA’s approach to punishing us while they know that others are doing the same thing. I suggested that we surely know where the bodies are buried - e.g., what others have been paid, by whom, and how much. This was not a popular suggestion. My thought was to very aggressively persuade the NCAA not to drop the hammer, because if they did, we would spill all the dirty laundry. Zion. Ayton. Everything we know. Call it an open letter to NCAA members that gets leaked. Whatever. But to coerce us out of this mess. It seems like that ship has passed. And out of court, call it “scorched earth” or “burn it down”, it should be in play.
- A point of concern - How can the NCAA back down now? “Egregious” and “severe.” Have you ever heard that before from the NCAA? We chose to attack. We chose this path. How can they NOT hammer us now?
- Our strategy is and has been a complete disaster. Unmitigated disaster – as it appears right now. This reply by the NCAA was the worst possible news we could have gotten. As a KU basketball fan, I’m disgusted by the incompetence of our leadership. And this isn’t Monday morning quarterbacking. I’ve said this all along.
- Do I believe Bill Self is ultimately the boss? I do. The Godfather in a positive sense. A guy whose ring we all should kiss – for his BB contributions. But I also believe that if the AD told Bill Self before that October/2018 disastrous press conference that we needed to be less confrontational, and that others advised the same thing, Bill Self is smart enough to listen. I also believe that if the AD was forceful about being conciliatory, that would have been heeded.
- You might recall that I suggested at the time that we be contrite, that we acknowledge issues, be supportive of the NCAA and its goals, and cooperate. Not roll over. But pledge to address the issues, be transparent, and not deny Adidas’ role. Show that we were working within the process. Again, I’m not sure I had one person that agreed with me. And I acknowledge that cooperation doesn’t always mean you skate.
- But many followed Bill Self’s unfortunate lead from October/2018. They took comfort in the fact that if Bill Self was defiant, there must be good cause. The middle finger to the NCAA so many crowed about. Well, Bill Self is not as brilliant as many seem to think. He should really stick to coaching basketball.
- Then, this “brilliant” man, together with our AD, think this whole Snoop Dog thing is a good idea with the money guns and ill-conceived announcement will Self in the big gold chain. Bill Self then feigned ignorance after Late Night. Again, how many here cheered all of that? Use your brain.
- The fact is, this reply from the NCAA shows that there are petty folks in the enforcement division that get personally offended. The exact thing I was concerned about. You don’t attack the folks that decide your punishment. You don’t use inflammatory language. You massage your denial. The language used by the NCAA was strong and intended to shove it back in our faces. You’d hope that folks in positions of enforcing rules (or laws) would not be like that, but they are. Same with prosecutors in criminal cases. Offend them and they can and will make your life hell. Why? They really answer to no one. They have a monolithic client and they have unfettered authority. They have power and they get satisfaction in exerting it. It’s that simple.
- Yet we chose in all of our responses to attack. What’s worse, Bill Self in the October/2018 press conference lied. And the NCAA knows it. Self was indignant. And those enforcing the rules know that he was untruthful in his statement of indignation. We also chose … uh, only for the purpose of trying to get Silvio exonerated … to ADMIT (again, for the purposes of the reinstatement) that Adidas was in fact a booster. Just stupidity. Never make that sort of a specific admission. Long, of course, the one of the brilliant decision to fight David Beatty on his contractual payments.
- Ladies and gentlemen, Jeff Long should be fired. He’s the AD. He guides everything the athletic department does. He’s where the buck should stop. Right?
- Ah, but there’s the rub. We hired Jeff Long and guess what? You know what’s coming – He gets more guaranteed money if we go on probation. Unreal. That’s the guy in charge of keeping us off probation. You motivate your AD. You enable your AD to take a destructive path.
- Of course, Bill Self could be the actual leader here and the Long the follower. What happens then if we get hammered and Self was really that leader? His October/2018 statement set the tone. The wrong tone. If he was the leader, the decision maker, and we get hammered, Bill Self must go.
- I said when all of this started that there is a very high risk that this whole deal ends with Bill Self not coaching at Kansas. Anyone feel better now than in October/2018 when pretty much everyone told me that was foolish? If you do feel better, you are (again) ignoring all objective evidence. This is serious. And his job is in jeopardy. Don’t tell me some insider says, oh, he’s good, or that the donors support him. This is deadly serious.
- As mentioned above, how can the NCAA back down now? To back down now would be the ultimate disgrace to the NCAA. We don’t want the group that decides our punishment pissed off and doubling down. But we’ve managed to create that situation. The opposite of brilliant.
- On another note, the quote from the NCAA in the reply has been wildly misinterpreted. The quote - “There is no cause for concern among member institutions as most of their relationships with corporate entities comply with NCAA legislation.” See the word most? That just means 51% or more. That doesn’t mean all. Despite Mike Decoursey saying it’s “preposterous”, it’s really reasonable. So of all the schools that have shoe contracts, all of them, 51% or more did what KU did with Adidas, or close to it? Of course not. Adidas and Nike don’t do the dirty work for Colorado, or Washington, or other nondescript programs. They aren’t answering to those coaches. Bruce Weber isn’t getting that treatment at K-State. I heard an NCAA hoops insider, a recruiting guy, talking about how the shoecos focus their resources on their biggest names. That makes complete sense. We’ve all heard that.
- I saw this mentioned above, referencing DeCoursey, “Mike Decourcy asks the most important question here: How do you claim that adidas is a representative of kansas’ athletic interests but also claim that shoe/apparel companies like nike are not acting in the interest of other universities?” Here’s the answer - The NCAA is not saying that Nike ISN’T acting for other universities. Where have they said they aren’t?
- The booster thing with Adidas should not be minimized. KU was well aware of this interpretation before this transpired. KU sent a memo to businesses related to that exact issues (as is referenced in many kusports.com articles). The rules clearly cover Adidas. I’ve posted the rules. It’s quite easy to see, unless you’re purposefully trying to ignore it. We admitted that Adidas was a booster, as mentioned above. Did Duke, or UK, or another school make that admission? One man goes to jail because he admitted something. Another walks free because he kept his mouth shut. Right?
- We clearly relied upon and requested Adidas to help in recruiting. This is uncontroverted. Again, we go back to what seems to be the bail-out argument many suggest – “well, others do it.” Or, “why aren’t they going after Duke?” That simply won’t cut. Or claiming it’s a “crock.” Or complaining about how unfair all this is? Or really making up a narrative that minimizes everything? Don’t we all know that now?
- I saw the comment about KU and its boosters being in this until the “bitter end.” Remember, that means the end is “bitter.” This should never have been the stance. Ever. Suicide isn’t honorable, not in a cave on Iwo Jima, and certainly not with OUR basketball program. We are clearly THE example. This is the worst case scenario we all feared. And as I said immediately after Bill Self’s misguided response in October/2018, the path we have chosen is a disaster. Now we are facing what could be irreparable harm to our basketball program.
- We have created a situation where the NCAA has nowhere to go but to hammer us. We did that to ourselves. Not saying it’s right, but we did nothing to give the NCAA an out or room to wiggle. We attacked, starting with Self’s foolishness. We claimed the whole thing was frivolous, and that the NCAA’s charges were “misguided, unprecedented, and meritless.” The NCAA now says, after all the briefing, that the violations are “egregious and severe” and that “few facts are not in dispute.” Prepare yourselves.
Or, choose the blue pill.
… But how do you really feel?
-
@drgnslayr Remember, the DOJ does not govern the NCAA.
The NCAA did not say we were the victim. They have never said or signed off on the concept that we are a victim. That seems to be a point that many are confused on. It’s very important.
The DOJ created a fiction to support their prosecution. Of course, the schools were not the victims. I think we all know that. But again, the NCAA is not party to that definition anyway.
It should also highlight why filing a lawsuit has its limits in scope. In the criminal case (the KU case would be civil), the judge would not let the defense attorneys really probe that “victim” identification. The DOJ used the “schools” as the institution and not the individuals that were acting on its behalf – such as the coaches. Just pointing out what can be a limited scope of a court proceeding.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 said in NOA response from KU discussion:
@HighEliteMajor said in NOA response from KU discussion:
@Texas-Hawk-10 said in NOA response from KU discussion:
The hammer might be about to drop on Duke.
Released a little under 2 hours ago from ESPN.
“Attorneys representing Zion Williamson’s former marketing representative and her company have asked the New Orleans Pelicans star to admit that his mother and stepfather demanded and received gifts, money and other benefits from persons acting on behalf of Adidas and Nike and also from people associated with Duke to influence him to sign with the Blue Devils and to wear Nike or Adidas products.”
The rest of the article goes into the background of the pending lawsuit that’s about to come Zion’s way.
This is about to get real ugly for the NCAA since they cleared Zion after Duke’s “investigation” of Zion’s recruit.
Good grief. I see Adidas mentioned. That, coupled with the KT statement could add more to our misery. If Adidas gave gifts, etc., who else would it be on behalf of?
@wissox It would make us feel a bit better. Actually quite a bit better. We wouldn’t feel as singled out. But we’re still in the same spot.
Adidas offering $200,000 to Zion coming to KU isn’t a new revelation. This doesn’t change anything for KU.
You are correct . What if it’s probed further (more info)? That’s what I was referring to (in part). The more info that comes out could connect dots or provide more info, that is, coaches that were part of that process (KT, for example). But I had never heard of the gifts being given.
-
@Marco … sick to my stomach about all of this.
One hope is that more info starts coming out against others, the NCAA considers that slaying multiple blue bloods (or big fish) with this is not a wise business decision, they have a roundtable, and make an announcement about how widespread it is, that they are moving forward, everyone on notice, limited punishment, etc.
An initial approach that highlighted the widespread nature in CBB by KU with some sort of regret, transparency, commitment to fix the issue at KU, could have lent itself to that possible (albeit remote) type of conclusion – not backing the NCAA into a corner with little room for compromise.
But we get Duke in this, maybe another, you never know.
-
I realize the DOJ does not govern the NCAA directly. It is the overall police over private institutions of this size.
However… because the NCAA has such a large impact on America, the DOJ is involved with more investigative situations. If the NCAA was dismantled, it would fall into the hands of our federal government and the DOJ would be more directly involved.
Right, the NCAA never agreed we are a victim. The DOJ investigation came to that conclusion and my comment is that will be heavily weighed in a federal courtroom. I think it will be THE overwhelming piece of evidence helping Kansas in their federal case.
Most federal court cases do not have the luxury of a DOJ investigation. As you mentioned, the DOJ was involved in a criminal case while the potential case I’m discussing is a civil case. The conclusion found by the DOJ is that Kansas was a victim. Typically, that opens the door for Kansas to seek damage reparations in a civil courtroom.
Where the NCAA erred is after the DOJ concluded their case, they came in and persecuted Kansas based on a mythical story. Unless they were able to produce evidence beyond the bite of a federal indictment it appears they have made a grave mistake by mugging a victim (Kansas).
Kansas just needs to remain quiet and let the NCAA continue to dig their own grave. Perhaps the burden of proof within the NCAA system always falls on the school, coach, athlete… but in a federal courtroom, the burden of proof will fall on the NCAA to substantiate their charges.
-
@drgnslayr I like the idea of searching for a way out. But we’re in quite a box. Remember, the DOJ conclusion is based on the “institution”, not the program. The program could be rogue. It’s just a part of the university. It’s not the university.
When this all started I said that under the DOJ theory, they could/should prosecute coaches, players, family members, guardians – all those that were part of the theoretical conspiracy to defraud institution. I mentioned my concern that the apparently “pristine” coach could be in the DOJ’s crosshairs. Under the DOJ theory, they could have filed charges against all those categories. But they chose the shoeco folks. Selective prosecution. A show is all it was. The HBO special on the Scheme about Christian Dawkins showed the frame job. This was an abusive prosecution. We suspected that early on. For show.
This is very important because I think it could influence your view on this: The DOJ “conclusion” – meaning the fiction created to support prosecution that KU is a “victim” – does not create a legal basis for a civil lawsuit. That is really not even evidence in a civil case. The judge might even exclude evidence of the third party’s convictions (Gassnola) as it would be prejudicial and irrelevant to the civil claims. A prosecutor’s opinions or theory of prosecution is not the basis for a civil claim.
But, again, KU (the institution) can be the victim while it’s employees (Self, KT, etc) violate NCAA rules subjecting the institution’s athletic programs to punishment.
The burden of proof in a civil matter would not fall on the NCAA to “substantiate their charges.” They are a private organization following their rule, with authority given by their member institutions. The burden in a civil suit would be on KU – the one filing the suit.
-
@HighEliteMajor The NCAA did not perform due diligence on Zion Williamson. They accepted the results of Duke’s internal investigation without question.
There are punishments for KU that I will not argue against because they happened. KU vacating the Silvio games in '17-'18 is probably going to happen and I won’t argue that one. Kurtis Townsend not coaching at KU beyond this upcoming season is realistic as much as his name was attached to Gassnola.
I don’t think Self is in danger because there’s not enough to hit him with a show-cause. Maybe a suspension, but that’s it.
Billy Preston not playing a game for KU is going to save them from a lot of punishment. The payment happened, probation there seems appropriate since Preston never played a regular season game.
The biggest part of the NCAA’s case against KU is the reason this thing will end up in federal court if they attempt to drop the hammer on KU. Gassnola and Adidas being declared boosters of KU will not hold up and should not hold up. Let us not forget the reason why KU declared them boosters. It was done because the NCAA asked KU to do so in order to move the Silvio DeSousa reinstation case forward. KU’s compliance with an NCAA request then being used against them is going to come back and bite the NCAA in the ass in the end. This is the particular ruling that if the NCAA insists on standing by, should trigger KU to go full scorched earth in trial and expose the levels and depth of corruption at the youth level in the Adidas, Nike, and Under Armour leagues and tournaments. This would be best done by taking statements from Adidas, Nike, and Under Armour runners talking about their business practices and how they steer players to certain universities. The reason for this would be to force the NCAA into one of three decisions, two of which would be good for KU. First option, they back off on the naming of corporate partners as boosters and remove that from the list of violations against KU. Should the NCAA remain steadfast in their resolve to keep calling corporate partners boosters, there’s two ways that decision goes. Either they address the corruption and hit the reset button through reforming their rules or they punish everyone that’s identified by witness testimony and statements in regards to grassroots corruption.
The Zion Williamson lawsuit will be nothing but positive for KU. An admission of NCAA violations is going to come from this at some point in the near future which will help KU in the long run. Either the NCAA hammers Duke for lying to the NCAA which softens the blow for Kansas or the NCAA goes soft on Duke and gives KU ammo for the eventual federal case that the NCAA is unfairly targeting KU which would have much more merit in that scenario.
-
@HighEliteMajor said in NOA response from KU discussion:
But, again, KU (the institution) can be the victim while it’s employees (Self, KT, etc) violate NCAA rules subjecting the institution’s athletic programs to punishment.
I agree with you that this is the possibility. However, a jury looked at the evidence and if the jury believed Self, KT, etc. were participating with Gassnola, etc., then how does the DOJ have a case to convict those guys? It was based on the premise that the universities were defrauded. If agents of the school, those directing the basketball program were directing Gassnola, etc., I have no idea how you prove that a university was defrauded? I’m not saying there aren’t any violations that couldn’t/shouldn’t stick, but think rulings should be consistent. If sworn testimony under oath says KU, Self, etc. didn’t know and the jury went along with that, then I don’t think a NCAA ruling should then be able to hammer you and say you did know.
-
@hawkfan01 There’s two different governing bodies at work here and each have their own set of rules of governance. It’s not illegal for a school to pay a recruit to attend their university. That school will never face any legal consequences for that action because they didn’t violate any local, state, or federal laws. That action does violate NCAA rules and makes the school subject to punishment under NCAA rules.
In KU’s case, money changed hands to influence a player to attend KU, that’s an NCAA violation regardless of a DoJ ruling. The defrauding of KU was determined by the DoJ because they ruled that the money changing hands to influence recruits to come to KU occurred without KU’s knowledge. Whether that’s reality or not is another story, but that’s what the court determined at this time. We’ll probably find out if that’s reality whenever KU takes the NCAA to court following the NCAA’s issuance of punishments against KU.
-
@hawkfan01 You are right. You’re being logical. The prosecution was not logical. The NCAA, though, unfortunately, is being logical.
I’m not saying it’s right or should have been done, but that’s how the government made their case.
-
https://twitter.com/Andrew__Slater/status/1258560279744598017
Not related to KU, but NCAA in general.
-
@BShark said in NOA response from KU discussion:
https://twitter.com/Andrew__Slater/status/1258560279744598017
Not related to KU, but NCAA in general.
Always speaking the real
-
@BShark said in NOA response from KU discussion:
https://twitter.com/Andrew__Slater/status/1258560279744598017
Not related to KU, but NCAA in general.
That’s the type of statement that can begin the process of real reform in college athletics because it redefines what a student athlete is. It does appear that real reform is happening based on the recent NCAA proposal to allow students to profit off of their likeness and to do endorsement deals and personal appearances.
-
If colleges make the bad choice to bring athletes on campus but tell other students to stay home it’ll send exactly the wrong message about “amateurism.”
-
@FarmerJayhawk My body is very ready though. I kinda hope it happens. And I mean for safety reasons it very well might have to.
-
@HighEliteMajor I was intrigued by your comment indicating the possibility of the NCAA using some testimony from the federal trial but disavowing other testimony that may undermine its case against KU.
The reason I am intrigued is that I think that if the NCAA does this, they will indeed hand a federal lawsuit to KU on a silver platter. The NCAA may govern its owm members by its own rules and procedures. I have discussed for what seems like years how the courts will defer to private adjudicatory processes that are directed to voluntary members of an organization (which you also have discussed). So long as an organization follows its own rules (which must include notice, the right to be heard, and some type of appeal) courts keep their hands off. Churches, lodges, etc all administer their proceedings largely unfettered. It is also really what underlies the general legislative and common law deference to arbitrations.
There is one exception, however, that the NCAA could easily stumble into. First, a general observation: let’s remember that the use by the NCAA of evidence from federal criminal trials has never been tested anywhere. In virtually all penalty types of proceedings, using testimony from a third party against the subject of the proceeding is usually allowed only when the subject of the proceeding had a chance to cross-examine or otherwise participate (whether they availed themselves of it or not). It is entirely likely in my mind that a court faced with the notion of use of outside testimony against a party that had no ability to participate in that proceeding would consider this as a case of first impression potentially impacting hundreds–thousands, including D2 and D3–of schools. The huge importance of ensuring that the NCAA’s rules passed a fundamental test of private adudicatory due process would absolutely, in my mind, guarantee a willingness by a court to take the case.
But secondarily, this case itself would beg for review if the NCAA chose to use their rules by cherry picking which evidence from a court case to use. It is axiomatic that the NCAA developed the rule to get to things it otherwise would miss since it has no subpoena power. I think courts could easily say that there is nothing more arbitrary than excising disfavorable evidence while trumpeting the favorable. Courts, even if willing to let the NCAA use this novel power after considering that first challenge discussed above, might (I think “would”) decide that the NCAA can only use evidence that is specifically and conclusively established as a finding in the prior case. Evidence that is extraneous to a guilty finding should not be used because it may well not have been the result of a judicial or jury finding.
Example: Agent is on trial for providing drugs to get Student A to sign a representation contract in high school. Student A testifies that he and Agent invited classmate Student B to dinner and did drugs later. Agent is found guilty. NCAA wants to impose initial eligibility sanction on Student B for accepting value (meal and drugs) from Agent, and tries to introduce Student A’s testimony to prove it.
I think a court would say it violates fundamental fairness to allow the use of extraneous evidence like that. A judge or jury could have found Agent guilty while disbelieving that Student B was involved.
Anyway, if the NCAA tries to disregard the testimony that KU did not know of the payments, I think the door is wide open.
-
@HighEliteMajor I think I’ve got the TLDR version (I actually read most of it… great job outlining your perspective):
Justice isn’t fair. To think that the allegations are about fairness is wrong. This is about holding a member accountable, which the NCAA is well-equipped to do.
Is that basically the idea?
-
@FarmerJayhawk said in NOA response from KU discussion:
If colleges make the bad choice to bring athletes on campus but tell other students to stay home it’ll send exactly the wrong message about “amateurism.”
There’s several ways to look at this. Before I get to that though, I want to say that is coming from the lense that the NCAA doesn’t give two
about college football because they don’t profit off of college football. ESPN owns the playoffs and the conferences negotiate their own TV deals. The NCAA will be singing a different time this fall when it’s time for college basketball to start up since that’s where the vast majority of the NCAA’s operating finances come from and they’re going to be desperate in not wanting to miss out on a second straight NCAA Tournament because I’m sure their pocketbook took a huge hit this year and why they tried so hard to find a viable alternative so they could still get their TV money.First of all, the NCAA moving towards the adoption of allowing players to make money off of themselves is a huge step forward for college athletics. That statement @BShark linked to is also significant because it’s another step away from the charade that college athletics is amateur in nature, at least in regards to football and men’s basketball. If that’s the position the NCAA, conferences, and schools want to take, then I have no problem with players coming back before students because nobody is pretending they are student-athletes anymore. They’re being viewed and treated like athletic-students in that case and should have a different set of rules applied to them in that case.
The other side is if those groups want to keep up the charade that these kids are true students first, then I would agree with keeping them away from campuses until everyone else returns as well. If you want to bring in the football players in the summer like normal because of plans to reopen the campus in August/September to students, I wouldn’t have an issue in that case either because that’s standard for programs to get their kids conditioned and ready for the season.
Ideally before the end of the month, you would have the NCAA talk to conference commissioners about their support of the rule change in regards to players profiting off their likeness which basically says these kids are more than just student-athletes now. Then the conference commissioners get on conference call with all of the AD’s and university presidents to to establish how student-atheltes are viewed in their eyes based on the NCAA’s endorsement of players profiting off their image and come to a decision about how the school’s themselves view these athletes in that light.
-
@mayjay I don’t think the NCAA would ignore some evidence but rely upon other evidence. I hope I didn’t say that. I think they assess all of it. They considered KU’s voluminous response.
First, I believe the NCAA is the fact-finder (and other fact-finders in other proceedings are irrelevant to their mission). Thus they can take all the “evidence” and make their conclusion. That is, violation or not. For example, judges/juries take in all sorts of evidence. Then they make credibility determinations to make a finding. The NCAA can do that. That means they can give more weight to certain evidence. In fact, they are empowered to make exactly that sort of finding. I mentioned this a long time ago it seems – when has a school beaten the NCAA in court over it’s penalties?
Second, and I think this is really important – whether or not Self knew of specifics is somewhat irrelevant when treating Adidas as a booster. That is, because of the booster status, the school is held accountable. We relied upon them to help in recruiting. They were our agent, so to speak. When we placed our reliance on Adidas to get us “a couple of real guys” or whatever, we’re in bed with them.
I did not intend to suggest that the NCAA would ignore (or dismiss out of hand) some evidence in favor of only reviewing other evidence. But given that my post was of the TLDR variety (as @bskeet mentioned), I might have forgotten what the heck I said by the time I got done. I don’t think that conclusions … rulings by a judge or a jury, or theories by a prosecutor … are conclusive for the NCAA. Meaning, I think they can ignore that stuff.
@bskeet And thanks … and I would say generally, yes.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 said in NOA response from KU discussion:
@FarmerJayhawk said in NOA response from KU discussion:
If colleges make the bad choice to bring athletes on campus but tell other students to stay home it’ll send exactly the wrong message about “amateurism.”
There’s several ways to look at this. Before I get to that though, I want to say that is coming from the lense that the NCAA doesn’t give two
about college football because they don’t profit off of college football. ESPN owns the playoffs and the conferences negotiate their own TV deals. The NCAA will be singing a different time this fall when it’s time for college basketball to start up since that’s where the vast majority of the NCAA’s operating finances come from and they’re going to be desperate in not wanting to miss out on a second straight NCAA Tournament because I’m sure their pocketbook took a huge hit this year and why they tried so hard to find a viable alternative so they could still get their TV money.First of all, the NCAA moving towards the adoption of allowing players to make money off of themselves is a huge step forward for college athletics. That statement @BShark linked to is also significant because it’s another step away from the charade that college athletics is amateur in nature, at least in regards to football and men’s basketball. If that’s the position the NCAA, conferences, and schools want to take, then I have no problem with players coming back before students because nobody is pretending they are student-athletes anymore. They’re being viewed and treated like athletic-students in that case and should have a different set of rules applied to them in that case.
The other side is if those groups want to keep up the charade that these kids are true students first, then I would agree with keeping them away from campuses until everyone else returns as well. If you want to bring in the football players in the summer like normal because of plans to reopen the campus in August/September to students, I wouldn’t have an issue in that case either because that’s standard for programs to get their kids conditioned and ready for the season.
Ideally before the end of the month, you would have the NCAA talk to conference commissioners about their support of the rule change in regards to players profiting off their likeness which basically says these kids are more than just student-athletes now. Then the conference commissioners get on conference call with all of the AD’s and university presidents to to establish how student-atheltes are viewed in their eyes based on the NCAA’s endorsement of players profiting off their image and come to a decision about how the school’s themselves view these athletes in that light.
If they can profit from playing and have access to tests and the like then I don’t have a problem with it assuming they follow state and local guidelines. But under the scenario where we don’t have students back on campus, NIL is still more an idea than reality, and schools want to play football, I think that’s rank hypocrisy. I don’t think it’ll happen thankfully. I do believe students will be on campuses in the fall with significant modifications to schedules. I have no idea what’ll happen with football beyond I think they play at some point. I could see a delayed season without fans but I don’t think there’s much of a chance they’ll cancel the season
-
@HighEliteMajor Wow, sorry, maybe I should not read things and then respond later. I cannot figure out where I got waylaid… Covid-isolation-induced senility, perhaps.
So just consider that post my own thoughts about whether we can sue. (I agree scorched earth is not a good approach. I do think we win on procedures, but the time and expense will be costly.)
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 I could be wrong about this but I think the NCAA handles all the branding of college athletics. So the NCAA gets royalties from football related sports items that have a university logo so they probably care deeply about college football.
-
I think the NCAA has gotten away with murder for decades. They prosecuted schools based on rumor or circumstantial evidence. They rarely had the ability to really nail schools because they didn’t have the power to subpoena or indict. So they often hammered schools with impunity. Back in the day, they were never threatened with retaliation in a federal courtroom. Much has changed because of the establishment of widespread harm throughout the country. It has become easier to pierce that private institution veil.
HEM - “when has a school beaten the NCAA in court over it’s penalties?”
Good question. Has any school taken their grievance on sanctions to a federal courtroom? Look over the last few years and you will find other areas that have new precedence challenging the authority of the NCAA. Why isn’t the timing now GOOD for a challenge?
-
@Careful-you said in NOA response from KU discussion:
@Texas-Hawk-10 I could be wrong about this but I think the NCAA handles all the branding of college athletics. So the NCAA gets royalties from football related sports items that have a university logo so they probably care deeply about college football.
No they don’t because the NCAA isn’t a marketing company. Schools handle they own branding through their own marketing departments within the athletic department.
The NCAA also has no control over the licensing and trademarks of schools either. That is a private company called Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC) based out of Atlanta that schools and conferences outsource their licensing and trademark stuff to. That’s the company that’s gets a piece of pie when licensed merchandise is sold.
ESPN controls the College Football Playoff so they’re the one who make a boatload of money from that. Various groups control the individual bowl games so the NCAA doesn’t get any of that pie. Conferences the TV deals for the conferences which is why the conferences want college football so badly. The NCAA doesn’t get any piece of the pie of college football.
-
@FarmerJayhawk said in NOA response from KU discussion:
@Texas-Hawk-10 said in NOA response from KU discussion:
@FarmerJayhawk said in NOA response from KU discussion:
If colleges make the bad choice to bring athletes on campus but tell other students to stay home it’ll send exactly the wrong message about “amateurism.”
There’s several ways to look at this. Before I get to that though, I want to say that is coming from the lense that the NCAA doesn’t give two
about college football because they don’t profit off of college football. ESPN owns the playoffs and the conferences negotiate their own TV deals. The NCAA will be singing a different time this fall when it’s time for college basketball to start up since that’s where the vast majority of the NCAA’s operating finances come from and they’re going to be desperate in not wanting to miss out on a second straight NCAA Tournament because I’m sure their pocketbook took a huge hit this year and why they tried so hard to find a viable alternative so they could still get their TV money.First of all, the NCAA moving towards the adoption of allowing players to make money off of themselves is a huge step forward for college athletics. That statement @BShark linked to is also significant because it’s another step away from the charade that college athletics is amateur in nature, at least in regards to football and men’s basketball. If that’s the position the NCAA, conferences, and schools want to take, then I have no problem with players coming back before students because nobody is pretending they are student-athletes anymore. They’re being viewed and treated like athletic-students in that case and should have a different set of rules applied to them in that case.
The other side is if those groups want to keep up the charade that these kids are true students first, then I would agree with keeping them away from campuses until everyone else returns as well. If you want to bring in the football players in the summer like normal because of plans to reopen the campus in August/September to students, I wouldn’t have an issue in that case either because that’s standard for programs to get their kids conditioned and ready for the season.
Ideally before the end of the month, you would have the NCAA talk to conference commissioners about their support of the rule change in regards to players profiting off their likeness which basically says these kids are more than just student-athletes now. Then the conference commissioners get on conference call with all of the AD’s and university presidents to to establish how student-atheltes are viewed in their eyes based on the NCAA’s endorsement of players profiting off their image and come to a decision about how the school’s themselves view these athletes in that light.
If they can profit from playing and have access to tests and the like then I don’t have a problem with it assuming they follow state and local guidelines. But under the scenario where we don’t have students back on campus, NIL is still more an idea than reality, and schools want to play football, I think that’s rank hypocrisy. I don’t think it’ll happen thankfully. I do believe students will be on campuses in the fall with significant modifications to schedules. I have no idea what’ll happen with football beyond I think they play at some point. I could see a delayed season without fans but I don’t think there’s much of a chance they’ll cancel the season
Like I said, it all depends on how schools and athletic departments truly view football players. Honestly, I think whatever we see with the NFL in regards to delaying the season is probably the way college goes as well.
-
@FarmerJayhawk said in NOA response from KU discussion:
If colleges make the bad choice to bring athletes on campus but tell other students to stay home it’ll send exactly the wrong message about “amateurism.”
That will totally destroy all of their myths.
-
@drgnslayr I understand the desire to sue the NCAA. They are a rules enforcer. No one likes them.
But let’s focus our anger at the ones that are to blame. The colleges. They run the NCAA. Own it. Direct it. Fund it (or under fund it). The colleges make the rules.
The colleges approved the language about boosters. A first year law student could have advised regarding the breadth of that rule.
This is their monster. In part, it is KU’s monster.
Again, I appreciate your passion and the desire for fairness.
It sounds like you’ll get your wish as some have said KU is in this until the bitter end. We will all root for a KU victory if that happens, and if that happened, a celebration on Mass might be fitting. Not holding my breath, though.
@mayjay And I was only kind of kidding about forgetting what I’d typed by the time I get to the end of a long post. That senility is spreading.
I truly think our best, realistic option is one that @Texas-Hawk-10 mentioned (and was the basis of my “burn it down” suggested threat many months ago) – that the NCAA sees that to hammer Kansas would be to create such a wide net among its top programs that it would not make sense business wise.
I just don’t like that the NCAA (it seems) is cornered by our aggressiveness. I would rather more solutions be available.
-
@HighEliteMajor said in NOA response from KU discussion:
That senility is spreading.
No vaccine for debilitas senilitas.
(The best thing about taking Latin for 4 years was the help it provided in standardized tests like the LSAT. The second best thing was making up cool words.)
-
I know I’m not an unbiased source here. I openly admit that. If this forum was for official purposes my response would be buffered and I would attempt to be less opinionated. This is a place to “let it fly!”
What I want is fairness. And that simple comment opens a monster can of worms. I want fairness to schools, fans, coaches and most, the student-athletes. You are right, that we are a part of this and the development there of. I attack the NCAA often in areas I feel are unfair. It’s hard not to do after reading info about Zion and others and what appears to be an unfair approach to evaluating fairness on a broad scale.
It is important to see “how we got here.” And use that as part of the reasoning for where we go next. This is a transformation away from something that started simple but grew into complexity and required constant patching. It’s like a bad piece of software where the approach was to patch and patch and patch. At some point, it’s time to start from scratch and build something new. We are at that point.
The NCAA “using” situations to posture their position is an idea widely believed. And to those fans from schools selected, it always feels unfair. It builds an environment of distrust, anger and a desire to rebel. That’s not a system working well.
Maybe it’s about the punishment. Is it fair to hurt so many people that are totally not involved in the “crime?” Punishing a university (in it’s entirety) with bans from post-conference participation, reducing scholarships, public condemnation and humiliation, etc., hurts a lot more innocent people than those committing the crime. When a school is leveled with the dark cloud of conviction, that impacts pretty much all areas of the university, including a huge impact to academics. Think about the impact on endowments (for example). Connecting the dots between NCAA sanctions and the development of a new research wing to the university is just one of the many areas that need to be considered and screams for this to reach a federal courtroom, because our society is heavily impacted by the decisions made by this private organization.
Imagine someone commits murder in your city/town. The person is caught. Should the entire community be punished for that? In some ways, the harm has already been leveled in many areas… but should there be a bigger penalty applied to community as a whole? No. Punishment should be directed to those who commit the crime. And in some cases, there can be fault in the system, too, and that should be exposed and addressed, too.
Punishment should be directed specifically to those who are convicted. And because of that specificity of punishment the level of proof must meet a reasonable standard. Perhaps the NCAA needs to be in contract directly with coaches, ADs, etc., to create the ability to regulate with pinpoint accuracy by laying down the law. This is where the college system may be better served by federal control, because those contracts are not necessary.
-
I don’t think that there is going to be any college sports this year anyway - football, basketball, any. You cannot say there will be no classes on campus, yet say yes to having sports, no way.
-
@mayjay said in NOA response from KU discussion:
@HighEliteMajor I was intrigued by your comment indicating the possibility of the NCAA using some testimony from the federal trial but disavowing other testimony that may undermine its case against KU.
The reason I am intrigued is that I think that if the NCAA does this, they will indeed hand a federal lawsuit to KU on a silver platter. The NCAA may govern its owm members by its own rules and procedures. I have discussed for what seems like years how the courts will defer to private adjudicatory processes that are directed to voluntary members of an organization (which you also have discussed). So long as an organization follows its own rules (which must include notice, the right to be heard, and some type of appeal) courts keep their hands off. Churches, lodges, etc all administer their proceedings largely unfettered. It is also really what underlies the general legislative and common law deference to arbitrations.
There is one exception, however, that the NCAA could easily stumble into. First, a general observation: let’s remember that the use by the NCAA of evidence from federal criminal trials has never been tested anywhere. In virtually all penalty types of proceedings, using testimony from a third party against the subject of the proceeding is usually allowed only when the subject of the proceeding had a chance to cross-examine or otherwise participate (whether they availed themselves of it or not). It is entirely likely in my mind that a court faced with the notion of use of outside testimony against a party that had no ability to participate in that proceeding would consider this as a case of first impression potentially impacting hundreds–thousands, including D2 and D3–of schools. The huge importance of ensuring that the NCAA’s rules passed a fundamental test of private adudicatory due process would absolutely, in my mind, guarantee a willingness by a court to take the case.
But secondarily, this case itself would beg for review if the NCAA chose to use their rules by cherry picking which evidence from a court case to use. It is axiomatic that the NCAA developed the rule to get to things it otherwise would miss since it has no subpoena power. I think courts could easily say that there is nothing more arbitrary than excising disfavorable evidence while trumpeting the favorable. Courts, even if willing to let the NCAA use this novel power after considering that first challenge discussed above, might (I think “would”) decide that the NCAA can only use evidence that is specifically and conclusively established as a finding in the prior case. Evidence that is extraneous to a guilty finding should not be used because it may well not have been the result of a judicial or jury finding.
Example: Agent is on trial for providing drugs to get Student A to sign a representation contract in high school. Student A testifies that he and Agent invited classmate Student B to dinner and did drugs later. Agent is found guilty. NCAA wants to impose initial eligibility sanction on Student B for accepting value (meal and drugs) from Agent, and tries to introduce Student A’s testimony to prove it.
I think a court would say it violates fundamental fairness to allow the use of extraneous evidence like that. A judge or jury could have found Agent guilty while disbelieving that Student B was involved.
Anyway, if the NCAA tries to disregard the testimony that KU did not know of the payments, I think the door is wide open.
And there it is, neatly rolled into a tortilla, thank you @mayjay. People are tired of the NCAA’s dictatorial ways, being able to pick and choose.
-
It will be interesting to see if there is benefit for KU dragging this out as long as they can. Duke is now in the news. Louisville was last week getting their NOA. Arizona and LSU have to be next. Something like 16% of P5/P6 schools have been charged with violations. Is the NCAA really prepared to hand out punishments to that many schools. The Duke/Zion Allegations could be game changers in this.
Let’s not forget Gassnola’s dealings weren’t mutually exclusive to KU. He’s tied to the NC St & potential Arizona situation as well.
Another interesting part. The NCAA violated its own by laws using evidence in the FBI trial against KU in its NOA. If the case is still pending appeal when KU goes before IARP or a federal court I wonder what grounds KU has because of that.
-
I can’t remember all the particulars of KU in the FBI trial and what was actually admitted as evidence and what was hearsay that a reporter printed, but didn’t actually make it into the trial. However, KU seems to be one of the few schools that didn’t have any coaches actually paying the players. Wasn’t one of Arizona’s assistants paying players out of his own pocket?
I think it’s a good thing Preston’s Mom is on wire tap saying that KU couldn’t find and Gassnola under oath said Self/KU didn’t know. The innuendo about KU coaches on wire taps, who knows? We didn’t have the full context of what was being said and even some of the things typed, Self didn’t respond. All the NCAA may really have to go on is that KU should have known. But if you take Bray’s comments, communications with shoe reps is common place (no surprise). It’ll be interesting what comes out on Zion, where his parents were living, etc. If any of those details come out, KU won’t look so bad. I’d love to be a fly on the wall in knowing KU’s strategy because as bad as it looks (and as bad as the penalties may be), I think KU has a chance to come out of this okay.
-
Yes “Book” Richardson is the Assistant your talking about.
-
@hawkfan01 don’t they have her on tape telling billy not to tell coach about the car? I think she tried to say her and Gassnola were Lovers, and she’s gay.
-
@Marco A realistic question - if folks are tired of the NCAA’s “dictatorial” ways, why do the colleges allow it? I understand the sentiment. We all hate the NCAA I guess. But the schools don’t. The schools make the rules. The schools could upend all of their authority.
To everyone on this topic - The facts aren’t in our favor. All the nit-picking about who knew what, or told someone, or whatever, is irrelevant. Here’s why - the NCAA, with all of that, already leveled its opinion by sending us the NOA. Then, after our Response, they came back with their Reply and said our violations were “severe and egregious.” The NCAA knows these facts and with that, they doubled-down and did not moderate.
@hawkfan01 I don’t think Bray’s comment does anything for KU. The issue for Bray would be if their shoeco paid athletes to go to ND. Then they’d be in the same hot water IF the NCAA had that info. Correct? If details on Zion come out, I think we’ll still look bad … but Duke may look just as bad. And, of course, that is good.
@BeddieKU23 I’m interested in the rule section you’re referring to on using trial or third party evidence. Do you have a reference to that?
-
@HighEliteMajor The “severe and egregious” part is most likely referencing Gassnola and Adidas and their booster status and why this will eventually end up in court if the NCAA does drop the hammer on KU. We cannot ignore the circumstances of why KU declared Gassnola and Adidas as boosters which was because the NCAA asked them to do so in order to move forward in Silvio’s reinstatement case. That is relevant in KU’s fight against this.
I’m guessing KU will be challenging that by accusing the NCAA of coercion in regards to forcing KU to name Gassnola and Adidas as boosters in order to move Silvio’s case forward.
I agree that KU probably isn’t going to escape with no punishment from all of this because money changed hands to influence a recruit to come to KU. Probation, loss of 1 or 2 scholarships, and a lack of oversight label seems probable. Vacating the 2018 games Silvio DeSousa played in seems a possibility as well.
Depending on how a court rules about the status of Gassnola and Adidas, Kurtis Townsend getting tagged with a show-cause wouldn’t shock me and even if he doesn’t, he seems like the most likely to lose his job over this. Self maybe gets a suspension from this, but I don’t see him being fired over this unless some new evidence comes out.
-
@HighEliteMajor said in NOA response from KU discussion:
@Marco A realistic question - if folks are tired of the NCAA’s “dictatorial” ways, why do the colleges allow it? I understand the sentiment. We all hate the NCAA I guess. But the schools don’t. The schools make the rules. The schools could upend all of their authority.
To everyone on this topic - The facts aren’t in our favor. All the nit-picking about who knew what, or told someone, or whatever, is irrelevant. Here’s why - the NCAA, with all of that, already leveled its opinion by sending us the NOA. Then, after our Response, they came back with their Reply and said our violations were “severe and egregious.” The NCAA knows these facts and with that, they doubled-down and did not moderate.
@hawkfan01 I don’t think Bray’s comment does anything for KU. The issue for Bray would be if their shoeco paid athletes to go to ND. Then they’d be in the same hot water IF the NCAA had that info. Correct? If details on Zion come out, I think we’ll still look bad … but Duke may look just as bad. And, of course, that is good.
@BeddieKU23 I’m interested in the rule section you’re referring to on using trial or third party evidence. Do you have a reference to that?
The chatter has finally started, universities are talking about upending it. Time for the parasites to go get real jobs. Do I think that the NCAA has a purpose as a loose governing body? Yeah, I guess so, for the sake of all men’s and women’s athletics. But way out on the periphery, and not so much in everyone’s grill as they pick winners and losers while - yeah, I’m saying it - lining their own pockets.
This nation has a serious problem with protecting and further enriching those who already have and or have been in power. Case in point, Condoleeza Rice. I like her, always have, but what business does she have being on both the NCAA college football playoff committee and the one that recommends changes to college basketball? Because she is a fan? Give me a break.
-
@Marco said in NOA response from KU discussion:
@HighEliteMajor said in NOA response from KU discussion:
@Marco A realistic question - if folks are tired of the NCAA’s “dictatorial” ways, why do the colleges allow it? I understand the sentiment. We all hate the NCAA I guess. But the schools don’t. The schools make the rules. The schools could upend all of their authority.
To everyone on this topic - The facts aren’t in our favor. All the nit-picking about who knew what, or told someone, or whatever, is irrelevant. Here’s why - the NCAA, with all of that, already leveled its opinion by sending us the NOA. Then, after our Response, they came back with their Reply and said our violations were “severe and egregious.” The NCAA knows these facts and with that, they doubled-down and did not moderate.
@hawkfan01 I don’t think Bray’s comment does anything for KU. The issue for Bray would be if their shoeco paid athletes to go to ND. Then they’d be in the same hot water IF the NCAA had that info. Correct? If details on Zion come out, I think we’ll still look bad … but Duke may look just as bad. And, of course, that is good.
@BeddieKU23 I’m interested in the rule section you’re referring to on using trial or third party evidence. Do you have a reference to that?
The chatter has finally started, universities are talking about upending it. Time for the parasites to go get real jobs. Do I think that the NCAA has a purpose as a loose governing body? Yeah, I guess so, for the sake of all men’s and women’s athletics. But way out of the periphery, and not so much in everyone’s grill as they pick winners and losers while - yeah, I’m saying it - lining their own pockets.
This nation has a serious problem with protecting and further enriching those who already have and or have been in power. Case in point, Condoleeza Rice. I like her, always have, but what business does she have being on both the NCAA college football playoff committee and one that recommends changes to college basketball? Because she is a fan? Give me a break.
There are cracks forming all around the NCAA’s foundation. NIL is here whether they like it or not. With football becoming an increasingly large share of the market, the NCAA is becoming less and less financially relevant since football is just the conferences and TV. There is no official NCAA title for football like there is in other sports. So there’s proof of concept that at least financially, the jig is up. Power leagues could play postseason tournaments in basketball too. ESPN would love to have a college hoops playoff. The schools wouldn’t have to use the NCAA as a middle man.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 Thanks for the clarification.
-
Yes, the NOA response from Bill Self references the NCAA bylaws. In the first post you can download and read where this is posted. Page 26 would be a good place to start.
Bylaw 19.7.8.3.1 Prohibits the Importation of Facts from or Consideration- in this case United States vs Gatto is under appeal.
19.7.8.3.1 Importation of Facts. Facts established by a decision or judgment of a court, agency, accrediting body, or other administrative tribunal of competent jurisdiction, which is not under appeal, or by a commission, or similar review of comparable independence, authorized by a member institution or the institution’s university system’s board of trustees and regardless of whether the facts are accepted by the institution or the institution’s university system’s board of trustees, may be accepted as true in the infractions process in concluding whether an institution or individual participating in the previous matter violated NCAA legislation. Evidence submitted and positions taken in such a matter may be considered in the infractions process.
-
@BeddieKU23 This is helpful for review, but if I’m reading what you have suggested, it’s not supportive of what you seem to be concluding. You said, “The NCAA violated its own by laws using evidence in the FBI trial against KU in its NOA.” The Rule you sited, see the last sentence, actually says the opposite.
Bill Self’s argument here is very flawed. The “under appeal” qualification only relates to the first clause of the rule … the “Facts established by a decision or judgment of a court, agency, accrediting body, or other administrative tribunal of competent jurisdiction, which is not under appeal …” The balance of the paragraph is not qualified by that. In fact, the rule says clearly in a completely separate sentence, again, not qualified by the "under appeal thing, “Evidence submitted and positions taken in such a matter may be considered in the infractions process.”
Below is the full rule. This permits the NCAA to use all evidence and information. But as I mentioned above, the NCAA is not bound by any conclusions. See the operative word “may.”
We all had a discussion a while back where folks were suggesting “conclusive proof.” I made mention how circumstantial evidence is used even in criminal trial. This specifically references “circumstantial” evidence.
19.7.8.3 Basis of Decision. The hearing panel shall base its decision on information presented to it that it determines to be credible, persuasive and of a kind on which reasonably prudent persons rely in the conduct of serious affairs. The information upon which the panel bases its decision may be information that directly or circumstantially supports the alleged violation. (Adopted: 10/30/12 effective 8/1/13, Revised: 8/8/18)
19.7.8.3.1 Importation of Facts. Facts established by a decision or judgment of a court, agency, accrediting body, or other administrative tribunal of competent jurisdiction, which is not under appeal, or by a commission, or similar review of comparable independence, authorized by a member institution or the institution’s university system’s board of trustees and regardless of whether the facts are accepted by the institution or the institution’s university system’s board of trustees, may be accepted as true in the infractions process in concluding whether an institution or individual participating in the previous matter violated NCAA legislation. Evidence submitted and positions taken in such a matter may be considered in the infractions process. (Adopted: 8/8/18)
19.7.8.3.2 Materials Not Produced. The hearing panel may infer that materials requested during an investigation by the enforcement staff but not produced by an institution or individual would support an alleged violation for which the party may be subject to penalty pursuant to Bylaw 19.9. (Adopted: 8/8/18)
19.7.8.3.3 Failure or Refusal to Participate in Interview. The hearing panel may view the failure or refusal to participate in an interview requested by the enforcement staff as an admission that an alleged violation, for which the individual may be subject to penalty pursuant to Bylaw 19.9, occurred. (Adopted: 8/8/18)
