NOA response from KU discussion
-
@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)
-
@BeddieKU23 Even if the NCAA couldn’t use evidence from the Gatto trial currently, the Gassnola case is not under appeal since he plead guilty from the start. Since Gassnola was the one who primarily dealt with KU, what bylaw prevents the NCAA from using any evidence that came out in Gassnola’s trial?
-
So will the NCAA or the virus put an end to KU’s 2020-21 season?
-
Gassnola’s testimony was apart of Gatto’s trial. Where was Gassnola’s case separate? If I remember correctly didn’t Gassnola strike a deal with the FBI in exchange for him being a cooperating witness. A lot of the allegations from the NOA against Self and T revolve around Gassnola’s testimony in the trail.
-
In 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. Doesn’t this clearly state only facts can be used which are not under appeal? I’ll look over this again to see which rule the NCAA used against KU.
-
@BeddieKU23 said in NOA response from KU discussion:
Gassnola’s testimony was apart of Gatto’s trial. Where was Gassnola’s case separate? If I remember correctly didn’t Gassnola strike a deal with the FBI in exchange for him being a cooperating witness. A lot of the allegations from the NOA against Self and T revolve around Gassnola’s testimony in the trail.
Gassnola was a witness in Gatto’s trial, but Gassnola was also brought up on his own charges of bribery of corruption and plead guilty to those charges. That means stuff Gassnola said would open to the NCAA because he went through his own legal proceedings.
-
@BeddieKU23 said in NOA response from KU discussion:
In 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. Doesn’t this clearly state only facts can be used which are not under appeal? I’ll look over this again to see which rule the NCAA used against KU.
Yes, you are correct. but that qualification … “which is under appeal”, only applies to “a decision or judgment” of the court case.
This does not apply to what is listed after that in the paragraph. Specifically, for what’s important to this case, the last sentence - “Evidence submitted and positions taken in such a matter may be considered in the infractions process.”
So the “evidence submitted” can be considered even if the case is under appeal.
It’s tedious, to be sure.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 All of the info in the Gatto trial is available for use by the NCAA except the “Facts established by the decision or judgment” of the court.
-
Question. Has the NCAA ever lost? Get ready, with our case soon looming - along with everything else that is going on - they are soon going to. In fact, I’ll take it a step further. The NCAA will soon offer KU very favorable terms, wanting us to get in line. But should we? The NCAA’s days of being judge, jury and executioner are coming to an end.
-
@Marco Here’s more what concerns me. USC really was a target for the NCAA. I see some similarities in the NCAA’s approach. I hope you are right.
https://www.espn.com/los-angeles/ncf/news/story?id=5272615
https://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-usc-ncaa-sanctions-20140608-story.html
https://www.si.com/college/2018/05/22/todd-mcnair-usc-loses-ncaa-defamation-lawsuit
-
@Marco said in NOA response from KU discussion:
Question. Has the NCAA ever lost? Get ready, with our case soon looming - along with everything else that is going on - they are soon going to. In fact, I’ll take it a step further. The NCAA will soon offer KU very favorable terms, wanting us to get in line. But should we? The NCAA’s days of being judge, jury and executioner are coming to an end.
Sort of. They settled with Penn St. and the state government over the fine and vacating Paterno’s wins. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/sports/ncaafootball/how-one-legislator-helped-penn-state-escape-ncaas-harsh-penalties.html?auth=login-email&login=email
-
@HighEliteMajor I think you are misinterpreting the final sentence, not intentionally, but because you are granting way too much leeway to a clause expressly drafted in highly limited terms.
Let’s simplify the language. The first sentence in essence allows the NCAA to accept as true findings and facts established in a decision that is not under appeal. The second sentence says that evidence submitted “in such a matter” may be considered in the infractions process.
“In such a matter” is meaningless if it does not refer to a decision discussed in the first sentence. The phrase simply means that the infractions process can consider the evidence used to arrive at a decision not under appeal.
It is not an independent basis of using collateral evidence. (It really just means I was wrong in saying they are limited to a court’s factual findings–they can look at the underlying evidence, too.)
A basic rule of statutory construction is to interpret subclauses within a clause in a way that effectuates the purpose of the clause. If the second sentence is not a corollary to the first, the clause would simply say the NCAA can use any evidence developed in any proceeding anywhere, even if it is still ongoing.
Another principle of statutory construction is to interpret clauses in a manner that makes sense. It would make no sense to say the NCAA can only accept a final decision’s findings as true, but it can also accept any evidence submitted in a non-final judgment under appeal. A broad grant to look at all types of evidence in a case where it is subject to reversal (i.e., a disavowal on review of the very evidence underlying a flawed decision) contravenes the very purpose of the requirement that the collateral case findings are final.
The second sentence specifically refers to the first, and that therefore limits it.
-
Ah… Bs. This whole thing is a stinking business. Justify it anyway ya want. If ya do that ya have no honor. Simple as that. Let that be a lesson. If ya lie with dogs youll wind up with flees. Paint it in any light ya wanna. There’s been dirty dealins going on and ya reap what ya sow. Ass clowns… Smh. Clean house now. Today
-
@mayjay Interesting position. Consider, though, the following -
-
Very importantly, the two sections in dispute say two entirely different things. The first sentence portion that is qualified by the “not under appeal” language relates solely to “Facts established by a decision or judgment of a court …” That is completely different than what the final sentence refers to, which is “Evidence submitted and positions taken in such a matter …” Two totally different things. The first one are findings – the conclusion of the fact-finder. Thus it makes sense that such a determination would not be something to be relied upon because it is a non-final judgment of another fact-finder. The second sentence is simply the information or evidence that was presented, without the conclusion. That is, the NCAA uses it to reach its own conclusion. The NCAA being the fact-finder. There is no doubt under NCAA rules that the NCAA can use information from nearly any source it chooses and give it the weight it chooses.
-
And thus to your correct suggestion to read all of the rule together. In the preceding section, which is the main section (the one we’re discussing is a sub-paragraph), it reads, “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.” This is very broad. This is clearly the intent.
-
Regarding other proceedings, then, the only qualifier is that the NCAA can’t use the “Facts established by a decision or judgment of a court, agency, accrediting body, or other administrative tribunal of competent jurisdiction …” only when those facts established by such a decision/judgment are under appeal. That’s the only qualifier from the language in the rule.
-
The final sentence of the subparagraph is plainly one that provides clarification so that it is clear that the NCAA can take the evidence that was presented to make their own decision/judgment.
-
Back to our subparagraph. You seem to be ignoring (or at least not give credence to) the “or” … meaning, you seek to apply the “not under appeal” standard to the final sentence when the portion after the “or” is not qualified by appeal. This would indicate clearly to me that the final sentence is not qualified by the “not under appeal” portion.
-
-
I wonder what institution has the stomach to face federal court after the virus wipes out their bottom line? Don’t forget to ask this question of the NCAA, too. Their March Madness payday expired!
Typical court scenario appearing: who has the deepest pockets wins!
-
@HighEliteMajor Okay for you to think that if you want to worry about it, but you are ignoring “in such a matter” which refers clearly to a final judgment or decision not under appeal.
If you are an attorney, I will reconsider but you have never answered that question previously. As it is, your analysis reflects what lots of lay people do when reading statutes, even experienced ones. If you are highly experienced in statutory interpretation, especially in permissible collateral uses of evidence or principles relating to res judicata, I will eagerly consider any authority you cite.
Here is an example: SC has a provision saying that no one can leave a car running unattended. A local article said someone got a ticket for leaving his car running in front of his house to heat it up in the winter.
I looked up the provision. It is in a section dealing with operation of vehicles on roadways. The definition of roadway expressly states on a public road or highway, not including private property. I called the reporter to tell him about the provision. He argued, as do you, that the cop whom he talked to had said because it is a separate sentence it granted an independent basis to allow ticketing in a driveway. I called the state law enforcement division. They couldn’t stop laughing.
Context is everything.
-
@mayjay I know someone who was actually cited for a dui - and no, it wasn’t me - in his privately owned driveway.
-
Very possible. I believe there is a concept that if there is a partially (or fully) intoxicated individual, automobile and keys in the same location, the possibility of disaster is probable and hence warranting conviction. Would be nice to hear from someone who knows what happens when these cases are brought into a courtroom.
I believe an automobile with no keys present is seen as dead weight. Once the keys are present the potential risk is there.
Here’s a twist. What if that individual doesn’t even possess a driver’s license and never did? How far will we convict based on projection (assumption)?
This is an area that has been dominated by social pressures from MADD.
Look at how gun laws, the 2nd Amendment, and gun owners have created such a hot topic. People who push for more gun control are met with stiff defense. Is that strictly paranoid behavior by gun owners who think “give them an inch and they’ll take a mile?”
BTW: I’m not stating my position on gun laws. No way!
My point is that making laws is only one element in creating control. Interpretation and execution is often impacted by social pressures. That’s a big reason why we need a court system on levels leading up to the Supreme Court.
There is no court system on levels within the NCAA. It is a very one-sided structure of justice. Power is held by one body… the prosecutor and judge, with no higher court overseeing direction and power.
“A school or an individual who has been found by a Committee on Infractions panel to have violated the NCAA constitution or bylaws may appeal to the Infractions Appeals Committee. An appeal is not a new hearing that provides a second chance to argue the case.”
So a banana court should govern a nation? The rulings from this institution impacts every citizen of our country, either directly of indirectly. Not just D1 fans.
-
@drgnslayr I have never been a fan of the NCAA, think that in many respects it makes the communist party look democratic.
-
I was reading a piece from Seth Davis on the Athletic site about this whole situation, but primarily focusing on the potential ramifications of the NCAA ruling Adidas and its representatives as boosters. KU will not be the first school to hear from the NCAA in this regard and go through the new appeals process involving the Independent Resolution Panel. NC State is likely going to be the first school to have its case go before the IRP. Because that group of 15 people with “legal, higher education, and/or sports backgrounds” has never been used before, we don’t know their process or tendencies in regards to how they rule on cases yet. NC State, Kansas, and Louisville are going to end up being the guinea pigs for this.
That matter is largely going to depend on application of the bylaws because a final ruling of Adidas and its employees being considered boosters will have far reaching effects, and not just in college sports.
This is how the NCAA defines a booster,
Boosters, referred to by the NCAA as “representatives of the institution’s athletic interests,” include anyone who has:
•Provided a donation in order to obtain season tickets for any sport at the university.
•Participated in or has been a member of an organization promoting the university’s athletics programs.
•Made financial contributions to the athletic department or to a university booster organization.
•Arranged for or provided employment for enrolled student-athletes.
•Assisted or has been requested by university staff to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes.
•Assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student athletes or their families.
•Been involved otherwise in promoting university athletics.
Once a person, agency, business or other organization identified as a “representative of athletics interests,” that person/entity retains that identity for life.
Only institutional staff members are permitted to recruit prospective student-athletes. Generally, NCAA rules prohibit anyone else from contacting (calling, writing or in-person contact) prospects or the prospect’s relatives or guardian for recruiting purposes.
All of the above is straight from the NCAA’s website how they are able to label Adidas as a booster.
When the NCAA makes their final ruling, will they have a narrow focus on their targets and damn the unintended consequences or will the NCAA take a step back look at the bigger picture of what a ruling of Adidas being a booster would have.
A ruling of Adidas and it’s representatives as boosters could potentially affect Adidas, Nike, and Under Armour in other areas such as section 12 of the NCAA by laws. Section 12 of the NCAA bylaws deals with eligibility issues.
This is from the Seth Davis article, “…Bylaw 12 that says recruits may receive “actual and necessary expenses” for games and practices from outside sponsors “other than an agent or a representative of an institution’s athletics interests.” This would seem to foreclose the possibility of a booster sponsoring a grassroots or AAU team.”
Basically, if the NCAA follows through with ruling Adidas and its representatives as boosters, that will mean that people who play for a lot top AAU programs would lose their eligibility because of how many top AAU programs are sponsored by one of the major apparel companies and coached/ran by a representative of that company.
We’ll just have to wait and see what happens here because these cases are entering uncharted territory and going to end up before a group that’s never been used before so nobody knows what kind of rulings they’re going to make whether they lean towards favoring the NCAA or the schools.
Just looking through the bylaws, I do think the NCAA needs to go back and rework that section and update it in regards to corporate sponsorship. I think the NCAA would be wise to create a new section detailing what is or is not permissable in regards to corporate sponsorship, specifically in regards to apparel companies. Right now under current rules, simply providing uniforms and apparel to athletes makes whoever the providing company is a booster of that school so essentially Adidas, Nike, and Under Armour are boosters for every school they outfit and advertise for based on how the NCAA is applying that label in the KU, Louisville, and NC State cases right now.
-
Was listening to this guy on the local sports talk show , I know this isn’t the correct name but some beat writer I believe DeCoursey maybe?
Any ramifications, he said he was talking I guess with some people from the NCAA and he told them you know you take on Kansas - -they gonna be coming back at you hard , KU not going to take this laying down.
He said he fully believes that yes KU does deserve some penalitites, and that KU will even admit there were wrong doings BUT he said that as soon as these are levied this thing will go to Court and in the end the NCAA is going to come out looking really bad. -
They asked what he thought might happen as far as penalities. He said he thought MAYBE a scenario might be where the 2018 banner might be removed - - and MAYBE being withheld from a year of post season even though he said he felt unsure about that.
Talked about the possibility that Coach Self might be suspended for or around 30 5 of the games which he said equaled to around 9 games , he Said IF that were to happen that KU might accept that and be done with it. He said KU will face the embarrassment of this for a bit - -but in the end that the NCAA is the one that’s going to come out looking really bad and losing this , talking about this whole thing may hurt KU in recruiting for just a bit he feels that KU for sure will take this to court and in the end will win this thing. - -He said that the thing is with like Louisville and others is that Louisville cleaned house - - New Coach /AD and total turnover , mentioned NC State and the actions they had taken - -then said the thing with Ku is same coach, pretty much saying that the NCAA looking at Ku and saying they basically have done nothing to correct - - ROCK CHALK ALL DAY LONG BABY
-
@drgnslayr one could argue that if the NCAA doesn’t come down on us, we are no longer a victim, I suppose. But I might also then argue that the fact that we had to defend ourselves makes the case that we were a victim.
Hmmm
-
@hawkfan01 hire the private detectives now.
-
I think Self and crew are legit. That didn’t change with the “are we cool?” statement and other stuff. D1 is corrupt. Self and crew are trying to compete. What are they supposed to do? There exists a host of miscellaneous questionable leeches hanging around all top recruits. It’s all part of the game.
We haven’t been caught with our hand in the cookie jar and we pulled players off the court when there was a problem. Everything else is about optics.
I realize the feds calling us victims most likely helped them do what they wanted to do… go after Adidas. But if they had discovered hard evidence pinning us to the crime then we would fall, too, because that would enhance the conviction.
The NCAA is in deep if they take the “Adidas is a booster” path. Where does that stop? Pretty much makes all businesses associated with the game a booster.
I consider their pushing us to say Adidas is a booster in order to bring back Silvio EXTORTION! They pushed us into stating something we don’t believe in (we can back that up) in order to release the strong arm on Silvio.
We should file that with the DOJ and push for a criminal prosecution.
-
@HighEliteMajor said in NOA response from KU discussion: 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 did find Washington an interesting example. They had 2 of the top 7 recruits in America last year. They got Markelle Fultz out of Maryland a few years before that. They even had a good class with Michael Porter, Jr. before that class fell apart when they fired the coach. Washington has had some teams with some high end talent, but never really seem to put it together on the court. It does make me wonder how widespread the cheating is for Nike? I would assume they’re helping their blue bloods more although with Arizona’s assistant paying kids out of his own pocket, maybe it is concentrated more on the Duke’s & Kentucky’s of the world?
-
These are all quotes from Notre Dame coach Mike Brey in regards to the relationship with Shoe Co. representatives that are from the same Seth Davis Athletic article I referenced above. Mike Brey has been at Notre Dame long enough that he’s gone through an apparel provider change from Adidas to Under Armour.
“I never thought of it like that. If there’s money changing hands, then yeah, they’re a booster, but I don’t think any of us look at the support we get from sneaker companies and think of that as violations. They’re giving us information to help close the deal (with recruits).”
“Every one of us works the shoe company angle to help us get players,” Brey says. “I speak to those guys as much as I would speak to parents. No question if there was an Under Armour event somewhere, I’d get a call from someone at Under Armour saying, ‘Hey Mike, did you see this 15-year-old kid in Dallas? He’s in our program, you gotta get on him.’ I’m not saying they’d cheat to get him, but damn right they’re helping, absolutely.”
Mike Brey pretty confirms what many of us know that’s Adidas, Nike, and Under Armour will help coaches land players, even if it’s going to Washington or Colorado.
@HighEliteMajor claims a program like Washington doesn’t benefit from this practice. @HighEliteMajor, do you realize that Washington is the third highest paid program in the Adidas family and the sixth richest apparel deal overall as of last September? Do you truly think growing Washington’s brand on the west coast isn’t a top priority for Adidas and that they aren’t funneling players out to Seattle? If you truly think Washington is on the up and up in recruiting despite being the third highest paid Adidas program, then explain Washington’s 2019 recruiting class to us and them landing two top players in the same class, including one from La Porte, Indiana about halfway between Chicago and South Bend.
-
They went from Romar to Hopkins and that doesn’t even factor in some of their assistants over the years…
-
The NCAA has recommended KU’s case to the IARP. Yikes
-
@BeddieKU23 said in NOA response from KU discussion:
The NCAA has recommended KU’s case to the IARP. Yikes
It bodes very well for us. It also shows just how weak and spineless the NCAA actually is.
-
Not so fast says Lee Corso! The IARP is funded by the NCAA. How impartial will this be? There are no appeals with this committee. I would not want to be the guinea pig for this latest disaster
-
So if I’m understanding this correctly, KU now has 20 days to submit a response to the NCAA’s request that its case be referred to the IARP. If we consent, then our infractions case will be resolved by the IARP pending its acceptance of the request. And there is no appeals process. But if we don’t consent, what then? Would our case then be resolved by the NCAA COI, or would it go some place else? There is an appeals process with the COI, but from what I’ve read about that process it seems mostly perfunctory.
If those are our only two choices, it seems much more likely that a favorable KU outcome in this case would come from the IARP based on the fact that their panel consists of 15 members with legal background who are more likely to rely on evidence to reach their conclusions. And because they are independent/impartial - at least more so than the COI.
The IARP has accepted infractions cases for Memphis and NC St, so at least we might get a glimpse of what it will look like before we have to go through it.
-
@KirkIsMyHinrich said in NOA response from KU discussion:
So if I’m understanding this correctly, KU now has 20 days to submit a response to the NCAA’s request that its case be referred to the IARP. If we consent, then our infractions case will be resolved by the IARP pending its acceptance of the request. And there is no appeals process. But if we don’t consent, what then? Would our case then be resolved by the NCAA COI, or would it go some place else? There is an appeals process with the COI, but from what I’ve read about that process it seems mostly perfunctory.
If those are our only two choices, it seems much more likely that a favorable KU outcome in this case would come from the IARP based on the fact that their panel consists of 15 members with legal background who are more likely to rely on evidence to reach their conclusions. And because they are independent/impartial - at least more so than the COI.
The IARP has accepted infractions cases for Memphis and NC St, so at least we might get a glimpse of what it will look like before we have to go through it.
The Memphis case never reached the IAPR because it was in regards to James Wiseman’s eligibility and he left school before his case made it to the IARP.
NC State gets to be the true guinea pigs of this process because their case was referred before KU’s. Their case will give a very good indication of what’s going to happen to KU since cases are very similar to one another.
Because the IARP has never ruled on a case, nobody knows if going that route is better, worse, or neither in regards to the NCAA’s initial rulings.
The only part of the NC State case I’m really interested in is how the IARP is going to rule on Adidas and Gassnola being a booster for NC State since that’s where the really bad penalties are going to come from. I’m hoping the IARP rules that because the NCAA hasn’t previously ruled on shoe companies and their employees as boosters in prior cases that they’ll rescind that part of the case.
The paying of recruits to attend KU did happen so KU doesn’t have an argument about that, but how the IARP rules about the status of Adidas and Gassnola will impact how severe a punishment KU gets for the money changing hands since it’s been established in court that Self and KU were unaware of the money changing hands.
-
I haven’t looked into infractions case for Memphis much but it is listed as one of the referred cases on the IARP website. https://iarpcc.org/referred-cases/
I don’t know if the IARP path will be good for us, but it seems preferable to the NCAA COI if those are our only options. I’m not thrilled about there not being an appeals process, but I assume if KU perceives the outcome of the case as being particularly unfair they might sue… someone?
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 said in NOA response from KU discussion:
The paying of recruits to attend KU did happen so KU doesn’t have an argument about that, but how the IARP rules about the status of Adidas and Gassnola will impact how severe a punishment KU gets for the money changing hands since it’s been established in court that Self and KU were unaware of the money changing hands.
But is that 100% true? Or did Adidas pay those players to attend an Adidas school?
-
@KirkIsMyHinrich said in NOA response from KU discussion:
I haven’t looked into infractions case for Memphis much but it is listed as one of the referred cases on the IARP website. https://iarpcc.org/referred-cases/
I don’t know if the IARP path will be good for us, but it seems preferable to the NCAA COI if those are our only options. I’m not thrilled about there not being an appeals process, but I assume if KU perceives the outcome of the case as being particularly unfair they might sue… someone?
The Memphis case was in regards to James Wiseman’s suspension and eligibility. It was referred to IARP, but since Wiseman left Memphis before the IARP heard the case, they never made a ruling about the matter so they’ve still never made a ruling.
Because the IARP still has never made a ruling, nobody knows of going this route is preferable to the COI or not. It’s entirely possible the IARP ends up being worse for KU than the COI would be.
-
@hawkfan01 said in NOA response from KU discussion:
@Texas-Hawk-10 said in NOA response from KU discussion:
The paying of recruits to attend KU did happen so KU doesn’t have an argument about that, but how the IARP rules about the status of Adidas and Gassnola will impact how severe a punishment KU gets for the money changing hands since it’s been established in court that Self and KU were unaware of the money changing hands.
But is that 100% true? Or did Adidas pay those players to attend an Adidas school?
Unless TJ Gassnola perjured himself after he pled guilty, then his testimony is solid enough to trust at face value. His testimony indicated that money changed hands on behalf of himself and Adidas to representatives of players (family members or guardians) to encourage players to commit to Kansas, NC State, Louisville, whatever school was recruiting the player at the time. The $20,000 payment Gassnola was attempting to make to Silvio’s guardian, but never made due to the announcement of the investigation was so Silvio’s guardian could pay back money to Under Armour who had allegedly paid $60,000 to bring Silvio to Maryland. I believe Billy Preston’s mom received $120,000 from Gassnola to attend KU.
So to answer your question, while KU itself may not have been directing the payments, there were payments being made to influence a player to choose specific schools.
Based on the testimonies of AAU coaches, they are often times the facilitators in these matters. A kid spends a few years in an AAU program, as the kid develops, the AAU coach is frequently the one telling college coaches to come watch a specific player and that’s how introductions are made.
While it may not be Adidas saying we want this kid at Kansas no matter what, there is definitely influence in decision making coming from these AAU programs that are financially backed by Adidas, Nike, and Under Armour at the elite levels of AAU basketball.
-
OH Mercy , our dear friends off the Kentucky Board are just about to croak, wondering why the hell the NCAA turned this over to the IARP. Saying or asking if this is the NCAA’S way of passing the buck and then nothing coming of this , and the NCAA being able to say well it wasn’t us - -it was the IARP.
They feel since this is getting turned over that of Course that KU is going to get off with nothing happening and they about to have little baby Kentucky kittens because of that because we are nothing by cheaters , liars and a school of thugs lol - - -ROCK CHALK ALL DAY LONG BABY
-
But is that 100% true? Or did Adidas pay those players to attend an Adidas school?
Unless TJ Gassnola perjured himself after he pled guilty, then his testimony is solid enough to trust at face value. His testimony indicated that money changed hands on behalf of himself and Adidas to representatives of players (family members or guardians) to encourage players to commit to Kansas, NC State, Louisville, whatever school was recruiting the player at the time. The $20,000 payment Gassnola was attempting to make to Silvio’s guardian, but never made due to the announcement of the investigation was so Silvio’s guardian could pay back money to Under Armour who had allegedly paid $60,000 to bring Silvio to Maryland. I believe Billy Preston’s mom received $120,000 from Gassnola to attend KU.
It still amazes me how harsh everyone thinks these supposed infractions are. To me, its weak af. Its not against NCAA rules to give a person money to attend a school. Any incoming student can get money from a friend, a company, whoever and attend the school requested. Adidas can give a standard student all the money they want to attend a school and not break any rules. The problem is when the person is an ncaa athlete. Where does that line begin? Are you considered an ncaa athlete if you never participate in an NCAA event? Preston didn’t play a second of ball at KU in a regular season game. To me, that makes him basically like every other student at KU that has never played in a game and thus no infraction was made. Was he close? Heck yeah. But KU should be praised for catching it and making the right move to hold him out.
Silvio is another one. This kid bucks the system and says i want to attend KU despite UA throwing money at his “handler” to go to Maryland. Doesn’t want the money or more likely doesn’t even know about it and chooses KU because thats where he wants to go. The handler looks to Adidas for help paying back UA which may or may not have happened depending on who’s story you believe. Let me ask a hypothetical, what if Adidas didn’t pay anything to Silvio’s handler or never was asked to? You have a kid who’s “handler” was given money to attend Maryland, but he attends KU instead. Is KU still in violation? This could possibly be what happened and UA is not being talked about at all in this.
I guess there was something about $2,500 that Silvio got for something but the kid sat out over a year for it. Seems like it could have been paid back fairly easily or the year plus punishment is more than enough. The punishments don’t quite fit the crime. The ncaa seems to always be excessively extreme towards KU whenever something isn’t right relative to their actions towards other players at other schools.
I’m not ignorant where i think there isn’t this stuff happening a lot behind the scenes at almost all the schools, including KU. However, if you’re going to bring a case and try to drop the hammer to make an example of someone, you’d think they’d get some better evidence to support their case.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 I think you have to accept the kids were paid; that seems to be admitted pretty clearly in court and that’s not being disputed. My question was more were they paid to attend KU? My perception of the shoe company game is the shoe companies are funneling money to players (or their handlers) and then for them to choose one of their brand’s schools. Was there any requirement Preston and DeSousa choose KU especially when you have handlers involved? Or could they have chosen any Adidas school? I’m not familiar with the particulars of NCAA rules, but I think there’s a difference. Are KU’s coaches coordinating with Adidas reps to steer players to KU? I think if you look at what the courts decided, the answer is clearly no. I think each of the defendants walk if they believed the evidence pointed toward KU coaches and other schools coordinating with them. At that point, it’s difficult to prove the defendants defrauded the schools.
So if the evidence proves that KU’s coaches were coordinating, then I think KU would and should get hammered, but there’s not that kind of evidence. Is there any evidence that KU’s coaches told Gassnola or whoever to send $2500 to DeSousa’s handler? I don’t think so. The evidence against almost every other school was they had coaches involved in the money. KU did not. There’s a couple text messages or wire taps that don’t sound particularly great, but we don’t have the context of the entire conversation and either way, there’s no evidence that KU was involved in paying. Look at Townsend’s comment about Zion…how many coaches around the country do you think made a similar comment? Probably a lot. Virtually everyone wanted Zion. If KU ends up going the IARP route, I hope due to the backgrounds of those involved, a little higher standard is held than automatically believing conspiracy theories without hard evidence. The KU situation is clearly different than virtually every other school that’s been named.
The other thing that has to be considered is how KU handled each situation when allegations arose. Preston never played. DeSousa sat until he was declared eligible. KU never thumbed their nose at the NCAA like Arizona and Ayton, Memphis and Wiseman, etc. Unless you just have a vendetta against KU, KU clearly isn’t a renegade program.
-
Really liked both of your posts.
The crux issue as I’m sure you know is all about labeling Adidas and Gassnola Boosters of the KU program. They even throw in Larry Brown for some fun. KU is the big fish in this whole thing and when logic and facts weren’t on their side they went off the rails like they always
-
They clearly think KU did rub this in the NCAA’s face. Their latest response sure made it sound personal in regards to the Late Night fiasco.
-
The NCAA is so hell bent on hammering KU they took down Stephen F Austin first.
So sad to see this out of touch organization continue to do this. An Administrative error cost them this much. Sad.
-
A good read about the IARP…
-
@BeddieKU23 said in NOA response from KU discussion:
The NCAA is so hell bent on hammering KU they took down Stephen F Austin first.
So sad to see this out of touch organization continue to do this. An Administrative error cost them this much. Sad.
Did you actually read what happened at SFA? Someone at SFA failed to perform due diligence and make sure all eligibility paperwork was done correctly. SFA compliance failed to perform their job is what caused this. Considering SFA was already facing a postseason ban in men’s basketball for a low APR rating, I’m not all that surprised by this because it sounds like the people in their athletics department are pretty incompetent at their jobs to begin with.
-
He said an administrative error
-
@hawkfan01 said in NOA response from KU discussion:
@Texas-Hawk-10 I think you have to accept the kids were paid; that seems to be admitted pretty clearly in court and that’s not being disputed. My question was more were they paid to attend KU? My perception of the shoe company game is the shoe companies are funneling money to players (or their handlers) and then for them to choose one of their brand’s schools. Was there any requirement Preston and DeSousa choose KU especially when you have handlers involved? Or could they have chosen any Adidas school? I’m not familiar with the particulars of NCAA rules, but I think there’s a difference. Are KU’s coaches coordinating with Adidas reps to steer players to KU? I think if you look at what the courts decided, the answer is clearly no. I think each of the defendants walk if they believed the evidence pointed toward KU coaches and other schools coordinating with them. At that point, it’s difficult to prove the defendants defrauded the schools.
So if the evidence proves that KU’s coaches were coordinating, then I think KU would and should get hammered, but there’s not that kind of evidence. Is there any evidence that KU’s coaches told Gassnola or whoever to send $2500 to DeSousa’s handler? I don’t think so. The evidence against almost every other school was they had coaches involved in the money. KU did not. There’s a couple text messages or wire taps that don’t sound particularly great, but we don’t have the context of the entire conversation and either way, there’s no evidence that KU was involved in paying. Look at Townsend’s comment about Zion…how many coaches around the country do you think made a similar comment? Probably a lot. Virtually everyone wanted Zion. If KU ends up going the IARP route, I hope due to the backgrounds of those involved, a little higher standard is held than automatically believing conspiracy theories without hard evidence. The KU situation is clearly different than virtually every other school that’s been named.
The other thing that has to be considered is how KU handled each situation when allegations arose. Preston never played. DeSousa sat until he was declared eligible. KU never thumbed their nose at the NCAA like Arizona and Ayton, Memphis and Wiseman, etc. Unless you just have a vendetta against KU, KU clearly isn’t a renegade program.
Unless I made a typo or autocorrect changed something, I’ve never said kids weren’t paid so I don’t know where you’re pulling that one from.
I also think it’s incredibly naive to think Self, Townsend or any coach, especially ones that have regular communications with “consultants” are fully aware of money changing hands. They’re just not dumb enough (usually) to leave a concrete paper trail about those specific issues. This gives coaches enough plausible deniability should something like the FBI and NCAA investigations come up.
I also believe you’re argument loses a lot of merit when you say, “I’m not familiar with the particulars of NCAA rules” and start trying to decipher the severity of the penalties. Here is the list of things KU has no arguments for because the following things have happened according to the FBI and/or NCAA.
Silvio DeSousa’s guardian received $62,500 ($60,000 from an unnamed Under Armour consultant and $2,500 from Gassnola to cover the costs of an online class Silvio needed in order to graduate early and enroll at KU a semester early) in impermissible benefits with the intent of receiving another $20,000 (from Gassnola/Adidas to payback money received from Under Armour with an agreement for Silvio to attend Maryland). This is why Silvio’s suspension was originally for 2 years because the NCAA views it as Silvio or someone representing Silvio received $62,500 in benefits with the intent of another $20,000 in benefits. Rewind back to Josh Selby’s case for a minute. Josh Selby was suspended 9 games by the NCAA for a little over $6,000 in impermissible benefits while still committed to Tennessee before he flipped to KU. It does not matter where a player is committed to, all that matters in the eyes of the NCAA is that a player or someone representing that player received impermissible benefits and that player’s eligibility is now in jeopardy. The length of a suspension typically depends on how much a player received in benefits.
This is also what the NCAA is alleging happened with Billy Preston and Cheick Diallo who are the other two players in the NCAA’s allegations against Kansas Basketball.
KU will receive penalties over those infractions because there isn’t a defense KU can make about those. What many people ignore, including you right now, is that the severity of the penalties will hinge entirely on what final ruling of the status of Adidas and TJ Gassnola ends up being.
You claim KU’s case is vastly different than every other case out there and it is not. I would highly suggest to you to go look up what NC State is being accused of and what’s in Louisville’s latest NOA from the NCAA and still claim that there’s no other cases like the KU one. In all three cases, the most serious allegations are that Adidas and TJ Gassnola are considered boosters of each program under NCAA bylaw 13.02.15 which deals with representatives of athletics interests.
NCAA bylaw 13.02.15 states “Representative of Athletics Interests. A “representative of the institution’s athletics interests” is an individual, independent agency, corporate entity (e.g., apparel or equipment manufacturer) or other organization who is known (or who should have been known) by a member of the institution’s executive or athletics administration to: (Revised: 2/16/00, 4/25/18)”
This is the rule NCAA is using to come after KU, Louisville and NC State. How the IARP rules on the application of this bylaw is going to play the single biggest factor in KU’s fate at the hands of the NCAA. An IARP decision upholding the NCAA’s argument will likely mean that Bill Self will either get a long suspension or show-cause label and KU will be searching for a new head coach, Kurtis Townsend would likely get a show-cause long enough to end his coaching career, a multi-year postseason ban, significant scholarship reductions, vacating games involving DeSousa and Diallo (subsequently vacating the 2018 Final Four banner), a failure to monitor label for the program again because the head coach should aware of what boosters are doing, and a very long probation period.
If the IARP rules against the NCAA’s application of bylaw 13.02.15 and determines the NCAA has misapplied the label, then KU probably gets a slap on the wrist compared to the penalties above. Probably the most severe penalties would be vacating games Diallo played in and games DeSousa played in prior to his suspension being overturned.
Because there has yet to be a case that’s actually made it to the IARP, Memphis was recommended in the Wiseman case, but the hearing never happened because Wiseman left school, we don’t actually know which way the IARP leans in regards to upholding NCAA violation accusations.
NC State was referred to the IARP ahead of KU’s, and since their case is pretty similar to KU’s, how the IARP rules in that case is going to give us a pretty strong indication of how KU’s case is going to go.
If me having hesitation about KU’s outlook at the hands of the IARP makes me have a vendetta against KU, I would recommend you read this article from SI in regards to the NC State case. https://www.si.com/college/ncstate/basketball/ncstate-terrified-ncaa-iarp-infractions-process
It could very well turn out that going to the IARP could end up being worse for KU than letting the COI rule and then go through the appeals process.
-
@BeddieKU23 “They clearly think KU did rub this in the NCAA’s face. Their latest response sure made it sound personal in regards to the Late Night fiasco.”
But did KU? I thought I had seen somewhere that the particular video of Self in the Adidas shirt was recorded weeks in advance (before KU was even charged by the NCAA). The optics looked bad and probably a bad decision on the marketing department, but I don’t think KU read the allegations from the NCAA and then said, hey guys, “I have a great idea. Let’s put Self in an Adidas shirt with gold dollar sign chains on it and go film a promo video for Late Night.”
-
@Crimsonorblue22 said in NOA response from KU discussion:
He said an administrative error
I still fail to see how the NCAA is out of touch because SFA’s compliance department failed to do its job. SFA screwed up and are paying the price. In the corporate world, a business that fails to cross their t’s and dot their i’s and gets hit with fine by some regulation group like the SEC isn’t going to get much sympathy from. They’re going to get a hard lesson which is what SFA got for not having someone do due diligence, or at least competently do due diligence.
