Poor Silvio
-
@HighEliteMajor Since the info isn’t developed yet, all we can do, of course, is speculate. The biggest difference I see so far is that the money and benefits went directly to the BYU kid, followed by the fact that the payments were from a long-lasting booster of BYU. While an Adidas rep could be a booster, that company was also “boosting” dozens of other schools so there are different principal/agent considerations involved–predominantly, KU had no apparent authority over anything the Adidas guys were doing. Further, most university boosters have an ongoing relationship with athletics, attending games, getting preferred seating, etc, so the schools are usually presumed to be in cahoots when their players get extras. It might be possible for KU to demonstrate a sufficient lack of connection with the Adidas guy, including his desire to pay funds to induce separate pro agency relationships independent of KU’s concerns.
Enough differences that I would feel comfortable with arguing KU’s case. (Then again, I was comfortable arguing all types of crappy legal positions way back when–you lose 95% of the time appealing court-martial convictions, so you learn to live with it!)
-
@mayjay I think the lack of significant connection with Adidas is perfect logic. I think you’re right on there. They weren’t our agent since Self has said we have no knowledge. They were acting in their self interest, as a private company, and not on behalf of the university. While I think that’s obviously enough to make the kid ineligible or subject to suspension (the receipt of money, guardian or otherwise), that should have zero to do with Kansas (of course, unless … you know).
Here’s a link on the BYU deal if anyone is interested.
-
I would think there is a heck of a lot more to the BYU situation than we known. It is one of the more severe penalties ever for something that has routinely warranted only a few games suspension for the student. It really makes no sense based on the information publically available to date.
-
Could use this guy about now with Doke out. Thanks NCAA
-
Sorry — but (sic) ‘escape-goat’?
-
I’m confident this could be solved by the Guardian getting his bank to send his records to the NCAA.
But he won’t… This is one of the few times that I wouldn’t blame the NCAA. There is someone admitting to paying De Sousa under oath. And the problem could very easily be solved.
Now if the NCAA has all the info and is slow playing it, I will totally agree it’s their faults. But if information is being withheld, it isn’t necessarily their fault.
-
-
I agree that his guardian could clear some things up for Silvio. The more time that passes makes you think he hasn’t. And the only one suffering from this is the kid he’s supposed to be helping.
-
@Kcmatt7 Bank records of course only document what is deposited and withdrawn, not cash that is not deposited as we know. Hard to believe this dude put it in the bank. If I’m the investigator, bank records don’t mean much in this situation when looking for wrongdoing – meaning the absence of the transaction is of little value. Of course, bank records can hurt, too, if money was deposited. There it would be value, but not what you’re assuming. I guess my point is if there was no transaction(s), and investigator, that wouldn’t mean anything to me.
@BeddieKU23 We know this dude is a snake. My question is whether Silvio would just be flat ineligible. If not, give us a suspension. What other info is need. Heck, if I were KU, I’d ask the NCAA to assume he got the UA money and the $2500, and then tell me the suspension and conditions (payback or whatever) and be done with it. If he’s just determined ineligible in with those facts, then I’d want to know that too.
Maybe they have … that makes more sense to me. Coming up with the $22,500 could be the issue. I don’t know. I’d chip in a grand to help pay it back – but then I’d get a fraud charge, right? But only if the prosecutor deems it important enough to charge.
-
HighEliteMajor said:
@Kcmatt7 Bank records of course only document what is deposited and withdrawn, not cash that is not deposited as we know. Hard to believe this dude put it in the bank. If I’m the investigator, bank records don’t mean much in this situation when looking for wrongdoing – meaning the absence of the transaction is of little value. Of course, bank records can hurt, too, if money was deposited. There it would be value, but not what you’re assuming. I guess my point is if there was no transaction(s), and investigator, that wouldn’t mean anything to me.
@BeddieKU23 We know this dude is a snake. My question is whether Silvio would just be flat ineligible. If not, give us a suspension. What other info is need. Heck, if I were KU, I’d ask the NCAA to assume he got the UA money and the $2500, and then tell me the suspension and conditions (payback or whatever) and be done with it. If he’s just determined ineligible in with those facts, then I’d want to know that too.
Maybe they have … that makes more sense to me. Coming up with the $22,500 could be the issue. I don’t know. I’d chip in a grand to help pay it back – but then I’d get a fraud charge, right? But only if the prosecutor deems it important enough to charge.
I tend to agree he’s a snake. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt but I just have a hard time believing he couldn’t have settled this situation for Silvio already, or at least given information that would have helped the situation one way or the other. Which leads my mind down the rabbit hole in regards to the other player this Guardian is involved with, Bruno Fernando, a Soph at Maryland which ties that whole payment fiasco together in some way. The alleged 60k and 20k payback all tie this together. What if providing info for Silvio ends up costing Bruno his eligibility as well because of this guardian. So I wonder how much a role that plays here. Why give up both eggs in the pot if you can keep one payday alive. I honestly have no idea if I’m on the right path or not but that’s what crosses my mind in regards to this whole thing.
I think KU is in the appeal stage already and usually we don’t hear about anything regarding that until resolution is near or something pops up in the media that puts it out in the open. Maybe the NCAA is still looking for info/waiting for info/searching for info etc but enough time has passed that I think we are beyond that. Silvio has already sat 7 games and 2 exhibitions so at this point no matter the actual dollar amount he’s responsible or going to be held accountable for he’s getting close to losing half a season. At some point and maybe that’s already passed, Silvio will have de-facto missed more time then he should have without an official ruling. It would be nice to have closure here, for once.
-
The $60,000, IIRC, was paid by a Maryland basketball supporter to a strength coach. Directly, probably. That supporter has ZERO incentive to admit to it as that would throw MD under the bus. SDS/guardian won’t admit to it because it verifies the action occurred. Ergo, no resolution.
I don’t believe $2,500 is that big an issue. It’s the $60K that’s stalling everything, I believe.
I have little faith SDS will see the court again.
-
Where did you get your information? As I recall, Gassnola testified that a Maryland booster paid the $60K directly to Falmagne to have Sivio go to Maryland and once Silvio picked KU he, the booster, wanted his money back.
-
@JayHawkFanToo i wonder if he got it back?
-
HighEliteMajor said:
@Kcmatt7 Bank records of course only document what is deposited and withdrawn, not cash that is not deposited as we know. Hard to believe this dude put it in the bank. If I’m the investigator, bank records don’t mean much in this situation when looking for wrongdoing – meaning the absence of the transaction is of little value. Of course, bank records can hurt, too, if money was deposited. There it would be value, but not what you’re assuming. I guess my point is if there was no transaction(s), and investigator, that wouldn’t mean anything to me.
@BeddieKU23 We know this dude is a snake. My question is whether Silvio would just be flat ineligible. If not, give us a suspension. What other info is need. Heck, if I were KU, I’d ask the NCAA to assume he got the UA money and the $2500, and then tell me the suspension and conditions (payback or whatever) and be done with it. If he’s just determined ineligible in with those facts, then I’d want to know that too.
Maybe they have … that makes more sense to me. Coming up with the $22,500 could be the issue. I don’t know. I’d chip in a grand to help pay it back – but then I’d get a fraud charge, right? But only if the prosecutor deems it important enough to charge.
If it never hit the bank, that checks something off the list. If he does have large cash transactions, that is a red flag. Anyone receiving a large cash transaction would have some sort of proof of that transaction. I see what you’re saying. But transparency on Fenny’s part would clear this right up. One way or the other…
-
I hate guardians and handlers and parents who try to cash in on the 16, 17 and 18 year old kids being recruited.
I never expected, asked for, or received a nickel from Lowe’s or the Marines when I helped my stepsons decide where they were going. Geez!
-
JayHawkFanToo said:
Where did you get your information? As I recall, Gassnola testified that a Maryland booster paid the $60K directly to Falmagne to have Sivio go to Maryland and once Silvio picked KU he, the booster, wanted his money back.
I can’t locate the source again. I’ll continue to look. Maybe I misread it…
-
@BeddieKU23 It’s HILARIOUS that Bruno gets to play and Silvio doesn’t.
-
@Kcmatt7 To an investigator, the absence of a bank deposit on an illegal transaction means nothing. Or at best, a very very small box to check. It’s expected that they won’t deposit it. Folks in such situations retain such cash. Most often converting it or sometimes laundering it in larger schemes. Much like the self employed deck builder who gets cash payments. Or the drug dealer.
Where you’re going on proof of a large cash transaction is the most likely way bank records are most helpful —— comparing to a standard of living, looking at purchases. The absence of payment in the bank records. You can then see that cash was converted to an asset or used to pay a debt — a down payment on a car, a boat, private school tuition, a money order to pay a credit card bill, and even groceries. If a standard of living is not reflected in the records, that’s helpful evidence. That sort of investigation has more layers, and one that would be quite difficult for the NCAA.
-
I agree that a fully empowered investigator can get a lot of information and extrapolate as you indicated. The problem for the NCAA is that it has no authority to compel anyone outside of program personnel to produce any records, cooperate or even talk to them so even the basic information an investigator would require might not be available or reliable.
The end result is that the entire investigation goes into limbo. Despite assurances to the contrary, looks like Falmagne has not been forthcoming, the NCAA will no render a ruling and the only option KU has is to either not play Silvio or dismiss him all together which would have horrible optics. Falmagne apparently got the money, Silvio gets to practice against high level competition and gets valuable training by some of the best trainers in the business, all expenses paid, and likely will go pro at the end of the season…and KU gets the shaft.
-
@JayHawkFanToo This feels a bit like the Cliff limbo … no end is sight. I wonder what records the NCAA will have access to from the FBI? There was discussion of that.
-
The question is…would the FBI be able to share information that is not public with the NCAA which is not a government or law enforcement agency? I can see all kinds of privacy issues being raised but I don’t know what the applicable law is in this area. The FBI and other government agencies have refused to disclose information about wrong doing by government officials while doing government work and being paid by taxpayers, so I would think it would be hesitant to disclose information to a non-government agency about private citizens doing things that violate NCAA regulations but don’t necessarily break the law.
The saga continues…frankly, I would be shocked if Silvio is cleared to play college basketball before he decide to either go to the G League or overseas; apparently at one time he had a contract to play in Spain so that might still be a potential destination. At this time, I will guess that KU knows this will the case and has no hopes that Silvio will play but as long as there is a scholarship available it send a message to potential recruits that KU stands by them and gives KU players a capable big for practice.
-
Honest question…is there another player connected to this at all that is being held out this season? If not…what is different about KU’s/SDS’s position that would force KU to keep him out while others don’t have to?
-
Miami is holding out one of their starters and arguably their best player, Duwen Huell, now Hernandez. Miami is struggling big time without him. He is being held out for his name being linked to Christian Dawkins in an email that included 18 others. The email stated Dawkins was going to pay Hernandez 500 a month in 2017, then going up to 1,000 in 2018.
-
The longer it goes on the more I think hes done here and with the NCAA announcing that they wouldnt yand out penalties til after this season, which includes SDS I suppose. At this point I just dont want anything vacated.
-
One can argue that the best thing for Silvio’s future is to stay right here for the remainder of the year.
It shows some maturity to do it. He stays and learns solid fundamentals (which have proven to help other Jayhawks in the NBA). He risks less injury by not going full tilt in a foreign league which can get very sloppy. And… probably the best reason… he doesn’t learn bad habits abroad that will just have to be fixed in the league.
Plus… who knows… maybe a diploma is in his future and basketball isn’t. We’ve seen it be the case with many bright talents.
-
Dunno if y’all saw the article, but I’d like to see more coaches calling out the NCAA to complete their review sooner…
-
@Gorilla72 Seems like Few implies his displeasure with programs that don’t do it the right way, and wants those folks sanctioned promptly. Can’t argue there.
-
My theory is along the same lines. The NCAA doesn’t want to start digging in until the season ends because digging in right now is BAD for business.
Also, I think KU is appealing the NCAA’s decision to hold off on any decisions including Silvio’s eligibility. The lack of movement at this point seems to make sense that KU is appealing.
-
In our system of justice the presumption of innocence is and has always been the cornerstone; however, the NCAA operates differently because applicants are trying to “earn” a privilege in the same way that to earn the right to drive on public streets you have to prove that you are of certain age and that you can drive by taking written and driving tests. You earn that right by providing the information required and f you don’t, you do not earn the privilege. Information required includes academic transcripts with the minimum requirements and proof of amateur status which normally involves a sworn document.
When the NCAA receives credible information that contradicts that submitted by the applicant it has an implied obligation to investigate and request additional information in order to keep a level playing field for all members. At this time the onus transfers to the applicant to provide the requested information since the NCAA has no authority to legally compel the applicant to do it and until such time there is not much the NCAA can do but wait.
I understand the process might seem unfair to the student athlete but would it be better to waive requirements for a few elite individuals when the rest have to follow the well established rules? I think not.
If I were a betting man I would guess the process is stalled by lack of cooperation from Falmagne who could easily clear up any misunderstanding or provide the required information. In a perfect world, after a certain time the NCAA should be able to issue a report indicating what information is needed to complete the process but I will guess that it is not allowed to do so and so we continue to wait and especulate…
-
@BeddieKU23 - I, too, hope KU is appealing any delay in Silvio’s case. We all want him to play! But what makes you think KU is appealing the issue, besides HCBS comments?
-
Just my best guess/assumption really. The NCAA’s announced they would not look into programs from the first trial (KU included) until after the season. I’m guessing that also means Silvio’s case is on the backburner as well. If that’s true I’d assume KU has appealed for a decision in his case because he’s been held out. I have no idea if I’m right but it’s my working theory at the moment.
-
KU seems to be in the proverbial…between a rock and a hard place. It cannot play Silvio if there is any chance he would be declared ineligible and risk forfeiting games. On the other hand, KU is footing all the bills to educate, house and train Silvio with zero game time reward to date.
Contrary to the thread title, Silvio is doing well. All his expenses are being covered and he is getting a free education and access to the best trainers and top practice competition to hone his skill to the next level with zero game responsibility. I understand that he may or may not be guilty of the alleged violation but considering the situation, the deal he is getting at KU is not too shabby.
-
@JayHawkFanToo bet he’s just thrilled
-
JayHawkFanToo said:
It cannot play Silvio if there is any chance he would be declared ineligible and risk forfeiting games.
Why not? Isn’t Duke doing that with Zion? Didn’t AZ do that with Ayton?
To me…either the ship takes everyone down with them including KU (which would be an NCAA nightmare because it would include Duke) because ‘everyone recruits like this’…or it takes no one. Playing SDS then becomes a situation where he and KU get in trouble along with everyone else because they played an ineligible player last year and then chose to again this season…or no one gets in trouble and KU sat SDS for nothing.
I say roll the dice and play him. #FREESILVIO
-
@focojayhawk This has come up so many times.
There was no testimony, allowed or even just offered but rejected by the judge, stating that Zion or his family took money–only a disallowed hearsay statement allegedly made by Kurtis Townsend that the family was after a big payoff, and nothing about Duke at all. In contrast, there was direct testimony that Silvio’s guardian was involved in (I believe) 3 cash transactions, 1 involving attending KU, that would implicate Silvio’s eligibility.
Maybe more importantly, the NCAA apparently has notified KU of questions. Playing SDS would be direct and intentional disregard, providing cause for severe institutional sanctions instead of just a player ineligibility determination. Nothing in the trial was strong enough to do a comparable notice to Duke. So playing Zion can be done without directly flipping the bird at the NCAA.
-
@mayjay This goes to one approach I think KU could have taken. It would have required a different approach by Self. KU to the NCAA – Look, if you want to burn us, fine. Do it. But we will burn the place down. We know where the bodies are buried. We know who got paid – from Duke, UNC, AZ, everywhere. Let some assistant AD be the formal whistleblower. And burn it down. Or, alternatively, the NCAA can issue a statement acknowledging widespread corruption, dishing out nominal penalties, and implementing new, stricter standards.
Heck, Self could have been the white knight. The man who blew the whistle and forced change. But he is not aware … (clearing my throat) … of any … you know … third party inducements. The “I dare you to prove it” approach.
Do you think that Townsend doesn’t know what Zion got? Sure he does. Self knows. KT was wanting to do what it took to get him.
I agree with you that the situation right now is different between KU and Duke. It is only that way, I believe, because of some weirdo code of silence that somehow exists. And we’ve discussed this before, where are the aggrieved, the upset fathers of players not getting paid, the girlfriend that knows too much, the player who now doesn’t care, the tell all book deal? Puzzling.
But why should we sit and take it if we’re penalized and others aren’t? No way. Not now.
So play DeSousa. And say kiss my a**. I dare you.
-
Is it too much to ask the NCAA to give an automatic guarantee no university will face competitive sanctions from this case since they aren’t going to do anything this year anyways? Meaning… no probation, no stripping titles and wins, no reductions in scholarships, etc… That type of punishment isn’t good for anyone anyways and definitely bad for business! The punishment should be fines.
Does Kansas “look guilty” for not playing Silvio? If our administration didn’t payout money (or arrange it)… what are we worried about? Play Silvio! We’ve already disciplined Silvio enough!
So much of this is public relations and public reputations. Aren’t we already taking a hit on this? Over what, $2500? And who is the Maryland booster and what actually got paid back east? Boy… what an investment Zion has been for Duke!
-
Not buying the “play him anyway” argument. That would be giving the NCAA something on which to base additional sanctions, including postseason bans, suspensions of coaches, and scholsrship limits even if they wouldn’t have done so just based on the financial allegation. Silvio–or any other player–is not worth it.
-
“Knowing” something and having evidence are different. The most troubling “evidence” from that trial was from a wiretapped phone conversation by Kurtis Townsend. Were phones of Duke coaches tapped, or only phones of coaches from Adidas schools? I’d guess Nike schools have less to worry about. The FBI taps phone, but the NCAA does not. But the NCAA would have more information to use against Adidas schools, regardless of what they think they know.
-
KT knows what Zion got. Guaranteed.
-
What @mayjay said. There seems to be little or no doubt that at best all Silvio received was the money for the on-line classes which is a NCAA violation and would almost always result in a several games suspension (for Silvio) and at worst the alleged $60K which would likely result in major penalties (agaoin, for Silvio). It does not make a difference that KU was not the payer or did not know it contemporaneously, once it found out and knowingly and willingly played him then the program itself would open itself to penalties.
-
There is plenty of evidence that Silvio or someone on his behalf took at least the money for the on-line classes and likely the $60K as well, which is a NCAA violation, that KU is now aware; KU cannot play him until it finds out what the penalty will be. Knowingly playing Silvio being aware that NCAA rules were broken would subject the program itself to penalties.
-
International players are definitely coming to Gonzaga for free.
-
I hear Spokane has nice white sandy beaches and lots of sunshine. Has to be the deciding factor right?? LOL
-
As of today all KU risks with Silvio are forfeiting the games he played in last year including the final four. Since KU pulled him as soon as they publicly found out I’m hopeful that doesn’t happen. On the flip side if you play Silvio and you are forced to forfeit the games later does it taint the memory? Does it make you feel dirty, like a Kentucky fan? If KU won a championship and had to forfeit it would it be worth playing him? Even if KU wouldn’t have won without him? Glad the big guy has morals or we’d find out the consequences of playing Silvio.
-
Last season when Silvio played he had been fully cleared by the NCAA and there were no allegations or indications of foul play at the time so, it would be unlikely that the NCAA would penalize KU. No that the story is out and KU is aware of the allegations, playing him would open the program to penalties if the allegation prove to be correct.
-
@JayHawkFanToo Ayton…just sayin’
-
Arizona, Nike school. Just sayin’…
-
@mayjay @JayHawkFanToo @dylans…and all…thanks for your thoughts. As has been pointed out in every thread touching on the subject…it’s just a ridiculous mess.
So does KU/SDS end up here while others don’t simply because the Adidas trial went first and before the season while the Nike/UA teams get one more year to ride it out because their trials are after the season?
-
@focojayhawk I think there is a 30% chance the alphabet boys go after Nike schools. It would be 0% if the adidas trial had come back without convictions.
