KU fears investigation case due to Silvio De Sousa eligibility.





  • Not a ton of “facts” but the smoke surrounding considering that POS Gassnola a booster isnt going away hypothetical or not. Should KU have fought for Silvio or thrown in the towel to save face…



  • Fighting for the kid was the right thing to do, considering a lot of the reason he is getting screwed is because of us at least being somewhat complicit in this scheme (if not fully). I’m absolutely willing to take any punishment that we brought upon ourselves. I just don’t want Bill to leave or get fired as a result.

    And to be honest, the only thing the NCAA could do at this point that would piss me off is a post season ban.

    I certainly wouldn’t cooperate with any investigation at this point. Not after how they attacked Silvio to get back at Self and send a message.



  • Its fairly simple at this point, the NCAA played us like a fiddle to gain more ammo on us. We should’ve just washed our hands with SDS like we did with Cliff and not released anything. Hate to abandon a player but he probably knew something



  • That’s such garbage. I knew that was going to happen. KU should retract that designation immediately saying it was made in mistake/error and refuse to cooperate going forward. Like, 2 can play that cheese ball game. And if/when the NCAA does come knocking, point them in the direction of krzyzewskiville and a certain incident from20 years ago. Here’s to hoping KU made a calculated risk and somehow or another, the NCAA is themselves now open to increased scrutiny/liability through some BS antitrust lawsuit that ultimately leads to blowing up the whole system.

    On a serious note and forgive me if this has been covered previously…how is the NCAA (at their present level) going to be equipped to handle and deal with the fallout from the FBI invegations? It would seem to me they would need to increase their staff 10 fold to realistically deal with the fallout with any sense of urgency.



  • Who else thinks the NCAA will draw conclusions from partial information, then dare KU to prove it wrong? Seems like they did the same thing to SDS. Now granted, they may have access to more info on SDS than we do, but it seems only thing they have is uncorroborated testimony. It could cause KU to come out guns blazing (or to lay down and take their punishment). It will be an interesting spring and summer…



  • @Gorilla72 guns blazing please. Rule #1 of dealing with the NCAA- you do not cooperate. Rule #2- do not cooperate. Rule 3…



  • @user_RCJH You bring up a valid point about them not being staffed to do an investigation into all of these schools. I believe there was over 20 listed in some way. As I’ve always said they’ll kill themselves if they ban several elite schools and the venues that hold 120,000 people off of shear greed to start with will be half full.



  • It seems to me that the nature of the booster in question is important. That’s where I’m becoming more concerned. Adidas had its hands all over our recruits. The rogue booster argument is not a reasonable mitigator here.

    The NCAA has to prove its allegations by something akin to a “clear and convincing” standard proof. I have seen nothing that precludes the NCAA from relying on hearsay. In fact, the conclusions in many investigations rely in part on hearsay. And like any other investigations, conclusions come from all of the evidence, and requires some connecting of dots. Each item of evidence may not have the same impact. But that KT phone call is evidence, for example. It doesn’t prove anything standing alone. But it’s a piece of the puzzle. Self phone call with Gassnola where the wire tap apparently didn’t work. A reasonable person could make some inferences there in light of other evidence.

    This is all concerning. If I had to bet on a result – Vacate the 2018 FF, vacate wins with DeSousa, no tourney in 2020, and loss of a scholarship or two. But this is a pie graph, and there are number possibilities. If the NCAA is now more serious, as the recent actions have indicated, then this seems quite possible.

    Why? The nature of our booster. He was intricately involved with our coaches, talked directly to Self on recruits, and was active on our behalf to get multiple recruits. He was in reality an extension of our coaching staff.

    This doesn’t seem like a hard case to make.



  • I personally think KU thought they had a really good case with Silvio and thought he would only be suspended for part of this season. There is no way they even dreamed a 2 season ban was a possibility.

    I was so worried about this trail when it was going on , but I’ve come to the realization that it is what it is. If they want to vacate wins then that is fine. We all know what happened and I think vacations anything is dumb as hell.

    However, I do think they are going to get hit with a postseason bam and that is going to effectively kill recruiting even worse than it is right now. One thing is for sure is that KU needs the NCAA to make its ruling and move on from this whatever punishment may be.



  • This all just simply has to be over more than the “$2500” amount everyone is throwing around. We don’t know what information they have. But obviously there is something more. And as much as we’d like to deflect it with “well that statement could mean” insert your excuse here bullshit. It’s plain naive to think our coaches had no idea. That much is now clear… Sadly. Pisses me off. Cause what did you really get out of it? A vacated FF. A kid ya can’t play. The end of a maybe too highly coveted streak. A black eye for the Future with the NCAA and potential recruits. SMH…

    If ya lie with dogs you’ll wind up with fleas



  • If the suggestion to designate Gr-asshole-nola as a booster as a hypothetical truly came from the NCAA, I think this is all a lot of worrying over something that won’t be as much of a slam dunk as KU and fans are fearing. Here is why:

    First, assuming it is true that the NCAA would not consider SDS’s petition for reinstatement without KU agreeing to the hypothetical, that would mean the NCAA was not willing to perform its job without exacting this designation. Courts generally don’t get into second-guessing private organizations’ adjudicatory processes except when an organization does not follow its own rules. To allow deference, those rules must set out the procedures to be followed, must meet minimum standards of notice and right to be heard, and must require initial judgment or appeal to be decided by impartial adjuicators. Here, the NCAA’s rules require determinations on eligibility, both preliminarily and on reinstatement. The NCAA cannot possibly extort a procedural advantage in another case before doing its job.

    Second, I fail to see how a hypothetical for one purpose could be used in an enforcement case. A hypothetical is not an admission, and it is not evidence, so it has no res judicata effect. A hypothetical in a circumstance like this is like a statement made in a settlement discussion–it cannot be used in court against the person making the statement.

    An example: Victim falls on a sidewalk and is injured. The claim is made that the property owner negligently failed to clear ice from a storm several days before. In settlement conference, the owner breaks in to the lawyers’ negotiations and says, “Okay, if I didn’t clear the ice because the sidewalk was closed, how much do you want?” His statement cannot be offered in any subsequent proceeding to prove he did not clear the ice. Protected–we encourage candid discussions to facilitate settlements.

    Here, I can imagine that the NCAA stonewalling involved claiming they would not resolve SDS’s case unless KU accepted a hypothetical to cement Gassnola’s role. KU says, “Okay, if–hypothetically–he was a booster who slipped $2,500 to SDS’s guardian, please determine his eligibility and any sanction for him.”

    No way that statement can be used to establish the booster relationship.

    I tend to think this story is based on discussions with scared peripheral people who are second-guessing the lawyers because of the brutal 2 year decision, but who have no clue. Chances are, in my view, the lawyers knew precisely what they were doing. I think they have a strong case against any preclusive use of the hypothetical. The NCAA likely knows that, too.

    This issue is not something to be upset about. However, I think the NCAA can prove he was a booster without too much trouble, so I think the hypothetical is irrelevant. Kind of like a case I had where the highest military appeals court agreed with me that a certain hearsay statement by an unknown utterer should not be admitted against my client, but it did not matter because my client hand wrote his confession anyway.

    If all the NCAA has is the hypothetical, however, KU’s lawyers should go to federal court and stomp their ass. Heck, I am still licensed in Kansas!



  • But I could be wrong



  • mayjay said:

    But I could be wrong

    lol :muscle:



  • @mayjay go for it!



  • “But I don’t think so!” *

    • “It’s a Jungle Out There” is a song written by Randy Newman and used as the theme song for the TV series Monk starting in its second season. In 2004, it won an Emmy Award for Outstanding Main Title Theme Music.


  • @Woodrow I’ve always laughed at the whole vacating wins thing as well. It’s silly.



  • Long said, that day, Kansas “disagreed” on how to define Gassnola’s role but that the NCAA made it a condition of considering De Sousa’s reinstatement.

    “The NCAA told us that they would not consider a reinstatement unless we included that information,” Long said. “If we did not include the hypothetical, they would not consider reinstatement until after the enforcement investigation was complete.” Since the FBI announced its investigation in September 2017, college basketball has braced for what could be significant NCAA penalties against the sport’s blue bloods.

    The ol’ bait and switch to the “Gotcha”

    NCAA president Mark Emmert said in December investigations into schools named by the FBI “have already been launched,” but he failed to identify individual programs. Emmert told a group of reporters in December that the association had the “manpower and willpower” to investigate some of biggest names and brands in college basketball stemming from the FBI investigation

    He sounds like a man with a Napolean complex. He has little man syndrome. He talks real big. He means they have the FBI helping them. Here’s a question for you little man, WHY DIDN’T YOU HAVE THE MANPOWER TO INVESTIGATE BEFORE? WHY ALL OF A SUDDEN DO YOU THREATEN NOW? YOU’RE GIVING ALL THE OTHER BLUE BLOODS FAIR WARNING? WE GOT ONE,WE’LL GET YOU TOO. I remember how everyone was defending the NCAA because they didn’t have the manpower. Well, Emmerts funny how you all of a sudden have the manpower when it’s convenient and makes you look competent.

    This man is no president. He is an opportunist and looking to make a name for himself at KU’s expense. The writer of this article is simply making a living and this article is nothing new. The only thing new is Buckner’s input. How do we hire him? KU’s lawyers and Long have no idea what the hell they’re doing. Why would you agree to Gassanola as a booster? HE WAS NOT A BOOSTER. This is STUPID beyond any reasonable doubt. I’m not impressed with Long’s handling this delicate and costly case.

    “Most of my cases that I deal with also have a student-athlete reinstatement component,” said Michael Buckner, a South Florida sports attorney who specializes in NCAA cases. “My advice to my clients is … that [a reinstatement case] may impact the circumstances of enforcement later on.”

    PLEASE HIRE MICHAEL BUCKNER TO REPRESENT KU. DAMN DAMN DAMN DAMN…KU is sinking unnecessarily.

    I’ve been shouting since this mess started that KU is the only program, along with Zona, to be implicated. They mentioned “Blue Bloods.” Something tells me Puke, Kensucky, and UNC are not under investigation. Damn it, if they impose these unjust sanctions of the 2018, SDS wins, and this year and next, that’s a bunch of BULLSHIT. I can half way understand vacating wins with SDS. But why punish the team? He was not the only player who played. He was a small part. Then to say we have to lose something this year and next is BULLSHIT. We’ve been punished enough already. We’ve clearly lost recruits, SDS has sat out this whole season, DOKE is out. What more do they want?

    Lastly, Nassir was investigated and cleared very quickly. Williamson still plays and Puke will likely win the NC. I have a feeling KU is the only Blue Blood that gets screwed in this mess. Emmert and the NCAA is clearly picking and choosing what they want to investigate. Again, many were named in the Grand Jury, but KU is the targeted.



  • That gavel is a resounding statement. NCAA can’t wait to drop the hammer.



  • @mayjay I nominate majay chief counsel for the defense. All in favor?



  • Fightsongwriter said:

    @mayjay I nominate majay chief counsel for the defense. All in favor?

    Aye!



  • @Fightsongwriter Thanks. I learned in appellate criminal defense how to make it sound really good. But don’t ignore the last paragraph–we still might be toast. I have no illusions. Schools generally get hit for playing ineligible players. If they hold KU responsible for everything adidas did, it will be bad. If we show we had no way of knowing, then vacating wins and the F4 are probably the result.

    I have said before, the NCAA can look at how desperately we needed SDS eligible at midseason and that could be a factor in thinking we conveniently didn’t look into how he came to us. Then it gets into loss of schollies and postseason ban. Boo!



  • @mayjay

    That was a great post.

    If there is an infractions case being built against KU it will probably also include the Billy Preston situation.



  • Man storm coming on the horizon - - just be prepared - -I hate this - -this crap sucks - but reality is - - REALITY. - -I think someone on the staff knew things and now has got caught - Not necessarily Self but SOMEONE now the University in the end will end up being the sacrafical lamb for the NCAA - I personally think it’s gonna be bad - already heard us being called Cheater U.

    Like may jay said I think we are stripped of our Final 4 - -our conference title - and postseason ban when all said and done. - - If things turn out and we are hit for playing an enligible player - -then dam. - -

    I almost feel like I would rather just back away from players that have handlers - - -guardians - anything of that type that smells - -shady. - -It just seem like go ahead recruit those 5 stars that a so squeaky clean - they squeak when they walk - -other then those then almost rather recruit the developmental players - -players you know gonna be here 3-4 years – look what happened with Frank & Devonte - -absolute steals - -hardly recruited at all by majors - - look how they turned out - - Recruit the Braun’s - -the McBride’s - - - the Ochai’s - I would rather almost take that chance - - I know people gonna say we have to recruit the 5’s - and I agree - but we have just GOT to learn to stay away from the iffy type just seems that you mess with the fire - - you gonna get burnt.

    I’m afraid in the coming months - -it’s gonna get dark - really dark for the program - -and while there are other NIKE schools that need their just due - they will get the slap at most while we get hug out to dry. - -ROCK CHALK ALL DAY LONG BABY



  • @truehawk93 Here’s a link. Look at bullet point 5. Gassnola was a booster.

    Is there any disagreement from anyone when we look at the rule?

    However, one could argue with the loose definition that I could, acting on my own, go help Missouri with recruiting and thus get them in trouble by engaging in conduct against NCAA rules. If I “Assisted … in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes.”

    I think the issue becomes one of mitigation – how much authority did he have to act on our behalf? If he was a rogue booster, like my example, that would certainly help when it came to penalties.

    But Gassnola was as deeply embedded as one could be regarding recruiting it appears, short of the David Booth flying in to add some influence to a recruit’s decision. Anyone disagree there?

    http://www.ncaa.org/enforcement/role-boosters



  • @HighEliteMajor Your Missouri example, on those facts, would not get the school in trouble. There has to be a connection between you and the school, either a relationship like the other bullets involve, or, for the catch-all last bullet, probably knowledge of and acquiescence in your activities.

    But, yeah–bullet number 5 seems on point here. :-1:



  • I’m fairly confident we end up giving back the FF and all the money we earned from it. I could see us losing a few scholarships and potentially having recruiting restrictions on Townsend and Self for a year or two. That would make sense. It’s all logical.

    I would be infuriated with a postseason ban though. Punishing players who don’t deserve to be punished is horseshit. The worst part, is the NCAA ties everything to the programs instead of the coaches. It ends up hitting the wrong people for the crimes committed. In fact, 99% of the time the NCAA punishes the wrong person with their penalties.



  • @justanotherfan What’s your take on this?



  • @mayjay then on #5 why did they need our help, couldn’t they declare him a booster anyway? Does it help us at all that adidas testified under oath ku didn’t know? I’m afraid of the info we don’t know about.



  • @Crimsonorblue22 If I had to guess I would say it might have been caused by us denying he was a booster in the Silvio case, in which case the NCAA would not want their failure to rebut the denial to be used against them in a later enforcement case. Another reason I think the hypothetical is meaningless.

    All these rules in litigation arise because someone says something, someone else doesn’t challenge it because it doesn’t appear to matter right then, and then later someone tries to say it should have been denied or corrected or challenged at the time.

    Lawyers hate to admit anything, but are like sharks smelling blood in the water when they think they have found an unwitting concession.

    The testimony may help, but not if there is strong evidence we did not pay attention.



  • Kcmatt7 said:

    I’m fairly confident we end up giving back the FF and all the money we earned from it. I could see us losing a few scholarships and potentially having recruiting restrictions on Townsend and Self for a year or two. That would make sense. It’s all logical.

    I would be infuriated with a postseason ban though. Punishing players who don’t deserve to be punished is horseshit. The worst part, is the NCAA ties everything to the programs instead of the coaches. It ends up hitting the wrong people for the crimes committed. In fact, 99% of the time the NCAA punishes the wrong person with their penalties.

    I think one-year suspensions without pay would clear up lots of things.



  • cragarhawk said:

    This all just simply has to be over more than the “$2500” amount everyone is throwing around. We don’t know what information they have. But obviously there is something more.

    I wish I had the links, but some of the stuff I’ve been reading about this case seem to indicate that the NCAA has smelled smoke around KU for quite a while now and SDS is the proverbial straw.

    If I understood the articles properly, the NCAA has had it in for us for some time now and the amount, whether $2500 or something more, is irrelevant. It’s the fact they now have something tangible to pin on us. I get the sense lunch money would have been enough of a paper trail to lower the boom and make an example out of us.

    I really wanted to believe we did things the right way, but I guess like some say “If you’re not cheating, you’re not trying”. There’s just too much money at stake to have a middling program. The pressure to win supersedes all else. The whole thing is disappointing on so many levels.

    I do agree with @HighEliteMajor that if sanctions befall us, but not others who are clearly guilty, we should burn the whole thing down and start over.



  • Here is the million dollar question for me. - - - -IF we are found guilty - -and there are sanctions - -IS there such a thing as a Clean Coach - - Do they even exist & please don’t come and say K from Duke is clean -we all know that’s a line of crap? - - -surely there HAS TO BE a Coach that can coach a good team without all the Bullshit

    I for one am so tired of all of the this and that’s - that’s been happening with and around this program in the last like 5 years or so - All I want is ONE free drama less smooth going Basketball season with out academic issues – illegal activities and so on and so on

    If we get hit - -then we gonna get hit in recruiting - -hard – -really hard - this whole FBI scandal has already cost us with multiple players I think - -and if we get hit with sanctions & Scandal & strippings of Conference championships - -stripped of final fours - -these kids gonna run like a striped ass ape

    Also the big question - -and don’t come throwing shade when I ask it - -as I KNOW others are thinking about it possibly - maybe just not the chones to ask because they don’t want to take shade for asking and being called traitor - - fair weather fans - I think it is a legit question – So IF and again I said IF if this truly comes around where we are hit post ban from the NCAA tourney stripped of titles and final fours - - IF – IF - - IF Self did indeed of having knowledge or he was fully engaged himself - -do you think the University may ask him to step down? - or fired ? - -it IS a legit question - -not trying to be called a fair weather fan or hater - -cause you ought to fricken know that’s not it at all - -whether you like it or not - -it’s a question that is a fair question - I don’t want to see this come to that BUT it could happen



  • @jayballer73 It would depend on what he knew, when he knew it, and what if anything he did about it.

    I am not going to tie myself up in knots agonizing over the what-ifs about this. Que sera sera.



  • @tis4tim That has been my concern - that what we are potentially facing is a “lack of institutional control” finding, which could come with multiyear probation, vacated wins, postseason ban, loss of scholarships, and recruiting restrictions. Especially as KU is a repeat offender.



  • @mayjay Ha! I thought que sera sera was some obscure Latin legal term, like habeas corpus or ipso facto. Key sarah sarah.

    Until I googled it and got Doris Day.



  • @mayjay When looking at bullet point 5, it does not define what assisted means. There is no qualification, either, that there has to be a connection between the party assisting in recruiting and the school.

    If I go to a kid I know at the local high school, tell him I want him to go to MU. That I love MU now, and I’m a fan of their BB team. Then I give him $3,000 to go to MU, this fits in bullet point #5. I have assisted in recruiting.

    The “or request by university staff to assist” part of bullet point #5 deals with a situation when the school has asked for the help. So that would indicate that first part did not require that request.

    I’m just talking plain reading of the language.



  • I remember hearing that we were the victim in this. I really don’t follow too much what you’re all saying, but I do remember we’re the victim.



  • So if Gassnola is deemed a booster in regards to KU…shouldn’t it be pretty clear that others play similar roles with other schools with other shoe companies? It seems then like any representative of Nike, UA, Kangaroos ( I wish KU was sponsored by Kangaroos by the way) who has communicated at all with a member of a coaching staff of any school at any time would be deemed a booster. Am I missing something here? At what point does a shoe company rep become a booster? If it is simply the “request by university staff to assist” part then doesn’t every school with a shoe sponsorship have boosters that work for those companies and schools?



  • wissox said:

    I remember hearing that we were the victim in this. I really don’t follow too much what you’re all saying, but I do remember we’re the victim.

    More so every day…



  • @HighEliteMajor I believe that rules like these cannot be read without their context. Isolating particular bullets as if they are independent, stand-alone prohibitions can result in really absurd results.

    For example, anyone hiring a student athlete simply to cut a lawn becomes a booster under your strict reading, regardless of any university contact or even a recruiting pitch. The bullet on employment seems to say that. By its wording, the employer doesn’t even have to know that the kid is an athlete!

    No, the introductory paragraph to these bullets discusses boosters in the context of representing the school, and that strict reading you are giving bullet 5 omits that requirement completely.

    However, your interpretation provides an excellent illustration of why all those Q’s & A’s (and other advisories) caution anyone who might be considered a booster from contacting prospective athletes directly and instead to inform the scool so it can do the recruiting. Innocent contacts can thus avoid being misinterpreted, and (providing there is a relationship) recruiting efforts by boosters can be isolated and improper ones sanctioned.



  • @focojayhawk I think that the NCAA is just taking the cases in the order that the clearest evidence comes out. KU happens to have been upto the armpits in Gassnola’s mud, there is juicy evidence on point, and a high-profile recruit has given them an opportunity to finally bring out and stomp out this particular corruption. Other cases will follow, but if KU is sanctioned, look for a bunch of self-reported violations getting less punishment.



  • @HighEliteMajor

    Assisted or has been requested by university staff to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes.

    Let’s pretend I was taking to Bill Self and told him how much he needs Zion Williamson. Self says, sure, but how would you go get him? I say, well, let me try to talk with some friends and see where he stands…(all pretend)

    I return to Self to inform him that Williamson was in fact interested in KU. I ask Williamson would it would take to join KU. He says whatever KU can do to get me to their program. Like what Zion? Well, Zion is too humble to tell me, so I say how about setting up an home visit with Self? Zion says ok, sure!

    Now…my terrible pretend scenario makes me look like a booster. But the question is, who made me a booster? Self? Myself? Zion? Oh, wait, it just so happens I know quite a few other players and they really like me and are influenced by me. What makes me a booster? Oh, MONEY! I never mentioned money, bought, paid for players?

    Yet by the NCAAs definition, technically, I’m a booster.

    NCAA Bullet #5: Assisted or has been requested by university staff to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes.

    I think the key phrase is “requested.” Who requested what? when? I never actually heard Gassanola say during the Grand Jury that he was “requested” to get players. He chose and Self humored him. Who really honestly gained? So the NCAA has to prove that he was specifically “requested” by Self to get a player. There was never any agreement. Gassanola just went and talked to players. We really don’t know if money was involved. We are assuming money was involved. So Fenney and SDS are guilty? Gassanola is guilty? Self is guilty? Oh, Townsend said, “Whatever it takes…” What the hell does that really mean? NOTHING!

    This is a damn witch hunt and the NCAA looks foolish for not taking care of business. They have spent tax payers money and now there will be hell to pay, evidence or not. KU is going to pay the govt back.



  • So, I’m bracing for hell. I am really curious to see where this all leads to other programs. If this ends with KU, this was a nasty conspiracy plain and simple. The other programs seem very relaxed and KU is now tarnished. Congrats Jayhawk Nation because now we are the scourge of college basketball. We have gone from the mecca of basketball to the slums of basketball history and one man TJ Gassanola and his ass of a lawyer not only destroyed KU bball, but tarnished a kid in the process. Nice! Oh…Rock Chalk Jayhawk Go KU…You can take a guy of Kansas, but you can’t take Kansas out of the guy. I’m a truehawk through and through. I don’t care what this damn mess causes.



  • @truehawk93 When reading bullet point 5, it says two things – just read the bolded part in each sentence.

    Assisted or has been requested by university staff to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes

    Assisted or has been requested by university staff to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes

    The “or” creates two options.

    The “requested” part is one of two options under this bullet point that create a “booster.”

    I think it is undeniable that Gassnola was a booster under the NCAA rule.

    Now, that doesn’t get into my firm position that Adidas is a separate entity, Gassnola works for Adidas, Gassnola serves Adidas’ corporate interests, etc. That goes to the legal (federal prosecution) part of it. Which is not the NCAA part.

    I would also suggest that there is no TJ Gassnola assisting in recruiting if one man, Bill Self, didn’t decide that Gassnola’s assistance was desired. The buck stops with Bill Self.



  • As frustrating as it is to see all this negative publicity surrounding KU, any future assumptions about what may or may not transpire are incredibly premature. We have no clue what is going to come out of the Nike trial (i.e. who is implicated, to what degree). While it sucks beyond belief that Adidas/KU were up first, I find it hard to believe the level of incriminating evidence that comes to light during the Nike school trials will not at the very least be the same and potentially worse.

    I know there is nothing supporting this but… we all know the adage “save the best for last.” Was it just was a coin toss as to how/why Adidas went first? Appetizers are served before dinner and dinner before dessert. I would think the Nike trials are where the FBI ties a nice bow around their however long/however costly investigation into the underbelly of college basketball.

    Either way truehawk93, what else can the Nike schools do but operate as business as usual. They don’t know WHAT the FBI knows, so to act unusual/irrational would almost undoubtably be an implication of guilt. They are lucky in that they get to play this season without their school/coaches/players being part of the 24 hour news cycle because nothing has been released to the public. Or maybe… the NCAA comes down hard when scores of players are found to have been compromised during the Nike-run AAU circuits. We did hold out SDS after his “situation came to light.” Would we have if not for the investigation? How many Nike schools are potentially playing a kid whose name just hasn’t been made public yet?

    Anyways, I’m sitting back and counting down the days until it’s Nike’s turn. Popcorn ready!



  • @user_RCJH pass the 🍿



  • @user_RCJH “…any future assumptions about what may or may not transpire are incredibly premature.”

    But it gives everyone here something to agonize about. Look how delightfully quiet the Politics section has been for the past coupla months!



  • @mayjay As much as I dislike the “all politics all the time” current nature of our society, I’d certainly take that if it meant all this NCAA/SDS crap had never happened:person_frowning_tone1:



  • Drop Adidas. Pick up Nike. All kinds of problems would go away very quickly.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to KU Buckets was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.