• Seems like $1M is worth eating if this opens us up to more liability with the NCAA. I’d think more could come out in a civil case than the criminal trial.

  • Victims!

  • This farce continues. So, the victim (wink, wink) who knew what was going on, was deeply involved with the defendants, solicited the defendants’ assistance in recruiting, is now asking for monies to be reimbursed.

    The “victim” is the monolithic university. Its employees apparently don’t act on the university’s behalf. But that’s this entire, ridiculous scenario.

    We all should note that Louisville sued Pitino related to the damage he caused related to scandals.

    I wish I didn’t think like this, but I see this all just getting uglier.

    Any involved coaches (at whatever school) are MORE guilty than the Adidas defendants. The coaches have a fiduciary duty to the University. The Adidas defendant were acting to help their company. Further, the players and parents are guilty, as well, as they conspired.

    Why isn’t DeSousa’s guardian or Preston’s mom being charged? If we’re buying the “defrauded the university” thing, aren’t they both plainly guilty? Further, if they kept the info from the player, that seems even worse.

    On a positive note, Self was never (as far as we know) subpoenaed for grand jury testimony like Miller and Wade.

    It does not seem a stretch to me that an attorney for the defendants could file a civil suit against the University and the involved coaches. Seems like some creative claims could be fashioned there.


  • I love how it’s Kansas setting the precedent, but I’m a little disappointed with the figure. It kind of feels like this is/was done in cahoots with Adidas. I would think the negative publicity alone would be worth more than $1m. Still, it all but forces Gratto to sue Adidas. But who does Adidas sue? Nike/UA/etc for creating/contributing to the problem forcing Adidas to play the same game or go out of business?

    The only way for any meaningful reform is more and more crazy, absurd, and asinine lawsuits where party A points the finger at University B, who points the finger at person C, who then points the finger at shoe company D, who ultimately points the finger at institution NCAA. The more absurd these get the better! It will only will shine a light onto how corrupt and ridiculous the NCAA really is. What kind of things would we learn about in a “discovery” file on the NCAA? Do they not have a secret or two they want left locked up? I really hope this turns into the South Park Episode, “Everyone vs. Everyone.” That would be hilarious!

  • @HighEliteMajor it’s SUPER routine for victims in a fraud trial to seek restitution from the perpetrator. There’s no discovery or anything that takes place that verifies most of these claims. If the judge finds it reasonable he or she will order it done. Simple as that.

  • @FarmerJayhawk I know that — the routineness has nothing to do with what I was talking about. My point was the farcical nature of the entire situation.

  • @HighEliteMajor Actually, it makes a lot of sense. As I recall, the only testimony that was admitted by the judge in the trial was that KU/Self did NOT know about the payments. Filing the claim buttresses KU’s position (rogue booster, at worst) before the NCAA, which could well be hard-pressed to use some testimony to establish “boosterness” while disregarding other unrebutted testimony disconnecting KU from money.

    All the suspicions notwithstanding, it is a strong move.

  • @mayjay Is this the final Free Silvio card to play so he is eligible for next year?

  • @mayjay It makes sense if you are continuing the charade as a victim, as KU is doing. Of course, it serves KU. Why not seek the reimbursement?

    As you know, though, in a hearing regarding restitution, the normal rules of evidence don’t apply. Further, the judge has heard the proffered evidence (so he could rule on the objections). But that goes to what might be ordered.

    Regarding the booster issue, the NCAA won’t be hard pressed at all … zero … related to the testimony. The judge would not admit certain evidence because of objections. Those objections can be related to relevance, hearsay, etc. The NCAA is not bound by those rules.

    For example, the Judge would not permit the KT recording as evidence. The discussion of Zion Williamson. He denied it because the call did not happen to be during the time frame referenced in the indictment.

    If booster issue comes down to the NCAA rule it is clear that KU used and relied upon the Adidas folks in recruiting on their behalf. No one is denying that we used Adidas folks to help recruit.

  • All the Nike/adidas/UA camps serve the same purpose: to funnel kids to their schools to ultimately make the company money. I just thought it was done thru influence not direct payments. Now I don’t want this to be an isolated incident, as I couldn’t bear the thought that KU was the only one cheating (knowingly or not) and still couldn’t win.

    To me it’s like the tour cyclists, they are all cheating so the playing field is level, but let’s just cut the cheating out! The problem is this form of cheating is so ingrained into the system if you go clean without a system wide overhaul all you’ve done Is punish yourself. Meanwhile it’s business as normal for the rest of the teams.

  • @HighEliteMajor Since the KT recording was not admitted, there was no authentication, etc, so it may not even be in the hands of the NCAA, only the defense lawyers. NCAA has no subpoena power, so…settlement with defendants on restitution coupled with a connfidentiality clause?

  • @Fightsongwriter No, he is toast still. He should sue the guardian.

  • @mayjay can KU’s attorneys help Silvio w/that? I’m guessing not.

  • Or the guardian should sue adidas?

  • When folk start suing each other, there is this pesky thing called discovery – that means all the info comes out. I’m guessing that KU doesn’t want that, Adidas doesn’t want that, Silvio doesn’t want that, and the Guardian doesn’t want that.

    @mayjay In this process, the investigation report is really the key here. No way KT denies he’s on the tape. It’s a matter of whether he fashions a reasonable BS explanation. I don’t even think they need the actual tape … the investigator can include it in the report. Seems like it’s a “weight of the evidence” issue for the fact finder … how much value is attached based on reliability, unreliability. But again, I’m sure KT would be interviewed and I’m sure he wouldn’t lie if he’s on the tape.

    Here’s a link on the infraction hearing process.

  • I was being sarcastic. I would love to know what Silvio and Fenny have said to each other, and what Silvio’s parents think.

Log in to reply