KU announces deal with Adidas
-
@Woodrow I wonder if I could sign with Tony Lama…shoot give me a free pair of boots every year and I’m IN.
-
BShark said:
Kcmatt7 said:
Sigh.
WE WILL BE BACK
It’s fine. Just, the only thing good about Adidas is Reebok lol. Can we at least wear Reebok gear instead? haha
-
THEY WAS NOT GONING TO leave adidas
-
[crickets]
-
JAYHAWKFAN214 said:
THEY WAS NOT GONING TO leave adidas
I couldn’t have said it better … well, maybe I could have but that’s not the point. Fused at the hip with Adidas.
-
This is one of the biggest apparel deals in all of college athletics. Nike wasn’t gonna even come close to matching it.
-
Yea, I am not sure why anyone would be surprised by this. I bet this was close to double what Nike and UA offered.
-
If folks are opposed to this, they ought to have a really, really good reason why forfeiting millions of dollars per year is ok. This is a top 4 deal in the country in both AAV and total value, and takes care of all sports plus provides the university half a million per year in scholarship funds. Nike wasn’t going to even put us in the same tier as their big schools (Texas, Ohio St., UNC, etc.). This is a huge win for KU.
-
@FarmerJayhawk 100% dude. I’d rather be in the top Adidas tier than the Nike C tier.
-
I’m not surprised at all. And the money is great. It was obviously inevitable. We were probably never even negotiating with anyone else.Honestly, the amount also probably includes what would have been a settlement in civil court anyways.
I just know that for the next 14 years we are probably going recruit worse than Duke, Arizona, UNC and UK.
But the money is great. We should be happy.
-
BShark said:
@FarmerJayhawk 100% dude. I’d rather be in the top Adidas tier than the Nike C tier.
Same. Nike was never going to put us in the same tier, financially or with “other benefits” as their top programs.
-
@Kcmatt7 There is another dynamic here. We might recruit better with another coach. Folks want OADs. But Self has a reputation of not being OAD friendly. If I’m the parent of a presumed OAD, with that mindset, my kid would not be going to Kansas.
Self is the one that owns his recruiting. It’s Self’s baby. He’s recruiting to a top 5 program.
Even further, I’m sure that the Adidas deal needed his blessing. If he felt it was an albatross or something, he could have nixed it. If I’m a coach, I’d rather have less money but better recruiting help. He made his own bed with Adidas. He’s the boss.
Generally, I think we/me/all of us need to stop this blaming of Adidas. This is all on Bill Self (recruiting). All of it. Good, bad, indifferent.
-
@HighEliteMajor “But Self has a reputation of not being OAD friendly.”
If that is true, Bill Self has my undying loyalty. If a OAD never set foot on our campus again, I’m a happy, happy camper.
-
@nuleafjhawk I’m with you there. He expends a lot of recruiting resources on presumed OADs with very limited success. I do wonder, as a percentage of our recruiting efforts, how much time we spend on the presumed OADs.
-
This deal was inevitable. Its a top tier deal, as some have noted above. KU needed this deal, both for football and basketball. Don’t doubt that Les Miles had some input into how this was going down.
-
Show me the money. Well Jerry, Adidas showed up
-
Prediction… With the mega-deal being signed watch - hocus pocus! - as, once again, the recruits begin to magically appear.
-
Pat Forde never misses the opportunity to be a turd.
-
KirkIsMyHinrich said:
Pat Forde never misses the opportunity to be a turd.
Turd wasn’t the word that came my mind when I saw the headline. Can’t read it, he’s a meth head with a job
-
Never reading that article.
-
Wow. I just read the article and I’m not sure what else to say.
“College sports hits peek shameless”
That little SOB
-
Hmmm. Are we lacking some objectivity? Of course we are.
It is an utter and outright joke that KU is cast in the role of a “victim.” A complete joke.
His last line is the worst line. SDS is no victim either.
In truth, we only have co-conspirators. Those co-conspirators include all involved.
https://sports.yahoo.com/peak-shamelessness-kansas-signs-196-million-deal-with-adidas-004737804.html
-
That BS article aside (totally ignoring Nike and the state of the game), I am glad that Kansas signed the Adidas deal - the university had to do right by themselves. What are they supposed to do, sign with Nike for far less while watching as most of the dollars and recruits go to Duke, UK or UNC? It is funny, but once you see it you can’t unsee it, you know? Kansas is not going to be punished, just watch. How could it? The NCAA cleared De Sousa to play last year after Self, wisely, benched him. The university was then labelled a victim in the public scam, there not being enough evidence to hold Self or Townsend accountable. But just to say that it did something, though, the NCAA barred De Sousa from playing for two years. However, how much you want to bet against my saying that next season’s ban will be lifted? Why? No evidence that he knew, that’s why. To top it all off, the bag man who said in court that Self was not aware of any improper payments has now agreed to pay Kansas something, if memory serves, in the way of 300-some thousand dollars which is not chump change, further strengthening the case that coach Self and KU were the victims. So, with all of those unsightly, untidy loose ends finally being snipped - including the careless bag man - Kansas was then able to in good faith clean up with a 196 million dollar Adidas deal, and good for them. Rock Chalk Jayhawk!
-
@HighEliteMajor You really going to take Missouri alum and long time KU hater Pat Forde seriously? That man is not capable of writing objectively about anything KU related.
I do believe Silvio is a legitimate victim in this case due to being naive about HS recruiting in America. I do genuinely believe Silvio was unaware of the dirty dealings of his guardian because that’s not the culture in Africa.
It doesn’t absolve others of their actions, but I don’t believe Silvio or other new to America recruits realize how that game works because it’s the game they’re told about.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 Well, I take facts seriously. I don’t ignore info and opinions because I’m a KU fan and he’s an MU grad. The irony of KU making a deal with the very company that allegedly victimized it undeniable. If we were a “victim”, we should have gone elsewhere, but we shamelessly took the money from the highest bidder. There’s no way to dress it up.
Now, whether Forde is object or not, that’s another question. This column, though, objectivity is pretty much irrelevant. Again, you can put lipstick on a pig … still a pig.
Regarding SDS, I can see how some see him as a victim. You’re statement is your assumptions and beliefs. That’s fine. Lots of folks view term “victim” differently. All I know is that SDS was an adult. He chose who his agent … er, guardian, was. We are in America, and I don’t care if he was dragged off of a Wildebeest in the Serengeti. I’m not much into giving folks that come to our country the benefit of the doubt over Americans, who would be in a similar situation, when it comes to following the rules – just because they came from somewhere else.
If he took the UA and/or Adidas money (and his agent/guardian is “he” – they are one in the same), I hope he stays suspended.
@Marco So, I wonder, when you say SDS didn’t know. SDS was an adult, he had a “guardian” who acted on his behalf, like an agent. Further, where is there a requirement that SDS actually have direct knowledge of what someone he chose to act on his behalf, to be held responsible?
The restitution means zero. Remember, KU was labeled a “victim” because that’s what the prosecution needed to do to proceed. Then, the prosecution used objections related to relevancy to exclude information and witnesses from trial, that would shed light on the big picture. Remember, the info on KT regarding Zion was inadmissible.
But most importantly, KU is characterized as the victim, not Bill Self. The prosecution treated the monolithic university as the victim. Bill Self is not the monolithic university. Under the prosecution’s theory, whether Self knew or not, was not really relevant. The defendants sought to defraud KU, which is a state institution (thus the Feds’ jurisdiction). Of course, amazingly, the wiretap of Gassnola and Self supposedly failed. The defendants’ theory was to create a situation where Self’s knowledge would get them off the hook as acting on behalf of the university. But under the prosecution’s theory, he’d just be a co-conspirator.
It is amazing how willing we are, on varying levels, to stick our heads in the sand. We say on one hand that this stuff goes on everywhere, that CBB is corrupt, and then on the other had act as we aren’t part of that, or that Self (Mr. PD) didn’t know. The plausible deniability is a legal argument.
Who here will say with a straight face that Self did not know that Adidas was paying players to assist in recruiting? I’m interested. Not whether he knew the specifics. But whether he knew the game and what was going on?
Of course he knew. We are no victim here. It is just embarrassing.
-
We are 100% the victim if we are the only ones who end up getting the shaft from all of this. I guess besides Louisville…
-
@HighEliteMajor Silvio was not an adult when he came to this country and he was not legally an adult most of his recruitment and did not have any say in who his legal guardian was here in the US. Silvio was 15 when he came to the US and did not turn 18 until October of 2016 which was his junior year at IMG. Silvio was a victim in this case and his name is only mentioned because he didn’t play the game and made his own decision. Silvio doing what was best for Silvio and being ruled ineligible for that does make him a victim. Had Silvio gone to Maryland, his name never gets mentioned and he doesn’t have eligibility issues.
Also, Pat Forde’s long time anti-KU bias had a huge impact on how he wrote that article. He never misses an opportunity to bash KU. What his article fails to mention about the Adidas deal are two very specific clauses that allow either side to opt out of the contract should either party be found guilty of major infractions that tarnish the image of the other. Those clauses are very important because it means neither party is 100% tied to the other until 2031.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 I do not believe that he was unaware, but he will be reinstated. Trust me, the NCAA wants this thing to go away - the cat has been let out of the bag, and the only way for it to go away is to push it back inside.
-
@Marco If Silvio was aware of how CBB recruiting worked, he would’ve ended up at Maryland and not Kansas.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 Look, I’m a Jayhawk fan, okay? It is all going to turn out just fine, sooner rather than later. De Sousa was paid twice - once to renig on his Maryland commitment, and a second time to attend KU.
-
The genie has been let out of his bottle, folks, and the NCAA is going to real quick like lure him back in by doing nothing and recorking said bottle. Too many $$$ (including their own god-awful salaries) are at stake to do anything else.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 I know he wasn’t an adult when he came to this country. I of course looked at his birthdate before I posted. The point is he was an adult during his recruiting, when the cash was received, and when he signed. There is no “guardian” of an adult unless the adult is disabled. It’s comical how you again state your opinion as fact.
You know nothing. You have no idea how SDS was involved, if he knew, etc. Yet you take the position he’s a victim.
My position, on the other hand, is conditioned upon the claim that he (or his agent, guardian, etc) received money being true. If it is true … as I mentioned. Big difference.
If someone acts on your behalf, they are an agent. You can check the definition if you need to.
-
HighEliteMajor said:
@Texas-Hawk-10 I know he wasn’t an adult when he came to this country. I of course looked at his birthdate before I posted. The point is he was an adult during his recruiting, when the cash was received, and when he signed. There is no “guardian” of an adult unless the adult is disabled. It’s comical how you again state your opinion as fact.
You know nothing. You have no idea how SDS was involved, if he knew, etc. Yet you take the position he’s a victim.
My position, on the other hand, is conditioned upon the claim that he (or his agent, guardian, etc) received money being true. If it is true … as I mentioned. Big difference.
If someone acts on your behalf, they are an agent. You can check the definition if you need to.
Question. What if they act on your behalf without your consent or permission in a way that harms you? Because that’s what happened, and it’s pretty clear. And probably a crime. I’ll just ignore the anti-immigrant and borderline racist sentiment.
-
@FarmerJayhawk On your question, it’s a great point – SDS could claim breach of fiduciary duty. A civil claim. But of course, SDS would never sue because as I’ve mentioned in other posts, no one wants a civil suit with discovery – depositions with witnesses under oath. SDS being one. But I’m pretty confident it’s not a crime unless Fenny stole money from him, or something like that.
One reading on this is that because SDS hasn’t sued Fenny, it’s more evidence that they are one in the same. If Fenny acted unilaterally, who has damaged SDS more than him? But there is no lawsuit from SDS.
You don’t have to ignore what you mentioned in your last sentence. Whiny leftists see what they want. But I am anti ILLEGAL immigrant/migrant, very much so (the “illegal” part is immaterial to whiny leftists nowadays). And I say a lot of stuff that a whiny leftist would see as borderline racist, even a joke about where someone lived (of course, if the kid lived in Norway, and I suggested he put down his Viking horns, crawled off his Nordland, and came to America, you wouldn’t have said a thing). A black from Africa isn’t exempt to jokes about where he’s from.
-
HighEliteMajor said:
@FarmerJayhawk On your question, it’s a great point – SDS could claim breach of fiduciary duty. A civil claim. But of course, SDS would never sue because as I’ve mentioned in other posts, no one wants a civil suit with discovery – depositions with witnesses under oath. SDS being one. But I’m pretty confident it’s not a crime unless Fenny stole money from him, or something like that.
One reading on this is that because SDS hasn’t sued Fenny, it’s more evidence that they are one in the same. If Fenny acted unilaterally, who has damaged SDS more than him? But there is no lawsuit from SDS.
You don’t have to ignore what you mentioned in your last sentence. Whiny leftists see what they want. But I am anti ILLEGAL immigrant/migrant, very much so (the “illegal” part is immaterial to whiny leftists nowadays). And I say a lot of stuff that a whiny leftist would see as borderline racist, even a joke about where someone lived (of course, if the kid lived in Norway, and I suggested he put down his Viking horns, crawled off his Nordland, and came to America, you wouldn’t have said a thing). A black from Africa isn’t exempt to jokes about where he’s from.
And Silvio can’t afford a civil suit anyway. He’s not exactly swimming in cash. I wouldn’t be surprised if he does take some action against Fenny if his appeal is denied.
Painting me as a whiny lefty is hilarious. I’ve done more for limited government causes than 99.99% of the country. It would still be a slur if you said that about a Norwegian. A good rule of thumb is just to not joke about anyone’s ethnicity. Just a reminder that respectful /=/ whiny.
-
@FarmerJayhawk Some suits are done a contingency basis, so he might have some takers. But like a said, small chance he wants to be under oath, but more likely, he knows exactly what went on.
It’s not a slur. It’s a joke. Try laughing. It works. And don’t change the discussion by injecting “respectful” into the equation. What whiners (like you on this stuff) want is a conversation that meets your criteria of acceptability. The better path, I’d suggest, is for everyone to be a bit less thin skinned, a bit less easily offended – and for folks like you to be a bit less prone to whine about it.
-
HighEliteMajor said:
@FarmerJayhawk Some suits are done a contingency basis, so he might have some takers. But like a said, small chance he wants to be under oath, but more likely, he knows exactly what went on.
It’s not a slur. It’s a joke. Try laughing. It works. And don’t change the discussion by injecting “respectful” into the equation. What whiners (like you on this stuff) want is a conversation that meets your criteria of acceptability. The better path, I’d suggest, is for everyone to be a bit less thin skinned, a bit less easily offended – and for folks like you to be a bit less prone to whine about it.
I would laugh if you were funny.
-
@FarmerJayhawk I know, of course, if I would have referred to a kid from Norway, you wouldn’t have said a word. My laughs come at leftist whiners like you.
-
Too early in the offseason for this.
-
Kcmatt7 said:
Too early in the offseason for this.
Yeah, take to TOS…
-
HighEliteMajor said:
@FarmerJayhawk I know, of course, if I would have referred to a kid from Norway, you wouldn’t have said a word. My laughs come at leftist whiners like you.
That you think I’m a lefty
-
@FarmerJayhawk Then don’t direct your stupid sh** at me.
-
-
Can confirm @FarmerJayhawk isn’t a raging liberal. He’s just not…well…
-
@FarmerJayhawk You may rest, counselor.
-
These would of looked nice!
-
@KU-Gert Those are awesome. I want some.
-
-
Oh man. Where’s @CivilHawk ?
