Naming names
-
Makes us wonder: What if the NCAA punishes us further for the Silvio case?
You are wise in pointing out the differing levels of bureaucracy.
Let’s look at the totality of the situation…
NCAA’s game of “flip-flop” -
NCAA approves Silvio for play
NCAA penalizes Silvio with 2-year ban
NCAA reduces ban to 1-year
NCAA punishes Kansas over the Silvio situation
Can you make sense of all of this? I’m probably leaving out a few decisions to further complicate the Silvio story…
-
Texas Hawk 10 said:
Marco said:
@Crimsonorblue22 Yes, I know… But they also reinstated him. Why would they do that? Why not just rule him ineligible, period? Anyway, we shall see.
The NCAA Infractions Committee initially ruled Silvio DeSousa ineligible for 2 years for violations connected to his guardian. The University of Kansas filed an appeal on behalf of Silvio DeSousa because they believed the punishment to be excessive. This appeal was heard by the NCAA Appeals Committee which is a different group from who handled Silvio’s case the first time. The Appeals Committee determined that the 2 year suspension was excessive for the violation and reduced it to a 1 year suspension.
Okay, they ruled it to be excessive, and I am not trying to argue but only make a point. I guess what I’m getting at is that if the committee ruled it to be excessive then perhaps it felt that there was not much there to begin with, which takes me back to my original point. If there was actual proof that his guardian took cash and or that Silvio knew about it why not from the start just rule him all the way ineligible (not only 2 years, flat out ineligible)? Would that not be what the NCAA would normally do in such a situation?
But they did not do that because there is no proof (and I understand that they usually don’t care about such a thing), though I am quite sure, at this point, that they have belatedly recognized their blunder and I am laughing at them! I believe that we have dodged the entire bullet. The NCAA sawed its own legs off with the original ruling (“We should have just ruled him ineligible!,” they are now screaming) and the committee sawed those legs off even more. Anyway, last I’ll talk about this topic. We shall see.
-
@Marco That’s not what the NCAA does. It’s not a one size fits all punishment. They issue punishments based on the amount of benefits received. Josh Selby received a 9 game suspension in 2010 for receiving about $6,000 in impermissible benefits.
I’ve specifically told you multiple times that it has been proven that Silvio’s guardian did receive impermissible benefits on behalf of Silvio. You can choose to ignore that all you want, but it doesn’t change that TJ Gassnola paid Silvio DeSousa’s guardian and admitted that under oath during the Adidas trial. That is 100% indisputable evidence.
Based on the testimony of a man who plead guilty to defrauding the University of Kansas, Silvio DeSousa’s guardian received somewhere between $62,500 and $82,500 in benefits on DeSousa’s behalf from Under Armour and Adidas. The testimony stated that $60,000 was paid by an Under Armour representative to persuade Silvio to attend Maryland. Silvio did not want to go to Maryland so TJ Gassnola had arranged a $20,000 payment to Silvio’s guardian so he could began paying Under Armour back and Silvio could attend Kansas. Gassnola’s testimony stated that he did not make the $20,000 payment because the FBI investigation of Adidas youth basketball was announced before he could make the dropoff. He did however admit to providing $2,500 to cover the cost of online classes Silvio needed so he could graduate high school early and enroll at KU when he did. It is no longer relevant to the NCAA if Silvio knew about those benefits because of the NCAA closing that loophole after the Cam Newton pay for play case.
Not everyone who is found guilty of receiving impermissible benefits in the eyes of the NCAA is ruled permanently ineligible. The amount the NCAA Infractions Committee determined was connected to Silvio through his guardian warranted a 2 year suspension for Silvio. The NCAA Appeals Committee determined that based on their evidence that a 1 year suspension was the appropriate punishment for the benefits received.
It’s really not that different from the legal system in which the punishment escalates based on the severity and/or number of times a law has been broken.
I think you’re way over thinking and way over complicating the matter.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 Probably, yeah…
-
Given the NCAA has administered it’s ruling and punishment (2 year suspension) and then further adjusted that punishment, deeming it too excessive (now 1 year), wouldn’t further review (to ultimately determine that games must be vacated) be considered double jeopardy?
-
@bskeet that was the players punishment. The U could still be found culpable. Hope not, but with the ncaa who knows?
-
@dylans ah… i get it, but it kind of sucks…
Didn’t know there was a serving of humble pie for everyone involved.
The athlete
The university
The guardian
The shoe company…
… sorry, fell asleep and was dreaming for a moment.
-
So to sum it up, we as a fan base are basically “yeah, we were bad and we’re gonna get spanked, even though everyone else should get spanked too. but we’re the middle kid … so … you know”
But we’re also like Lloyd with Ms. Samsonite … “you’re telling me there’s a chance!”
-
As a university, we’ve had our humble pie served up years ago when we worked with the NCAA to develop a model compliance program.
In more colorful terms… we had our “Cool Hand Luke” moment where Luke was finally broken down by Boss.
But then… we know what happened after that!
-
I saw that UConn got served.
-
Ollie… Ollie… out of here…
-
Cleaver move by UCONN to get reinstated in the Big East before the big news. UCONN proves, once again, that winning a few rings does not make a program a “blue blood.”
Speaking of the Big East… who they going to recruit now for that 12th spot? Makes me wonder if Wichita State is pounding on their door for entry… even though they have more than they can chew in the AAC.
-
https://twitter.com/GaryParrishCBS/status/1149076599041658881
NC State, officially.
-
Hahahahahaha f those guys
-
@BShark NC State didn’t even make all these reporter’s lists as one in trouble.
-
NC State, hit… Kind of feels like a game of Battleship, huh?.. Okay, they got NC State…
-
Love that flimsy excuse that the UNC bogus classes also had non-athletes attending, therefore it wasn’t rigged for the athletes.
I still put this offense as far worse than an athlete or family member receiving a few bucks. The academic fraud cheapens the overall reputation of education and hurts everyone.
-
… You guys know where my rose colored glasses wearing self stands.
-
@drgnslayr 95% of UNC’s athletes participated. At first, it was only for athletes. Then, someone had the brilliant idea of opening it to the student body, so if they got caught, they could claim it was an academic issue- not an athletic one. Ingenious scam.
-
UNC’s fraudulent classes crossed from an NCAA issue to a Department of Education issue once they opened those classes to regular students as well.
-
And are to this day a giant pain in my ass
-
It is now August. Do with this information what you will.
-
@bshark Yay. Jah-lul is over.
-
BShark said:
It is now August. Do with this information what you will.
I’ve understood from most of the posts here that the NCAA has no case, no evidence, and that we’re going to skate. So I’m quite sure we have nothing to worry about … right?
-
@HighEliteMajor My position has not changed.
-
I still do not believe anyone gets dinged for this latest round of violations coming out of the ShoeCo investigations.
The NCAA needs the ShoeCos. Every athletic department makes tons of money off ShoeCos. Not just P5. Not just D1. Every athletic department is receiving ShoeCo money. If the NCAA disrupts that relationship, there are a lot of D2 and D3 programs that outright cannot make their athletic budgets work without the money and equipment they receive from ShoeCos. The NCAA knows they would put some programs under if they ran ShoeCos out of the equation.
The only way to avoid doing that is to ding a few players here and there, hit a handful of coaches and boosters, but avoid dinging the schools themselves so they don’t disrupt those lucrative relationships.
-
My question is, are they ever going to wrap the damn thing up? It is all about shoe money and the NCAA - they need to be very careful here, trust me - knows that, and they also can’t help but know that all of the shoe companies are and have been doing it, Nike in particular. You guys know where I stand on this issue, we shall see.
-
I agree. I feel like the NCAA can’t afford to make it look like some programs are targeted while others they avoid from pursuit.
Consider the Zion situation and the Townsend comment. How do we get penalized for that while Zion attended Duke? Did we commit an offense while Duke did not? I realize there are other issues but the overall situation relates to ShoeCo money.
Is the NCAA saying the ShoeCos only throw money at players for a few schools?
I see an idea that the NCAA uses this to create stricter guidelines for all schools.
-
I get your point, but the NCAA can’t put in too many guidelines without squeezing out ShoeCo money, and most non-revenue sports depend on that money (and equipment) to help manage their budgets.
Track and Field, Soccer, Volleyball, Swimming, etc. would all be in significant budget trouble if not for ShoeCo money, as that money pays for the equipment and apparel side of their budget. That’s why there is so much ShoeCo money in each school, and why KU is with Adidas instead of Nike right now. Simply put, Adidas offered KU more for their non-revenue sports than Nike did. That made all of the difference in the contract negotiations.
ShoeCos will continue to do what they want because the NCAA can’t host sports like gymnastics, softball, lacrosse, soccer, baseball, hockey, track and field, etc., or lower divisions without ShoeCo money (even D2 and D3 schools have small contracts with ShoeCos for apparel and equipment).
There’s just too much money in too many people’s hands to shove this genie back into the bottle.
-
Title IX depends on shoe money. Women’s sports would not exist without shoe money.
-
So its all about money. So shocked
-
Texas Hawk 10 said:
Title IX depends on shoe money. Women’s sports would not exist without shoe money.
Neither would craps, if you listen to the number of rollers praying for Baby to get a “new pair of shoes.”
-
If you’re not cheating, you’re not trying! That seems to be the lesson learned here? That goes for Universities, students, parents, coaches, investigators, and the NCAA. Universities and coaches want wins/championships. Parents and students want money for services (I am not saying every parent and student).The NCAA wants to make as much money as possible, while playing favorites. Even investigators have alma maters. Everyone appears to have an agenda?
-
Texas Hawk 10 said:
Title IX depends on shoe money. Women’s sports would not exist without shoe money.
Not just women’s sports. All sports other than football, men’s basketball and (in some cases) women’s basketball. Those are the only sports that could likely survive without ShoeCo money. Smaller sports have no chance.
-
Depressing… and yet reassuring.
-
And the only reason we have the Shoeco money is men’s CBB and football. It’s what we already know.Women’s sports are independently unsustainable. Meaning they lose money.
-
@HighEliteMajor bingo! The only reason they exist in the first place in large part is a federal mandate. Men’s hoops and football subsidize the women’s sports to a huge degree. In our case, Adidas pays to advertise with us in football and men’s basketball. Just as a matter of KU being their flagship that they also pay to outfit all women’s and men’s non-revenue sports.
-
Utah has been punished for KU’s crimes.
-
@BShark Cleveland St must feel slighted…
-
Utah got the book thrown at them. Look at these overwhelming penalties:
$5,000 fine (self-imposed)
8% reduction in official visits in 2018-19 (self-imposed)
A show-cause penalty lasting one year for the associate head coach, including a one-week suspension from Nov. 13-Nov. 19, 2019.
A prohibition of all four countable men’s basketball coaches from off-campus recruiting for a five-day period from July 11-15, 2018 (self-imposed)
A reduction of men’s basketball in-person recruiting days from 130 to 113 for the 2018-19 academic year (self-imposed)
I’m surprised they didn’t take dessert away for a week…
-
I understand Utah self-reported the violations. Stand up guys…
-
KansasComet said:
If you’re not cheating, you’re not trying! That seems to be the lesson learned here?
It’s a feeling felt all through college sports today. Just one more reason why I’d like to see us go the road of character… hard work, focusing on development with the players committed to stay awhile and develop.
It bothers me to experience our school being drug through the dirt.
I feel like we owe it to Naismith and to the game… get off the elite roller coaster of selling out who we are and put our determination to work to build a program built on character. I’m convinced we will win as much as we win now and probably more. And we win on the character scale and that should count for everything!
-
@drgnslayr i think we’re already on the right path. I love our recruits this year. I want the Devontes, the Franks, and the Agbajis of the world- the guys that unpack the bags, and are here for multiple years. No OAD mentality- no guaranteed minutes.
-
I think we were forced to take lower recruits because we missed on all the top shelf players. I haven’t heard or seen any changes in our approach to the game from a coaching style. Maybe this class will show our staff that this is the way to go, but they will have to be on board to doing the extra work to get to a higher level and the coaching staff will have to push them harder (though they are limited by NCAA regs). We will see.
-
@drgnslayr Then I’ll keep cheering when we miss out on Mr. Big Time OAD. Experience wins in the NCAA- show ponies look good, but they don’t win the hardware.
-
A roster of OADs isn’t any good. One or two on an experienced team is a great way to put them over the top.
-
A roster of OADs only works if they are complimentary to each other.
For instance, Duke had tons of talent on this year’s roster, but Williamson, Barrett, and Reddish did not really compliment each other on the floor. Duke would have been better served to have Zion with a guy like Tyler Herro in place of Reddish to help space the floor with shooting without needing the ball in his hands. That would have been a better fit than Barrett and Reddish, who always seemed to be in each other’s way because they played the same style and position.
Duke had similar issues playing Wendell Carter and Marvin Bagley together. They were tremendously talented, but also in each other’s way. Trade either of them for a high skill wing player (Kevin Knox, maybe) and that Duke team becomes virtually unstoppable.
It’s all about making sure the pieces fit because you don’t have enough practice time to force the fit, and the players themselves don’t have enough experience to adjust their style to create a fit.
-
This OAD stuff is easy. When you don’t have bright line rule, you leave yourself open to making poor, emotional decisions. Just say no.
Just look at as a scale. You put the positives on one side, the negatives on the other. Unequivocally, the negatives outweigh the positives. When folks talk about OADs positively, there is citation to remote examples. The remoteness of the positives and the conditions that might make a situation workable, demonstrates why it should not be a strategy.
I’ve long supported the idea of grabbing one if you have an opening/need, and you’re not displacing the type of player that is the core of your program from the starting role. My position now has become even more strict on this. Easy. Just say no.
-
You can develop long term poy type guys (frank) in the same class as the number 1 recruit (Wiggins) and salvage an otherwise doomed season. It’s all about balance that is hard to obtain. You also never know when a guy will go supernova. Those non-presumed OADs are awesome, even though you lose the player - they produced at the highest level (McLemore,Embiid). Presumed OADs that don’t produce, take up minutes and leave any way are the worst (Grimes).
-
KUSTEVE said:
Utah got the book thrown at them. Look at these overwhelming penalties:
$5,000 fine (self-imposed)
8% reduction in official visits in 2018-19 (self-imposed)
A show-cause penalty lasting one year for the associate head coach, including a one-week suspension from Nov. 13-Nov. 19, 2019.
A prohibition of all four countable men’s basketball coaches from off-campus recruiting for a five-day period from July 11-15, 2018 (self-imposed)
A reduction of men’s basketball in-person recruiting days from 130 to 113 for the 2018-19 academic year (self-imposed)
I’m surprised they didn’t take dessert away for a week…
That, my friend, is funny!!
