KU argues with NCAA that Adidas isn't a booster, but sends out flyer to local businesses suggesting otherwise
-
-
And Bill Self, who said he couldn’t talk about the case, talked about the case.
http://www2.kusports.com/news/2019/oct/23/ku-coach-bill-self-defends-texts-led-notice-allega/
-
HighEliteMajor said:
And Bill Self, who said he couldn’t talk about the case, talked about the case.
http://www2.kusports.com/news/2019/oct/23/ku-coach-bill-self-defends-texts-led-notice-allega/
that’s what I like about you - - - constantly being that little stir stick - -always looking to stir the pot roflmao
-
If Adidas is considered a Booster to Kansas then every apparel company that represents any school is one as well. Not sure what Chad Lawson’s point is in that article.
-
@Woodrow You’re absolutely right. It would apply to every school, every shoeco that is relied upon to help in recruiting. I think Lawson’s point was that KU is denying that Adidas is a booster, but then putting out something in writing suggesting that Adidas is a booster.
-
Chad is just SURE he is going to win a Pulitzer.
-
This definition (especially the last line) is so broad that it is impossible to enforce consistently. Technically, the NCAA can correctly claim that KU and every other school is violating this rule at any time. The real question is why now and why us?
“ • A booster is an individual, independent agency, corporate entity (e.g. apparel or equipment manufacturer) or other organization that is known to:
• Hold, or have ever held, season tickets for any sport with Kansas Athletics;
• Have participated in or to be a member of an agency or organization promoting any Kansas Athletics program (e.g. University of Kansas Alumni Association, K Club, sport booster groups, etc.);
• Have made financial contributions to the athletics department or to an athletics booster organization of that institution (e.g. Hardwood Club, booster groups, etc.);
• Be assisting or to have assisted in providing benefits to enrolled student-athletes or their families, which would trigger booster status under NCAA rules. These benefits include, but are not limited to, financial assistance, use of a car, use of a cell phone, etc.;
• Provide allowable benefits (e.g. summer jobs, occasional meals, etc.) to enrolled student-athletes; or
• Promote Kansas Athletics in any way. ”
-
@bskeet Exactly my thought. “Promote Kansas Athletics in any way” is a ridiculous addition. Could apply to any fan, or at least anybody who wears a KU t-shirt.
-
@bskeet @tundrahok The booster definition is wide, but remember that the programs suffer very limited penalties if there is someone that is “rogue.” It is actually quite easy to enforce. When there’s a violation you penalize.
The big issues come when the programs know what is going on. So if I go and pay, say, Mitch Lighfoot, to get a real haircut. And I make sure he sees the right barber ever three or four weeks and I pay for it, Mitch will miss a few games and pay back the money. But if Self knows what’s going on, that takes it to different level. Or if Townsend knows. Or if there is a clear policy that didn’t get followed that could have provided the knowledge (like Preston registering his car), then that’s real trouble too.
Remember, the penalties are geared to the crime. We’ve had players miss games and pay back money and the school suffers no penalty in various scenarios.
Don’t get bogged down in the breadth. That’s just to case a wide net. They have to.
But the clear category at issue - “Assisted or has been requested by university staff to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes.”
We asked, Adidas helped, we knew they helped, we were intertwined with their efforts. They paid players. The issue is, much like the getaway driver in the back robbery, are we just as guilty (hint: the getaway driver is just as guilty – and that’s why we are where we are).
Don’t blame the rules. Blame the folks that violate the rules.
-
Did that car have a 30 day tag?
-
That’s a bit cryptic. Why did you make that suggestion?
-
@HighEliteMajor me?
-
@Crimsonorblue22 Yea, the 30 day permit tag. What’s on your mind there?
-
Lawhorn ought to stick to the fried chicken joints on Iowa St. beat. More his speed.
-
@HighEliteMajor if he just got it, just maybe the athletic Dept hadn’t had time to process it. Remember his mom had sent texts to him-Preston, about keeping his mouth shut to his coaches and later she wanted everyone to think they, gass-man and her were lovers!
️
-
Plus, this is all boilerplate language approved by the NCAA and (see, we’re being a stickler for all the stupid ruses!) gets mailed to WEF members I think close to annually. If Chad did any real reporting he’d be aware of this. But that wouldn’t make KU look bad so ¯_(ツ)_/¯
-
http://m.kusports.com/news/2017/nov/15/no-police-report-found-traffic-accident-involving-/ As far as Self not having control?
-
@Crimsonorblue22 They did not check into the car until after the accident. Self said right after the accident “They started doing the checking on the car and wanted to get a clearer picture of how some things were done and we couldn’t get it cleared up,” Self said. “That’s basically all there is to it.”
But I see your point in the context of my post related to the info in the article you cite. Meaning, my post had indicated it wasn’t registered. I had read that it had not actually been registered before the accident.
-
I must live too close to Manhattan. Could someone please tell me what this symbolism is that I see in a lot of post titles?
''t
-
HighEliteMajor said:
@bskeet @tundrahok The booster definition is wide, but remember that the programs suffer very limited penalties if there is someone that is “rogue.” It is actually quite easy to enforce.
Personally, I think the NCAA’s history of arbitrary enforcement is evidence that it is not easy to consistently enforce the rules.
But, I accept your assertion that another interpretation is that they are deliberately selective.
My problem with that explanation is that it means their practice is institutional bias.
-
HighEliteMajor said:
Don’t blame the rules. Blame the folks that violate the rules.
Good grief.
I don’t advocate breaking rules, but I’m also not going to sit around and accept – or defend – stupid rules.
There are such things as bad rules.
Other than the sake of devil’s advocate, or unless you are their lawyer and you’re testing some arguments, why on Earth would you defend the NCAA’s definition of a booster?
Many of the NCAA’s rules – like this one – are antiquated and overreaching. Even they know that.
Still, they deny deny deny — for years and years.
But, we’ve learned this week that they will capitulate when threatened by – not one, but several – Acts of Congress.
They are so stubborn, it took a consortium of states threatening to change laws to get them to accept the obvious and well established fact that their rule was unfair, and change.
They finally changed the rule allowing student-athletes to profit from their likeness after the pressure became overwhelming and their position became very publicly, and undeniably, untenable.
This “Image and Likeness” rule is the tip of the iceberg. The NCAA needs to go through transformative change to become contemporary with its constituents.
-
@bskeet Your last comment, "This “Image and Likeness” rule is the tip of the iceberg. The NCAA needs to go through transformative change to become contemporary with its constituents.’
I’m sorry, it’s just laughable. Constituents? This is all about the poor black athlete. That’s it. Of course, without understanding how “help” will negatively impact.
But constituents? What, you and me? No, the athletes, of which nearly all of them are served greatly by the current NCAA rules. Not just Andrew Wiggins. But the rower, the golfer, the baseball player, the soccer player, all the women’s sports, and all non-revenue (i.e. other than men’s CBB and FB). You just operate as most do on an incorrect premise.
You asked, “Other than the sake of devil’s advocate, or unless you are their lawyer and you’re testing some arguments, why on Earth would you defend the NCAA’s definition of a booster?”
Because I think a more strict NCAA model is the best model. I think the basis of the rules is best for CBB. I think paying athletes is asinine.
But I also recognize, which perhaps you don’t, that if you don’t have such a definition, then you aren’t casting a wide enough net as a rule making body to support what you intend to support.
To the point, if you have a third party doing your bidding, and you can’t get in trouble for it, then why have a rule in the first place?
I also think Bill Self violating the rules and lying about it is horrible conduct. Some don’t care about that.
The NCAA’s rules aren’t unfair. Their rules are very fair. The fact is the model has worked for, what, 80 years?
Everyone can despise the NCAA all they want. But look at what the NCAA has provided us. And look at what it provides athletes, schools, and the student population in general. But no, you won’t look at that. It doesn’t fit the anti-NCAA narrative. So if it doesn’t fit that narrative, it gets ignored.
And the obvious and logical arguments in support of the NCAA get ignored. I’m getting pretty tired of typing them. THEY OWN THE FACILITIES, IT’S THEIR PRODUCT, THE ATHLETES ARE REPLACEABLE, THE ATHLETES DON’T OWN ANYTHING, THE ATHLETES AREN’T MARKETABLE WITHOUT THE NCAA PLATFORM – it goes on and on. All conveniently ignored.
And now it will be really fun to see the NCAA write a rule. Good luck. How about shoecos just paying athletes then to go to schools for their “name, image, likeness.” Again, we’ll see the rule and it won’t be enough. I’ve already seen ESPN crowing about whether the suggested rule change “goes far enough.” I already said that. It will never end until CBB is a shell of it’s former self.
-
Anyway, the NCAA changed the rule, so there’s that.
Also, I don’t despise the NCAA. I just think they should be held accountable for their feckless leadership.
Unfortunately, it appears the only “market force” that has proven effective has come from the government… Which is another indicator that the operation is monopolistic.
I hear your concern that some fans view Bill Self as above reproach. FWIW, I do not. If he has broken rules that are generally upheld by others in the community, then that is worthy of reprimand and consequence. However, if he is essentially driving 65 in a 55 zone like everyone else around him, then I don’t think it is “horrible conduct” and I don’t think it is fair for him to be singled out of the stream of traffic and punished.
The NCAA struggles with this. Instead, they seem to take an arbitrary approach to enforcement and consequences.
I’m a big fan of NCAA athletics. At the same time, I think they need to improve and do a much better job. I don’t think that’s contradictory.
Finally, I’m not ignoring the arguments in support of the NCAA. But, while arguments may provide explanation for actions, they are not justification for actions. They can be more equitable. This rule change is evidence of that.
