NOA response from KU discussion



  • @Texas-Hawk-10 said in NOA response from KU discussion:

    The paying of recruits to attend KU did happen so KU doesn’t have an argument about that, but how the IARP rules about the status of Adidas and Gassnola will impact how severe a punishment KU gets for the money changing hands since it’s been established in court that Self and KU were unaware of the money changing hands.

    But is that 100% true? Or did Adidas pay those players to attend an Adidas school?



  • @KirkIsMyHinrich said in NOA response from KU discussion:

    @Texas-Hawk-10

    I haven’t looked into infractions case for Memphis much but it is listed as one of the referred cases on the IARP website. https://iarpcc.org/referred-cases/

    I don’t know if the IARP path will be good for us, but it seems preferable to the NCAA COI if those are our only options. I’m not thrilled about there not being an appeals process, but I assume if KU perceives the outcome of the case as being particularly unfair they might sue… someone?

    The Memphis case was in regards to James Wiseman’s suspension and eligibility. It was referred to IARP, but since Wiseman left Memphis before the IARP heard the case, they never made a ruling about the matter so they’ve still never made a ruling.

    Because the IARP still has never made a ruling, nobody knows of going this route is preferable to the COI or not. It’s entirely possible the IARP ends up being worse for KU than the COI would be.



  • @hawkfan01 said in NOA response from KU discussion:

    @Texas-Hawk-10 said in NOA response from KU discussion:

    The paying of recruits to attend KU did happen so KU doesn’t have an argument about that, but how the IARP rules about the status of Adidas and Gassnola will impact how severe a punishment KU gets for the money changing hands since it’s been established in court that Self and KU were unaware of the money changing hands.

    But is that 100% true? Or did Adidas pay those players to attend an Adidas school?

    Unless TJ Gassnola perjured himself after he pled guilty, then his testimony is solid enough to trust at face value. His testimony indicated that money changed hands on behalf of himself and Adidas to representatives of players (family members or guardians) to encourage players to commit to Kansas, NC State, Louisville, whatever school was recruiting the player at the time. The $20,000 payment Gassnola was attempting to make to Silvio’s guardian, but never made due to the announcement of the investigation was so Silvio’s guardian could pay back money to Under Armour who had allegedly paid $60,000 to bring Silvio to Maryland. I believe Billy Preston’s mom received $120,000 from Gassnola to attend KU.

    So to answer your question, while KU itself may not have been directing the payments, there were payments being made to influence a player to choose specific schools.

    Based on the testimonies of AAU coaches, they are often times the facilitators in these matters. A kid spends a few years in an AAU program, as the kid develops, the AAU coach is frequently the one telling college coaches to come watch a specific player and that’s how introductions are made.

    While it may not be Adidas saying we want this kid at Kansas no matter what, there is definitely influence in decision making coming from these AAU programs that are financially backed by Adidas, Nike, and Under Armour at the elite levels of AAU basketball.



  • OH Mercy , our dear friends off the Kentucky Board are just about to croak, wondering why the hell the NCAA turned this over to the IARP. Saying or asking if this is the NCAA’S way of passing the buck and then nothing coming of this , and the NCAA being able to say well it wasn’t us - -it was the IARP.

    They feel since this is getting turned over that of Course that KU is going to get off with nothing happening and they about to have little baby Kentucky kittens because of that because we are nothing by cheaters , liars and a school of thugs lol - - -ROCK CHALK ALL DAY LONG BABY



  • But is that 100% true? Or did Adidas pay those players to attend an Adidas school?

    Unless TJ Gassnola perjured himself after he pled guilty, then his testimony is solid enough to trust at face value. His testimony indicated that money changed hands on behalf of himself and Adidas to representatives of players (family members or guardians) to encourage players to commit to Kansas, NC State, Louisville, whatever school was recruiting the player at the time. The $20,000 payment Gassnola was attempting to make to Silvio’s guardian, but never made due to the announcement of the investigation was so Silvio’s guardian could pay back money to Under Armour who had allegedly paid $60,000 to bring Silvio to Maryland. I believe Billy Preston’s mom received $120,000 from Gassnola to attend KU.

    It still amazes me how harsh everyone thinks these supposed infractions are. To me, its weak af. Its not against NCAA rules to give a person money to attend a school. Any incoming student can get money from a friend, a company, whoever and attend the school requested. Adidas can give a standard student all the money they want to attend a school and not break any rules. The problem is when the person is an ncaa athlete. Where does that line begin? Are you considered an ncaa athlete if you never participate in an NCAA event? Preston didn’t play a second of ball at KU in a regular season game. To me, that makes him basically like every other student at KU that has never played in a game and thus no infraction was made. Was he close? Heck yeah. But KU should be praised for catching it and making the right move to hold him out.

    Silvio is another one. This kid bucks the system and says i want to attend KU despite UA throwing money at his “handler” to go to Maryland. Doesn’t want the money or more likely doesn’t even know about it and chooses KU because thats where he wants to go. The handler looks to Adidas for help paying back UA which may or may not have happened depending on who’s story you believe. Let me ask a hypothetical, what if Adidas didn’t pay anything to Silvio’s handler or never was asked to? You have a kid who’s “handler” was given money to attend Maryland, but he attends KU instead. Is KU still in violation? This could possibly be what happened and UA is not being talked about at all in this.

    I guess there was something about $2,500 that Silvio got for something but the kid sat out over a year for it. Seems like it could have been paid back fairly easily or the year plus punishment is more than enough. The punishments don’t quite fit the crime. The ncaa seems to always be excessively extreme towards KU whenever something isn’t right relative to their actions towards other players at other schools.

    I’m not ignorant where i think there isn’t this stuff happening a lot behind the scenes at almost all the schools, including KU. However, if you’re going to bring a case and try to drop the hammer to make an example of someone, you’d think they’d get some better evidence to support their case.



  • @Texas-Hawk-10 I think you have to accept the kids were paid; that seems to be admitted pretty clearly in court and that’s not being disputed. My question was more were they paid to attend KU? My perception of the shoe company game is the shoe companies are funneling money to players (or their handlers) and then for them to choose one of their brand’s schools. Was there any requirement Preston and DeSousa choose KU especially when you have handlers involved? Or could they have chosen any Adidas school? I’m not familiar with the particulars of NCAA rules, but I think there’s a difference. Are KU’s coaches coordinating with Adidas reps to steer players to KU? I think if you look at what the courts decided, the answer is clearly no. I think each of the defendants walk if they believed the evidence pointed toward KU coaches and other schools coordinating with them. At that point, it’s difficult to prove the defendants defrauded the schools.

    So if the evidence proves that KU’s coaches were coordinating, then I think KU would and should get hammered, but there’s not that kind of evidence. Is there any evidence that KU’s coaches told Gassnola or whoever to send $2500 to DeSousa’s handler? I don’t think so. The evidence against almost every other school was they had coaches involved in the money. KU did not. There’s a couple text messages or wire taps that don’t sound particularly great, but we don’t have the context of the entire conversation and either way, there’s no evidence that KU was involved in paying. Look at Townsend’s comment about Zion…how many coaches around the country do you think made a similar comment? Probably a lot. Virtually everyone wanted Zion. If KU ends up going the IARP route, I hope due to the backgrounds of those involved, a little higher standard is held than automatically believing conspiracy theories without hard evidence. The KU situation is clearly different than virtually every other school that’s been named.

    The other thing that has to be considered is how KU handled each situation when allegations arose. Preston never played. DeSousa sat until he was declared eligible. KU never thumbed their nose at the NCAA like Arizona and Ayton, Memphis and Wiseman, etc. Unless you just have a vendetta against KU, KU clearly isn’t a renegade program.



  • @hawkfan01 @RockkChalkk

    Really liked both of your posts.

    The crux issue as I’m sure you know is all about labeling Adidas and Gassnola Boosters of the KU program. They even throw in Larry Brown for some fun. KU is the big fish in this whole thing and when logic and facts weren’t on their side they went off the rails like they always



  • @hawkfan01

    They clearly think KU did rub this in the NCAA’s face. Their latest response sure made it sound personal in regards to the Late Night fiasco.



  • The NCAA is so hell bent on hammering KU they took down Stephen F Austin first.

    So sad to see this out of touch organization continue to do this. An Administrative error cost them this much. Sad.

    https://247sports.com/Article/Stephen-F-Austin-vacates-wins-Southland-Conference-championships-postseason-ban-in-three-sports-Kyle-Keller-Nathan-Bain-Duke-upset-win-147344517/





  • @BeddieKU23 said in NOA response from KU discussion:

    The NCAA is so hell bent on hammering KU they took down Stephen F Austin first.

    So sad to see this out of touch organization continue to do this. An Administrative error cost them this much. Sad.

    https://247sports.com/Article/Stephen-F-Austin-vacates-wins-Southland-Conference-championships-postseason-ban-in-three-sports-Kyle-Keller-Nathan-Bain-Duke-upset-win-147344517/

    Did you actually read what happened at SFA? Someone at SFA failed to perform due diligence and make sure all eligibility paperwork was done correctly. SFA compliance failed to perform their job is what caused this. Considering SFA was already facing a postseason ban in men’s basketball for a low APR rating, I’m not all that surprised by this because it sounds like the people in their athletics department are pretty incompetent at their jobs to begin with.



  • He said an administrative error



  • @hawkfan01 said in NOA response from KU discussion:

    @Texas-Hawk-10 I think you have to accept the kids were paid; that seems to be admitted pretty clearly in court and that’s not being disputed. My question was more were they paid to attend KU? My perception of the shoe company game is the shoe companies are funneling money to players (or their handlers) and then for them to choose one of their brand’s schools. Was there any requirement Preston and DeSousa choose KU especially when you have handlers involved? Or could they have chosen any Adidas school? I’m not familiar with the particulars of NCAA rules, but I think there’s a difference. Are KU’s coaches coordinating with Adidas reps to steer players to KU? I think if you look at what the courts decided, the answer is clearly no. I think each of the defendants walk if they believed the evidence pointed toward KU coaches and other schools coordinating with them. At that point, it’s difficult to prove the defendants defrauded the schools.

    So if the evidence proves that KU’s coaches were coordinating, then I think KU would and should get hammered, but there’s not that kind of evidence. Is there any evidence that KU’s coaches told Gassnola or whoever to send $2500 to DeSousa’s handler? I don’t think so. The evidence against almost every other school was they had coaches involved in the money. KU did not. There’s a couple text messages or wire taps that don’t sound particularly great, but we don’t have the context of the entire conversation and either way, there’s no evidence that KU was involved in paying. Look at Townsend’s comment about Zion…how many coaches around the country do you think made a similar comment? Probably a lot. Virtually everyone wanted Zion. If KU ends up going the IARP route, I hope due to the backgrounds of those involved, a little higher standard is held than automatically believing conspiracy theories without hard evidence. The KU situation is clearly different than virtually every other school that’s been named.

    The other thing that has to be considered is how KU handled each situation when allegations arose. Preston never played. DeSousa sat until he was declared eligible. KU never thumbed their nose at the NCAA like Arizona and Ayton, Memphis and Wiseman, etc. Unless you just have a vendetta against KU, KU clearly isn’t a renegade program.

    Unless I made a typo or autocorrect changed something, I’ve never said kids weren’t paid so I don’t know where you’re pulling that one from.

    I also think it’s incredibly naive to think Self, Townsend or any coach, especially ones that have regular communications with “consultants” are fully aware of money changing hands. They’re just not dumb enough (usually) to leave a concrete paper trail about those specific issues. This gives coaches enough plausible deniability should something like the FBI and NCAA investigations come up.

    I also believe you’re argument loses a lot of merit when you say, “I’m not familiar with the particulars of NCAA rules” and start trying to decipher the severity of the penalties. Here is the list of things KU has no arguments for because the following things have happened according to the FBI and/or NCAA.

    Silvio DeSousa’s guardian received $62,500 ($60,000 from an unnamed Under Armour consultant and $2,500 from Gassnola to cover the costs of an online class Silvio needed in order to graduate early and enroll at KU a semester early) in impermissible benefits with the intent of receiving another $20,000 (from Gassnola/Adidas to payback money received from Under Armour with an agreement for Silvio to attend Maryland). This is why Silvio’s suspension was originally for 2 years because the NCAA views it as Silvio or someone representing Silvio received $62,500 in benefits with the intent of another $20,000 in benefits. Rewind back to Josh Selby’s case for a minute. Josh Selby was suspended 9 games by the NCAA for a little over $6,000 in impermissible benefits while still committed to Tennessee before he flipped to KU. It does not matter where a player is committed to, all that matters in the eyes of the NCAA is that a player or someone representing that player received impermissible benefits and that player’s eligibility is now in jeopardy. The length of a suspension typically depends on how much a player received in benefits.

    This is also what the NCAA is alleging happened with Billy Preston and Cheick Diallo who are the other two players in the NCAA’s allegations against Kansas Basketball.

    KU will receive penalties over those infractions because there isn’t a defense KU can make about those. What many people ignore, including you right now, is that the severity of the penalties will hinge entirely on what final ruling of the status of Adidas and TJ Gassnola ends up being.

    You claim KU’s case is vastly different than every other case out there and it is not. I would highly suggest to you to go look up what NC State is being accused of and what’s in Louisville’s latest NOA from the NCAA and still claim that there’s no other cases like the KU one. In all three cases, the most serious allegations are that Adidas and TJ Gassnola are considered boosters of each program under NCAA bylaw 13.02.15 which deals with representatives of athletics interests.

    NCAA bylaw 13.02.15 states “Representative of Athletics Interests. A “representative of the institution’s athletics interests” is an individual, independent agency, corporate entity (e.g., apparel or equipment manufacturer) or other organization who is known (or who should have been known) by a member of the institution’s executive or athletics administration to: (Revised: 2/16/00, 4/25/18)”

    This is the rule NCAA is using to come after KU, Louisville and NC State. How the IARP rules on the application of this bylaw is going to play the single biggest factor in KU’s fate at the hands of the NCAA. An IARP decision upholding the NCAA’s argument will likely mean that Bill Self will either get a long suspension or show-cause label and KU will be searching for a new head coach, Kurtis Townsend would likely get a show-cause long enough to end his coaching career, a multi-year postseason ban, significant scholarship reductions, vacating games involving DeSousa and Diallo (subsequently vacating the 2018 Final Four banner), a failure to monitor label for the program again because the head coach should aware of what boosters are doing, and a very long probation period.

    If the IARP rules against the NCAA’s application of bylaw 13.02.15 and determines the NCAA has misapplied the label, then KU probably gets a slap on the wrist compared to the penalties above. Probably the most severe penalties would be vacating games Diallo played in and games DeSousa played in prior to his suspension being overturned.

    Because there has yet to be a case that’s actually made it to the IARP, Memphis was recommended in the Wiseman case, but the hearing never happened because Wiseman left school, we don’t actually know which way the IARP leans in regards to upholding NCAA violation accusations.

    NC State was referred to the IARP ahead of KU’s, and since their case is pretty similar to KU’s, how the IARP rules in that case is going to give us a pretty strong indication of how KU’s case is going to go.

    If me having hesitation about KU’s outlook at the hands of the IARP makes me have a vendetta against KU, I would recommend you read this article from SI in regards to the NC State case. https://www.si.com/college/ncstate/basketball/ncstate-terrified-ncaa-iarp-infractions-process

    It could very well turn out that going to the IARP could end up being worse for KU than letting the COI rule and then go through the appeals process.



  • @BeddieKU23 “They clearly think KU did rub this in the NCAA’s face. Their latest response sure made it sound personal in regards to the Late Night fiasco.”

    But did KU? I thought I had seen somewhere that the particular video of Self in the Adidas shirt was recorded weeks in advance (before KU was even charged by the NCAA). The optics looked bad and probably a bad decision on the marketing department, but I don’t think KU read the allegations from the NCAA and then said, hey guys, “I have a great idea. Let’s put Self in an Adidas shirt with gold dollar sign chains on it and go film a promo video for Late Night.”



  • @Crimsonorblue22 said in NOA response from KU discussion:

    He said an administrative error

    I still fail to see how the NCAA is out of touch because SFA’s compliance department failed to do its job. SFA screwed up and are paying the price. In the corporate world, a business that fails to cross their t’s and dot their i’s and gets hit with fine by some regulation group like the SEC isn’t going to get much sympathy from. They’re going to get a hard lesson which is what SFA got for not having someone do due diligence, or at least competently do due diligence.



  • @hawkfan01 said in NOA response from KU discussion:

    @BeddieKU23 “They clearly think KU did rub this in the NCAA’s face. Their latest response sure made it sound personal in regards to the Late Night fiasco.”

    But did KU? I thought I had seen somewhere that the particular video of Self in the Adidas shirt was recorded weeks in advance (before KU was even charged by the NCAA). The optics looked bad and probably a bad decision on the marketing department, but I don’t think KU read the allegations from the NCAA and then said, hey guys, “I have a great idea. Let’s put Self in an Adidas shirt with gold dollar sign chains on it and go film a promo video for Late Night.”

    You just completely missed how Late Night was rubbing it in the NCAA’s face. KU had just received the NOA that week about players being paid and what happened during Late Night, Snoop Dogg showered recruits with fake money. I don’t believe I heard anybody say that was a smart decision on KU’s part.



  • @Texas-Hawk-10 No I wasn’t saying that you said the kids weren’t paid. I was just saying that’s not in dispute I don’t think? KU isn’t disputing that, right? I think we concede that it was admitted in a court of law, under oath, they were paid.

    In general, I would trust your opinion on this case far more than mine. I haven’t read the NOA or KU’s response and am not familiar with the minutia of NCAA rules - all of which will matter greatly in this case. I’m trying to pick through people’s arguments and figure out how KU might get out of this without getting hammered.



  • @Texas-Hawk-10 Saying NCSt’s case is the same as KU’s ignores a major difference: an assistant coach at NCSt was the middleman in funneling the money. KU’s coaches are not alleged to have ever touched or been actually aware of any payments.

    There is substantial room for a decision-maker to distinguish the two situations.



  • @mayjay said in NOA response from KU discussion:

    @Texas-Hawk-10 Saying NCSt’s case is the same as KU’s ignores a major difference: an assistant coach at NCSt was the middleman in funneling the money. KU’s coaches are not alleged to have ever touched or been actually aware of any payments.

    There is substantial room for a decision-maker to distinguish the two situations.

    I didn’t say the cases were the same, I said they were similar. The biggest difference is their isn’t irrefutable evidence Kurtis Townsend was funneling money to recruits. If you read up on the IARP process (basically top level PI’s with connections to the FBI and other high level security groups), don’t be shocked if that connection is made between Gassnola and Townsend at some point, or even Self and Gassnola.

    Again, the biggest issue in the NC State case that will carry over to the KU case is the ruling on Adidas and TJ Gassnola.



  • "(They) come from one of three firms: Freeh Group International Solutions, run by former FBI director Louis Freeh; a Manhattan outfit called Kroll, once referred to in The New York Times as “Wall Street’s private eye;” and Berryman Prime LLC, founded by former U.S. Department of Treasury Special Agent Steven Berryman, who worked in the IRS Criminal Investigation Division.

    These are the people that will be collecting the evidence/information for the IARP to make their rulings based off of. These people are going to have a helluva lot better connections than the NCAA does.



  • @Texas-Hawk-10 Doesn’t KU have to consent to the unappealable procedure featuring Dick Tracy & Co? What is the advantage, since they are free to go beyod the NCAA charges?



  • @mayjay said in NOA response from KU discussion:

    @Texas-Hawk-10 Doesn’t KU have to consent to the unappealable procedure featuring Dick Tracy & Co? What is the advantage, since they are free to go beyod the NCAA charges?

    Since the case has been recommended to go to the IARP, I doubt KU is going to decline that option because even if the verdict is negative for KU, it only means KU can no longer appeal within NCAA confines. It says nothing about taking the NCAA to federal court over the matter which is probably where this is headed regardless of what the IARP rules. The only thing the IARP is probably going to affect here is which side initiates the court case.

    For anyone out there who doubts KU is guilty of anything here, part of KU’s response to the NCAA, "Regarding the men’s basketball allegations, very few facts are in dispute. The institution does not dispute that Adidas and its employee and consultant provided at least $100,000 to the families of three men’s basketball prospective student-athletes the institution was recruiting. (Head coach Bill Self and assistant coach Kurtis Townsend) also do not dispute many of the facts related to Adidas and its representatives having contact with prospects and that they regularly communicated with Adidas representatives about their recruitment of prospects. …

    “However, where the parties diverge from the NCAA enforcement staff is on the key issue of responsibility. The institution, Self and Townsend have accepted no responsibility for this conduct.”

    This thing is going to the IARP to determine the application of NCAA bylaw 13.02.15.



  • @hawkfan01 said in NOA response from KU discussion:

    @BeddieKU23 “They clearly think KU did rub this in the NCAA’s face. Their latest response sure made it sound personal in regards to the Late Night fiasco.”

    But did KU? I thought I had seen somewhere that the particular video of Self in the Adidas shirt was recorded weeks in advance (before KU was even charged by the NCAA). The optics looked bad and probably a bad decision on the marketing department, but I don’t think KU read the allegations from the NCAA and then said, hey guys, “I have a great idea. Let’s put Self in an Adidas shirt with gold dollar sign chains on it and go film a promo video for Late Night.”

    I don’t believe KU intentionally did anything to stir the pot but as you mentioned the optics look that way to the NCAA and others. The NCAA felt some type of way about it to include that part in their latest response. I thought it was a very petty thing to do but we’re talking about the NCAA here.



  • @Texas-Hawk-10 said in NOA response from KU discussion:

    For anyone out there who doubts KU is guilty of anything here, part of KU’s response to the NCAA, "Regarding the men’s basketball allegations, very few facts are in dispute. The institution does not dispute that Adidas and its employee and consultant provided at least $100,000 to the families of three men’s basketball prospective student-athletes the institution was recruiting. (Head coach Bill Self and assistant coach Kurtis Townsend) also do not dispute many of the facts related to Adidas and its representatives having contact with prospects and that they regularly communicated with Adidas representatives about their recruitment of prospects. …

    “However, where the parties diverge from the NCAA enforcement staff is on the key issue of responsibility. The institution, Self and Townsend have accepted no responsibility for this conduct.”

    This thing is going to the IARP to determine the application of NCAA bylaw 13.02.15.

    I think I like that strategy. How many schools do we think benefited from Gassnola’s work? Maybe this is like UNC’s academic fraud in that if it’s available to other schools, KU wasn’t unfairly advantaged…lol



  • Our justice system is built on the basis of due process. Once again, I think the NCAA is digging themselves a deeper hole by thinking somehow the IARP will invoke tactics possibly beyond those used by the Justice Department.

    Kansas must stay true to their guns and stay safely in the role of victim.

    The fact that Kansas doesn’t dispute an action from Adidas is exactly how they should respond. Kansas is not Adidas, and disputing any action from Adidas would imply Kansas and Adidas are one. It’s not KU’s job to challenge any potential action of a 3rd party.


Log in to reply