I think I am glad I was able to deal with all the great traumas in my life–my failures, my decades of depression, my disappointments, and my inability to meet the expectations of others–out of the public eye. With that perspective, a few impressions:

I look at Grimes, and it is obvious he is clueless about how to be that fluid 1st rounder, and how to fix things when the game is going too fast. I see a guy who would have benefitted from expecting to develop more gradually, but modern cbb doesn’t allow that anymore.

I look at Dedrick, who has put up AA stats this year despite inconsistent passing to him and with no help in the post where he has been forced to play as the only big, and I see people questioning his effort? or his character? And I think, wow, has he ever complained? Is his stoic expression more important to people than his single-handedly keeping us as competitive as we have been?

I look at Mitch and wish he had been allowed to play the small forward position, and I marvel at his ability to stay enthusiastic. Despite having to come in as a 1.5 ppg undersized player expected to turn it around in the middle when everyone is floundering.

I look at Charlie Moore, and the only flaw I see is that he tries too hard, goes too fast, and tries to change every game with boneheaded “hero” shot selection. His passes would have led to twice as many assists but for the team’s crappy shooting.

And Vick. I look at Vick, and like everyone I wonder what is going on. If it is a mental issue, it is largely beyond both his control and his own understanding. If it is emotional distraction from outside, I can only hope he can learn to deal with it–maybe getting out of the glare will help. I see someone whose face alternates reflecting either a wild fierceness or a bizarre disconnect to the game around him. I see someone whose talent belies the ropes holding him back. And I wonder how heavy it may be for him, knowing at times he is the savior of the team and at other times the anchor dragging the team down.

Finally, I see fans dealing with seeing a team of lofty expectations appearing to dismantle as we watch. Disappointment, anger, cynicism, hopelessness and helplessness all combining to just sap the joy out of us.

I know 2 things, going way back to my very first post a couple or three years ago: those kids are out there trying so freaking hard, and they are vastly more crushed than we are when they lose. So, I am going to do what I can to remind myself that there is always a lot of fun watching KU, and that I can be both disappointed and appreciative for the team, and that if this year is a bust I guess reality had to come sometime. Almost a decade and a half of championship ball (conference AND an NC) is something no other fanbase has ever had. I refuse to let the possibility of it ending get in the way of my unbridled pride in the kids who have made it possible. I hope I never join KU’s enemies by thinking of ANY KU team as losers.

If the suggestion to designate Gr-asshole-nola as a booster as a hypothetical truly came from the NCAA, I think this is all a lot of worrying over something that won’t be as much of a slam dunk as KU and fans are fearing. Here is why:

First, assuming it is true that the NCAA would not consider SDS’s petition for reinstatement without KU agreeing to the hypothetical, that would mean the NCAA was not willing to perform its job without exacting this designation. Courts generally don’t get into second-guessing private organizations’ adjudicatory processes except when an organization does not follow its own rules. To allow deference, those rules must set out the procedures to be followed, must meet minimum standards of notice and right to be heard, and must require initial judgment or appeal to be decided by impartial adjuicators. Here, the NCAA’s rules require determinations on eligibility, both preliminarily and on reinstatement. The NCAA cannot possibly extort a procedural advantage in another case before doing its job.

Second, I fail to see how a hypothetical for one purpose could be used in an enforcement case. A hypothetical is not an admission, and it is not evidence, so it has no res judicata effect. A hypothetical in a circumstance like this is like a statement made in a settlement discussion–it cannot be used in court against the person making the statement.

An example: Victim falls on a sidewalk and is injured. The claim is made that the property owner negligently failed to clear ice from a storm several days before. In settlement conference, the owner breaks in to the lawyers’ negotiations and says, “Okay, if I didn’t clear the ice because the sidewalk was closed, how much do you want?” His statement cannot be offered in any subsequent proceeding to prove he did not clear the ice. Protected–we encourage candid discussions to facilitate settlements.

Here, I can imagine that the NCAA stonewalling involved claiming they would not resolve SDS’s case unless KU accepted a hypothetical to cement Gassnola’s role. KU says, “Okay, if–hypothetically–he was a booster who slipped $2,500 to SDS’s guardian, please determine his eligibility and any sanction for him.”

No way that statement can be used to establish the booster relationship.

I tend to think this story is based on discussions with scared peripheral people who are second-guessing the lawyers because of the brutal 2 year decision, but who have no clue. Chances are, in my view, the lawyers knew precisely what they were doing. I think they have a strong case against any preclusive use of the hypothetical. The NCAA likely knows that, too.

This issue is not something to be upset about. However, I think the NCAA can prove he was a booster without too much trouble, so I think the hypothetical is irrelevant. Kind of like a case I had where the highest military appeals court agreed with me that a certain hearsay statement by an unknown utterer should not be admitted against my client, but it did not matter because my client hand wrote his confession anyway.

If all the NCAA has is the hypothetical, however, KU’s lawyers should go to federal court and stomp their ass. Heck, I am still licensed in Kansas!

Udoka has a long ways to go in most regards but the look is perfected! And, we have to remember, Jeff Withey himself wasn’t Jeff Withey for the first couple of years…

From ESPN:

URI’s Hurley not talking job future after defeat Rhode Island coach Dan Hurley, who sources say is the front-runner for the UConn job, had no interest in addressing speculation about potential openings after his team’s loss to Duke, saying, ‘I could give a crap about who’s got an opening anywhere.’

So, this means he is definitely going, right?

@BeddieKU23 If I used drugs, I might prefer Walton, but I’d rather have Bilas.

“It is unclear whether Jayhawks coach Bill Self will be charged with a coach control violation…”

Well, nice journalism here. I think the whole damn thing is “unclear” since it is just rumor getting repeated based on nothing new since the June statements by the NCAA.

My dad and I watched SB I and IV together (I was 10 and 13 on those), but the only game I remember really well was the infamous Christmas Day game a couple years later when Stenerud broke my Dad’s heart. The Chiefs were no good for the rest of the 70’s and he passed away in 1978.

I started crying today! I was watching all those fans going nuts, thinking, “That’s my city! This one’s for Dad.”

From an alleged newspaper you can find on the Web, or perhaps buy it and use it for lining bird cages:

Traylor to play in Greece

Former Kansas forward Jamari Traylor has signed a contract to play for GS Kymis, a team located in Kymi, on the island of Euboea, Greece, Eurobasket.com and the GS Kymis official Website reported.

Traylor, 25, averaged 10.2 points and 7.0 rebounds per game in 40 games for the Redwell Gunners of Oberwart, Austria, last season. He was selected to Eurobasket.com’s Austrian League All-Imports Team and to the All-Star Game.

He also played 10 games in the FIBA Europe Cup. He averaged 9.1 points and 6.3 boards a game.

I am often accused by people I know of being a great moralist, and of being overly harsh in my expectations and judgments of myself and others. I might exceed the speed limit by 8 mph, but I pay every dime of income tax, don’t download pirated movies and broke off a close friendship when he wanted me to lie about an affair. In short, straight and narrow.

But I think y’all are going way overboard in calling this a program that is out of control, or assigning blame to Coach Howard for Bragg’s infractions. This thread really has degenerated into a massive amount of handwringing and old-lady fainting over a few reported incidents that actually only involve two kids currently in the program. Yet we are being referred all the way back to Giles as an indictment of our team? I will take all the success stories in the meantime as an overwhelming counterbalance to that, or to a DUI here or an embarrassing photo there–any and every day of the year.

Zero tolerance policies are being set up everywhere, and good kids are being kicked out of grade schools for having drawn a picture of a gun. I think HCBS has earned the right to decide who works for him and to use his discretion in evaluating character or administering punishment to athletes or staff.

Please note that if Vick was put on probation for something from 16 or so months ago, that could have been with the cooperation of the athletic department. No indication that it hasn’t been successful. Bragg’s stuff is more serious, but hardly reason for anyone to pull the rug out from the coach.

Take a deep breath, everyone. Please!

Of course, if the rape incident involved a player, and if it was known to the staff and ignored like Baylor’s football players, I will retract this post and light the torches myself.

@Bwag Well, you can keep calling it uncorroborated or unsupported, or you can say the earth is flat a thousand times, but repetition doesn’t make what you say true.

Polygraph showing no deception, many witnesses to Kavanaugh being an out-of-control drunk, book by Mark Judge about “Bart” Kavanaugh’s wild behavior, Kavanaugh’s own letter (signed “Bart”) describing his group as loud obnoxious drunks, the calendar, the yearbook, his false testimony about those…Hmmm, he has always upheld polygraphs as a law enforcement tool. Wanna bet he would refuse to take one?

Incidentally, Dems have always wanted more time, more documents, and a more thorough investigation. The Republicans withheld over 40,000 pages of documents and dumped the rest on Senators the night before the originally scheduled vote. Dems have without success provided dozens of names of people to be interviewed, only to run into the Republican brick wall.

Former Justice John Paul Stevens, a Republican appointee to the Court, knows a little something about what qualifies a judge to be a Justice and, after watching Kavanaugh become unhinged in a prepared sworn statement, says Senators should reject him (after initially believing the opposite) due to his partisan and intemperate performance. 2,400 law professors and even the National Council of Churches have said the same. Dems didn’t move the goalposts–Kavanaugh went racing the other direction, almost frothing at the mouth while spouting conspiracy theories and evincing a horrifying disrespect for members of another branch of government, for anyone of a different political bent, and for anyone daring to have criticized or even questioned him.

But all that being said, you might be surprised that I would admit that I do not necessarily believe Dr Ford’s allegation that it was him, or if the details tracked her recollection even if she believed him. There is a fundamental problem in trying to resurrect information about an event almost 4 decades old. That is why statutes of limitations set limits on when claims can be raised–witnesses die, memories fade or get confused, documents get lost (I thought my calendars I have kept since 1984 were crazy!)…it is just impossible to prove guilt or innocence so we don’t try in civil or criminal law. An exception is for murder–and arguably a Supreme Court appointment warrants that higher level of scrutiny.

My personal bottom line from my own experience as a criminal lawyer, as an appellate lawyer who argued in US Courts of Appeals in Florida and D.C., and as a judge for 19 years: I have never before seen someone who is raising falsified claims repeatedly ask–make that literally beg–for a thorough police investigation or pass a polygraph exam given by a former FBI examiner. Fun fact: none of my >400 convicted criminal appeals clients asked us to arrange a polygraph regardless of how vociferously they contended other people had set them up. And, conversely, I have never seen anyone who was innocent refuse to agree to a more extensive investigation, however long it would take, to prove their lack of complicity. Innocent people welcome investigation. I think she believed her testimony, but I do not know without an honest inquiry whether her testimony was in fact accurate.

Still, to me the issue is not whether he did or didn’t do it. The issue is whether his record, his conduct, and his testimony demonstated his status as someone whose integrity and temperament should elevate him to the highest judicial rank in the land. To me, the burden was on Kavanaugh throughout the process, just as it is on anyone seeking such a role. He did not carry that burden, and demeaned himself in the process. All things considered, the country can do better, and has, in finding a brilliant candidate–even a conservative one meeting every one of Republican criteria (except possibly a demonstrated anti-Democrat animus).

So what are Republicans so afraid of?

@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?

@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.

@bcjayhawk said in Differentiating fact from opinion on COVID-19:

“When I was little, my parents didn’t tolerate lying and name calling…”

I told my stepsons, after several rounds of their dismayingly miserable failures at deception, that honesty was the best policy for people who are as bad as they were at lying. Example: older son sneaking out bedroom window after leaving pillows in his bed under the blankets to look like he was asleep. Weak strategy: “How did you know I was gone?”

“Well, Joe, you locked the door and wouldn’t answer, so I kicked it down.”

“Yeah, I wondered if that was a good move.”

“Joe, me lad, th’ life of crime is nae fer ya.”

@approxinfinity And then you will end up with 2 full hands of excellent fertilizer, ironically meaning you are hoarding the substance rather than toilet paper like everyone else!

Well, I for one believe, as always, that we should be able to hope we can trust in the credibilty of the leader of the free world.

@HighEliteMajor said in Do We Need N95 Masks For Everyone?:

The experts have made major errors and miscalculations.

Nonexperts have made more. The biggest difference is that (most) scientists provide the information on which they base their recommendations and conclusions. Nonexperts have nothing but wishful thinking on this topic.

@HighEliteMajor Okay for you to think that if you want to worry about it, but you are ignoring “in such a matter” which refers clearly to a final judgment or decision not under appeal.

If you are an attorney, I will reconsider but you have never answered that question previously. As it is, your analysis reflects what lots of lay people do when reading statutes, even experienced ones. If you are highly experienced in statutory interpretation, especially in permissible collateral uses of evidence or principles relating to res judicata, I will eagerly consider any authority you cite.

Here is an example: SC has a provision saying that no one can leave a car running unattended. A local article said someone got a ticket for leaving his car running in front of his house to heat it up in the winter.

I looked up the provision. It is in a section dealing with operation of vehicles on roadways. The definition of roadway expressly states on a public road or highway, not including private property. I called the reporter to tell him about the provision. He argued, as do you, that the cop whom he talked to had said because it is a separate sentence it granted an independent basis to allow ticketing in a driveway. I called the state law enforcement division. They couldn’t stop laughing.

Context is everything.

@HighEliteMajor I think you are misinterpreting the final sentence, not intentionally, but because you are granting way too much leeway to a clause expressly drafted in highly limited terms.

Let’s simplify the language. The first sentence in essence allows the NCAA to accept as true findings and facts established in a decision that is not under appeal. The second sentence says that evidence submitted “in such a matter” may be considered in the infractions process.

“In such a matter” is meaningless if it does not refer to a decision discussed in the first sentence. The phrase simply means that the infractions process can consider the evidence used to arrive at a decision not under appeal.

It is not an independent basis of using collateral evidence. (It really just means I was wrong in saying they are limited to a court’s factual findings–they can look at the underlying evidence, too.)

A basic rule of statutory construction is to interpret subclauses within a clause in a way that effectuates the purpose of the clause. If the second sentence is not a corollary to the first, the clause would simply say the NCAA can use any evidence developed in any proceeding anywhere, even if it is still ongoing.

Another principle of statutory construction is to interpret clauses in a manner that makes sense. It would make no sense to say the NCAA can only accept a final decision’s findings as true, but it can also accept any evidence submitted in a non-final judgment under appeal. A broad grant to look at all types of evidence in a case where it is subject to reversal (i.e., a disavowal on review of the very evidence underlying a flawed decision) contravenes the very purpose of the requirement that the collateral case findings are final.

The second sentence specifically refers to the first, and that therefore limits it.

@approxinfinity I find them pretty hard to breathe in, so I imagine it would be torture to have to breathe while in extreme exertion.

I can see opposing players grabbing masks. Will they interrupt games every time a mask comes off, as they stop for blood now? 4 hour football games, etc.

Maybe the answer will also address concussions: flag football (with latex gloves, of course).

I have several N95 masks and 3 N100 cartridge respirators from years past that I bought for dust (SC summers and huge bare spots in the lawn), concrete mixing, and insecticide spraying (the N100s are for gasses as well as dust.) All have been used a few times but are fine for us. I rotate the N95s each time I go out, which is only about twice a week.

When I bought them, I was mad because I couldn’t find simple dusk masks and I hate bandanas. But I am glad to have them if I am going anywhere now because the idiots seem to think “reopening” means “no sense.”

Last week: