@user_RCJH “…any future assumptions about what may or may not transpire are incredibly premature.”

But it gives everyone here something to agonize about. Look how delightfully quiet the Politics section has been for the past coupla months!

@focojayhawk I think that the NCAA is just taking the cases in the order that the clearest evidence comes out. KU happens to have been upto the armpits in Gassnola’s mud, there is juicy evidence on point, and a high-profile recruit has given them an opportunity to finally bring out and stomp out this particular corruption. Other cases will follow, but if KU is sanctioned, look for a bunch of self-reported violations getting less punishment.

@HighEliteMajor I believe that rules like these cannot be read without their context. Isolating particular bullets as if they are independent, stand-alone prohibitions can result in really absurd results.

For example, anyone hiring a student athlete simply to cut a lawn becomes a booster under your strict reading, regardless of any university contact or even a recruiting pitch. The bullet on employment seems to say that. By its wording, the employer doesn’t even have to know that the kid is an athlete!

No, the introductory paragraph to these bullets discusses boosters in the context of representing the school, and that strict reading you are giving bullet 5 omits that requirement completely.

However, your interpretation provides an excellent illustration of why all those Q’s & A’s (and other advisories) caution anyone who might be considered a booster from contacting prospective athletes directly and instead to inform the scool so it can do the recruiting. Innocent contacts can thus avoid being misinterpreted, and (providing there is a relationship) recruiting efforts by boosters can be isolated and improper ones sanctioned.

@jayballer73 It would depend on what he knew, when he knew it, and what if anything he did about it.

I am not going to tie myself up in knots agonizing over the what-ifs about this. Que sera sera.

Kcmatt7 said:

I’m fairly confident we end up giving back the FF and all the money we earned from it. I could see us losing a few scholarships and potentially having recruiting restrictions on Townsend and Self for a year or two. That would make sense. It’s all logical.

I would be infuriated with a postseason ban though. Punishing players who don’t deserve to be punished is horseshit. The worst part, is the NCAA ties everything to the programs instead of the coaches. It ends up hitting the wrong people for the crimes committed. In fact, 99% of the time the NCAA punishes the wrong person with their penalties.

I think one-year suspensions without pay would clear up lots of things.

@Crimsonorblue22 If I had to guess I would say it might have been caused by us denying he was a booster in the Silvio case, in which case the NCAA would not want their failure to rebut the denial to be used against them in a later enforcement case. Another reason I think the hypothetical is meaningless.

All these rules in litigation arise because someone says something, someone else doesn’t challenge it because it doesn’t appear to matter right then, and then later someone tries to say it should have been denied or corrected or challenged at the time.

Lawyers hate to admit anything, but are like sharks smelling blood in the water when they think they have found an unwitting concession.

The testimony may help, but not if there is strong evidence we did not pay attention.

@justanotherfan What’s your take on this?

@HighEliteMajor Your Missouri example, on those facts, would not get the school in trouble. There has to be a connection between you and the school, either a relationship like the other bullets involve, or, for the catch-all last bullet, probably knowledge of and acquiescence in your activities.

But, yeah–bullet number 5 seems on point here.

@Fightsongwriter Thanks. I learned in appellate criminal defense how to make it sound really good. But don’t ignore the last paragraph–we still might be toast. I have no illusions. Schools generally get hit for playing ineligible players. If they hold KU responsible for everything adidas did, it will be bad. If we show we had no way of knowing, then vacating wins and the F4 are probably the result.

I have said before, the NCAA can look at how desperately we needed SDS eligible at midseason and that could be a factor in thinking we conveniently didn’t look into how he came to us. Then it gets into loss of schollies and postseason ban. Boo!

“But I don’t think so!” *

• “It’s a Jungle Out There” is a song written by Randy Newman and used as the theme song for the TV series Monk starting in its second season. In 2004, it won an Emmy Award for Outstanding Main Title Theme Music.