Did I hear Frannie right…that he thinks we’re going to go a long way in the tournament? Ok, what the hell is going on…did hell freeze over?
Last game he said sweet 16 ot E8 at least.
@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.
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!” *
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!
@StLJhawk Nice post. I almost went to bed, too, because I only had 4 hrs sleep the night before, and then thought about all the people who went to bed and missed Mario’s shot and the OT in 2008. Then I said, “4 points? Who gets so scared at 4 points? Not me!” and bravely faced the next 120 seconds, which became 620 seconds, which got me so amped I was up 2 more hours reading the box and all the recaps. Which has me exhausted after another 4 hr night. But well worth it!
@Crimsonorblue22 It was also nice that Dickie V did that game. No one can call out fans for leaving like he does! His commentary and schtick get tiring, but no one can say he hasn’t given his life to promoting the game. If HE says real fans don’t leave, well, I believe him!
I do acknowledge the irony of waxing negatively about negativity.
And I probably should explain that my reaction last night came no doubt from 2 things–all the comments made me think my cable feed was behind, and that I was reading comments at the end of the game. I kept hitting the “info” button to see if I was caught up. Since we were only 4 pts behind I did not see why people were so fed up and giving up. After all, 9 pts with 2:12 left in 2008…
But it also no doubt had to do with growing up with a dad who was always so angry watching sports that no one could stand being around him. And he would be angry at anyone who didn’t agree with him. So, sports PTSD, I guess.
Apologies for squished toes.
@dylans As a cool guy on here says, “I’m Responsible Only For What I Say, Not What You Understand.”
Last night was unique in both volume and intensity. Ignoring a couple comments is different than wading through a bunch. I guess I will just go back to not participating in the game thread. I definitely find that better anyway in terms of being able to follow the action instead of looking at my phone keyboard.
@dylans I understand disappointment but it is the negative nastiness in the last few minutes of regulation I was responding to.
I don’t know who said what, and anyone who did what I am saying can take it or leave it. But frankly last night’s chorus was like being in the stands and having people shoving you out of the way before a game is over because they have given up and don’t give a shit about other people still cheering and trying to enjoy the game.
Not sure I’ve ever said this before but Hook’em Horns tomorrow!
Probably a lotta Rats excitedly cheering Shaka on tonite. These things remind me of the vitriolic things presidential primary candidates say about each other, only to become adoring acolytes when it serves their purpose!
The Duke thing isn’t getting buried.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/duke-looking-into-recent-rape-accusation-from-a-1999-incident-allegedly-involving-a-basketball-player/ (article prior to Maggette being identified by name)
NYTimes: Fairfax Accuser Told Friends She Was Raped by Corey Maggette Fairfax Accuser Told Friends She Was Raped by Corey Maggette https://nyti.ms/2E4UabY
Boise’s blue football field, Eastern Wshingtons red football field, TCU’s white court, Minnesota’s white court. 4 worst playing surfaces in all of sports. Oregon’s wins the consolation prize.
Two others are worse: KSU and Duke both have, well, things identifying them as KSU and Duke…
If Charlie would just accept his role he would be serviceable
I am catching up on reading the entire thread for 1st half after watching it. Can usually remember what happened in the game causing comments. Not this one. Lots of candidates, unfortunately!
@kjayhawks “I do question Self’s we have no one that can guard him comments.”
Really? I found that comment the most refreshingly honest comment by Self in years.
The problem is, we thought it was a comment about Dedrick when really Self was providing a hint about how bad our defense might be this year…
Looks like your connection to KU Buckets was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.