I am struggling to understand...

...what the hue and cry is for KU do launch a robust internal investigation after the FBI report. If KU had not done any sort of investigation or if they did not have an ongoing compliance department of some sort, then I would say they should do an investigation simply as a matter of course. I would say that even without the FBI report. But KU does have a compliance effort and did a review of some sort recently. So the FBI releases a report that names KU as a “victim of fraud” and now we are supposed to launch an investigation? I simply don’t get it. Listen, I get the optics, and to me, the optics say do exactly what they are doing. Say there is no indication WHATSOEVER and no evidence of wrongdoing by KU. That is a great report for KU. Granted, it is more an absence of a negative than a positive but still, there is nothing, zip, nada, bupkis, zero that should cast supsicion on KU at this point. I would surely be having some pretty frank talks with Adidas right about now but that is a private negotiation and should not be aired in the public domain. Lets say your house is robbed and a police report comes out that you were robbed. Should you launch an investigation of some sort into your attraction of robbers? I am not passing judgment on the “victim” comment and that is not about that. This just seems to me to be a bunch of people looking for a scandal and taking anything that can be spun into a scandal and running with it. When evidence is presented that indicates wrongdoing by anyone at KU then I would fully support investigation. Until then, this is all people looking for a scandal and not afraid to stretch any facts into a facade of something that appears to be a scandal. Pap!!

Also I thought I read that the NCAA ordered that the teams do investigations, we did one, but don't have any paperwork on it. So maybe the investigation went like this:

Zenger: "Hey Bill, are you or anybody on the staff involved in anything shady?"

Self: "No way, boss. We're clean."

Zenger: "Investigation closed."

I agree that I'm confident that we have a compliance department that probably does a great job. The problem, however, is with any kind of self-policing, it's just that much easier to get away with stuff. If you know the security procedures, it's easier to circumvent them. So I agree to a certain extent that any university can investigate itself with 100% credibility. It's also tough because with a big program like ours, there are a lot of vulnerable people...if one equipment manager, administrative assistant in the basketball office, or the guy who inflates the basketballs is remotely involved, the PROGRAM is involved. Finally there's the whole deniability aspect. On one hand, Self can tell a recruit the do's and don'ts. Or he could be saying, "do what you want to do, but you're on your own and never ever let anyone know about it or involve anybody working within the program."

Right now about the ONLY thing that makes me feel like we're still ok is the way they handled Preston (and Cliff Alexander before him).

As for Addidas, at least we know that they'll outbid Under Armour, so we probably don't want to take up with UA if they don't have the budget necessary for success. That was sarcasm folks. In all seriousness, I'd be making very sure that there was something in any new contract that would put Addias on the hook for enough money that they'd be a lot more watchful over their own procedures and people. Something like "if Addidas or any of its employees or agents is found to be involved with any activity that results in any violation of NCAA amateurism rules, Addidas will pay KU damages 100x the value of the sponsorship contract for every violation and immediately release Kansas to seek new equipment sponsors." While that number might be pie in the sky, I think it would make sense to put language in there so damaging that Addidas would be forced into investing in their own oversight.