FBI - Government - College Trials to Begin

www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/sto...t-scandal-goes-trial

I haven't followed this too closely, so I am sure that there are more knowledgeable and informed people here in the forum that can expand on the possible consequences now that this is happening.

From what's been said so far, the only issue we have to worry about is Silvio. I'll get to that in a minute.

What I think we're going to see is another deep dive look into the seedy underbelly of college sports. We'll get to see how sneaker companies funnel money through various cutouts and into the hands of recruits. Eventually there will be a determination of guilt regarding a bunch of pretty boring financial crimes...tax evasion, money laundering, intentionally deceptive accounting practices, etc.

I find it ironic/convenient that the trial just so happens to be timed with the kickoff of the season. It would have been nice if this ran its course in the off season. Seems like they want to have both things timed simultaneously to make it a hot topic while the season goes on.

As for Kansas, we have 2 issues to give us concern.
1.) Billy Preston. Looks like he took money and maybe got a car in the bargain. If they can somehow show that Self or anyone else in the program was aware, the NCAA could nail us. Nevertheless, by all that we know so far, Self and the program DIDN'T know and when they thought something MIGHT be up, they sidelined Billy. Since he never played a game with us, we should be in the clear there.

2.) Silvio DeSousa. This is a stickier wicket. It looks like Silvo's guardian took money first from Nike and then from Addidas to pay Nike back. Silvio DID play in many games last year and is still on the team. Self didn't seem to know about this during his recruitment, but it's clear that he knows NOW. Self is a smart guy, so the fact that Silvio is still playing and still on the team is significant and limits the options of what might be happening.

OPTION 1: Self assumes that Silivo is guilty. In that case, Self must either think that he knows the NCAA will nail us for last year and is just keeping Silvio around until it's official (Option 1a). OR Self knows Silvio is guilty, but for some reason feels very strongly that the NCAA won't pursue the matter (Option 1b).

OPTION 2: Self assumes that Silvio is innocent. In that case either Self believes that Silvio's guardian didn't take the money (Option 2a), or that Self believes that Silvio's guardian taking the money doesn't affect Silvio for some reason (Option 2b).


In the end, the only risk to the program seems to be focused on Silvio. All of the shady money changing hands happened outside of KU's orbit unless something new comes out. While it doesn't look good, major damage should be avoidable.

In the opening statement of the trial, the attorney for the accused admitted that his client paid "someone" on behalf of Silvio so he would go to KU. He further admitted that his client paid the fee so "someone" on behalf of Silvio could repay Under Armor for paying "someone" to make sure Silvio went to Maryland. His argument was that the payments violated NCAA rules, but not any law that his client should be indicted and tried for.

It's now stated on the record, in a court room. But, it's the same story that we heard a long time ago. I can't figure out how Silvio is eligible at all, but I assume KU knows every detail and has communicated with the NCAA, such that they have comfort as to the outcome.

Hmmm.

The jury will be instructed that the defense lawyer's opening statements are not evidence, Leaving the " someone" dangling is like the shotgun over the mantle at the start of the short story. He does it to get their attention , and will lose it unless the evidence provides the "bang,"

Considering that most of the facts had to be fairly apparent when Silvio was playing in February I can't see the bang being that loud ( Not for example an assistant coach.) Some booster, meddler maybe?

To me the interesting question will be which defendants testify. If they do, then we almost certainly put a name on " Someone."

If the Guardian netted nothing and Silvio didn't know he was being auctioned then his eligibility could be intact ?

Me, too!

The core defense for everyone in this circus is that the players, coaches and schools were unaware of the money changing hands. That it was black ops type deals between shoe execs and covert parents/guardians, who took the money and spent it without their young sons being the least bit aware of the new car, new clothes, airline travel, etc.

I don't buy for a second that these players are "unaware" of the financial deals, or that the whole "pay for school commitment" isn't widely known throughout the AAU circuit. And I don't buy for a second that the coaches are "unaware" of players/family/guardians being paid to be influenced to go a certain direction. It's all big business, where everyone is paid for talent and services, but where the main talent participants and revenue generators (coaches and players) conveniently stay afar of the dirty work and then claim ignorance.

Come on folks. Let's just all fess up and say we're not the least bit shocked that the AAU circuit, and the shoe companies, and the players/families, were all making money. And let's be clear that the amount of money it appears to have been paid to get a player to go to a certain school is about the price of a wrist watch worn by the coaches who are paid millions to recruit these kids and win NCAA games.

Let's just all raise our hands, say we probably knew or assumed this was taking place - for decades - and move on with new rules and regs about how these players can be recruited, select schools, and get at least some piece of the billion dollar pie that is college athletics. I for one would prefer to move forward under a new, open system than dredge through years of hearing about shady deals and arguing whether the participants in the business knew or should have known.

Exactly. There's "innocent" and then there's "deniability". Just like in the spy movies when they send in a secret agent with no ties to the government, and that secret agent knows that if he's caught, precautions have been taken to cover up any connection between the secret agent and the CIA director.

Same here. On one hand, in an ideal world, HCBS has no knowledge or suspicion that anybody would play ball at KU for any other reason than wanting to play in our great program. The other extreme: HCBS sends an assistant out on the road who has coffee in some roadside diner and just so happens to be sitting next to a guy who knows some AAU guys and (on Self's instructions) the assistant mentions a few recruits and the AAU guy goes and arranges everything with not ties to the program.

Like all things, it's probably somewhere in the middle. As a blue blood program that plays all of its game on national TV and generally has a shot at a decent tournament run, and who has a HOF coach, we probably don't have to do much to create demand to play at KU. This allows Self to run an outwardly "clean" program and take few if any risks. Nevertheless, he also sees that a lot of these recruits are suddenly wearing nice jewelry, driving nice cars, or are in possession of valuable things that you wouldn't expect their families to afford otherwise. So he explains the rules in such a way that protects the university and advises his players on things they should avoid doing to protect their ability to play ball in front of all those NBA scouts.

Seems Billy Preston missed that advice. As did Cliff.

Given that we have smart people well paid to spot a tainted player and they let Silvio play I at least have some hope he was clear for last season.

Kind of touched on above and I believe mentioned in prior posts - The Auburn Cam Newton Defense

Auburn successfully argued that Newton never had a verbal or written agreement with Rogers or Cecil Newton to act as his agent, wasn't aware of the pay-for-play scheme and received no benefit from Rogers. Nor did Newton hire or compensate Rogers to serve as an agent or athletics scholarship agent, Auburn argued.

www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id...s-cam-newton-scandal

In the big scheme of things, we'll still be a very good team if Silvio gets bumped due to this.

I'm most concerned about the potential for retroactive penalties. It would really stink to lose credit for the final four last year, but it would REALLY REALLY be bad if we lost our 14th in a row due to this. Don't know if they'd elevate the #2 team to the new champs, or if it would just be vacant. If we were to win this year, therefore, it might be #1 of a new streak, or #14 for the 2nd time. In any case, 14 got us into very rarefied air and 15 and beyond just takes us further into the statosphere. To have to go back to #13 (tied with UCLA) would be a kick in the gut, particularly if a win this year would count as #1 in the record books.

I know, it's a stupid thing, but it's something we can really hang our hats on, and I don't want it taken away.

Gotta see how it all plays out, I guess.

And my understanding is that the NCAA closed the "Cam Newton loophole". So even if Silvio had no idea, his guardian's actions could still affect him (assuming that the NCAA uses "parent" and "guardian" interchangeably).

Oofa! I would love to know what is going on inside the NCAA regarding this. Agree with you, HawkErrant, that it was fortutitous that Preston did not play. KU compliance officer(s) did the right thing.

Here's another article with a little more color on Bowen's father's testimony:
www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/new...nst-several-schools/

Has anyone ever seen the movie?

It has been an issue since before 1932 when that movie was made and I do not believe this investigation will "fix" it. Hopefully nothing will stick to the Hawks.

I have been known to think that way when standing in the Duck Soup line.