×
Rock Chalk Talk: Basketball
Anything pertaining to basketball: college, pro, HS, recruiting, TV coverage
Anything pertaining to basketball: college, pro, HS, recruiting, TV coverage
How bad could it be? It's worse.
- HawkErrant
-
Topic Author
- Offline
- Moderator
-
- b82, g84 Lift the chorus...
Less
More
- Posts: 6823
- Thank you received: 5159
5 years 2 months ago #20945
by HawkErrant
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime." - Mark Twain "Innocents Abroad"
Buried in the columns on KUSports.com is this article by LJW Editor (and KU Journalism grad) Chad Lawhorn (not my favorite LJW person these days) that -- well, if it doesn't chill KU sports fans who read it, they simply haven't comprehended the gravity of the situation.
NCAA’s De Sousa ruling raises new questions about whether KU coaches committed violations
It is the front page top headline on Sunday's print LJW, and the lead article on www2.ljworld.com/ for Sunday as well.
In case it slipped under your radar (it did mine, I am loathe to admit), the NCAA characterized T.J. Gassnola -- a former employee of Adidas now convicted of federal fraud charges — as a booster of the Kansas Athletics program. From the NCAA De Sousa ruling :
According to the facts provided for purposes of the reinstatement request, De Sousa’s guardian received payment of $2,500 from an agent and booster of the school. (boldface emphasis mine - HE)
Note that it is being reported that the NCAA would not rule on Silvio unless KU conceded Gassnola was a booster -- and KU did.
UNC 18 year academic scandal - nothing
DeAndre Ayton at UofA - nothing
Zion Williamson of Duke - nothing
Silvio De Sousa of Kansas - ineligible and ?
I really have to question the quality of KU's NCAA compliance staff when I read about KU agreeing to the NCAA's classification of Gassnola as a booster in order to get a ruling on Silvio.
To borrow the old poker expression, read 'em (the links) and weep.
I have no further words at present ... at least not ones I can publish here.
NCAA’s De Sousa ruling raises new questions about whether KU coaches committed violations
It is the front page top headline on Sunday's print LJW, and the lead article on www2.ljworld.com/ for Sunday as well.
In case it slipped under your radar (it did mine, I am loathe to admit), the NCAA characterized T.J. Gassnola -- a former employee of Adidas now convicted of federal fraud charges — as a booster of the Kansas Athletics program. From the NCAA De Sousa ruling :
According to the facts provided for purposes of the reinstatement request, De Sousa’s guardian received payment of $2,500 from an agent and booster of the school. (boldface emphasis mine - HE)
Note that it is being reported that the NCAA would not rule on Silvio unless KU conceded Gassnola was a booster -- and KU did.
UNC 18 year academic scandal - nothing
DeAndre Ayton at UofA - nothing
Zion Williamson of Duke - nothing
Silvio De Sousa of Kansas - ineligible and ?
I really have to question the quality of KU's NCAA compliance staff when I read about KU agreeing to the NCAA's classification of Gassnola as a booster in order to get a ruling on Silvio.
To borrow the old poker expression, read 'em (the links) and weep.
I have no further words at present ... at least not ones I can publish here.
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime." - Mark Twain "Innocents Abroad"
The following user(s) said Thank You: Bayhawk, jaythawk1
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Share this page:
- newtonhawk
-
- Offline
- Elite Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 272
- Thank you received: 293
5 years 2 months ago #20950
by newtonhawk
According to AD Long, they only admitted him as a booster "hypothetically." So is this a matter of being forced into a corner to make a confession of something that isn't true only to find out later you are in a tighter corner than you imagined because you signed saying it was true? I'm not sure my non-legal mind comprehends what went down!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Illhawk
-
- Offline
- Elite Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 274
- Thank you received: 156
5 years 2 months ago #20951
by Illhawk
I haven't seen the documents, Don't want to. But one explanation of what KU did was to say " This kid is sitting there waiting why can't you decide?"
The NCAA says " We are trying to figure out whether this recent convict is a booster."
Then KU responded, " In order to get a resolution as to this one student, solely for purposes of his eligibility, assume the dude was a booster."
Then the pole axe!
The NCAA says " We are trying to figure out whether this recent convict is a booster."
Then KU responded, " In order to get a resolution as to this one student, solely for purposes of his eligibility, assume the dude was a booster."
Then the pole axe!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- NotOstertag
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 1946
- Thank you received: 2134
5 years 2 months ago #20958
by NotOstertag
"When I was a freshman, I remember Coach Naismith telling us how important it was to play good defense." - Mitch Lightfoot
Posted this elsewhere, but I don't think KU labels him as a "booster" (theoretical or otherwise) without the NCAA telling us that doing so will help us move forward with the DeSousa case. So I feel that we were "encouraged" to do so (or coerced, perhaps?) in exchange for getting Silvio back on the court. We did so, and the NCAA nailed him with what is essentially a 2 year suspension.
I think we got double crossed, which I believe is why Self and the AD are so over-the-top angry about this.
I think we got double crossed, which I believe is why Self and the AD are so over-the-top angry about this.
"When I was a freshman, I remember Coach Naismith telling us how important it was to play good defense." - Mitch Lightfoot
The following user(s) said Thank You: newtonhawk
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- HawkErrant
-
Topic Author
- Offline
- Moderator
-
- b82, g84 Lift the chorus...
Less
More
- Posts: 6823
- Thank you received: 5159
5 years 2 months ago #20964
by HawkErrant
I read somewhere (forget where just now) that it was more like the NCAA saying they would not go forward with Silvio's case unless KU would say, even hypothetically, that Gassnola was a booster. And yes, that's exactly why Long and Self are ticked.
Frankly, our compliance guys should have warned Long and Self to never accept that label in any situation, because the resultant situation is not exactly unforeseeable with the vipers that are the NCAA -- especially as they are just looking for a situation where they can finally be shown as being tough on a member after the debacle with UNC left them with egg all over their faces.
No way you endanger the program as a whole for one player, even one I support as much as Silvio.
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime." - Mark Twain "Innocents Abroad"
NotOstertag wrote: Posted this elsewhere, but I don't think KU labels him as a "booster" (theoretical or otherwise) without the NCAA telling us that doing so will help us move forward with the DeSousa case. So I feel that we were "encouraged" to do so (or coerced, perhaps?) in exchange for getting Silvio back on the court. We did so, and the NCAA nailed him with what is essentially a 2 year suspension.
I think we got double crossed, which I believe is why Self and the AD are so over-the-top angry about this.
I read somewhere (forget where just now) that it was more like the NCAA saying they would not go forward with Silvio's case unless KU would say, even hypothetically, that Gassnola was a booster. And yes, that's exactly why Long and Self are ticked.
Frankly, our compliance guys should have warned Long and Self to never accept that label in any situation, because the resultant situation is not exactly unforeseeable with the vipers that are the NCAA -- especially as they are just looking for a situation where they can finally be shown as being tough on a member after the debacle with UNC left them with egg all over their faces.
No way you endanger the program as a whole for one player, even one I support as much as Silvio.
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime." - Mark Twain "Innocents Abroad"
The following user(s) said Thank You: konza63
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- NotOstertag
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
Less
More
- Posts: 1946
- Thank you received: 2134
5 years 2 months ago #20970
by NotOstertag
"When I was a freshman, I remember Coach Naismith telling us how important it was to play good defense." - Mitch Lightfoot
I hear ya, HE, but I don't think they would have done it without more than assurances that they'd finally look at the case.
If anything, that alone is an indictment of the NCAA. What is their criteria for prioritizing cases? If it's dependent upon some kind of self-incrimination to get you to the top of the pile, that shows very clearly that the NCAA isn't looking at things objectively. Why should ANYONE get priority over the other? Why should some people be given options to skip ahead in line if the accept the NCAA's strong-arming? Why should others who refuse to admit guilt be penalized by delaying their case?
If KU didn't do the homework, that's one thing, but I find it really really hard to believe that anybody at KU would admit to anything in this case if SOMEBODY didn't give them some kind of assurances.
If you commit a crime and are offered a plea bargain, it's agreed to ahead of time. No lawyer would advise a client to plead guilty first and then beg for the plea bargain later.
If anything, that alone is an indictment of the NCAA. What is their criteria for prioritizing cases? If it's dependent upon some kind of self-incrimination to get you to the top of the pile, that shows very clearly that the NCAA isn't looking at things objectively. Why should ANYONE get priority over the other? Why should some people be given options to skip ahead in line if the accept the NCAA's strong-arming? Why should others who refuse to admit guilt be penalized by delaying their case?
If KU didn't do the homework, that's one thing, but I find it really really hard to believe that anybody at KU would admit to anything in this case if SOMEBODY didn't give them some kind of assurances.
If you commit a crime and are offered a plea bargain, it's agreed to ahead of time. No lawyer would advise a client to plead guilty first and then beg for the plea bargain later.
"When I was a freshman, I remember Coach Naismith telling us how important it was to play good defense." - Mitch Lightfoot
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.