Kansas Crimson

It's only an allegation at this point. We'll see if they can follow the money.

This one frightens me. I could genuinely see us losing last year's FF and being penalized for several years to come. In the one-and-done age, this could cripple the program permanently.

I could see loosing the FF if it's linked to our program ( which would show the hypocrisy of the NCAA because, well, UNC cheating 19 years ).
Certainly don't see being penalized for years to come.

The NCAA can't say anything that would make me enjoy memories of that Duke game any less.

I myself asked that same question and thought that KU would be fine...this is from Keegan’s article in regards to what happens if they can’t make a direct connection between KU but SDS’s guardian still got paid...

“Not necessarily. The NCAA enacted a new rule in 2012 designed at closing the loophole that allowed Cam Newton to play for Auburn in the SEC and national championship games after the NCAA found that his father had shopped Newton for $200,000, but did not find that either Auburn or Newton knew anything about the deal.

This from an Associated Press story on the rule was released Jan. 11, 2012: “The Division I Amateurism Cabinet sponsored legislation that would include family members and other third parties who shop an athlete's services to schools for financial gain. The Division I Legislative Council passed the proposal.”

The fact that both duke and UNC have players also involved in this (Little and Zion) makes me think nothing will come of it.

holidaysmore wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 12:11 pm I myself asked that same question and thought that KU would be fine...this is from Keegan’s article in regards to what happens if they can’t make a direct connection between KU but SDS’s guardian still got paid...

“Not necessarily. The NCAA enacted a new rule in 2012 designed at closing the loophole that allowed Cam Newton to play for Auburn in the SEC and national championship games after the NCAA found that his father had shopped Newton for $200,000, but did not find that either Auburn or Newton knew anything about the deal.

This from an Associated Press story on the rule was released Jan. 11, 2012: “The Division I Amateurism Cabinet sponsored legislation that would include family members and other third parties who shop an athlete's services to schools for financial gain. The Division I Legislative Council passed the proposal.”

When I say I'm confident we'll be fine in all of this, that doesn't come from a particular reading or interpretation of the rules. It comes from pragmatism - I just think, when push comes to shove, the NCAA won't want to open itself up to the hornet's nest of litigating this scandal over and over and over, in fifteen different courtrooms, for five years. I think they'll want to just move on.

Of course, that may give the NCAA too much credit.

one can only wonder whether the ncaa’s next big witch hunt may be their last.

As they receive more and more scrutiny, at some point you figure something’s gotta give.

You do but if I was the NCAA I would choose wisely which battles and statements I want to make. Seemingly because this is a KU board the NCAA goes after KU. If KU is doing it then everybody else is...Duke, UNC, Kentucky, etc...does the NCAA have enough stones to completely overhaul college basketball because it is the "moral" and "right thing to do?" My guess is no. Morals are one thing MILLIONS are another.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:08 pm one can only wonder whether the ncaa’s next big witch hunt may be their last.

As they receive more and more scrutiny, at some point you figure something’s gotta give.

been thinking that for the last decade, at least

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 02, 2018 10:41 pm What does "innocent" mean? I would guess that (a) Self has a lot more actual knowledge of this stuff than most people would care to believe, and (b) we haven't done anything outside the norm for high-major programs.

Does B mean 1. We paid him in your mind. and/or 2. That's ok.

Reading a Matt Tait article where he interview an attorney who specializes in cases like this. Scenarios as follows...
1. KU and SDS come out of this scotch clean
2. KU comes out clean but SDS is ruled ineligible (the Cam & Cecil Netwon rule) because his 'handler' admits he took the cash even though KU and SDS had no prior knowledge

In regards to the second scenario lets say that SDS truly had no idea his handler was taking money under the table. What happens to the handler? Is he punished at all? If the only person who is really punished out of this is SDS the NCAA needs to take a hard look at themselves.

another article about the various outcomes/possibilities ...

http://www2.kusports.com/news/2018/oct/ ... aa-rules-/

fucking surveys

holidaysmore wrote: ↑Wed Oct 03, 2018 9:37 pm 1. KU and SDS come out of this scotch clean
2. KU comes out clean but SDS is ruled ineligible (the Cam & Cecil Netwon rule) because his 'handler' admits he took the cash even though KU and SDS had no prior knowledge

I would think the 2nd scenario is much more likely, and it makes it relatively easy on the NCAA (the impact to SDS is the biggest issue). They can look like they 'enforced' the rules and still don't piss off the universities. They screw the player, but let's be honest, they've been doing that for decades...

5 Probably extremely dumb to some and not so dumb to others questions of the day time.

1) Why would anyone pay a player to go to KU if they didn't "profit" from it?
2) So how did/does Adidas "profit" from paying Sous?
3) If Sous and/or his handlers indeed took 20G to persuade him to sign with KU and they knew there was a risk of NCAA and/or even FBI (federal legal) punishment to him and/or KU for doing it - are they not assholes for doing it?
4) If Bill Self and company claim they did not know that Sous was paid by Adidas to persuade him to sign with KU then are Bill Self and company completely clueless to a frightening degree of ignorance - or lying?
5) At what point does the NCAA disband and the "government" (define that as you please) and/or a completely different entity take over all eligibility declarations - and all of college athletics?

1. They wouldn't
2. Not sure
3. If SDS didn't know and this guardian is taking care of these kids just so he can sell their services to colleges, then yes his handler is an asshole. If the money went to SDS and not the handler, then no I don't think SDS is an asshole. Just someone taking money that someone thought they deserved.
4. Yes that'd be frighteningly clueless. If they are lying (and have covered their tracks well) the I don't blame them.
5. Hopefully never. Schools should be in charge of decided which "students" are accepted into their university...just like they are with ALL other students.

1. They wouldn't.
2. Scratch my back I scratch yours type of deal. When SDS goes pro he works with an agent or financial planner that has ties to adidas or signs an outright endorsement deal with adidas.
3. Illy answered that one.
4. IMO a little bit of both. These types of activities have been going on since the 80s.
5. Never. Well maybe not never but certainly not in my lifetime.

SDS was over 18 at the time the money was allegedly given to his “guardian”. Was there a legal relationship there? If I told Adidas I could get RJ Hampton to an Adidas school for $100k and they paid me, is RJ Hampton ineligibile?

1. Probably wouldn't
2. Further potential contracts with agents. An Adidas school does well that's free advertising and more merch sales.
3. They are assholes
4. I wouldn't say clueless but maybe knowing enough to just get things done and not be totally involved.
5. Never.