Kansas Crimson

You know things are bad when you read "Just to lighten things up..." followed by a Kevin Kietzman update.

Man, it's gonna be a long year. I hope this season's team is really good and provides some semblance of a break from this crap.

It'll be talked about during the games ad nauseam.
Fran will have a semi the entire season.

Nut up, Jayhawk fans.

One more run before Self goes on "paid vacation".

twocoach wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 12:57 pm You know things are bad when you read "Just to lighten things up..." followed by a Kevin Kietzman update.

Man, it's gonna be a long year. I hope this season's team is really good and provides some semblance of a break from this crap.

My point was that motherfucker could not resist the chance of coming out from under the rock to talk trash on our basketball team. I hope he takes a beach vacation and a shark swallows him whole. Poor shark!

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 3:23 pm Nut up, Jayhawk fans.

In the words of the great Darnell Jackson...

Its time for us to let our nuts hang.

The Kansas Legislature needs to have a NIL bill, modeled on California's, ready to go if the NCAA hammer drops. That would be an FU back and it is only a matter of time until more states pass something. We can compete for the championship of the Western Collegiate Athletic Association against all the West Coast schools.

Ohh!



Arjhawk POTD

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 12:01 pm

NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 11:51 am All depends on whether KU can disprove Gassanola was a booster (After saying he was "hypothetically")

Are we sure the burden is on KU?

Are you referring to the burden of proof during any NCAA-administered proceeding or in a subsequent appeal to some judicial or quasi-judicial body?

Pls educate me. I'm frankly in the dark about the procedure for the initial determination of sanctions vs. the appellate procedure thereafter...

ChalkRocker wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 9:23 am

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 12:01 pm

NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2019 11:51 am All depends on whether KU can disprove Gassanola was a booster (After saying he was "hypothetically")

Are we sure the burden is on KU?

Are you referring to the burden of proof during any NCAA-administered proceeding or in a subsequent appeal to some judicial or quasi-judicial body?

Pls educate me. I'm frankly in the dark about the procedure for the initial determination of sanctions vs. the appellate procedure thereafter...

Correct. I don't know that anyone can really answer that. Not even the NCAA.

A lawyer would think that the burden is on the NCAA to prove that Gassnola was a KU booster. Not the other way around.

And again, as has been stated several times, KU stipulating that Gassnola was a booster in the Silvio matter should (but NCAA, though) have absolutely no bearing on this inquiry. A very common litigation tactic.

Fair enuf. I'm still not clear whether your question had to do with an "admin" proceeding before an NCAA body, or an appeal to some other, distinct entity that provides review of that admin proceeding.

In any event, to the extent that the NCAA crafted the definition for the term "booster", an attorney might view the burden of proof (at least while before an NCAA body) as being predictably low...

I think the final judge will be a Federal Court Judge not the NCAA...I think we have front row seats in one of the most important sports lawsuits since Flood vs Kuhn...

Lonestarjayhawk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 11:57 am I think the final judge will be a Federal Court Judge not the NCAA...I think we have front row seats in one of the most important sports lawsuits since Flood vs Kuhn...

I agree that the direction we’re pointed is litigation that shapes college sports for the foreseeable future. I do think part of our plan, though, is to string things out in the hope that the laws and courts will have already addressed the heart of the issue.

Will the laws and courts have everything addressed in a couple of years?

I don't know if this will be a super long ordeal, KU mentioned they plan to respond before the 90th day. I would imagine the decision happens before the year 2022.

It is frustratingly stupid for the NCAA to attack member schools based on what shoe companies were allowed to get away with by the NCAA, And worse, only one shoe company. This is a terrible idea that will kill them if litigated correctly. But they forced KU's hand here.

Just came by to say, FUCK the NCAA.

I wonder how much UNC paid them to stay silent about the 18 years of phony classes. NCAA was so pissed at UNC that they punished Georgia Tech instead.

We need a new NCAA.

Sparko wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:02 pm It is frustratingly stupid for the NCAA to attack member schools based on what shoe companies were allowed to get away with by the NCAA, And worse, only one shoe company. This is a terrible idea that will kill them if litigated correctly. But they forced KU's hand here.

Too bad adidas didn't spend money buying the NCAA rules committee, like Nike did. Maybe that's where they should focus to get high ROI

Speaking of three stripes...announced today that Uncle Snoop will be performing at Late Night. He is a brand ambassador of sorts for adidas. Same with 2 Chainz who performed last year. Even though the three stripes can't drop a bag off without getting caught at least they can provide quality entertainment for Late Night. I wonder if Snoop and Chainz is what Self meant when he texted Gass, 'we just have to get some guys.'

Grandpa Dogg is more apropos these days.