Kansas Crimson

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:39 am**

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:33 am do you think Duke and K are pushing their luck with Zion?

Yes....

But my guess, is they know by now that no Nike guys were being wire tapped like our Adidas guys were....or they know their staff would never be on a phone call or text talking reckless like our staff was.

Maybe duke knows they break the rules in a way where the chances of being tied to any of it is slim to none...so they feel there is very little risk with Zion, especially because he'll be long gone by the time the federal trials are over and the ncaa really digs into it.

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:42 am**

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:38 am
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:32 am You think we want to push our luck with the ncaa when we could be facing "lack of institutional control" type punishments?

If the ncaa gets it in their mind they want to make an example of us, there seems to be plenty of evidence to support that our coaches were actively involved in working with the Adidas guy who admitted to paying players....coaches get banned for stuff like that. Didn't Bruce Pearl get banned for several years for lying about knowing of improper benefits?

Our staff is doing exactly what they should. There is nothing totally unexplainable that has been presented in court that the ncaa has seen, even though we all know exactly what's been going on....so we are playing by the rules and doing exactly what the ncaa would want. My guess, is they will look kindly upon our staff for our actions handling the Preston and SDS situations.
It's completely within the rules for the staff to work with the shoe companies.

I agree that KU is playing it safe, and it's probably the best course of action even though I disagree with Self doing so (I think he and Cal should go scorched earth on the NCAA).

But the notion that there is such an enormous difference between the admitted evidence regarding De Sousa and Zion is wrong and completely misunderstanding what came out. The texts did nothing more than show a relationship between our staff and adidas. Which, again, is within the rules.

...but isn't it completely AGAINST the rules to say what KT said in those texts?

Did someone admit to giving SDS improper benefits?

Did someone admit to giving Zion improper benefits?

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:45 am**

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:20 am
ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:13 am perhaps the most frustrating part of the SDS isn't simply that he's out. It's that he's out cuz of the same uncorroborated evidence in the same shady trial that made the same allegations against Zion, who is now the fucking face of college basketball.
The same evidence was not presented against Zion/Duke as SDS/KU...but we've gone over that and some people don't want to admit that. (Just because we're all pretty sure/positive Zion did things against the rules, doesn't mean that similar evidence was presented. It wasn't. The only evidence related to Zion was directly related to Kansas staff... not Dukes, not Zions parents)

SDS is out because Self is holding him out. If Self thinks the allegations are true then his job is to hold him out regardless of if the ncaa has officially declared him ineligible.

Wasn't SDS's issue with Maryland and Under Armor? How would SDS/Maryland be different than Zion/KU? Or am I forgetting that adidas confirmed giving his guardian money?

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:46 am**

Person A says I gave Person B money. Person B says Person A did not give me money. Great, prove it.

Person A says Person C gave Person B money. Person B says Person C did not give me money. Great, prove it.

Realize, what I believe happened does not necessarily coincide with what can be shown to happen. I am quite familiar with that.

"we good?"

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:49 am**

NDballer13 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:45 am
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:20 am
ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:13 am perhaps the most frustrating part of the SDS isn't simply that he's out. It's that he's out cuz of the same uncorroborated evidence in the same shady trial that made the same allegations against Zion, who is now the fucking face of college basketball.
The same evidence was not presented against Zion/Duke as SDS/KU...but we've gone over that and some people don't want to admit that. (Just because we're all pretty sure/positive Zion did things against the rules, doesn't mean that similar evidence was presented. It wasn't. The only evidence related to Zion was directly related to Kansas staff... not Dukes, not Zions parents)

SDS is out because Self is holding him out. If Self thinks the allegations are true then his job is to hold him out regardless of if the ncaa has officially declared him ineligible.
Wasn't SDS's issue with Maryland and Under Armor? How would SDS/Maryland be different than Zion/KU? Or am I forgetting that adidas confirmed giving his guardian money?

That is where it is the same. You have some adidas grease dude saying a UMD booster gave De Sousa money. He also said duke/nike gave Zion money. That is the extent of those allegations.

Outside of that, you have the same dude saying he gave De Sousa like $2500. And because the rules are sacred, De Sousa has missed 14 games this season over a couple of months of rent. It's asinine.

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:51 am**

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:46 am Person A says I gave Person B money. Person B says Person A did not give me money. Great, prove it.

Person A says Person C gave Person B money. Person B says Person C did not give me money. Great, prove it.

Realize, what I believe happened does not necessarily coincide with what can be shown to happen. I am quite familiar with that.

"we good?"

Ya "we good".

The ncaa isn't a court of law. They decide if they feel rules were broken. It doesn't need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Am I mistaken, or did Gasnolla admit to giving SDS money? Preston?

Do you think the texts/calls/meetings between KU Staff and Gasnolla (who admitted to paying players to go to adidas schools) could be viewed by the ncaa as lack of institutional control?

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:53 am**

Of course they could be. Duke is making the same bet that, I think, Arizona did last year: that when the totality of the situation is revealed, ain't nobody getting punished.

I think it's a relatively safe bet.

I think holding Silvio out is an even safer bet.

Your mileage may vary on whether it's worth rolling the dice.

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:54 am**

I agree the SDS thing is asinine.

The whole thing is asinine...because nearly everyone knows these players have been getting improper benefits for decades.

But "Duke probably did it too" isn't going to be an acceptable defense to the allegations that have been portrayed in the media against KU if the ncaa decides they want to crucify KU staff.

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:56 am**

ok yeah, the NCAA does decide if they feel rules were broken.

but on the opposite end of the sky is falling argument...

if KU plays it ultra conservative while other schools take their chances, and the NCAA ultimately shrugs all this off, what good came from sitting SDS?

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:58 am**

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:51 am The ncaa isn't a court of law. They decide if they feel rules were broken. It doesn't need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

You are 100% missing the point of my post. Whenever you bring up this Court of law thing, you are almost always missing the point.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:51 am Am I mistaken, or did Gasnolla admit to giving SDS money?

Yes, something like $2500, which was denied by De Sousa's guardian. Also, 18 total games and counting

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:51 am Do you think the texts/calls/meetings between KU Staff and Gasnolla (who admitted to paying players to go to adidas schools) could be viewed by the ncaa as lack of institutional control?

If "we good" is a lack of institutional control then KU's outside counsel could very well be asking for the retainer to increase. Again, it's not against the rules for KU to have a Gassnola. Every school has a Gassnola b/c they can.

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:58 am**

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:53 am Of course they could be. Duke is making the same bet that, I think, Arizona did last year: that when the totality of the situation is revealed, ain't nobody getting punished.

I think it's a relatively safe bet.

I think holding Silvio out is an even safer bet.

Your mileage may vary on whether it's worth rolling the dice.

Book Richardson took the plea yesterday.

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:58 am**

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:56 am ok yeah, the NCAA does decide if they feel rules were broken.

but on the opposite end of the sky is falling argument...

if KU plays it ultra conservative while other schools take their chances, and the NCAA ultimately shrugs all this off, what good came from sitting SDS?

Absolutely nothing.

But if KU thinks he broke rules then they're doing to "right" thing.

The rules may be stupid, but we've still got to follow them....and we should.

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:02 am**

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:58 am
If "we good" is a lack of institutional control then KU's outside counsel could very well be asking for the retainer to increase. Again, it's not against the rules for KU to have a Gassnola. Every school has a Gassnola b/c they can.

"We good" wasn't the text/call I was talking about, but you know that. KTs reckless crap was what I was talking about.

And every school CAN have a Gassnola, unless that Gassnola is paying players to attend that school. That's against the rules.

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:06 am**

What if Self doesn't believe SDS guardian that he didn't accept Maryland Booster money? Maybe that's why he's holding him out....if he doesn't believe the shady guardian and thinks there's a possibility of a paper trail coming up, then how could he possibly play SDS?

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:08 am**

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:02 am
"We good" wasn't the text/call I was talking about, but you know that. KTs reckless crap was what I was talking about.

KT, while reckless, asked "we good?" which is what the media ran with as evidence that he directed payments to De Sousa.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:02 am And every school CAN have a Gassnola, unless that Gassnola is paying players to attend that school. That's against the rules.

According to the constituents of and the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Gassnola took advantage of Kansas as Kansas was unaware of Gassnola's payments. The NCAA (and Kansas) supports and agrees with this version of the events. It behooves the NCAA to maintain that stance as it allows them to continue to disproportionately profit off of the backs of student athletes. The NCAA's precedent is to not hold schools accountable when they are unaware that players received improper benefits.

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:11 am**

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:08 am
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:02 am
"We good" wasn't the text/call I was talking about, but you know that. KTs reckless crap was what I was talking about.
KT, while reckless, asked "we good?" which is what the media ran with as evidence that he directed payments to De Sousa.

Self was the "we good" text. Iirc.

KT was the "we will give Zion whatever they want to get him on campus for 6 months" (or something along those line)

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:14 am**

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:11 am
CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:08 am
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:02 am
"We good" wasn't the text/call I was talking about, but you know that. KTs reckless crap was what I was talking about.
KT, while reckless, asked "we good?" which is what the media ran with as evidence that he directed payments to De Sousa.

Self was the "we good" text. Iirc.

KT was the "we will give Zion whatever they want to get him on campus for 6 months" (or something along those line)

I stand corrected on that detail, but your KT quote is wrong and sounds like a conclusion that Pat Forde would jump to.

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:17 am**

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:14 am
IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:11 am
CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:08 am

KT, while reckless, asked "we good?" which is what the media ran with as evidence that he directed payments to De Sousa.

Self was the "we good" text. Iirc.

KT was the "we will give Zion whatever they want to get him on campus for 6 months" (or something along those line)
I stand corrected on that detail, but your KT quote is wrong and sounds like a conclusion that Pat Forde would jump to.

It was a phone call....here's the quotes:

“Hey, but between me and you, he asked about some stuff … I know what he’s asking for,” Code said, per Wetzel. “He’s asking for opportunities from an occupational perspective, he’s asking for cash in the pocket and he’s asking for housing for him and his family.”

“I’ve got to just try to work and figure out a way because if that’s what it takes to get him here for 10 months, we’re going to have to do it some way,” Townsend responded.

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:19 am**

Yep, you're Pat Forde-ing words written down by a journalist from what he heard over a court room's audio system.

Posted: **Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:19 am**

Honest question CnB (or anyone else):

Do you think our coaches knew the Adidas
guys were paying (or attempting to pay) players to attend KU?

Kansas Crimson

Redshirt rules

Re: Redshirt rules

Re: Redshirt rules

Re: Redshirt rules

Re: Redshirt rules

Re: Redshirt rules

Re: Redshirt rules

Re: Redshirt rules

Re: Redshirt rules

Re: Redshirt rules

Re: Redshirt rules

Re: Redshirt rules

Re: Redshirt rules

Re: Redshirt rules

Re: Redshirt rules

Re: Redshirt rules

Re: Redshirt rules

Re: Redshirt rules

Re: Redshirt rules

Re: Redshirt rules

Re: Redshirt rules