🏀 KuBuckets Archive

A few weeks back, wasn't there a story about some guy who said there would be schools named by the end of the month from the FBI investigation? Curious what the status is.

There was. There is nothing new on that front. If they are going to do it, but I bet it is the day before the 4th. Nice day for a news dump...

Anybody listen to Jesse Newell's podcast? I thought he said he thinks we are one of the 2 big names.

@Crimsonorblue22 That would very much suck... I think that the two schools getting the hammer are going to be Arizona and Louisville, and NC State and Okie State next, then us and whoever the other school is - I forget its name. We'll hopefully only get repimanded and lose a scholarship for a couple years, but not have to forfeit any games and be eligible to play in the post-season. I'm actually thinking that we might get even less than that.

Reality Check - We played a player that was then suspended for one full season due to eligibility issues. Our recruiting partner, the one we text with, have little secret calls with, and lean on for wide ranging recruiting assistance, arranged an $80,000 payment to another one of our players. Our involvement was splashed all over headlines and led to convictions of our recruiting partners.

@HighEliteMajor Which I understand. But what do they really have? They have squat, that's what. What do you think our punishment will be?

Were gonna have to forfeit some games - maybe reduction, I am not that sure about that - but pretty sure we forfeit games.

@jayballer73 I concur.

jayballer73 said:

Were gonna have to forfeit some games - maybe reduction, I am not that sure about that - but pretty sure we forfeit games.

Which is such a dumb penalty only the NCAA would dish it out. Pretty sure everyone still considers Louisville the 2013 champs even though it was vacated. Reggie Bush still won the Heisman. On and on.

It just doesn't make sense that we get punished much. Our compliance program is a model program largely constructed through NCAA advice and legal counsel. Many schools have come in to mimic our practices.

If Kansas gets slapped, then what school out there shouldn't get the same? What should our school have done differently to avoid a problem? When there is discovered the slightest problem we pull our players from the game.

If the only real evidence connecting the dots directly to our program is the Townsend communication or Self's "are we cool", we should be fine. "Lose chatter" does not warrant a conviction. Obviously, none of us know the complete story. We should know more soon.

Marco said:

@HighEliteMajor Which I understand. But what do they really have? They have squat, that's what. What do you think our punishment will be?

They've got more than squat. A lot more. I'm not sure why a recruiting partner paying a player $80,000 to attend is note considered more than squat. I'm not sure why a player getting suspended for a year for violations is not considered more than squat. I'm not sure why folks can't look at the NCAA definition of a "booster" and see that the Adidas folks plainly qualify. And I'm not sure why folks don't see the strong possibility that the NCAA is ticked off over the FBI/DOJ mess that was highly embarrassing, created bad press, brought more public scrutiny, threatens their existence etc. And I can see why folks don't think it a strong possibility that the NCAA is hoping to drive this down a more strict path of enforcement.

I think we lose our FF, we vacate wins, we lose two scholarships for two seasons, and we don't get to play in an NCAA tourney.

The reason I have that thought, and why I've had that thought, is that I believe that the NCAA is serious this time. MU's punishment was a precursor. If the NCAA isn't serious, then we skate like the vast majority here believe. I recognize that possibility. I fear that we are an "example to be made."

@HighEliteMajor It's called lack of proof, man,,,, which is the only thing that they have... Why has Silvio been ruled eligible? And we never played Preston. So quick, what is our punishment going to be?

@HighEliteMajor Step away from your prosecutor's hat for a moment. The 80K was given for him to sign with Maryland. Unless you're prepared to hold every university accountable who had the relationship with the Adidas rep, then it doesn't hold water. Tell me how you think KU is accountable for an Adidas rep paying a handler 80 grand to get Silvio to go to Maryland? Even the worst KU critics would have to tie themselves up in knots to claim that. Now, the 2,500 is what is under question, but anything beyond that, imo, is simply wishful thinking.

@KUSTEVE And even the 2500, which Silvio denied and still denys knowledge of and for which there is not a shred of evidence. Why would the NCAA reinstate Silvio?

@KUSTEVE The $80,000 I was referring to was the money provided to Preston's mom.

Regarding SDS, a booster paid SDS money to go to Maryland. This makes him ineligible. It doesn't matter whether Adidas or some other third party paid Maryland or Kansas. It still makes the kid ineligible, and it still means we played an ineligible player. Further, it was our recruiting partner (booster) that did it. Gassnola. Our guy. Bill Self's guy. So we will be assumed to have that knowledge -- he's our agent. Acting on our behalf. But it's still a violation either way. @Marco, are you listening?

@Marco I'm pretty much done trying to explain this to you. You seem to simply want to ignore what I have said on this topic. And you don't understand the concept of "evidence." When someone testifies under oath, that's evidence. Text messages are evidence. The circumstances are evidence. And fact finders add up the evidence and come to a conclusion from the evidence. There doesn't have to be a video or audio. The conclusion is not a high standard, like a criminal trial is. It's a lower standard. But it's fine if you want to continue to claim there's no proof. Try thinking about this .. why was SDS ruled ineligible for a year if there was "no proof"? For nothing? Logic .. connect the dots. Our recruiting partner, Gassnola, testified that Preston's mom was paid $89,000. Try reading the definition of a university booster. It will help. Adidas called there recruiting involvements "Black Opps" -- one to many "p's", but that what they called it. And try to grasp this concept - if you pay a player to come to your college, it is still an NCAA violation even if he doesn't play (Preston). If other's pay your player to go somewhere else, and he goes to your school, he's still ineligible (SDS). Get it?

But I've said all this before.

Some snippets below -

Gassnola testified that he paid Preston’s mother, Nicole Player, and her partner $89,000 over the span of almost one year. That included a $30,000 payout made in early November 2016 at a New York hotel and $20,000 in January 2017 in Las Vegas. Gassnola, through his fiancée, wired $20,000 to Player’s partner, Timicha Kirby, in February 2017. Gassnola also sent Player $15,000 in June 2017 and $4,000 in late September 2017. Also Thursday, Gassnola testified he paid the guardian of current KU sophomore Silvio De Sousa $2,500 for online courses so that De Sousa could graduate high school. Gassnola also said he agreed to pay $20,000 to help the guardian repay a Maryland booster who gave him $60,000, but Gassnola never paid, he said.

In the case of the first KU player referenced, whose family was alleged to have received $90,000, the indictment states the agreement to pay the family was made in or around October 2016 “shortly after the student-athlete, who was considered one of the top recruits in his class, unofficially committed to attend the University of Kansas.” On Oct. 1, prized recruit Billy Preston attended KU’s Late Night in the Phog event. He then officially committed to KU in November.

In the email, Gassnola said he attended “Late Night in the Phog” on Oct. 10, 2014 and “met with Coach (Bill) Self.”

Self was asked during KU’s basketball media day in Lawrence about Gassnola’s email, which, according to Yahoo’s Dan Wetzel, also included that Gassnola “talked recruiting targets” and “assured (Self and his staff) we are here to help.”

“No I don’t have any response,” Self said when told of Wetzel’s reporting on Gassnola.

On Monday, they presented text messages to the court between Gassnola and the Kansas coaching staff, the most damning of which came on Sept. 19th, 2017, just days before Kansas — who is supposed to be the victim in this ordeal — announced that they had agreed to a 12-year, $191 million extension on a sponsorship deal with Adidas.

After Gassnola texted Self to thank him for helping get the deal done, Self responded by saying, “Just got to get a couple real guys.”

Gassnola: “In my mind, it’s KU, Bill Self. Everyone else fall into line. Too (expletive) bad. That’s what’s right for Adidas basketball. And I know I’m right. The more you have lottery picks and you happy. That’s how it should work in my mind.”

Self: “That’s how ur (sic) works. At UNC and Duke.”

Gassnola, after acknowledging that it works like this at Kentucky, too: “I promise you I got this. I have never let you down. Except (Deandre). Lol. We will get it right.”

@HighEliteMajor Listen, you can say what you will. It was money - was it ever even proven? - that was paid for him to go to Maryland not KU. And the other stuff is alleged - Alleged. Question, why is Silvio eligible to play at KU? I'll ask again.... Why, if there is so much wrongdoing, is Silvio eligible to play this year. You can keep beating the same drum and I will continue to ask the same question, why is he eligible? Why would he be eligible at all?

@HighEliteMajor He was eligible when he played. When the facts came out, we sat him for an entire year. The very worst they can do is "take away the wins" when he played. I'm not even sure they'll do that. But if they end up doing the "forfeit wins" as a punishment, so be it. If the NCAA decides it wants to get serious about corruption, and announce a full investigation into the recruitment benefits received by Zion Williamson from Nike and Dook, then I'll be more concerned. The fact that the NCAA came out and specifically made an unprecedented direct statement letting everyone know their big, bad investigation was not going to include Zion, Dook, and Nike tells me all i need to know. We are going up against the protection racket of Nike and Dook. The Zion story is so dirty, it's amazing he didn't have hundred dollar bills falling out of his socks while playing. There are essentially three different sources that all say Zion and his family received a boatload of money, and not a single peep from the NCAA.

We're the flagship university for the sworn enemy. I expect no less than a complete railroading from a dirty and corrupt organization, tainted indelibly by the stench of money. At some point, the truth about Nike's payola system, and Dook and Kentucky's method of paying huge money to their recruits will come out. The FBI investigation methods and results will come out as well. They were so concerned with an assistant coach at Okie St, they never had time to investigate Zion, even though people are practically falling all over themselves telling tales. You cannot tell me that 3 5star guards all want to play for Tucky at the same time because they "love" Big Blue. At some point, the Nike story is going to come out, and when it does, we're going to look like pikers. So, get your pound of flesh, NCAA. You're about to go down a lot harder than us.

@Marco There was $2,500 alleged to go to DeSousa's guardian so DeSousa could take online classes to graduate early and enroll at KU in December. That's a confirmed, under oath statement. There's also another $20,000 that didn't get delivered on KU's behalf because of the announcement of the Adidas investigation.

Arizona or LSU are going to be the NCAA's sacrificial lamb out of this round of investigations.

KU may get something out of this, but not playing Billy Preston is going go keep KU from taking the brunt of this.

Do we even know if Silvio took online classes?

@Texas-Hawk-10 Yeah, and again, if so then why is De Sousa going to play for KU this year?

@Marco DeSousa is going to play because an appeals committee decided a 2 year suspension was excessive and reduced it to a 1 year suspension. As @HighEliteMajor has pointed out multiple times on this issue, DeSousa will be a junior this season and not a redshirt sophomore. That means the appeals committee did not rescind DeSousa's suspension, they determined a violation happened in which a 1 year suspension was the appropriate punishment.

That's why vacating the games DeSousa played in as a freshman and possibly vacating the 2018 Final Four banner is a possibility. KU played a player who was suspended for 1 seasons for something that happened prior to DeSousa arriving at KU.

If you think the NCAA has any issues punishing a school for playing a player the NCAA cleared initially, then I'll direct you to Derrick Rose and Memphis. Rose was originally cleared by the NCAA Clearinghouse and retroactively ruled ineligible once the organization that administers the SAT ruled his test invalid later on.

@Texas-Hawk-10 I give you all of those points, but my arguement still stands. Rose's test score was invalidated due to an official paper trial, so to speak. Am I wrong? The accusations against De Sousa have never been proven.

@Marco he lost a year!

Texas Hawk 10 said:

Arizona or LSU are going to be the NCAA's sacrificial lamb out of this round of investigations.

KU may get something out of this, but not playing Billy Preston is going go keep KU from taking the brunt of this.

Agreed. Arizona went ahead and played players that were in question without a second thought. Not a good look. Could be much worse for us than some vague text messages and $2500.

@Marco It was never 100% proven that Rose didn't take the test. His score was tossed after the fact because of an irregularity. Rose also had no obligation to cooperate with the NCAA at that point because he was already out of college basketball at that point.

It was also 100% percent proven that there was an NCAA violation that occurred with Silvio DeSousa. That is why he was suspended and lost his sophomore year of eligibility. The question now for KU is whether or not that is the extent of punishment KU receives from the NCAA or if there are further punishments/sanctions coming.

Going based off of Josh Selby being suspended for 9 games for receiving about $6,000 in benefits from Tennessee. Why would Silvio receive a 2 year suspension for $2,500 in benefits?

That punishment came because Silvio's name was attached to over $80,000 in benefits received by his guardian prior to Silvio enrolling at KU which is why vacating the games Silvio played in during the 2017-18 season is still a concern.

The fact is KU played a player who was ineligible during the 2017-18 season and vacating the wins that Silvio played in is not a far fetched possibility.

The NCAA is not the legal system. They have zero obligation to use due process when they investigate their cases. They can issue punishment for something probably happening like they did with Derrick Rose. In a legal case, the Derrick Rose situation likely doesn't get a conviction/judgement in favor of the NCAA/testing agency because that case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Silvio originally got a 2 year suspension because of the $2,500 Fenny got and then $20,000 he agreed to take from Adidas. http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/ncaa-provides-reinstatement-decision-kansas-silvio-de-sousa ↗

Texas Hawk 10 said:

@Marco DeSousa is going to play because an appeals committee decided a 2 year suspension was excessive and reduced it to a 1 year suspension. As @HighEliteMajor has pointed out multiple times on this issue, DeSousa will be a junior this season and not a redshirt sophomore. That means the appeals committee did not rescind DeSousa's suspension, they determined a violation happened in which a 1 year suspension was the appropriate punishment.

That's why vacating the games DeSousa played in as a freshman and possibly vacating the 2018 Final Four banner is a possibility. KU played a player who was suspended for 1 seasons for something that happened prior to DeSousa arriving at KU.

If you think the NCAA has any issues punishing a school for playing a player the NCAA cleared initially, then I'll direct you to Derrick Rose and Memphis. Rose was originally cleared by the NCAA Clearinghouse and retroactively ruled ineligible once the organization that administers the SAT ruled his test invalid later on.

Isn't this what they were talking about when the committee was trying to get KU to admit that there WAS a Violation before they would rule on Silvio - and then the reduction AFTER KU came out and admitted the violation? - - seems like I thought I had saw something about they were waitin for KU - - I dunno - thought that played a part with Silvio - -maybe not. - - -ROCK CHALK ALLD AY LONG BABY

They'll probably set aside some wins and a Final Four appearance, but big woop. We watched it- we were there. I've always thought the win takeaways were down right silly anyway. It's like a non punishment punishment.

@Crimsonorblue22 Yes, I know... But they also reinstated him. Why would they do that? Why not just rule him ineligible, period? Anyway, we shall see.

I can see it going both ways. The KU fan in me sees no sanctions coming. The realist in me thinks something is coming, but nothing too harsh. The pessimist in me sees the death penalty coming.

Marco said:

@Crimsonorblue22 Yes, I know... But they also reinstated him. Why would they do that? Why not just rule him ineligible, period? Anyway, we shall see.

The NCAA Infractions Committee initially ruled Silvio DeSousa ineligible for 2 years for violations connected to his guardian. The University of Kansas filed an appeal on behalf of Silvio DeSousa because they believed the punishment to be excessive. This appeal was heard by the NCAA Appeals Committee which is a different group from who handled Silvio's case the first time. The Appeals Committee determined that the 2 year suspension was excessive for the violation committed and reduced it to a 1 year suspension.

@Texas-Hawk-10

Makes us wonder: What if the NCAA punishes us further for the Silvio case?

You are wise in pointing out the differing levels of bureaucracy.

Let's look at the totality of the situation...

NCAA's game of "flip-flop" -

NCAA approves Silvio for play :+1:

NCAA penalizes Silvio with 2-year ban :-1:

NCAA reduces ban to 1-year :+1:

NCAA punishes Kansas over the Silvio situation :-1:

Can you make sense of all of this? I'm probably leaving out a few decisions to further complicate the Silvio story...

Texas Hawk 10 said:

Marco said:

@Crimsonorblue22 Yes, I know... But they also reinstated him. Why would they do that? Why not just rule him ineligible, period? Anyway, we shall see.

The NCAA Infractions Committee initially ruled Silvio DeSousa ineligible for 2 years for violations connected to his guardian. The University of Kansas filed an appeal on behalf of Silvio DeSousa because they believed the punishment to be excessive. This appeal was heard by the NCAA Appeals Committee which is a different group from who handled Silvio's case the first time. The Appeals Committee determined that the 2 year suspension was excessive for the violation and reduced it to a 1 year suspension.

Okay, they ruled it to be excessive, and I am not trying to argue but only make a point. I guess what I'm getting at is that if the committee ruled it to be excessive then perhaps it felt that there was not much there to begin with, which takes me back to my original point. If there was actual proof that his guardian took cash and or that Silvio knew about it why not from the start just rule him all the way ineligible (not only 2 years, flat out ineligible)? Would that not be what the NCAA would normally do in such a situation?

But they did not do that because there is no proof (and I understand that they usually don't care about such a thing), though I am quite sure, at this point, that they have belatedly recognized their blunder and I am laughing at them! I believe that we have dodged the entire bullet. The NCAA sawed its own legs off with the original ruling ("We should have just ruled him ineligible!," they are now screaming) and the committee sawed those legs off even more. Anyway, last I'll talk about this topic. We shall see.

@Marco That's not what the NCAA does. It's not a one size fits all punishment. They issue punishments based on the amount of benefits received. Josh Selby received a 9 game suspension in 2010 for receiving about $6,000 in impermissible benefits.

I've specifically told you multiple times that it has been proven that Silvio's guardian did receive impermissible benefits on behalf of Silvio. You can choose to ignore that all you want, but it doesn't change that TJ Gassnola paid Silvio DeSousa's guardian and admitted that under oath during the Adidas trial. That is 100% indisputable evidence.

Based on the testimony of a man who plead guilty to defrauding the University of Kansas, Silvio DeSousa's guardian received somewhere between $62,500 and $82,500 in benefits on DeSousa's behalf from Under Armour and Adidas. The testimony stated that $60,000 was paid by an Under Armour representative to persuade Silvio to attend Maryland. Silvio did not want to go to Maryland so TJ Gassnola had arranged a $20,000 payment to Silvio's guardian so he could began paying Under Armour back and Silvio could attend Kansas. Gassnola's testimony stated that he did not make the $20,000 payment because the FBI investigation of Adidas youth basketball was announced before he could make the dropoff. He did however admit to providing $2,500 to cover the cost of online classes Silvio needed so he could graduate high school early and enroll at KU when he did. It is no longer relevant to the NCAA if Silvio knew about those benefits because of the NCAA closing that loophole after the Cam Newton pay for play case.

Not everyone who is found guilty of receiving impermissible benefits in the eyes of the NCAA is ruled permanently ineligible. The amount the NCAA Infractions Committee determined was connected to Silvio through his guardian warranted a 2 year suspension for Silvio. The NCAA Appeals Committee determined that based on their evidence that a 1 year suspension was the appropriate punishment for the benefits received.

It's really not that different from the legal system in which the punishment escalates based on the severity and/or number of times a law has been broken.

I think you're way over thinking and way over complicating the matter.

@Texas-Hawk-10 Probably, yeah......

Given the NCAA has administered it's ruling and punishment (2 year suspension) and then further adjusted that punishment, deeming it too excessive (now 1 year), wouldn't further review (to ultimately determine that games must be vacated) be considered double jeopardy?

@bskeet that was the players punishment. The U could still be found culpable. Hope not, but with the ncaa who knows?

@dylans ah.. i get it, but it kind of sucks...

Didn't know there was a serving of humble pie for everyone involved.

The athlete

The university

The guardian

The shoe company...

... sorry, fell asleep and was dreaming for a moment.

So to sum it up, we as a fan base are basically "yeah, we were bad and we're gonna get spanked, even though everyone else should get spanked too. but we're the middle kid ... so ... you know"

But we're also like Lloyd with Ms. Samsonite ... "you're telling me there's a chance!"

@bskeet

As a university, we've had our humble pie served up years ago when we worked with the NCAA to develop a model compliance program.

In more colorful terms... we had our "Cool Hand Luke" moment where Luke was finally broken down by Boss.

But then... we know what happened after that!

I saw that UConn got served.

Ollie... Ollie... out of here...

Cleaver move by UCONN to get reinstated in the Big East before the big news. UCONN proves, once again, that winning a few rings does not make a program a "blue blood."

Speaking of the Big East... who they going to recruit now for that 12th spot? Makes me wonder if Wichita State is pounding on their door for entry.... even though they have more than they can chew in the AAC.

🐦 View Tweet

NC State, officially.

Hahahahahaha f those guys

@BShark NC State didn't even make all these reporter's lists as one in trouble.

NC State, hit... Kind of feels like a game of Battleship, huh?... Okay, they got NC State.........

Love that flimsy excuse that the UNC bogus classes also had non-athletes attending, therefore it wasn't rigged for the athletes.

I still put this offense as far worse than an athlete or family member receiving a few bucks. The academic fraud cheapens the overall reputation of education and hurts everyone.

..... You guys know where my rose colored glasses wearing self stands.

@drgnslayr 95% of UNC's athletes participated. At first, it was only for athletes. Then, someone had the brilliant idea of opening it to the student body, so if they got caught, they could claim it was an academic issue- not an athletic one. Ingenious scam.

UNC's fraudulent classes crossed from an NCAA issue to a Department of Education issue once they opened those classes to regular students as well.

And are to this day a giant pain in my ass

It is now August. Do with this information what you will.

@bshark Yay. Jah-lul is over.

BShark said:

It is now August. Do with this information what you will.

I’ve understood from most of the posts here that the NCAA has no case, no evidence, and that we’re going to skate. So I’m quite sure we have nothing to worry about ... right?

@HighEliteMajor My position has not changed.

I still do not believe anyone gets dinged for this latest round of violations coming out of the ShoeCo investigations.

The NCAA needs the ShoeCos. Every athletic department makes tons of money off ShoeCos. Not just P5. Not just D1. Every athletic department is receiving ShoeCo money. If the NCAA disrupts that relationship, there are a lot of D2 and D3 programs that outright cannot make their athletic budgets work without the money and equipment they receive from ShoeCos. The NCAA knows they would put some programs under if they ran ShoeCos out of the equation.

The only way to avoid doing that is to ding a few players here and there, hit a handful of coaches and boosters, but avoid dinging the schools themselves so they don't disrupt those lucrative relationships.

My question is, are they ever going to wrap the damn thing up? It is all about shoe money and the NCAA - they need to be very careful here, trust me - knows that, and they also can't help but know that all of the shoe companies are and have been doing it, Nike in particular. You guys know where I stand on this issue, we shall see.

@justanotherfan

I agree. I feel like the NCAA can't afford to make it look like some programs are targeted while others they avoid from pursuit.

Consider the Zion situation and the Townsend comment. How do we get penalized for that while Zion attended Duke? Did we commit an offense while Duke did not? I realize there are other issues but the overall situation relates to ShoeCo money.

Is the NCAA saying the ShoeCos only throw money at players for a few schools?

I see an idea that the NCAA uses this to create stricter guidelines for all schools.

@drgnslayr

I get your point, but the NCAA can't put in too many guidelines without squeezing out ShoeCo money, and most non-revenue sports depend on that money (and equipment) to help manage their budgets.

Track and Field, Soccer, Volleyball, Swimming, etc. would all be in significant budget trouble if not for ShoeCo money, as that money pays for the equipment and apparel side of their budget. That's why there is so much ShoeCo money in each school, and why KU is with Adidas instead of Nike right now. Simply put, Adidas offered KU more for their non-revenue sports than Nike did. That made all of the difference in the contract negotiations.

ShoeCos will continue to do what they want because the NCAA can't host sports like gymnastics, softball, lacrosse, soccer, baseball, hockey, track and field, etc., or lower divisions without ShoeCo money (even D2 and D3 schools have small contracts with ShoeCos for apparel and equipment).

There's just too much money in too many people's hands to shove this genie back into the bottle.

Title IX depends on shoe money. Women's sports would not exist without shoe money.

So its all about money. So shocked

Texas Hawk 10 said:

Title IX depends on shoe money. Women's sports would not exist without shoe money.

Neither would craps, if you listen to the number of rollers praying for Baby to get a "new pair of shoes."

If you're not cheating, you're not trying! That seems to be the lesson learned here? That goes for Universities, students, parents, coaches, investigators, and the NCAA. Universities and coaches want wins/championships. Parents and students want money for services (I am not saying every parent and student).The NCAA wants to make as much money as possible, while playing favorites. Even investigators have alma maters. Everyone appears to have an agenda?

Texas Hawk 10 said:

Title IX depends on shoe money. Women's sports would not exist without shoe money.

Not just women's sports. All sports other than football, men's basketball and (in some cases) women's basketball. Those are the only sports that could likely survive without ShoeCo money. Smaller sports have no chance.

Depressing.. and yet reassuring.

And the only reason we have the Shoeco money is men’s CBB and football. It’s what we already know.Women’s sports are independently unsustainable. Meaning they lose money.

@HighEliteMajor bingo! The only reason they exist in the first place in large part is a federal mandate. Men's hoops and football subsidize the women's sports to a huge degree. In our case, Adidas pays to advertise with us in football and men's basketball. Just as a matter of KU being their flagship that they also pay to outfit all women's and men's non-revenue sports.

Utah has been punished for KU's crimes.

@BShark Cleveland St must feel slighted...

Utah got the book thrown at them. Look at these overwhelming penalties:

$5,000 fine (self-imposed)

8% reduction in official visits in 2018-19 (self-imposed)

A show-cause penalty lasting one year for the associate head coach, including a one-week suspension from Nov. 13-Nov. 19, 2019.

A prohibition of all four countable men's basketball coaches from off-campus recruiting for a five-day period from July 11-15, 2018 (self-imposed)

A reduction of men's basketball in-person recruiting days from 130 to 113 for the 2018-19 academic year (self-imposed)

I'm surprised they didn't take dessert away for a week...

I understand Utah self-reported the violations. Stand up guys...

KansasComet said:

If you're not cheating, you're not trying! That seems to be the lesson learned here?

It's a feeling felt all through college sports today. Just one more reason why I'd like to see us go the road of character... hard work, focusing on development with the players committed to stay awhile and develop.

It bothers me to experience our school being drug through the dirt.

I feel like we owe it to Naismith and to the game.... get off the elite roller coaster of selling out who we are and put our determination to work to build a program built on character. I'm convinced we will win as much as we win now and probably more. And we win on the character scale and that should count for everything!

@drgnslayr i think we're already on the right path. I love our recruits this year. I want the Devontes, the Franks, and the Agbajis of the world- the guys that unpack the bags, and are here for multiple years. No OAD mentality- no guaranteed minutes.

@KUSTEVE

I think we were forced to take lower recruits because we missed on all the top shelf players. I haven't heard or seen any changes in our approach to the game from a coaching style. Maybe this class will show our staff that this is the way to go, but they will have to be on board to doing the extra work to get to a higher level and the coaching staff will have to push them harder (though they are limited by NCAA regs). We will see.

@drgnslayr Then I'll keep cheering when we miss out on Mr. Big Time OAD. Experience wins in the NCAA- show ponies look good, but they don't win the hardware.

A roster of OADs isn’t any good. One or two on an experienced team is a great way to put them over the top.

A roster of OADs only works if they are complimentary to each other.

For instance, Duke had tons of talent on this year's roster, but Williamson, Barrett, and Reddish did not really compliment each other on the floor. Duke would have been better served to have Zion with a guy like Tyler Herro in place of Reddish to help space the floor with shooting without needing the ball in his hands. That would have been a better fit than Barrett and Reddish, who always seemed to be in each other's way because they played the same style and position.

Duke had similar issues playing Wendell Carter and Marvin Bagley together. They were tremendously talented, but also in each other's way. Trade either of them for a high skill wing player (Kevin Knox, maybe) and that Duke team becomes virtually unstoppable.

It's all about making sure the pieces fit because you don't have enough practice time to force the fit, and the players themselves don't have enough experience to adjust their style to create a fit.

This OAD stuff is easy. When you don't have bright line rule, you leave yourself open to making poor, emotional decisions. Just say no.

Just look at as a scale. You put the positives on one side, the negatives on the other. Unequivocally, the negatives outweigh the positives. When folks talk about OADs positively, there is citation to remote examples. The remoteness of the positives and the conditions that might make a situation workable, demonstrates why it should not be a strategy.

I've long supported the idea of grabbing one if you have an opening/need, and you're not displacing the type of player that is the core of your program from the starting role. My position now has become even more strict on this. Easy. Just say no.

You can develop long term poy type guys (frank) in the same class as the number 1 recruit (Wiggins) and salvage an otherwise doomed season. It’s all about balance that is hard to obtain. You also never know when a guy will go supernova. Those non-presumed OADs are awesome, even though you lose the player - they produced at the highest level (McLemore,Embiid). Presumed OADs that don’t produce, take up minutes and leave any way are the worst (Grimes).

KUSTEVE said:

Utah got the book thrown at them. Look at these overwhelming penalties:

$5,000 fine (self-imposed)

8% reduction in official visits in 2018-19 (self-imposed)

A show-cause penalty lasting one year for the associate head coach, including a one-week suspension from Nov. 13-Nov. 19, 2019.

A prohibition of all four countable men's basketball coaches from off-campus recruiting for a five-day period from July 11-15, 2018 (self-imposed)

A reduction of men's basketball in-person recruiting days from 130 to 113 for the 2018-19 academic year (self-imposed)

I'm surprised they didn't take dessert away for a week...

That, my friend, is funny!!

I feel like we've underutilized most of our players over the years because of not being focused enough on development. I gripe and I gripe and I gripe... and I'm yet to see players executing the very basic elements of the game, like sealing the boards or hedging properly. When players stick around, they tend to improve in the basics some... at least better than OADs.

Look at a player like TRele. That guy was effective and he had so many factors working against him. He wasn't extremely athletic... no great size... but he brought defense with him. I wouldn't go so far as to say he mastered defense... but compared to almost every player we've had since him, none can compare. In a very different area, Withey is another fine example. Here was a guy that showed up on campus and was a complete klutz. Look what he did with his game by the time he graduated. And he could have reached his potential sooner but he had to chuck down protein shakes like his life depended on it. Kevin Young... the guy was bone skinny. But he understood hustle. He contributed far and above for what he physically brought to the game.

Where is the example of the uber athlete? The OAD? The TAD?

I'm sick of the drama. I'm sick of the prima donnas. I'm sick of dragging our school in the mud. I'm sick of having "cosmetic players."

I want to see real basketball again. I want us to recruit players that will show up after their homework and work on their game until 2am every night. They can sleep later in life.

These players exist. They are scattered across America... diffused in a landscape of mediocrity.

I want to see players EARN their cred... not the ones who arrive on campus with a herd of media and admirers behind them.

We can't win big with lower star players if we don't have the right developmental environment. We haven't had that environment in the past. We have to deal with the distractions from the frenzy following elite players that probably never watched a Kansas game growing up.

@drgnslayr I've been thinking the same thing. Our overall D for the past 4 or 5 years has really sucked, and I miss it. Imo alot of it is due to Bill just not having the horses and having to get away from the high-low (and losing his assistants), or am I wrong? I know one thing, I am really looking forward to this season - gonna have some bigs again.

@drgnslayr I get where you’re coming from, but you’ve got to take talent. I don’t hate the TAD Dotson. I expect improvement from him next season. His decision making initiating the offense should improve, as should his ability to attack the rim. I hope he’s worked on his shot, it didn’t feel like he could sustain the percentage he shot last year with a bigger sample size (like Sr Miles).

Other impact OAD/TADs - McLemore and Arthur the later of which dropped 20 in the national championship game.

You also never know who’s going to stick around like a Rush or Harrison Barnes type. Recruiting would be easy if you could just have your pick of kids, but all Bill can do is choose among the ones that want to come. Can you freaking believe some kids would rather play at Duke?!?🤮 I can’t money must be involved.

This is not that complicated. If a guy is a presumed OAD, you skip him. Period. McLemore and Arthur were not presumed OADs .. they were the perfect recruits. Highly ranked guys that were not presumed to turn pro after one season.

If there happens to be a player that comes in, not a presumed OAD, blows the doors off his freshman season, and then goes to the draft, that's the way it goes. That isn't really the issue. It's whether, as a program, we just say no to presumed OADs.

The point is that the garbage that comes with the presumed OADs -- the ones that everyone knows are just here for the season -- is not worth getting a guy that then stays two years, or whatever, here or there.

@Marco

Q had great size for his position and he was a zero. Actually... a minus. The old saying really is what it is about... "it isn't the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog."

I'm with you and excited for our current team. Go to Kusports and read about Braun. That kid is going to be a baller. He's getting after it and I bet he turns out to be the player I keep talking about.

@dylans

I hear you. And Devon is a keeper. He wasn't that top elite coming in and the players I'm talking about. He is at that top talent level we should consider. Even he rides a certain border because of leaving early. The guys who leave early are very disruptive to the continuity of the team. We need the 3, 4 and 5 year guys to produce the "glue" we need.

I realize there is the school rep of being a "blue blood." Many thinks that means we should be able to fill the roster with top shelf players. And we have been able to score many over these past years. But I don't think any of them really helped us get anywhere. We didn't win a title with them. Not a single title. And many of those players brought us trouble.... distractions... and then, the total break in continuity by leaving early. They really keep us from developing the team unity we need for several reasons. First... they are treated different from other players. They have their own rules on being pulled from games, etc. Then.... they leave early so we have a big hole in our roster where another player would have returned to develop continuity and it is the continuity that truly helps create team unity.

@drgnslayr I'm with you on the OADs, have never been a big fan, just don't see a huge upside. Anyway, that stupid rule will soon be gone the way of the dodo, and I'm glad.

@Marco

I hope you are right on ending OADs. I think they’ve been a huge negative to the game. Not trying to demonize the elites… obviously, they possess some of the best talent and are just trying to get to the pros and start earning a living asap.

@drgnslayr Trade Zion for Grimes and last year would’ve been a bit more successful imo. Ie a streak of 15 instead of 0.

@dylans

Very possible, but no guarantees. Team dynamics are complex and there are no certainties.

I like the idea of having a team full of guys who are in a similar boat. The way we create consistent success is through careful recruiting of hungry players with plenty of potential and then have the right development program. I wonder what would happen if we had a sports psychologist somewhere in this formula? Someone specifically looking at team dynamics.

I could see us looking at recruiting players together from the same HS team. Carefully evaluate their relationship, looking for certain characteristics.

David Silver said as recently as May that the OAD rule will soon be gone. Once it is, I'm assuming Self won't have a problem recruiting top shelf guys that want to develop.

Last year's team was flawed. Unless Grimes had come in and been a Ben McLemore or better type player, its unlikely KU's roster would have gotten us through the Big 12 last season. Even if Grimes had been that good, there's still a chance that with two strong teams in the conference, KU may not have been able to knock off both. Last year was the perfect storm - flawed KU team, two other programs with one of their best teams in the last two decades (probably the best Texas Tech team ever). I think Tech wins the conference last year even if Grimes had come in and met expectations, unless he played like a top 3 pick (something that even the most optimistic people would not have been thinking last year).

justanotherfan said:

Last year's team was flawed. Unless Grimes had come in and been a Ben McLemore or better type player, its unlikely KU's roster would have gotten us through the Big 12 last season. Even if Grimes had been that good, there's still a chance that with two strong teams in the conference, KU may not have been able to knock off both. Last year was the perfect storm - flawed KU team, two other programs with one of their best teams in the last two decades (probably the best Texas Tech team ever). I think Tech wins the conference last year even if Grimes had come in and met expectations, unless he played like a top 3 pick (something that even the most optimistic people would not have been thinking last year).

Last year's team was so short-handed. No Doke. No Silvio.

I think the season could have turned out differently had we been at full strength.

@approxinfinity

Eliminating the early entry rule into the NBA would only partially end the OAD situation. Even allowing players back to school after testing NBA waters is only a partial help.

There will always be the players that are straddling the talent level to jump sooner so they will go a year in college.

And we should all support players improving as fast as possible to make a living. We know the risks are high and they need a quick path.

But we also see the harm in creating a cohesive team. Revolving door teams are not good for the game or for any school. Having even one or two players leaving OAD can create issues.

Removing special treatments for players is a different story. That is a coaching philosophy requiring discipline and the removal of thinking greedy about talent.

I know I'm preaching. And I question my own beliefs. Wanting players to sacrifice a big chunk of the college experience is something I question about my beliefs. Sometimes it feels like I put my own desires and expectations above the players with this concept of development. Obviously, there needs to be some balance with the players.

But I do believe "my way" is a better choice than our current direction. I just need an occasional "smack in the head" reality check on what is fair and quality to the players. They deserve a quality college experience even if they are vying for multi-million dollar contracts later. There has to be a line drawn somewhere concerning "sacrifice."

Kcmatt7 said:

justanotherfan said:

Last year's team was flawed. Unless Grimes had come in and been a Ben McLemore or better type player, its unlikely KU's roster would have gotten us through the Big 12 last season. Even if Grimes had been that good, there's still a chance that with two strong teams in the conference, KU may not have been able to knock off both. Last year was the perfect storm - flawed KU team, two other programs with one of their best teams in the last two decades (probably the best Texas Tech team ever). I think Tech wins the conference last year even if Grimes had come in and met expectations, unless he played like a top 3 pick (something that even the most optimistic people would not have been thinking last year).

Last year's team was so short-handed. No Doke. No Silvio.

I think the season could have turned out differently had we been at full strength.

We win the league with Doke easily submit post

We still would've been drilled by Auburn in the 2nd round and Doke wouldn't have made a difference. We were toast against 4 out teams last year.

KUSTEVE said:

We still would've been drilled by Auburn in the 2nd round and Doke wouldn't have made a difference. We were toast against 4 out teams last year.

Add in a right minded Vick and playing the right defense, 4/1 teams wouldn't scare me one bit. Now, Auburn in particular, that team was on a roll. If their big guy doesn't get injured, they win the NC I think. But I think with our full projected roster, we were the best team.

@HighEliteMajor So, you think a Vick would've made all the difference in our perimeter defense against 4 out teams. Interesting. The year before, the "right minded" Vick didn't seem to help us much against 4 out teams, or 5 out teams, as was the case with Villanova. Our weak link over the years has been perimeter defense - last year was the worst. I'm going to have to agree to disagree on your assertion about fielding a competent lineup last year that wouldn't get buried from the 4 out. It's not every year we get drilled by 30 in conference play, and get down by 25 at the half in the NCAA tournament.

@KUSTEVE

No doubt... our perimeter defense over recent years has stunk.

I'm not sure what our guards are being taught... but they need to guard space less and guard players more.

This is part of that "developmental program" I'm talking about. Teaching players how to hedge. They need an education in "close-out timing" and then apply the proper hedge spacing.

We guard a lot of useless space... space where nothing is happening.

Players need to realize where that space is and the importance of getting out of that space.

When you see defensive breakdowns, often caused by offenses with proper spacing and good ball movement, there are defenders standing in that useless space. Standing! So the defense isn't 5 players at that moment guarding... usually 4 or 3 defenders. That's called a "breakdown."

Players need to move their feet more and quickly travel through the useless space to get where they can defend. Stop standing where they are actually not even counted as being a defender anymore.

This is the sort of situation that drives guys like me crazy. I'd love to see real defense at Kansas! The only way to get there is to season players with the right coaching to develop their skills as players and as a team.

I know I complain about this. Kansas and Bill Self offer one of the better coaching situations in college basketball today! We just need to be geared a bit more towards coaching versus recruiting. Then let the recruiting catch up as our reputation grows in development. I'm not hearing enough from players bragging about how much they learn at Kansas and we aren't seeing it enough on the court.

KUSTEVE said:

@HighEliteMajor So, you think a Vick would've made all the difference in our perimeter defense against 4 out teams. Interesting. The year before, the "right minded" Vick didn't seem to help us much against 4 out teams, or 5 out teams, as was the case with Villanova. Our weak link over the years has been perimeter defense - last year was the worst. I'm going to have to agree to disagree on your assertion about fielding a competent lineup last year that wouldn't get buried from the 4 out. It's not every year we get drilled by 30 in conference play, and get down by 25 at the half in the NCAA tournament.

I’m not sure how you conclude that I would believe that Vick would make a difference in our perimeter defense.

I think a right-minded Vick would give us an explosive offensive force from three point range, as he did before he spiraled. Something we would need to compete more completely.

I also also believe that our defensive scheme ... how we guard the line ... was horrible as you note. Thus my reference to a better scheme.

I said a right-minded Vick AND playing the right defense.

@HighEliteMajor so no Dedric?

@Crimsonorblue22 Dedric at the 4, Doke at the 5. Dotson, Grimes, Vick. Just like we had early on.

@HighEliteMajor against auburn? No way! Dedric is incapable of playing D or getting back that quick.

@Crimsonorblue22 Ah, not true on the first two items I think. You need to play the right defense. The right scheme.

Let me ask this. If we line the 3 point line with our five guys. The played zone and covered the line like a glove, how many 3 pointers get made? Right, probably only a few. But we give up buckets over and over at the rim. A focus on the three point line is obviously not that extreme, but it’s a different mindset. A different approach. Dialing that back to a reasonable degree.

Getting Dedric back is really insignificant. That’s never his responsibility anyway. Now, of course, there would be times where that might cost us a few points. But it’s not major impact on the game.

The best way to beat 4/1 is a strong 3/2 scheme that plays inside out setting up a good rate of three pointers combined with the big advantage inside. And, in my humble opinion, a 3-2 zone vs the better 4/1 teams where you use the 3 top defenders and one low defender to rotate and force a higher rate of 2 pt jumpers. You can also play man and switch most everything in certain areas on the floor. Again, you expose yourself in other areas. But against the 4/1, 3 pt assasins, I like a different poison.

The team defense (not every player, but as a whole) last year totally sucked. I haven't been too impressed with our defense - particularly on the perimeter - for quite a few years now. Winning the conference last year, even with a healthy Dok? Imo, no,,,, but that's just an opinion. One thing that is fact, though, is that this year's team is not last's! And, man, am I glad for that.

@HighEliteMajor if I remember right, sometimes questionable, didn't the first half they score most of their pts in transition, fast break? I can see d dot going from 1 guy to another before anyone could get back to help. I think your D is fine, but in that game they scored before we could ever set up.

Marco said:

The team defense (not every player, but as a whole) last year totally sucked. I haven't been too impressed with our defense - particularly on the perimeter - for quite a few years now. Winning the conference last year, even with a healthy Dok? Imo, no,,,, but that's just an opinion. One thing that is fact, though, this year's team is not last's! And, man, am I glad for that.

like you said - - - our perimeter D has sucked. - There was/have been countless times where opposition had WIDE open 3 pt attempts and we paid dearly on a lot of those occasions - There was either NO defender - - OR a Defender that had the Olay approach - just kinda half hearted feeble last second run half way out and wave an arm - -Not sure in who's book that would be called Defense - -ROCK CHALK ALL DAY LONG BABY

Defense is mostly hustle, positioning, communication and having one collective mentality.

Every defensive scheme has weaknesses. It's up to the defense to limit those weaknesses, and sometimes mask them, too.

And after players are in our system for a few years they should be able to think on their own and adjust their positioning some during a game to reduce where we are being exploited. It shouldn't require Self calling timeout every time we need to tweak our defense slightly. This requires our players having developed their basketball IQ.

Think back over some of our bad defensive games. In those games we would get smoked at the same exploit over and over again. Even though Self is a true HOFr... he can't know everything happening out there. Players have to take responsibility to fix much of the problems themselves. Often, it just means positioning slightly different, or running a fake to steal the ball, or moving feet more to avoid a switch, etc.

None of this is rocket science. But these guys are young, and they are playing in front of thousands of people and the pressure is on! I complain a lot... but I am usually amazed at how well these kids do under the circumstances. That doesn't mean we loosen expectations and stop pushing them.

@jayballer73 We haven't played real good defense in years. Last year was the bottoming out. I think last year paves the way for this year, when we will be one of the best in the country.

@Crimsonorblue22 Kind of like Nova the year before, right? I know you think the game might not have been winnable. You might be right. But I think games turn greatly on coaching strategy and scheme, and that can roadblock hot shooting.

Self is just behind the curve regarding three pt defense. That’s a theme here in the discussions on our poor defense. It’s a different strategy. It’s hard for coaches to change their spots. Like opening his mind to more three pointers, 4/1, etc. Certain normally reliable concepts don’t cut it vs some of these sophisticated three pt attacks. In fact, it exposes us vs some teams when schemed against.

Coaching is key. It’s why Boeheim can have a better 2-3 zone than anyone else. He knows how to coach it. It’s in his blood.

Self’s defenses have always been geared to defend inside out. To protect the basket. And he is a master at it.

@HighEliteMajor we can't play his 2 bigs against that auburn or that Villanova team. There were times we couldn't play withey w/Trob. I don't think we've played very good D since they stepped up the rules. I think that hurt us, but with the players we've had the last 4-5 years, to slow joe! That ou game there last year, 🤮 was the worst defensive effort I've ever seen. Simple basic D principles. See ball see man, etc. and grimes was the worst!