So, it sounds like KU was in the mix, that he delayed his decision seeing how things shook out at KU, but the FBI B.S. took KU out of the mix. Nice.
I wonder, if there wasn't any indictment, but the info about Adidas paying DeSousa and Preston had come out (without the indictment), would the reaction be the same?
Maybe. Fear of sanctions maybe. I don't know.
When you are associated with this stuff and KU is a part of that in any way, it is not a good thing. That is for sure.
@dylans The reality is that the CBB rules issue is a distinctly political one. It simply cannot be avoided. It brings out the political perspectives because it is one's political perspective that colors one's view on the business, ownership, capitalism, athlete (pro and amateur), fairness, laws, rules, enforcement, justice, etc. I don't know how we avoid it on the CBB rules topic.
@dylans That is applicable to 95% of the threads. The CBB rules thread was a different animal. Heck, it even inspired a "black power" avatar. Which at least makes me chuckle.
Oh, I think he's going to IU. A guy told me.
Oh, I think he's going to Vandy. A guy told me.
Oh, I think he's going to KU. A guy told me.
So, is the "banned" thing with @Kcmatt7 real?
@BShark No, it's not that simple. Sometimes sports and politics mix. Meaning, issues that relate to a topic overlap. What is so offensive? Sometimes debate and discussion is uncomfortable. This is a topic with a lot of depth and a lot of implications. We should embrace the discussion. If a topic bleeds into the political end, then folks can avoid that thread. While discussions will stray, this was related to the CBB rules and it was being discussed in a much broader context. That shouldn't be shut down because it's uncomfortable.
Well, since a free and open discussion is such a threat to humanity, that a thread gets locked, we better watch our step. We can't have lively debate?Too offensive. Too threatening. I wholeheartedly disagree with a number of the comments on the other thread, but in the entire discussion I never saw a "shut up" or "your opinion is worthless" or cursing. Further, I didn't see any name calling. Just good, hearty debate. We should not be scared or offended by that. It was directly related to CBB topic, and just because points or issues stray, I personally don't believe a thread should get shut down. But, @Bshark says "nope" so it's shut down. I guess those that don't want to participate can not simply click on other threads.
@mayjay Privilege. What a joke. It's the refrain of the loser. You are a deep blue leftist, aren't you? Everyone has challenges. Height, weight, health, brains, looks, dexterity, eye sight, strength, coordination, finances, ability to articulate, etc. The one thing that is undeniable is that if you fixate on your challenges, you cannot achieve. It's easy to hold on to that because it gives one a built in excuse for failure. There is nothing in this country that anyone is prohibited from achieving. Chew on that. The "privilege" whiners want to take, not earn. I challenge anyone to compete with me, and beat me. But when folks with your un-American mindset want to take what I have, uh, yea, I think I'll challenge that.
What you and others clearly ignore is that my approach is what made this country great. It isn't fair. But it created the greatest country on earth. Folks like you ignore history, ignore the rest of the world, and ignore the alternative. There is no better alternative anywhere on earth. I laugh when folks point to a few European countries -- that wouldn't exist (vs. Nazis or Soviets) if America didn't step in, and continue through today to provide the free world safety.
Of course, everything I've ever said on this topic is encouraging of players earning whatever then can. Free market. Go do it. Someone mentioned Lebron. Terrific. Well earned. Not a jealous bone in my body. Do I wish I had his talent? Of course. I don't. But I utilize my skills to make money, best I can.
But do I fixate on the physical "privilege" that God gave Lebron? Nope. Why did he deserve that? How did he earn his genetics? Anymore than why did Chelsea Clinton or George W. Bush deserve their place in life? Basketball is just a game. But our system puts value on what Lebron does. More value than on what Chelsea or George W. does/did. It's not fair, though, right? Lebron, Chelsea, or George W.
Nothing in life is fair. Someone's always got it better, and someone's always got it worse. The best solution is to permit folks avenues to compete and achieve. And in America, everyone can do that.
@benshawks08 No, telling an organization how to run it's business is what we're discussing. You're reference to "deregulation" is wildly misplaced. I'm for a free market that competes with the NCAA. And if the free market beats the NCAA, then that's how it goes. It won't. The product is too good, and the opportunity is too good. Top players play CBB. The total package is too good.
And fair? Fair is taking someone's money and giving to someone else. Hmmm. Interesting. Your priority would be the kids. Sounds admirable. If that's the case, I suggest you donate half your earnings to a charity supporting kids, I mean, since that's your priority. You can live more frugally I assume, since kids are your priority. Is it easier to give away someone else's money?
I want players to earn millions. But unlike @mayjay, I don't begrudge rich people, or institutions, for being rich and wanting to keep their money.
This is a political discussion. That's all this is. If one reads the commentary of @Kcmatt7 @mayjay and @justanotherfan, this is the leftist mantra.
Today, we see the reference to race by @Kcmatt7 and the "privileged elite" by @mayjay, and the 'benefit(ting) everyone in the community" from @justanotherfan -- That's what this is. The leftist dogma that overwhelms any real perspective on the college basketball discussion.
It is very simple. Leftists, in the big picture, want to redistribute wealth. They want to take what someone else owns and earns, and give it to others.
It's the infamous social justice arguments. Everything is so unfair. Find someone, call them evil because they have more, and whatever follows is justified. It's easy to join the arguments, it's easy "feel" bad because something is "unfair." It's easy to say that someone is privileged to make you feel better because you (or others) are relative failures, or not as smart, or not as motivated, or not as hard working. It's an ignorant pursuit. The "x" factors are ignored. That is all this is.
No one in the NCAA or CBB is stopping a college basketball player from making a living. All they are saying is that if you play under our umbrella, there are rules. Our rules. It's really that simply. The crying and whining is about an organization's rules -- rules no one is forced to be a part of.
Ah, but that would invoke a phrase that leftists hate -- personal responsibility.
It drives the leftists mad. How dare the NCAA and universities construct rules that the leftists see as unfair? They demand to change the rules.
Instead of making your own business, and earning your own money, the preference of the leftist is to take what another has made and earned, and give it someone else. Here, they want to take money that is not the players' money to begin with, and give it to the players.
It doesn't matter that the player coming into CBB doesn't own the product, doesn't own the facilities, doesn't own the TV and shoe contracts, and did nothing to build the product. It doesn't matter that the player enters CBB and the rules of CBB voluntarily. That is all ignored by the leftist.
And, again, that goes to the leftists core beliefs. Just let the player and parents off the hook for entering the contract. Abdicate personal responsibility. Blame others for your lot in life. Blame others for failures. Heck, blame inanimate objects. That's the left.
Oh, I know. It's tugs at the heart strings. These poor players. Many have nothing. Many have one parent. Many families have nothing. So, it's easy, pay them. Oh, and it's easy to pay them so they won't cheat. Right.
It is a much greater intellectual exercise to resist the urge of "feelings" and what is "fair."
As I referred to quite a ways up in this thread, it's no different than stupidity of insisting on an artificial $15 an hour wage when the skill set and market won't support it, and then bemoaning the evil business owner that trims his staff. To be an owner, it has to be worthwhile. The risk/reward has to be there. That is ignored.
Anytime there is money, the leftists will want to take it. Doesn't matter whose money it is. That's all this is, just in another package.
@justanotherfan I agree on one piece .. talent level matters. But the overall talent level is not as good, relatively speaking, as the 80s where you had the best players staying for four years. And CBB is booming. Talent level matters to a certain point. There is a point where D-1 would become less of a draw. But it isn't near that now. Take the best 3 players off of every team, and you have the exact same draw and product (I believe).
Do you agree that competition is the best path?
@mayjay Your statement can be said for anything ... meaning you can mock it with all caps, and then start a slide down a slippery slope. That slide down the slippery slope starts with simple things, ones that don't seem to cause bigger issues. But the slide deepens.
Hey kid, come here. I'll buy 1000 of your autographs for $20 each. Just go to Kentucky. Or I'll pay you $200,000 if you'll permit me to use your picture in selling my cars. It just so happens that I have a dealership in Columbia, so the deal is off if you don't go to MU.
So, more and more rules, right? Rules that someone will always think is unreasonable and want to change.
It amazes me how little thought is given to this.
Why not permit a kid to wear Nike instead of Adidas? Why not permit a kid to advertise for the NRA? Or for Planned Parenthood? Where are the lines? Are the lines areas that will be polarizing? Why should schools be able to dictate what areas their preferences will have priority?
Of course, the Olympics has zero to do with CBB. Not the same business model. Not the same product. Not the same scope. Not near the same issues. An irrelevant comparison. Much like me suggesting that McDonalds should pay their entry level folks what Boeing pays their entry level folks. Totally different businesses, and with a much different focus and business model.
And you do know the Olympics are an abyss of irrelevance now, right? It is no longer an event. It is no longer near what it used to be. I'm not suggesting that there is one cause, there are many. But it ain't near what it used to be. Just more an observation.
@JayHawkFanToo Sometimes you nail it. This is one of those times. Everyone knows that it is the universities and the brand and the venues and loyalty that drive college sports. It is undeniable.
@mayjay Itâs the same simplistic reasons. First, NCAA basketball has been around a long time and it has worked. Entertaining, best sport, just a terrific product. It creates high revenue and it supports other sports. We have a great program. Who wants to jeopardize that? Second, the dreaded slippery slope. One you go there, the cries will be to go further. Look at this thread. It always is. And third, every time you open up an avenue for compensation, you create another path that can corrupt.
I continue to be puzzled by this desire change rules for rare kid that wants to sell CDs, or whatever. Life is about choices. Think of it as joining the Marines. A choice. A commitment. And giving up certain freedoms. But a choice.
That ainât good enough, Iâm sure.
This is very similar to a non-compete agreement. Donât like it, donât sign.
@Kcmatt7 @BShark Ok, play along with me here. Seriously, how is it not working? Simply because there are violators doesn't mean a law or rule doesn't work, right? Nor does it mean that it isn't a net positive. So who is disaffected? Thousands of athletes get scholarships, and benefit, and get an education (including the thousands in the big 2 sports that don't "go pro.").
We have a distaste because of the underbelly of things, which we are largely unaffected by. And the athletes aren't mistreated. They're coddled. Further, the only real issue is enforcement and the effectiveness of that enforcement.
Where's the harm?
The sport (CBB) makes millions, funds schools and other programs, educates millions over time -- the issue always comes back to the discussion point of wanting to change the rules to pay players.
So, what happens if everyone just leaves the NCAA alone?
@Statmachine We should let adults make money, and make a living. But don't think for a minute that will quiet the Jay Bilas crowd. They hate the NCAA and the bullhorn speeches are focused on getting players paid. And when they get paid, it will be "we want more." It will never end.
@justanotherfan I'm not sure how or why you moved to a pro sports franchise. I'm talking about colleges and the NCAA. Nonetheless, your argument is from the "attack the man" playbook, to run down anyone with money, or risk, or debt. Easy to minimize it when your neck's not on the line. Heck, even if you dismiss that, it's THEIR money, not yours. Surprising. But I know, it's all unfair.
Your final paragraph moves to something relevant. But it again, proves my point. How much would that jersey be worth WITHOUT Kansas on the front? I tell you what, have Josh Jackson just go and sell "Josh Jackson" jerseys. Worth zero. Otherwise, if he could make lots of money out of high school doing that, he would. No, there are not Josh Jackson stores. There are KU stores. Whether its Gooden, or TRob, or Mason -- they're all "0" on the back. Like cattle going in, and going out.
The proof on quality of the game? Look at women's basketball. That's really low quality, below the rim, slow, etc. They fill arenas because of the universities.
If I'm a player and I don't want my number used (meaning the one assigned to me by the school on their jersey, at their school, in their arena), then don't sign on the dotted line. Of course, that would require scrutiny of personal responsibility, and it's easier to blame others for choices. Don't play CBB. I choose to play, knowing the playing field, yet still whine. Good grief.
@mayjay You mean like the NAIA? And, of course, you know the NCAA is not a monopoly. You're just saying that for dramatic effect, right? I know some like throwing that around because it sounds nice.
@Kcmatt7 Actually, it seems to be working fine, by and large.
@justanotherfan I love how the ownership issue is cast aside. How the fact that owners "own" the facilities, the brand, the product --- and the owners assume all the risk. It's the same argument these silly "pay me $15 an hour minimum wage" folks whine about, then they can't figure out why employees get let go and businesses shut down. It's the "evil employer" argument that we hear all the time from one segment of our society, with complete disregard for the risk, the hard work, the anxiety, and the equity invested by owners.
The players are interchangeable -- now. I doubt you disagree with that qualification. I agree that if the top one third left, it would be a different story. I encourage that possibility as my my solution is competition. My solution is to permit every player to test and get his fair market value.
However, where I resist is when there is the insistence to artificially change an organization's internal rules to suit the desires for compensation. Go do your thing somewhere else. Let the NCAA compete with its model. The NCAA has its model. It's a choice. Not the only choice. Lots of choices. When there are more choices, then that will naturally influence the NCAA to make its own choices. I would argue the NCAA should buckle down harder. I chuckle at the idea of "change", as if those that resist are missing something.
@Kcmatt7 So, where is this business willing to pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars? And doesn't that defeat a part of the argument? If there is a business willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the kids choose NCAA basketball, what does that tell you? It tells you that the total value of NCAA basketball is worth more overall. However, if there are not these other businesses willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, that tells us something as well. The market says the value isn't there. This is inescapable.
@justanotherfan The best word is "compensated." The college hoops players are compensated. And compensated very well. The key, as with every situation where folks are compensated, is that they want more compensation. Everyone wants more. McDonalds is a "big business", so is Whole Foods, so is Boeing, so is Google. But entry level folks aren't generally "paid well" in comparison to others with more time and investment in the business.
In fact, in most every business, the owners are compensated far better. They have the risk. Most forget that.
The colleges own everything -- the brand, the schools, the facilities. So let's get real here. The players are interchangeable. The come in, they leave. It doesn't matter whether its Josh Jackson, or the next year its Silvio DeSousa. Interchangeable parts.
Now, because everyone complaining about the compensation doesn't like it, they won't start another league, or provide other alternatives. You know why, in all these years? There is no market for it. And thus, CBB players can see what they are really worth.
All the complainers want, of course, is to change the rules. When the real answer is competition.
@Kcmatt7 That theorizing is reasonable on the items you suggest ... but that is not what is in the indictment. They charged money laundering based on the fraud element and conspiracy to commit fraud, not the second clause of each subsection related to IRS matters.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1956 â
Here is a link to the statute so anyone can review. You'll see the requirement of "specified unlawful activity", then the second clause of each subparagraph relates to the IRS code.
This is a very interesting topic. But a key, I think, is that the law provides discretion to a prosecutor and sometimes prosecutors venture beyond those lines, and sometimes the inside portion of the lines is highly questionable. A lot of this stuff is "arguable" one way or the other -- in this case, whether this is really fraud. The prosecutor has made his case in the filing.
@justanotherfan On one important point, you are incorrect. It is not illegal "to conceal who payments are being made to, or make a payment to one person in order to ferry that payment to another person."
The reason you are incorrect is that such activity must be connected to an illegal venture.
Thus, respectfully, your argument is circular.
First, money laundering is concealing payments for illegal activities. There has to be a crime. What is the crime? It's the same one we've discussed. The crime is the claimed fraud -- the fraud claimed to be perpetrated on the university because the player is (or I guess may be) ineligible. That's the alleged crime. Otherwise, there is not "money laundering." You don't have "money laundering" without a crime. Money laundering is simply concealing a payment (in or out) from one party, and making it look like it came from another. But the activity involved has to be criminal -- there has to be concealment of a crime.
Second, you have stated no "false purpose" -- what is the false purpose? You have to have a "false purpose." And we're back to square one. The only "false purpose" in the indictment is, allegedly, that the activity of making these payments would make a player ineligible, thus defrauding the university. Am I correct there?
No fraud, no crime, no money laundering. There is no crime of "money laundering" without another offense. You have to either have another crime.
You cite "banking laws" -- but the indictments refer to specific statutes. Wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, as the underlying crimes supporting the money laundering charges. These may be considered banking laws of course, but your vague reference implies something more as I read it. There is nothing more.
This case rises and falls on the premise I have identified. That is whether actions by the Adidas reps (and assistant coaches) amounted to fraud by actions that might make a player ineligible. That's it.
@jaybate-1-0 If this wasn't ensnaring Kansas, this would simply be entertainment. The idea that Kansas is a "victim" is just laughable.
How can you be a victim when you have knowledge of the crime? Or more precisely, the scheme. How would Kansas have no idea of this stuff going on? If Kansas has any real knowledge of this scheme, how are we anything close to a victim?
It is just senseless that someone is charged with a crime, the ultimate fact at issue being the player would thus be ineligible,with the ineligibility creating the fraud.
@Kcmatt7 Try this -- if DeSousa is not ineligible, where is the fraud? Do you see my point -- he has to be ruled ineligible because of the payments or the case falls apart, right? How can there be fraud if the actual fact of it occurring did not result in the player's ineligibility? Logic says the NCAA has to find him ineligible.
Interested if anyone disagrees there.
So DeSousa, per the link above, was 100% Maryland, and the red sea parts? Sure, it can happen. And nothing is for sure. But Kansas simply has no idea how this shift occurred? That concerns me.
I work for Adidas. I want DeSousa to endorse my company. I pay him $20,000 so he'll do that some time in the future. I tell him, look, it's best for Adidas if you go to Kansas. That helps Adidas.
I am a criminal?
Why do I have any duty to the NCAA, Kansas, or the rules of "eligibility?" Why does Adidas have to, under the law, even care? All Adidas wants is to sell their brand.
You know why? Because the prosecutors can charge whatever they want. They have the freedom to craft a case, and to fit it under a ridiculously broad statute, and to pick and choose who they charge. This is an assault on free enterprise. There is NO VICTIM.
Further, Adidas entered the arrangement with the player before the player had any tie to the NCAA or the college. There wasn't even an interference with the contract.
Now, I pointed out in the questions to start this thread -- If Kansas and schools are so concerned, why don't they have a contract provision prohibiting Adidas from doing what they did?
Further, why wouldn't an NCAA coach, that had knowledge of payments to players -- you know, the normal cheating -- be charged with a crime? He's defrauding his university, right?
This is a joke.
This is perhaps the most important question for Kansas basketball.
What is knowing?
I don't know. But it's concerning.
@BShark Just a bit protective of our team ...
Lovely. The quote speaks for itself. If they want to transfer, if dad wants to run his mouth, then leave. Leave now.
I'll toss out that I like 810 -- better than the 610 in large part. KK has hammered some topics pretty well (on many other matters). We just know he's a KSU guy, with that bias. They include Clinkscale who's pro KU. At other times, Petro is pretty unbiased. The early morning guys are MU/KU, but I think both are pretty fair. I don't know, I think we are maybe a touch sensitive when a topic like this hits home.
@Buster-1926 -- I enjoy the old X-files episodes. There's a new version. You might get the older versions of Scully and Mulder on this pronto. I like a good conspiracy theory.
Well, if does choose IU after waiting this long, three possible reasons (or in combo)-
1. He's just a drama queen and loves the attention.
2. He just didn't need to commit. He could wait and make sure he had all possible info.
3. The new gift from the silly "investigation" was a factor.
@JayHawkFanToo Did you just say "gravitas" and "vis-Ă -vis" in the same sentence? You win vocab day.
@BeddieKU23 -- Are you saying the tea leaves say IU then?
@jaybate-1-0 In fact, without the distinction, there isnât even a hint of a case. The entire premise relies on this assumption. Which begs the question â how many university actors does it take, with knowledge, to change the university from âvictimâ to âco-conspiratorâ? I note that in most of the cases, there is an assistant coach (university actor) with knowledge. What if a head coach knew, who is likely the highest paid university employee (or 2nd to the football coach)? What if a university president knew?
@Kcmatt7 I'm not saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Really, I'm saying competition would be good. Competition would allow CBB to be more clearly in one lane. I do appreciate that endorsements are your focus. I think your approach is the same as many folks, with many issues -- make it legal and then regulate or profit from it (taxes).
I have told you in bold exactly why players should not fetch endorsement money. It is not their right. The NCAA owns the product and creates nearly all of the value. The players are interchangeable. That is a strong argument. It's not different than an employer with a non-compete. You can't sell your wares if you are working for us. That's akin to the voluntarily executed LOI. You agree to the rules when you sign.
So, I am not opposing just to oppose. Please then address my point about the NCAA creating the value. You avoided that. You agree there, don't you? I mean, the players -- the interchangeable parts that move in and out at 8 months to 5 year increments -- don't own anything, correct?
The rules apply to all NCAA athletes. Different sports have different specifics, but a rower can't sell their likeness, or endorsement (which is your topic).
And when you say it won't cost the NCAA and schools anything, you may be missing a small point. Don't you think what has been uncovered, under the table, with the top guys, will then engulf the game? Meaning, the company will say, "You go to this school, and we'll pay you. You go to Texas El-Crappo, and we won't." Further, the schools reap endorsement monies. There are only so many dollars. Further, the player endorsements will inevitably conflict with the school -- think of the shoe issue alone.
It would destroy CBB. You know slippery slopes. This is one, as I mentioned above with no on satisfied with whatever money that they get.
The better solution is the market. If there was a better alternative to the benefits college players now receive, they'd do that.
But the issue there is what has folks stumped -- there is no real market for these guys. If there was, we'd have a league where they could make enough to get the value over what they get from the NCAA (which should give you pause).
The CBB product -- the stadiums, arenas, schools, mascots, everything that goes with it -- that's what sells. Not the players at this level (to a very large degree).
And don't forget what the NCAA does to propel these players to their future earnings. Can the NCAA claw back money paid to players for the value provided?
That's an idea .. pay the players. But as part of the deal, the NCAA gets 20% of future earnings. Most wouldn't like that. Jay Bilas whines about paying players, but without his CBB notoriety, he'd just be another lawyer making a good living.
I recall Preston's mom reacting to certain things with a good dose of indignation as well, but I could be wrong ...
So did he take the UA money as alleged? I wonder if money was sent to Angola? I speculate on wire transfers. Prosecutors love those.
@Kcmatt7 I appreciate your passion. I am not tied to players staying four years. I don't like OADs.
But here's what's important. I want players that want to play in college. I am all for competition.
Further, I don't think you have to pay players to entice them to come. If you do, then they should choose something else if they want to get paid.
The concern I see above with universities getting paid for their players is off base. What company or entity does not make money off those that perform services for them? It's a red-herring.
Further, if the value of a college player's services is what the market will bear, right? Where is the market? It certainly isn't restricted.
See, what you and others want is for a private organization to change its rules to accommodate the desires of a few. Instead of competing, folks want to change an entities rules and make them something they aren't. See, the NCAA works great for most every athlete.
The market is there and open to be exploited. Start a league. Pay the players. Let them get endorsements. But if it was there, wouldn't someone have done it by now?
Ah, but that's the tricky part isn't it -- the players derive most all of their value from the stage that the NCAA provides. That's right, the universities have the facilities, the tourney, the TV contract, the national exposure, the marketing, the brands, right? Without it, there's nothing.
Thus is why the players just don't sign with UA, or Nike, or Adidas out of high school, or go sign autographs, or whatever, and skip college.
@Kcmatt7 Don't fool yourself. I think that this is a common mistake. We think if we give a mouse a piece of cheese each day, he'll be good. He won't raid our pantry. Then we give him two pieces of cheese, that will suffice. The fact is the pursuit of money is never ending. Folks will lie, cheat, steal, and demand more money, no matter how much they get. Athletes feel aggrieved in the NFL signing a one year franchise tag of $18 million, guaranteed -- money that, alone, sets them for life.
So if you think that if we'd, "just let them fetch endorsements in the open instead of creating rules that caused this black market for recruiting to take place, we wouldnât have an issue", I think you are sadly mistaken. This is just not the way of the world. And I use the word "sadly" because it is a bit sad.
People always want more, and there will always be voices demanding more. And in their minds, they will always justify the rule breaking because "they deserve it."
Doing anything more for the players is not a panacea, it is a curse.
The only cure here is competition. This will allow the NCAA to find a tighter niche. It would be much better if there was a league with real pay, as a better option.
I guess my frustration is that folks want to change NCAA rules to fit their agenda. The college game, as is, is more attractive than the alternatives. That escapes most. That's why they play NCAA ball. An inescapable free market fact.
Hmmm ... how about if a recruit takes $50,000 from UA to go to Maryland. Tells them to stick it. Goes to KU. Keeps the money. What is UA going to do about it? Maybe that's where Guido comes in.
@BigBad @JayHawkFanToo This is all pretty fluid. One thing I think we all agree, is that if we could have one coach now, moving forward, it would be coach Self. My personal ranking includes the recent body of work with deference to the coach's overall accomplishments. Last 30 years altogether? Coach K. Last 15 years? Coach Roy. Last five years? Coach Wright.
Then, the rest.
If I could take one coach now, moving forward, easily coach Self.
@BShark Which makes me question the total indictment â if University actors knew, how is the university a victim? Or where does it become relevant how much the university knew? And who is the university? The case seems to want to disassociate the university from it chosen representatives. Of course, the entire deal rides on the concept that a player is ineligible because of internal rules. Just a sham case anyway.
@BShark The entire indictment claims all universities are the victims, not just KU. This is the first Iâve seen where no university employees supposedly knew, like an assistant coach.
@mayjay You flat make stuff up again and youâll be pulling that point out of your backside a second time.
I would think punishment of a school, i.e., vacating wins, would be based on the player status, not knowledge or culpability of the school.
We cannot dump Adidas soon enough. Just bought a new pair of Adidas golf shoes. Going back tomorrow.
How surprising. This woman, who projected her actions were keeping her son pristine, took money? And the Charger was dirty? Shocked.
@majay
1. To your paragraphs 3 and 4. I get it. Makes sense. This is about opinion though. To value judgments. To perspectives. Where it should have been in the first place, until your false narrative. Just discuss.
2. I know you try to take it somewhere it shouldnât go â the stuff about trying to take a game where I want it to go. But Iâll bypass that. I have no control, just opinion.
3. I certainly respect the opinion that folks might think âcaringâ is largely (or at least in part) defined by whether they get to the league. That we care if we support that endeavor.
4. My value judgment, my opinion, is that I donât care about the league. Thatâs my view. Do I hope our players succeed after college? Sure. But I view the âleagueâ as foolâs gold for most every player here. Further, I think it cheapens the KU basketball. It is a bit of a poison that deteriorates the fabric of college basketball.
5. Most of us have the perspective of years. To suggest to a youngster to slow down, enjoy, the world will be there for you. The lure of millions is enticing. But it is also risky. Many try, and a large majority fail.
6. But I also will say âcaringâ about a player is not solely wrapped up in âthe league.â Caring in my small mind, is wanting a player to embrace this university, to come to Kansas for KU BB, to become a part of our community, to make life long friends and connections, to grow and mature under the best coach in CBB, to take time to develop, to enjoy his college experience, to understand that itâs not just your first paycheck, but how long you get paychecks, to side on the side of patience, and to not come to Kansas looking forward to leaving, but rather, with an open mind.
7. In my opinion, my approach is more sensible in recruiting a player.
8. That said, all Iâve read on Romeo is that heâs a quality guy. But Iâm not super interested in anyone that from the outset just wants to be here 8 months.
9. And @jayballer73, youâre right. They donât come to KU for us. Sure, makes sense. But Iâm much more âKUâ than any OAD would be. Iâm an alum, a professional degree, same with my wife. Kids that have gone through KU with degrees. Money paid. Money contributed. A lifetime of loyalty, much like many posters here. So, a part of me says I have a bit of a right to âexpectâ something from the folks that my tax dollars and contributions support, and I can be a bit judgmental there if I want to be. One thing I have always done is embrace the guys when they are on the court.
So, for those that prefer peaches and cream, just ignore my response to @mayjay below.
10. My statement: âHe wants to accomplish getting to the âleague.â I could not care less about the league.â
11. Your response to me that I took issue with: âIt is, I think, both short-sighted and sad to not care about the players except for what they can do to make fans feel good.â
12. My reply to your response: âI DON"T CARE âABOUT THE LEAGUE.â Thatâs what was typed. So, dishonestly change that into something that was not said, and making it into not caring about a player.
13. Seems easy, doesnât it? Your reaction is to try to create, once again, a false narrative. I never said I donât care about the players. Not said, not even inferred. I donât care about the league. Because I donât care about the âleagueâ, it is âsad to not care about the players except for what they can do to make fans feel good?â That is dishonest, whether you like it or not.
14. Not sure the purpose of paragraph 2, other than more diversion. When called out for obvious dishonesty, try to confuse the issue. But the judge ainât stupid.
15. You seem to think when I donât respond itâs some vast conspiracy. Youâve brought this up before. I canât help you.
16. You refer to the Zach Peters deal. You just think you know. You miss the point â the point is why he left Kansas, not why he retired from CBB. Your response confuses the two. You say that I accused Self/Peters of hiding the real reason for his departure, and then you refer to posts you made of articles regarding why he retired from CBB.
17. If you would like to buy what you hear in print and assume thatâs all there is regarding his departure at Kansas, thatâs your choice. No one asked Self the direct question. No one asked Peters. They just let them talk. Which is fine, but that doesnât mean itâs the entire truth. This is one of the few items I can tell you that I have a specific, reliable source of information. Believe the info or not, I donât care. But logic supports my information, as well. You seem to think that this has something to do with why he stopped playing basketball altogether. The issue is why he chose to leave Kansas. Thatâs all I have ever offered on the topic. And he did not leave here just because he wanted to get healthy.
18. It is also entertaining that you use the inflammatory term âdenigratingâ when referring to kids winning academic awards, and how I may have referred to it. Not sure why this is relevant. All related to a discussion where you say âwhere several of usâ were praising them (assuming you and others were giving the praise). Actually, itâs because I didnât agree that it mattered. Praise all you want. It just isnât something that matters a lot to me â a 3.10 vs. a 2.6 GPA.
19. I appreciate the term âbraying.â Nice. It goes along with ranting, and other such terms you use to try to devalue the opinion offered, whether me, or someone else. At least the passive-aggressive stuff is pretty transparent.
@mayjay I care more about KU BB than an individual player. Do you even read what is typed? I DON"T CARE "ABOUT THE LEAGUE." That's what was typed. So, dishonestly change that into something that was not said, and making it into not caring about a player. You're a pro at that.
@Kcmatt7 Directed to payment of players, I do expect players to come to KU for no money (or whatever their stipend) and play for Kansas. That's actually the rules. Further, of course, they received significant financial value which has been spelled out many times. And, of course, the players DON'T HAVE TO COME. It's freedom of choice. They can choose their path. If they want to go pro, go pro. The NCAA and KU aren't stopping them.
@mayjay You do understand I agree heâs telling the truth, right? Maybe you donât. He wants to accomplish getting to the âleague.â I could not care less about the league. Hope you get your autograph.
@mayjay Of course, the honesty is not the issue. The truth of the matter is the issue. I love it when our team gets used for a season. When the focus of the player is not KU basketball, or what he can accomplish here, but rather inward, on himself. And using KU as an 8 month stepping stone. But hey, who cares, right?
@BShark McLemore sat his first season because of academic issues. McLemore was #34 with Rivals. He was not a presumed OAD. But to that point, my analysis is always on presumed OADs. You can't control whether a guy actually leaves (Like Embiid). But if you know a guy has the intention to just play one season -- Wiggins, Oubre, JJ, Cliff, Diallo -- then you could avoid those guys. Not always black and white, but each season we seem to have a pretty good idea.
@justanotherfan I think that's a pretty unfair commentary (or selective commentary). You are going to fail on multiple recruits all the time. #15-75 guys, non-OAD guys are the best, most reliable targets for a program. Not perfect. And ignoring OADs totally is not perfect either. No path is.
We should remember that these exact players have been the core of our program -- 15-75.
Look at TRob, Morrises, Taylor, Mason, DG, Withey, Releford, McLemore, Jackson, Robinson, Chalmers, EJ, Ellis, Selden, KY, Aldrich, Collins -- just a few there.
The fact is, that our 2008, 2012, and 2018 FF teams did not have one OAD. Rush was a presumed OAD, but he stayed and was on the team as junior. And 2018 had Newman, who had been a presumed OAD, but came here for two seasons. McLemore was not a presumed OAD, but developed into a guy that only played one season (here for two seasons).
While I would ignore OADs, I know Self won't. And I'm good with selective "fits" when adding OADs. But running a program just pursuing the supposed best players? I'll skip it.
Romeo's explanation for what he likes about Kansas is a huge turnoff. Let me puke for a moment. With Vick and Malik gone, I guess we have a need. But this is the kind of OAD crap I'd rather just say go somewhere else. Just completely more interested in guys that want to play for Kansas. I know, outrageous thoughts.
â(KU coach) Bill Self's resume speaks for itself,â Langford said, as quoted by Flohoops.com. âHis success with big guards ⌠heâs good (with) people like Andrew Wiggins, Kelly Oubre. He got them better, sent them to the league. He knows what it takes to get to the league, so that's what I like about Kansas."
@Kcmatt7 I do think you can skip the presumed OADs. Has Michigan even recruited a presumed OAD? Nova?
It is not as simple as simply taking guys because they are good. Itâs an overall approach to recruiting. Promising kids that the program wonât bring in a presumed OAD type that puts them on the bench. It gives a coach credibility.
Not one presumed OAD in the final four this season.
I accept Self will pursue them. But I do think he is trying to target âfitsâ for the program. Not blind pursuits. Iâve said my peace in the past on this topic, a number of years ago. /topic/935
Of course, some of my prior points are outdated. A title has been won with a presumed OAD since then.
Where would we be without presumed OADs? I would argue that weâd be better off right now if weâd avoided all of them. Speculation. But the intangible of help with recruiting is one I recognize. I still believe if recruits know weâre not pursuing the presumed OADs, Self would rule in the very next tier.