@BShark I agree completely on Dotson. I think he’s the man at PG.
HighEliteMajor
5416 posts
I had always felt 2008-09 was the best coaching job. But that team had Collins, Aldrich, Morrises. This may in fact be the best. All I know for certainty is that there is not another coach I would rather have. A man of great character as well, which is something we can always be proud of.
@BShark I read above your comments on Mason .. could talk Mason all day long. You said, "Mason was not a back-up plan either, the staff saw him and trusted their own evaluation. He moved up the priority list quickly."
It seemed pretty clear to me that Mason was a lower priority -- it sure seemed like he was the back up plan. We had a number of offers out there to PGs. Andrew Harrison, Cat Barber, Kasey Hill, and Demetrius Jackson. There was also discusson on Roddy Peters, Stevie Clark and Rysheed Jordan.
But Harrison, Barber, and Jackson were clearly our top targets.
From the timeline, Mason didn't commit to KU until after the main targets were off the board. Hill committed early, but Barber, Jackson, and Harrison all committed to other schools in weeks before Mason committed, and Harrison committed the week before Mason. It seems that if any of those three would have committed to KU, Mason would not have been here. We'd offered Mason, and others earlier, but you know that works -- and the timeline is pretty solid there.
Mason was clearly a player KU identified, but he was not a guy we took over the higher ranked players. We also had CF already committed and only had a spot for one PG.
We did offer Mason in July. But like with many "offers", it appears it was conditional on a few other guys. At least this is how it all seemed to line up from my perspective.
Anyway, nice to stroll down memory lane with the greatest PG in KU history. What a great set of circumstances that led him (and DG) to KU.
Man, I love 4 year players like those two (and Svi, Ellis, et. al.).
Remember, a team like UVA is susceptible to ... waiting for the irony to kick in ... a hot shooting team. UVA doesn't worry me at all. If we're on (not even "hot"), we win.
And @BeddieKU23, I think you're on the right track. I think we keep a team like UVA thinking. Spring a full court press every 10th possession, hard pressure, token pressure, possessions of zone, then switch screens, then don't switch. I do like zone vs. UVA. But I don't think they get to the FF.
Watching Va is akin to waterboarding. The time you spend hoping you die and wanting to survive significantly overlap (as I understand).
Hopes? In order -
1. Win the NC.
2. Get to the FF.
3. Don't lose to MU in the tourney.
4. Don't be the first to lose as a #1 seed.
5. Don't lose to WSU in the tourney.
6. Don't lose to a 15 seed as a 2 seed.
It seems like KU/MU as a 1 vs. 8/9 or 2 vs. 7/10 is destiny.
No mention of Lightfoot?
@mayjay And, tomorrow, there will be a final exam, 50 multiple choice questions, and that's your entire grade.
Who wants to bet that somehow, some way, we are set up to meet MU in the 2nd round -- 1 vs. 8/9, 2 vs. 7/10? Seems like the easiest bracketology prediction we could make.
@Kcmatt7 I think he would have worked out really well here. A guy that if we just gave him the 3 spot, would have been an excellent player for Self.
@mayjay @dylans Remember when it was a choice between White and Greene? Greene seemed like the right choice. It was painful when White was quasi-forced out. I would have preferred no Andrew Wiggins and just go with White, preferring the four year player thing, but that was a long and distant discussion.
@Blown You’re right, he is still aggressive. And my memory is supplemented by checking out some excellent websites like https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/ ↗
The college game is great. They just need to leave it the HE** alone!
Chemistry issues and “buying in” may appear cured in the course of winning. It’s how they appear in the face of adversity that really tells the story, like down 8, with five minutes to go in a sweet 16 game. We passed that test vs WVU. We’ve developed consistency in a season of inconsistency. It appears the team is to a spot where those “issues” might be behind us.
An interesting side note — KU has not been swept by any team it has played
two games against in Big 12 play under Self. OSU beat us at home and we now
venture on the road to Stillwater for an obvious letdown game.
@Blown Excellent observation. He has fouled out just four times in his career here. Twice his sophomore year, once last season, and once this season (at OU). More amazingly, with all his minutes this season, he has only had three fouls seven times. DG is quite a player.
@JayHawkFanToo Not assuming anything, just giving an example. But that is certainly a way to get out of jury duty.
Here, there is no evidence so far to suggest this is anything except murder in my world.
Do you think it is murder from what you've seen and from what we know now -- just what we have now? Not the endless spectrum of possibilities, but from what we do know?
@bskeet Do you see any sign of any leadership potential with Vick? That said, a kid can be a non-leader and be fine, even as senior. I love his skills. It is obvious that something else is going on.
@benshawks08 Good thoughts. Your logic is right on, but voluntary manslaughter is a scenario where, as an example, you walk in and your wife is in bed with another guy .. you shoot him. It is a killing in the "heat of passion". That would be part of the evidence. But another portion is related to making a bad decision on the use of deadly force. That would be a fit here (along with 2nd degree murder). The officer (or person seeking manslaughter) would probably have to testify to get a manslaughter conviction. To explain it.
Involuntary manslaughter could be a no-go as there would be no evidence that he didn't "shoot to kill." In fact, I would anticipate a police expert who would say their protocol is to shoot to kill.
I should have specified my reference generically to "manslaughter."
Here is VOLUNTARY manslaughter, which seems to fit better than involuntary, under section (2) -
21-5404. Voluntary manslaughter. (a) Voluntary manslaughter is knowingly killing a human being committed:
(1) Upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion; or
(2) upon an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified use of deadly force under K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 21-5222, 21-5223 or 21-5225, and amendments thereto.
But juries can pick manslaughter (voluntary or involuntary) based on any reason they want if the instruction is given (the judge determines if it's instructed as an option). Imagine you, me, and @JayHawkFanToo in the jury room. We'd probably agree to compromise with @JayHawkFanToo so he'd at least get convicted of something.
@JayHawkFanToo I don't doubt that it could fit under manslaughter. You said it was not "murder", referencing premeditation. Just demonstrating that you don't need premeditation for "murder." And further, what occurred, clearly fits as chargeable under the second degree murder definition.
And you can always say that we don't know all the facts.
Here's a fact that would change my mind -- the officers learned that the young man had a gun and was intent on leaving and shooting at the police or others.
The poor kid was just backing out of his own garage, and had not even left his own property.
Somehow, I think any of these mitigating "facts" would have been at least alluded to. I'm quite sure this officer and the police department will have to answer for this in a civil lawsuit.
I had a car backing out toward me at the grocery store last week. I was tempted to fire into the vehicle because I was scared. But I thought better of it and moved out of the way.
But I'm also interested and believe that a federal prosecutor could be consider criminal charges. This officer needs to be in prison. He's a coward.
I personally think it is irresponsible to create a thread and throw theories out there for discussion purposes.
Of course, I am kidding ... excellent thread.
I am shocked, utterly shocked, that the media might spin, report, create headlines, tell part of the story -- all to fit its preferred narrative.
@justanotherfan @benshawks08 @mayjay @JayHawkFanToo -- all good points.
@JayHawkFanToo First, I waited to reply because it was more fun to be focused on KU BB for a bit.
I certainly do understand and appreciate the job police have. I do. And I think it is also a mistake to use that as the fall back argument, the "but we just don't understand" thing.
Next, I'm not really that concerned in a situation like this as to what was going on in the police officer's mind. We see the video. He acted irrationally. He fired when he did not need to. He fired when no rational person would have fired. The best evidence is how he, with ease, stepped out of the way of the vehicle after he fired. There was no self-defense.
So, if I have a dispute with my neighbor, and he and I have argued. He goes into his house and I am standing on the side of his driveway. His garage door goes up, I step in the path of his vehicle and he begins to back out. I then yell "Stop", "Stop" .. and he doesn't. I then pull my gun and shoot him. I then fire multiple times after the initial shots. Right. This is murder. Outrageous.
But here is the point of my response. You are assuming murder requires premeditation. It does not. Second degree murder seems to fit the bill here.
21-5403. Murder in the second degree. (a) Murder in the second degree is the killing of a human being committed:
(1) Intentionally; or
(2) unintentionally but recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.
Svi turned into a sure NBA player this season. Great 4 year player.
@Kcmatt7 Thanks for this info .. if look at your quoted material. the first sentence states the following: “Moreover, because the payments to the family of Player-10 were both in violation of NCAA rules and illegal, they were disguised by ..."
The paragraph starts by stating the basis for the charge, the second part is just explanatory of what was done. This paragraph says "because" the payments were a "violation of NCAA rules and illegal", the defendants thus concealed them. It doesn't say the concealment is the basis for the charge.
In fact, if you look at the charges, meaning the specified "counts" (or violations of law), they specify the latter activity.
That said, concealment, as you point out, is evidence of fraud.
The key here is what the prosecutors are saying is illegal. Please review each count (or charge). That will tell you. Go to then of each charge, where it says what harm was done. That shows you the basis for the charge (meaning the harm).
@Kcmatt7 The fraud we're talking about in this case is wire fraud. That's different than "fraud" related to taxes. The concealing gets you in trouble with the IRS. That doesn't relate to the wire fraud conspiracy and related money laundering that are charged here.
I think we agree. The "fraud" would be tax fraud if the payments were concealed from the IRS. Dawkins ledger seems to be full of info.
.
@mayjay You said, "I actually thought you would say that the agents are trying to represent the kids to obtain something like fair market value for their images and name-bearing apparel, and compete against the NCAA’s monopoly (proceeds shared with only the schools). But that would conflict with your view, I believe, that the kids should not get anything financial beyond the current system, so I don’t really know how you reconcile your views here."
Ok, let's adopt your suggestion.
To attempt to characterize what the agents are doing as not competitive is ridiculously incorrect, but it's necessary for you suggest, or your position crashes. If it is competition, that then calls into question the charges.
They are all competing for the resource, right -- the player. More precisely, the higher end player that the agent can make money off of, or that Adidas can make money off of.
Can you concede that the charges are at least, perhaps, shaky or tenuous?
@mayjay The agent is in competition. The agent wants the player as a client. The NCAA wants the player to be eligible for competition. Further, Adidas is in competition with Nike, and would rather have a player wearing Adidas. This creates a competitive situation for Adidas with non-Adidas schools. Just examples.
And remember, although it chic for the left to create a false narrative of attacking all law enforcement, the discussion is really about decision makers and those in important positions.
@mayjay You said, "Paying someone to commit fraud on his employer for the purpose of achieving your own economic gain is criminal. Making an agreement to do so and setting up a network to do it is conspiracy."
Let's agree on that premise.
However, you have completely avoided my main point -- that the fraud committed is premised upon the violation of the alleged victim's internal and self created organizational rules.
This is completely different than other scenarios that fit your statement. We can envision Google paying a Yahoo employee for proprietary information, or Lockheed Martin paying a Northrup employee to sabotage a milling machine, or Nike paying an Adidas employee for Adidas' marketing plan. I get that. This is not a classic under the table payment to get a contract. Or even defrauding a university by providing fake test scores for entering students (in such an instance, a university is not getting the student they thought they might be getting).
But even in the last scenario with the student, you don't need anything else. It seems pretty clear that such a scheme amounts to fraud.
Here, the NCAA has set up internal, arbitrary rules of competition and eligibility. And, internally, it has varying and inconsistent methods of enforcement. The claimed "fraud" is claimed to be the paying a player or parent so that it creates possible ineligibility under the NCAA's internal rules.
Why should anyone in competition with another business be held to respect that other organization's arbitrary, internal rules?
Isn't this a shield to competition?
This is unprecedented. I'm not seeing anything that matches up here.
The return of the high/low seems inevitable.
@mayjay As you described, there would have to be many folks involved, so your counter-theory is not analogous. But on its face, I would agree that a unscrupulous prosecutor could certainly have an improper motive, regardless of left, right, or down the middle. We should thus look to motive.
Are you really disputing that prosecutors file cases at times because of 1) publicity, 2) personal gain, or 3) personal beliefs?
Are you really suggesting that prosecutors are pristine in purpose and intent? That to a man (or woman), they are unbiased?
Beyond that, the issue is whether wire fraud, and the related charges, should be based on the violation of NCAA rules as its foundation. I certainly think that one could make an argument in favor of the charges. There is no doubt a prosecutor can argue that premise. The fraud statutes and definitions provide broad areas that permit a great deal of latitude in determining what to charge, and what not to charge.
The question is whether he should charge crimes based on the violation of NCAA rules. That has been my position.
You don't dispute, as a lawyer, that the choice here by the prosecutor could have come down a different way with another prosecutor at the helm, right?
And thus motive is a relevant inquiry. One good motive could be the public interest, right? But the public interest is a perspective. From my perspective, I think that private companies should be permitted to compete for resources (including players in this case). I like the idea that players can make money if they choose. But I also respect the NCAA's right to make rules. They compete with one another. What is the best choice for the player?
Do you dispute that based on the prosecutor's premise, JJ's mom could be charged as a co-conspirator? That likely every person involved in this process had the exact same knowledge as the named conspirators -- that their actions would lead to depriving the university of the economic benefit of the player because it would be a violation of NCAA rules? A you know, a conspiracy does not need conspirators to even affirmatively communicate the deeds, only to understand what is occurring.
Of course, I say she could be charged to highlight the fact that it is up to the prosecutor. Clearly, her role would not be as egregious as Gatto, Dawkins, or the others named, right? Or is it? I mean, it's her kid, and if he is a minor at the time of the payment, she's his guardian? Isn't she arguably defrauding KU by her actions?
However, Gatto and Dawkins had no skin in the NCAA game. They were competing to gain the players' favor and services for economic gain. They have a legitimate business purpose. And they are dealing with kids and parents most of the time before they even sign a LOI, or commit to a school. Before the NCAA even has any economic interest in them.
So, because the NCAA has internal rules -- SOLELY because the NCAA has internal rules that would make the player ineligible to compete (if the NCAA actually chose to suspend them, in their discretion) -- this is a crime?
Why should an organization be able to create internal rules that would make it criminal to compete with them?
Remember, a "conspiracy" is just another word for planning. It only becomes a criminal "conspiracy" if there is an underlying crime. If there is no crime, it's just a business plan.
And the "crime" is supposedly fraud, to "defraud" the university by engaging in conduct that would make the player ineligible. The question, under the law, is whether the university was defrauded of "honest services." That's the broad phrase that applies under the law.
And I go back the NCAA rules -- if there were no NCAA rules, there would be no "fraud", correct? The NCAA rules create a buffer to competition.
I acknowledge that a prosecutor has the legal basis to file the charges, but that doesn't tell me much. The law if very broad. My opinion is that this is an abusive prosecution. It is telling to me that we hear of no agents even being sued in civil court based on their actions. What criminal conduct does not provide relief in civil court? Of course a civil claim can be fashioned, no doubt. I guess my point is I just have seen or heard of one yet.
This looks more like competition to me. It may look more like fraud to someone else. It may also look like grandstanding and social engineering to others.
@cragarhawk Exactly right .. anything can happen. Anything. Who would even suggest we can't win the national title? This team can beat anyone.
Now, we can stub our toe easily, too. But we know that.
@drgnslayr Don't assume that just because charges were filed, there is really a crime. The prosecutor is charging the conspiracy to defraud based on the violation of NCAA rules, under the theory that because the alleged conspirators actions would make the players ineligible, they were defrauding the university of its anticipated economic benefit and right to control their asset (the player). The theory is premised on the fact that the universities take federal money, it appears. Complete stretch. This is a trumped up charge with the federal government injecting itself where it shouldn't be involved.
Why should a rep from Adidas or Nike, or a private agent, be charged with a crime because they are trying to help their business -- trying to compete for business? This isn't bribing a public official. This isn't extorting a public official. This isn't stealing from a public entity. This is paying to help your business. Why should a private company be held to even be concerned with another party's private, internal rules (the NCAA rules)? Why should a private company be penalized for competing with a public entity? A private company says it would help if a player goes to university "X", and pays him to do so -- a crime, or just good business?
This is simply free market competition. There is no prohibition against competing with the NCAA. I can hire a player away to come work for me, right? No criminal law stops that.
Couldn't I approach and talk to the entire KU starting 5, midseason, tell them I'll pay them each $20 million to come with me and go on a barnstorming tour in Australia? Or pay them $20 million to simply scrimmage for my enjoyment? I could steal the entire team. What law is broken?
So think of it this way -- is JJ's mom a co-conspirator if she accepted money and thus caused her son to be ineligible? Is a Euro team a co-conspirator if the they entice a player to leave KU to play in Europe midway through the season?
To @JayHawkFanToo's point on the civil courts, a cause of action against the agent, or Nike, or Adidas in civil court would be very limited -- on theory might be tortious interference with a contract. That's still a stretch. Have you ever heard of one even filed? What criminal charge have you ever heard of that doesn't permit a corresponding civil lawsuit? Right.
I know some don't think this prosecution is politically motivated. But do you think a left-leaning prosecutor, who thinks that the players are mistreated because they don't share in the revenue (you know, that they are slaves), that perhaps isn't a big fan of billion dollar enterprises, might think he could turn the CBB world upside down (or the entire NCAA upside down), by engaging in this prosecution? This investigation began when? 2015? Just food for thought.
Devonte Graham was just amazing. Incredible to see a player develop into an alpha dog.
The lack of anything of substance connecting KU to anything is a major positive. It also sounds like, with the denial from JJ’s mom, there would be no KU knowledge of the transaction. That is important.
The greatest and most informative question is the most simple question — why?
One less than us, until DeSousa showed up.
Sean Miller supposedly caught on wire tap talking about $100,000 payment to land Deandre Ayton.
Is the streak in jeopardy?
Let’s remember, this is about one agent. I doubt it’s contained to one agent.
@justanotherfan "Nothing" in the large scope of what I view bigger issue, which is his divisive and disrespectful on field actions. You are right on your assessment on the value of CBs, of course. You know, my opinion on Peters is impacted greatly by the national anthem stuff. I admit that. i'd want to kick Big Ben's a** out of town if he did that too. I love my country and I detest people like Peters who choose to ignorantly dishonor it in the name of protest. People forget what their lives would be like without this great country that they spit upon. They will always be my enemy. Period.
Edit
@justanotherfan Well, it seems like the Chiefs have moved on from your disrespectful hero.
It's literally comical that you cite two hall of fame quarterbacks as examples. They are team leaders. They are quarterbacks. Peters is a punk CB. He's nothing. Good riddance. Maybe he can go kneel in LA where the anti-American Hollywood folks can fawn all over him. The quicker he's the heck out of here, the better KC will be for it.
Citing Gronk is different. That's up to the Pats. I'm not perpetually offended, so the "quarter" joke is just a little funny. But I would put up with a lot less from a non-QB.
It is interesting the big picture here, isn't it? It does lead back to the prosecutors' motives.
Kurtis Townsend was the coach that recruited JJ. So if there is a coach involved, he'd likely be the guy. Big, big "IF".
@BShark Maybe optimism .. but the question that tests integrity is what if KU found out after the fact? And then did nothing. Did not self-report.
@Kcmatt7 Truthfully, the federal indictments don't bother me. Nor the federal investigation, for that matter. That is "weak af" in my opinion, if I'm tracking with the "af" portion of that. NCAA rules violations concern me.
@mayjay So, in closing, the lawyer in you would argue that there are many Elijah Johnson's in this world, and it could be one other guys? Unfortunately, NCAA rules don't have a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. But I like it ... heck, I knew a guy that went by EJ when I moved furniture in college. Might be that guy.
"Apples Jones, the mother of former Kansas player Josh Jackson, received $2,700 according to documents." -- From @BShark's link
Not the news I wanted to see this morning. Some highlights from the article:
"Schools identified by Yahoo! as possibly violating NCAA rules include Duke, North Carolina, Texas, Kentucky, Michigan State, USC and Kansas. At least 25 players are linked to impermissible benefits, including Michigan State's Miles Bridges, Alabama's Collin Sexton and Duke's Wendell Carter."
"At least six players were identified in the documents as receiving payments exceeding $10,000. They include Dallas Mavericks point guard Dennis Smith Jr., who received $73,500 in loans from ASM before he played for NC State; Brooklyn Nets shooting guard Isaiah Whitehead, who received more than $37,000 around the time he was a freshman at Seton Hall; and 2017 No. 1 NBA draft pick Markelle Fultz, who received $10,000."
"Other teams with current or former players who allegedly received payments were South Carolina, Louisville, Utah, Xavier, Wichita State, Clemson and Alabama. Other players named include former LSU guard Tim Quarterman, former Maryland center Diamond Stone and former Kentucky center Edrice "Bam" Adebayo."
@BucknellJayhawk3 Mo Bamba has 5.0 blocks per 40 minutes. Mitch Lightfoot has 4.5 blocks per 40 minutes. Amazing, isn’t it?
@justanotherfan Exactly right. Fearing for one's safety does not justify murder by a person who is hired and trained to handle just those situations. A complete idiot could just point and fire. A trained officer should be required to think like you or I would think, even without training.
What is so ridiculous here is that he shot the kid, THEN he stepped out of the way of the vehicle. Right? How hard is this? The kid is on his own property, backing out of his driveway, and the officer who can easily just step out of the way, shoots him and THEN steps out of the way. After shooting him, the vehicle spins, obviously because he killed the kid, and the officers weight until it is in a benign position, and then unload more shots.
This is murder. Period.
As an aside, why aren't we blaming the gun?
@HawkChamp That is in the PHOF category, for truth and brevity. And the path isn't really an ominous as it is made out to be. As a one or two seed, but for a lightning strike, you have one win under the belt. You only need three more to get there, and except in the case where a 2 has to play a 1 in the elite 8, your are always the better seeded team. That is all tempered against the fact that CBB is an emotional deal, where pressure, streaks, runs, environment, and many other factors make top teams susceptible to upset. it's not as volatile as baseball in a one game deal, to be sure. Not close. But when you assess it over time, meaning multiple years in comparison to other programs, it gives us better perspective. We've just underachieved in the tourney. Simple as that. But we've overachieved in the regular season -- to a pretty astounding level.