🏀 KuBuckets Archive

@Kcmatt7 You miss the point of the links. Look, you believe something that just isn't true. One statement you made frames the disconnect .. you said prosecutors don't file charges unless they think they can get a conviction. With that blanket statement, fundamentally, you simply don't understand how prosecutors operate. Prosecutors file certain cases for many reasons, and their overreaches are many times dismissed by the judge in advance of trial, or they get thumped by a jury. Likewise, sometimes judges are wrong when they dismiss cases and juries are wrong when they acquit.

That's all a separate issue of whether this CBB case is a legal stretch, which I believe. I think this sort of case is grandstanding, and is outside the bounds really what we need our prosecutors to do. But that's a different issue:

You seem to think that all prosecutors have pristine motives and always file their cases ethically, with attention to detail, and based on the belief that they can gain a conviction of the party charged. That's just horribly, horribly naive.

It's hard to know what you don't know. There are many topics where I suffer the same malady.

But you can obviously believe what you want to believe.

Ok, I do appreciate that you have a firm opinion. I'd just suggest/ask that you open your mind a bit. You said -- "You don’t bring several charges each against 10 men without having hard evidence." The reality is that judges dismiss charges that prosecutors have filed. Here is an incredibly very short list that took me less than five minutes to cut and paste. No doubt, there are some good cases out there that are very solid. You are just operating on a misguided premise that simply because a charge is filed, there is "hard evidence." Just simply not true.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/charges-dismissed-against-16-accused-of-bribing-foreign-official-in-sting/2012/02/21/gIQAOhU5RR_story.html?utm_term=.5b60ab1e321a ↗

https://www.law360.com/articles/495626/why-key-deepwater-horizon-criminal-charges-were-dismissed ↗

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2014/11/federal_charges_dismissed_agai.html ↗

https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/why-were-perlitz-charges-dismissed ↗

https://www.yahoo.com/news/most-charges-dismissed-against-ex-153424894.html ↗

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/05/28/federal-prosecutors-wont-appeal-dismissal-criminal-charges-broadcom-founders.html ↗

@Kcmatt7 Let me ask you this -- what does "found guilty" mean to you? Second question, how many cases are filed that involve something other than a fact scenario that if proven true, is a clear violation of law?

I'll answer the questions generally. First, "found guilty" includes every plea deal that is made. The stat is not astounding at all. Really, think about this -- just under 1 out of 10 people charged are actually innocent? Or the charging was incorrect? That is a big number. So I think your use of the stat proves my point with clarity. Maybe 8% of cases are on "shaky legal ground"?

Second, generally, the 92% stat also includes cases where folks simply plea, perhaps even being completely innocent, to avoid the risk of hard prison time. That is a very real consideration. If you are facing a charge that could land you 15 years, but you can plea to three months and parole for two years -- even if innocent, are you going to gamble 14 years and 9 months of your life? Even if you have a 90% chance of a not guilty verdict?

I am very pro-prosecution and pro-law enforcement. But some prosecutors have questionable intellect. Some have questionable motives. Some just make errors in judgment. They are not pristine. In sum, they are human.

@JayHawkFanToo If you look at the bottom of the KS statute, it includes "public employees" under the definition of public officials. Didn't see that though in the Fed statute though. Just FYI.

@JayHawkFanToo I don't think bribery applies to the scenario he had mentioned. And as far as public employees, we know our coaches are public employees. More demonstrative.

I just think this whole thing will be interesting to see develop. And @Kcmatt7, I can assure that prosecutors can and do charge folks on "shaky legal grounds." That's what's called prosecutorial discretion. Charging does not mean winning .. many times defendants get their cases dismissed on legal grounds.

@KUSTEVE You are assuming coach Cal doesn't know if Nike paid a player on the assumption that they'd have a ring of plausible deniability? Ok, perhaps not a bad assumption on the detail. You said, "Has it happened with us? Not with JJ. With Wigs, I assume nothing out of the ordinary happened." Why would you think JJ didn't get cash? Again, huge assumption.

Now, logically -- I see your assumptions on a HC's knowledge. But setting up a ring of plausible deniability would require the man at the center, possibly, to know that there are violations occurring that he just doesn't want to know about it. Surely a guy in Self's position knows the game. And that is how a prosecutor gets to his prey. Knowing the macro vs. the micro might be the enough. Now, can they ultimately prove a criminal charge with the plausible deniability in place? Maybe not -- it's how the mafia bosses escape prosecution. Maybe an assistant wears a wire? Who knows. But prosecutors have lost trying, and the simple filing of charge is enough to throw everything into chaos.

Double ugh.

@JayHawkFanToo I agree. It still worries me. In these sort of things, ignorance is perceived as lack of program control. The buck stops at the top whether fairly or unfairly. And folks making very good livings still want more. Personally, my biggest worry is that a jacka** prosecutor looking to make headlines targets the perceived pristine coach. Self is really that guy (along with coach K). Ugh.

@justanotherfan But would anyone that low on the food chain actually have any influence?

@Kcmatt7 Actually, bribery law provides that "promises" or "promising" is an act of bribery. Federal link first, Kansas link second. However the scenario we're talking about isn't bribery. The issue I was referring to is the claim of fraud/corruption in dealing with violation of NCAA rules, with the legal hook being universities receiving federal funds. Even then, I agree with you .. it is not, and should, not be illegal.

Why should a private company not be able to pay an independent actor to further its self interests?

Simply because it violates a private organizations "rules" is a big "who cares."

My post was more one to demonstrate the absurdity of what the Feds are doing in the current situation, and to show that one could extrapolate illegality even further.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201 ↗

https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/kansas/ks-statutes/kansas_statutes_21-6001 ↗

@Kcmatt7 Hold on now .. I could argue that promising a future monetary benefit in violation of NCAA rules, as you suggest, in return for signing with a particular school (and thus not with others) could be corruption and fraud. What's the difference between putting the money in their hands now, vs. later? If that was reasonable, then boosters could promise say $100,000 once a player left or graduated. It's the same thing. A "bribe" is a bribe. You would be denying schools that receive federal funding from the chance to sign the
player, based on the improper benefit/bribe. Further you would be giving the innocent player corrupted advice and counsel.

Just showing how strained this whole prosecution is, in my opinion.

And why aren't the players being charged? They know the rules and are participating in this criminal conspiracy, right?

Saw this posted yesterday ... a perspective on the possibility that this is an unreasonable prosecution. Also the possibility of pursuing bigger fish.

Well worth your time to read.

https://www.si.com/college-basketball/2017/09/29/college-basketball-corruption-scandal ↗

@BShark Imagine how many titles we'd have if CBB did it like CFB? Determined by the final poll? Fake titles. Then getting airdropped into a national championship game or a faux final four. Must be nice.

The web will get bigger. Near zero chance that the first targets are the real targets. Prosecutors apply pressure to gain more info, to move up the food chain. If we think Bill Self is not at risk, we need to analyze the character of his assistants. Remember the batman movie -- I know a squealer when I see one? One of the best scenes of any movie ever -- Heath Ledger as the Joker might be the best character portrayal in recent memory. Anyway, who squeals? Who is the squealer?

If there's something lurking, I have my suspicions on the possible squealer. At the moment, of course, completely unfair speculation with zero basis for even consideration.

I believe in Bill Self's character. I don't believe in the assistants' collective character. Why? First, because I don't think I/we know them as well. And second, because they get paid to deliver. It's a sick, dark underworld they live in. They are in the trenches. Can anyone stay clean?

And what is sad, is that folks can get charged and truly be innocent. It's true, particularly in the ever changing plasma that is white collar crime (or claimed crime). Many times the guilt or innocence is not clear, and whether the charge is truly "criminal" is in question -- it's the discretion of the prosecutor related to charging. And prosecutors have been known to charge innocent people to get the fish they want, to squeeze info. To threaten. To posture.

Prosecutors also, sometimes, want to crush folks that appear clean. Taking no greater satisfaction than knocking one from a moral high ground. Pitino? Swamp figure. An easy mark. Self, Coach K? Now there's the pristine targets that some ambitious prosecutors might drool over. Scary stuff. It really is.

Right now, I see this as prosecutorial overreach. I'm going to take some time and review what @mayjay mentioned in another thread. Excellent analysis there. I think another prosecutor could have easily passed on this type of prosecution.

Jay Bilas truly hates CBB. He loves the NBA and wants another version of the NBA. He's the classic hypocrite.

Every time there is a rule or law, it can create a black market, and some people will always try to skirt the rule/law. That doesn't mean you change the rules/law.

Bilas' path is one that will destroy CBB. If you love CBB, you will strongly oppose Bilas and his shortsightedness.

The answer is to eliminate the one year limitation and let players turn pro whenever they want; to strengthen and enforce the NCAA rules; and for the NBA D league options to expand.

Leave CBB alone, but let the whiners turn pro immediately.

@drgnslayr I would strongly disagree. What wealth do the players create? The reality is that the players are interchangeable. If the top 30 players just went pro, CBB would be as strong as ever.

@Kcmatt7 I don't want to get into too much contradiction here. I do see your point.

But let's say you're a high school coach. if adidas came to you and said "We'll pay you to go out and steer players to use adidas shoes, but do it secretly. We don't want them to know you work for us. And we'll give you money to give them as incentive because we think, in the end, that's good for adidas" -- how is that corrupt or illegal?

Simply because it violates an organization's "rules" (as opposed to laws), that doesn't make it corrupt or illlegal.

Just really spitballin' here.

So, as I read info on the charges ... this is all because the schools accept federal money? So the charges equate an assistant coach at Auburn getting extra money to steer a kid to a particular shoe company, to the city councilman in Ward 12 in Chicago who turns favors for his construction buddies into cash?

This really seems like a stretch to me. Doesn't make it pretty. I just question reach of the law on this sort of issue. Perhaps I'm missing it, but how did they misappropriate public monies or finances?

Personally, I don't care. This seems like an issue for the NCAA to penalize if it so chooses.

Legally, this seems a bit shaky, right? A "bribe"? So, I can't pay for a service? These are not public officials.

This is dangerous for Kansas. I am very concerned. The web will expand. We should hold our collective breath.

He fought the law and the law won.

Louisville has to clean house to help come penalty phase time.

This web could expand.

And here I've been regularly lamenting not adding Louisville to the Big12.

@jaybate-1-0 Interesting question ... the answer of course is the one you expect. "America first."

Are we pristine?

Is this the death of college basketball?

Can we cut the Lawsons?

Grimes and McCormack to KU? Sold.

The shoeco theory could have taken a bit of hit with the new adidas deal .. maybe.

Bill Self owns KU. If Self wants a specific shoeco he gets it. Agreed?

Thus, if shoecos dictate his success vis a vis recruiting, and adidas is an impediment as many so often suggest, why would Self not insist on a shoeco that helped him win (recruit)?

If it's money, does a guy like Self who has money galore, really compromise winning for some more money? Assuming he finanacially benefits from the deal?

Seems to me (and I hope) the only thing that is important is winning and national titles. But perhaps I'm simplistic that way.

Maybe it is all about money, and Bill Self is all about the money. Alternatively, maybe in Self's world adidas is not the problem in recruiting that some think it is.

I don't know.

@BShark With Graham, ESPN would have taken him out of the 2013 rankings because he went to prep school (but he might have been too low to include anyway at that point). And they don't include prep school guys in rankings for their new class -- so he's not in 2014 (though he is listed as four stars). Odd.

But hey, we know he's good. Every bit that #36.

Hitler ordered Prague to be untouched during his campaigns ... warped rationale, which we don't need to get into, but I understand Prague is like no other European city.

I'm feelin' the McCormack thing.

@BShark Here is the rivals link I found on Graham .. 36. He was of course originally 2013 class, and was not in the top 100 from what I have seen.

https://n.rivals.com/content/prospects/2014/devonte-graham-9850 ↗

@BeddieKU23 So you really think Charlie Moore cost us an elite point guard? I'm not holding a high opinion of Moore at the moment -- more of a middling/average opinion. So that just kind of makes me sick.

Campbell listed at 6'0".

@kcmatt - You're right, both Mason and Graham started in the 100s. Mason ended up in the 70s (kind of nuts) and Graham in the 30s. And they got bumped probably because we signed them.

@BeddieKU23 @BShark Just checked .. he reclassified to 2018. I first heard of him from a friend that saw him play in a tourney in Columbia or Hutch -- some tourney close to KC (can't remember which one). Said he was the best player on the floor.

A guy who's not highly ranked (60ish) but is in Des Moines is Tyger Campbell. Personally, I'm surprised we didn't swoop in and really make a push on him hard. I just checked 247 and he's not signed and doesn't look like a commitment is imminent. We are all in on Dotson (who live in NC?) I guess. That never made sense to me. I'd rather have the Campbell in the hand, than the Dotson in the bush. But .... we win all the time, and Self makes those decisions. So perhaps this is just irrelevant chatter.

When folks think about retirement, it sounds nice to say they'll hang it up at 60 or whatever. Then they get to 60 and feel like they did when they were 50, and retiring doesn't sound so great.

I think the bigger risk is Self moving to another challenge. But look, if we get a 20 year head coach and he moves to an NBA job, or something else, we are all very lucky.

Zero worries about anything KU basketball related.

@JayHawkFanToo Do you anticipate that the Big 12 will be one of the top 3 conferences? I really don't.

One seed, two seed, three seed .. who really cares? Gotta win 6 for the tourney to matter at this point. So I'm completely good with the schedule -- except for not playing teams that we are afraid of pla --- er, that we (allegedly) gain nothing from playing.

@Hawk8086 @wissox Partial answer is that NC would also play an in-conference team every third year (Duke), who they of course play 2-3 times as it is.

@justanotherfan Ok, that makes sense. I simply have no idea on Newman's level of ballhandling. We were spoiled with Mason. Graham isn't in that league with the ball.

@justanotherfan Newman is a shooting guard, right?

And it is amazing how, by his own free will, he was able to bypass college. All this time I thought the players were slaves and forced into indentured servitude. I bet Robinson could even work at McDonalds to earn pizza money if he really wanted to.

@jayballer54 My guess is that if he'd been released and then came to KU, he'd happily be sitting in some useless class in Wescoe hall right now -- and we'd all be very happy as well.

@Kcmatt7 Right. Should we ever really worry? Bill Self is our coach. We'll be good. And heck, in a weird season where we might lose (God forbid) nine or ten games and (God forbid again) where don't win the big 12, that might be the magical national title run as a 5 seed.

@Kcmatt7 Curious. Why should it be the same? Just for the sake of being the same? The players aren't "equal" to the schools here.

Remember ... and it is a big point that is overlooked ... the schools have all of the infrastructure, facilities, the leagues, the NCAA, the branding, they set up the TV deals, they provide the forum for players to perform, and, of course, the free education. And their product is limited. Meaning only so many kids can play, and there are millions more that want to.

That tips the balance.

It works that way in all contract negotiations. Those with the leverage get the better deal. Players have zero leverage. If they don't come, others will.

But here's a huge reality -- it is, right now. a great deal for the player. If it wasn't, they wouldn't come. Freedom of choice.

When we start talking fairness or equality, then it takes the discussion to an emotional discussion. It's just like the silly $15 per hour minimum wage. Sounds nice. Makes everyone feel good. But makes absolutely no sense.

@mayjay The problem with changing rules is that the rules were set up to protect the product and to create better competition -- to try to limit players changing schools on a whim or by the influence of other schools, etc. A kid signs at, say, Central Arkansas. Then blows up. Will he stay there? No way. He's gone. The one year penalty seeks to dissuade that. To make it more difficult. That helps with the balance of competition to a reasonable degree. It has a distinct purpose. The open transfer then creates a free agency situation that will change the game inexorably. CBB will truly be on the path of destruction.

Is that what we want?

As a general thought, it is comical that the cause of the student-athlete is so trumpeted, as if they are so abused and unfairly treated. Some really need a primer in relativism.

@jayballer54 That's exactly what I'm saying. No one is forcing them to stay. That's fantasy. Kids can leave anytime they want. The penalty for leaving is sitting out a year from playing. Interestingly, the athlete knows all of this ahead of time when he signs the LOI. He knows that coach could leave, retire, or get hit by a bus. It is odd how you are so concerned about that topic, but if your kid was signing an LOI, wouldn't that be a discussion point?

What I find odd here, always have, is that folks want to treat the professional coach, the guy who has worked his way up to his position, just as one would treat a kid out of high school. What industry does that?

Of course, your reference the kids being forced to stay, and the emotions of whether he's "happy." Remember this, that kid is free to leave and go anywhere in America. Anywhere. The only limitation is that he can't play basketball for two semesters. That's it.

You also fail to acknowledge that the LOI is a contract, and the kids get benefits (compensation) from that contract well into the six figures in most cases. You also fail to realize that when folks are compensated, they can be subject to non-compete agreements in the real world that restrict their work in an entire industry, most of them are a year in duration, some a bit longer.

What many fail to recognize, and I think your summary fails in this regard as well, is that rules are there for a reason. To keep a competitive balance. To create a terrific product. To make money that supports colleges, scholarships, and facilities -- the facilities built by, and all risk assumed by, the universities. Not the players. Without that, there is no scholarship for bouncing a basketball. We forget that. The players have no skin in the game. They just play the game.

Remember, more than anything, this is freedom of choice. Players do not have to take the deal that the NCAA/Colleges are offering. If the terms are so unfair, go get a student loan, work at Panera, and do whatever you choose.

Ah, but that's not good enough. Always wanting to change the rules to accommodate the whiners and complainers.

This would be a disaster for college basketball. It would be free agency. Sometimes rules are there for a reason, and they serve a purpose. The rules act as a deterrent. There is a price to be paid for abandoning your agreement. But always ... ALWAYS ... folks want to tear down what is good about this country and its institutions. Sometimes change is not good or better. I'm so tired of the constant whining about the student athlete. It's such fraud. They are student athletes by choice. They could just be students, and work at McDonalds if they so chose. But somehow, someway .. like with this kid from WKU ... attending college on an athletic scholarship, even for a top player, is the better deal than the alternative.

@JayHawkFanToo Whether LB did it right or wrong, he did rescue us from the Ted Owens abyss. He gave us a title, and paved the way for the hire of the century .. Roy Williams. But the Self way is the far, far better way.

Maybe Bob Fredrickson deserves our kudos? He has my eternal gratitude.

@dylans Any question of TRob gets my interest.

Comparing Simien vs. TRob, both in their junior seasons -- TRob obviously didn't have a senior season.

Simien - 17.8 pts, 9.3 reb, .9 blocks, 1.2 assists, .9 steals

TRob - 17.7, 11.9 reb, .9 blocks, 1.8 assists, 1.1 steals

Simien's senior season was terrific as well, 20.3/11.0/.6/1.4/.6

Obviously different players. Simien could really hit that turn around 12-15 footer and was more diverse offensively. TRob had the benefit of Withey down low with him.

For my money, I'd go with TRob at the 4 spot. Simien was obviously smaller. Don't know what a senior season would have brought for TRob. Can't go wrong either way.

@jaybate-1-0 Nope. He's a power forward. He's also African, not American. Until we sign a good old fashioned American 5-star center, your embargo theory remains difficult to refute.

@Fightsongwriter Completely agree .. doesn't look 6'9" to me.

@drgnslayr You make excellent, irrefutable points. Phog Allen, historically, transformed our program. He's got a NC, etc. Tough call. Self has provided unmatched sustained excellence. Amazing.