DeSousa Out This year and next
- Thread starter Macloney
- Start date
So, let's play that forward. Do you really think it is ok for schools to be paying parents/guardians of recruits?
No. Anyone found to have received that amount of money should receive the standard punishment, which is 30% of the team's games, and be required to repay the amount of the violation in the form of a donation. Which means DeSousa should have sat for 10 games, not 60-80.
I would have zero problem with DeSousa receiving the standard punishment and have stated that here many times.
The NCAA forced KU to label Gassnola as an agent to even consider making DeSousa eligible again so they did. Then they took that "admittance" and used it to create the mythical "he agreed to a 20K payment from an agent even though he never received it" BS. It was the only way the NCAA could make that part stick as if it was labeled as an agreement with an agent. It's the shadiest form of garbage I have seen from the NCAA in....well it's only been a couple years since they ruled that Carolina's grade school level courses for athletes were acceptable and required zero punishment.
My position that the school shouldn't have to count his scholarship despite the player being allowed to leave and play somewhere else is the same as the Baylor administration that actively covered up dozens of rapes by players? Interesting.
My main point was that if a player receives $ to attend a school, he shouldn’t play for that school after a penalty. But the school shouldn’t get that scholarship back.So, cheat if you choose, take the money, just transfer as your mea culpa.
Desousa should have been banned for the remainder of the season and told he could play anywhere next year other than Ku. Ku should have vacated all wins in the 15 he played last year, the B12 championship, and F4 appearance. The problem is Ku and Adidas trading on these kids like disposable servants.
We dont get this years "back". DeSousa stays on and will stay at practice and in achool on his scholly if he chooses. And scholarships are for 1 year so we cant be required to "give" that scholly to a player who leaves.
If the penalty includes a loss of a scholly then that is another conversation.
Based on what policies in the ncaa rulebook? You dont get to just make up a bunch of rules and then claim Kansas is getting preferential treatment for violating them without punishment.
If your problem is that the rules are dumb then argue that.
Last edited:
That's not accurate. They wanted KU to label Gassnola as a booster for reinstatement. KU would only do that in the hypothetical. The 'agent' is his guardian.
But the NCAA is a joke, I agree with that much.
No school paid a parent or guardian of a recruit. But the players should be getting paid. That much is for certain, and they should be able to sign with agents, sign shoe deals, make money off their likeness.
There is no evidence he received any money from Maryland and the NCAA has said as much. Maryland turned over everything they had with regards to his recruitment and FBI found nothing, NCAA found nothing. The amount alleged was 60K. The amount that Gassnola said he was going to pay the guardian was 20k but he stated he never paid it. There isn't any evidence he did.
There is evidence he sent the guardian $2500. The guardian apparently turned over all his bank records and he apparently showed that he gave the $2500 to his church.
Those are the facts. They would only admit to him hypothetically being a booster for the sake of getting DeSousa reinstated but will not agree that he is either an agent or a booster in reality.
The guardian is an agent under NCAA rules because he allegedly solicited money. i.e. Cam Newton's dad rule.
Nothing I have seen from either the NCAA or any other source has labeled Falmagne, the guardian, an agent. The violation was that the guardian "received payment from a university booster and agent and agreed to receive additional funds as well."
The guardian did admit that he received an envelope with money and has proven with receipts that he donated the money to a church. And neither the FBI or the ncaa has proven in any way, shape or form that there was an agreement in place to receive more. The ONLY thing that exists regarding that is the testimony of Gassnola.
In summary, a grand total of zero dollars has been proven to have gone into the pocket of his guardian and he is banned for 2 seasons.
EarthdogFred
After 48 hours to process the De Sousa decision and receipt of additional information, we are left with one question: WTF was KU thinking in trying to secure an eligibility determination for De Sousa?
The question is not about how they did it, or whether they should have made the admission. The question is why were they screwing around with that issue at all.
It's not as if this was KU's first rodeo. After Alexander and Preston, they knew the playbook -- let the investigation drag on, watch the player leave, and allow the NCAA to sweep the whole ugly mess under the rug as moot. In light of that, what would possess anyone to think pushing for a ruling on De Sousa was a good idea, after the sleaze was publicly aired in the Adidas trial? About the only good thing you can say for De Sousa and Fenny is that they appear to have been somewhat less sleazy than Preston and Nicole Player. Damning with faint praise. It all happened on Self's watch. Do not do anything to draw further attention to it.
Even after KU started down that path, there were plenty of red flags to suggest the NCAA was going to play hard ball this time and it would be wise to let things go. They didn't. They foolishly plowed ahead. And why? Surely no one at KU really thought the NCAA was going to let De Sousa play this year, and so what if they did.
The cherry on top of this **** sundae was, of course, De Sousa sitting on the bench Saturday, wearing a $500 Gucci tee-shirt, with a 3 carrot diamond in his ear, and a $7,500 Breitling watch about the size of a hub cap. Sure, maybe the T-shirt was a knock off, the diamond was fake, and he bought the "Breitling" for $25 from a street vendor in NY, but is the entire coaching staff and University so tone deaf as to allow the poor, oppressed young man to appear on national television looking like that?
You will note, I trust, that none of the usual talking heads and college basketball apologists have spoken up on this issue or expressed outrage. Unlike KU, they all seem to be smart enough to stay away from this issue and hope that it just all goes away.
The judgment displayed in this case by AD Long is very troubling.
- (41641)
- 206 months
After 48 hours to process the De Sousa decision and receipt of additional information, we are left with one question: WTF was KU thinking in trying to secure an eligibility determination for De Sousa?
The question is not about how they did it, or whether they should have made the admission. The question is why were they screwing around with that issue at all.
It's not as if this was KU's first rodeo. After Alexander and Preston, they knew the playbook -- let the investigation drag on, watch the player leave, and allow the NCAA to sweep the whole ugly mess under the rug as moot. In light of that, what would possess anyone to think pushing for a ruling on De Sousa was a good idea, after the sleaze was publicly aired in the Adidas trial? About the only good thing you can say for De Sousa and Fenny is that they appear to have been somewhat less sleazy than Preston and Nicole Player. Damning with faint praise. It all happened on Self's watch. Do not do anything to draw further attention to it.
Even after KU started down that path, there were plenty of red flags to suggest the NCAA was going to play hard ball this time and it would be wise to let things go. They didn't. They foolishly plowed ahead. And why? Surely no one at KU really thought the NCAA was going to let De Sousa play this year, and so what if they did.
The cherry on top of this **** sundae was, of course, De Sousa sitting on the bench Saturday, wearing a $500 Gucci tee-shirt, with a 3 carrot diamond in his ear, and a $7,500 Breitling watch about the size of a hub cap. Sure, maybe the T-shirt was a knock off, the diamond was fake, and he bought the "Breitling" for $25 from a street vendor in NY, but is the entire coaching staff and University so tone deaf as to allow the poor, oppressed young man to appear on national television looking like that?
You will note, I trust, that none of the usual talking heads and college basketball apologists have spoken up on this issue or expressed outrage. Unlike KU, they all seem to be smart enough to stay away from this issue and hope that it just all goes away.
The judgment displayed in this case by AD Long is very troubling.
Well then you haven't been paying attention and you don't the NCAA rule book.
That is what they put in place after Cam Newton. They redefined 'agent' to include anyone including a guardian or parent who tries to get money for the services of a student athlete.
Well then you're just arguing syntax, which is irrelevant. The violation states that the guardian made an agreement WITH an agent.
From the ncaa news report: "According to the facts provided for purpose of the reinstatement request, De Sousa's guardian received payment of $2,500 from an agent and booster of the school. He agreed to accept additional payment of $20,000 from the same individual and an Adidas emplyee for securing De Sousa's enrollment at Kansas."
Sentence one explicitely states that the information provided on the reinstatement request (that the ncaa forced Kansas to include and claimed was "hypothetical only") was used as the determiner of the violation. Kansas was REQUIRED to name Gassnola an agent and booster for the reinstatement request to be considered and then they busted them for making an agreement with an agent and booster. It's beyond shady and absurd.
Sentence two is supported by zero evidence except for Gassnola's testimony. None.
Now you're copying and pasting posts from the single biggest lunatic on phog.net? Good grief.
I will note that every major "usual talking head" in the college basketball media forum HAS spoken up against the absurdly harsh punishment. Bilas, Vitale, DeCourcy, Parrish, etc.. The ONLY writer who didnt proclaim it absurd was of course, notable Mizzou alum Pat Forde, who makes half his salary spazzing out about Kansas.
