Kansas men's basketball charged with multiple Level 1 allegations, including lack of institutional c

It's not against the rules to have a conversation with your shoe company rep. What statement in that text constitutes a violation? You are ASSuming (as is the ncaa) that the next step after that conversation was for the Adidas rwp to pay a player but that text exchange does not refer to anything that is specifically against the rules

Nothing directly in that conversation was a violation, but that conversation moves the shoe rep from just being a shoe rep to a booster pushing that specific school.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: SEIOWA CLONE
Sit back and think about the implications of what happens if the ncaa moves forward with the notion that shoe companies are boosters. The NCAA defines a booster as "a representative of an constitution's athletic interests". If they push to have these Adidas guys labeled as boosters (as they are clearly trying to do) then how does the ncaa handle regulation and enforcement of that?

Virtually every recruit is playing for an AAU team sponsored by either Nike, Adidas or UnderArmour. Can those circuits even exist if the companies are formally labeled as boosters? Will schools have to cancel their apparel contracts if the goal is to remove shoe company influence over recruits and programs?

Do you not see what looks over the horizon if the ncaa pursues that?

Again, if the shoe company rep is directly pushing a certain institution then he is a booster of said institution, however if a shoe company rep just reps his company and says to any recruits here is a list of schools that we are contracted with then no he is not a booster of any certain institution.
 
Sit back and think about the implications of what happens if the ncaa moves forward with the notion that shoe companies are boosters. The NCAA defines a booster as "a representative of an constitution's athletic interests". If they push to have these Adidas guys labeled as boosters (as they are clearly trying to do) then how does the ncaa handle regulation and enforcement of that?

Virtually every recruit is playing for an AAU team sponsored by either Nike, Adidas or UnderArmour. Can those circuits even exist if the companies are formally labeled as boosters? Will schools have to cancel their apparel contracts if the goal is to remove shoe company influence over recruits and programs?

Do you not see what looks over the horizon if the ncaa pursues that?

IMO the NCAA would love to end this apparel company ran feeder system. So clearly those leagues could not exist. But...the question that should be asked is not if schools will need to cancel their apparel contracts. The question is whether apparel companies are going to have to abandon their leagues to have access to school apparel agreements. And I believe that answer is yes.
 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...s-youre-cheater-and-wants-you-out/2426693001/

I'm honestly shocked if anything comes out of this. Self might go to the NBA, because the sanctions probably won't come down until after the season.

KU has been great and will remain great. Too many natural advantages exist within the program. That said, you have to think their reign of total dominance over the league is done for a while, especially if they get hit with a multi-year postseason ban.

Side note - the KU 247 page is hilarious. The utter denial about what this means for them is breathtaking.

Nebraska football used to be great to.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: fsanford
Nothing directly in that conversation was a violation, but that conversation moves the shoe rep from just being a shoe rep to a booster pushing that specific school.
Exactly. Every coach is having that conversation with their shoe company rep. And having boosters is not a violation. We as season ticket holders are all boosters.
 
https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...s-youre-cheater-and-wants-you-out/2426693001/

I'm honestly shocked if anything comes out of this. Self might go to the NBA, because the sanctions probably won't come down until after the season.

KU has been great and will remain great. Too many natural advantages exist within the program. That said, you have to think their reign of total dominance over the league is done for a while, especially if they get hit with a multi-year postseason ban.

Side note - the KU 247 page is hilarious. The utter denial about what this means for them is breathtaking.
Agreed about the general KU fan denial. Some people see it simply as "we didn't play Preston and DeSousa was already ruled on and served his punishment so we're good" which is delusional.
 
Sit back and think about the implications of what happens if the ncaa moves forward with the notion that shoe companies are boosters. The NCAA defines a booster as "a representative of an constitution's athletic interests". If they push to have these Adidas guys labeled as boosters (as they are clearly trying to do) then how does the ncaa handle regulation and enforcement of that?

Virtually every recruit is playing for an AAU team sponsored by either Nike, Adidas or UnderArmour. Can those circuits even exist if the companies are formally labeled as boosters? Will schools have to cancel their apparel contracts if the goal is to remove shoe company influence over recruits and programs?

Do you not see what looks over the horizon if the ncaa pursues that?

Pretty simple. There's no reason for shoe company reps to ever talk to recruits or parents of recruits. Shoe company relationships should be between the company and the teams try sponsor, not the players. If they maintain that separation, there's no rules broken.

But ultimately, the shoe companies need to learn that they can provide shoes and clothing, not cars and cash. Follow that rule and there's never really any issue.
 
Exactly. Every coach is having that conversation with their shoe company rep. And having boosters is not a violation. We as season ticket holders are all boosters.

I agree with everything you posted here, so if you don't want the shoe company's reps to be boosters,which is what you were complaining about in the first place, then you don't talk to them in this manner, you discuss gear and not the kids you are recruiting.
 
We had a player get suspended for a season because he and ten others were paid $0.00 on their European youth team and two of his teammates were paid $500.00 that he didn't know about. NCAA admitted he was never paid a dime and didn't know a teammate was paid $500.

Iowa State fans already live in a world of crippling NCAA punishments while we watch the blue bloods bathe in gobs of illegal activity with no punishment.

Please bring on the crippling NCAA punishments if they are applied to Duke/KU/MSU/UK/etc, it can only help the ISU's of the world who already get a completely different set of rules than you could ever imagine.
Do go on about how Kansas has faced no ncaa penalties.... I can't remember the last season we didnt have a player out for a period of time due to ncaa penalty.

Dont just make crap up to magnify your rant. The truth is bad enough to make your case, dont lie to make it seem worse.
 
I agree with everything you posted here, so if you don't want the shoe company's reps to be boosters,which is what you were complaining about in the first place, then you don't talk to them in this manner, you discuss gear and not the kids you are recruiting.
See, there you go. So simple. Maybe the ncaa will publish another unenforceable rule and get that covered.
 
Do go on about how Kansas has faced no ncaa penalties.... I can't remember the last season we didnt have a player out for a period of time due to ncaa penalty.

Dont just make crap up to magnify your rant. The truth is bad enough to make your case, dont lie to make it seem worse.
But I thought Kansas was squeaky clean?
 
IMO the NCAA would love to end this apparel company ran feeder system. So clearly those leagues could not exist. But...the question that should be asked is not if schools will need to cancel their apparel contracts. The question is whether apparel companies are going to have to abandon their leagues to have access to school apparel agreements. And I believe that answer is yes.
If the ncaa doesn't believe it has the jurisdiction to declare that making pinecone turkeys isnt a valid college course that collegiate athletes can take to stay eligible then why on earth would they have jurisdiction over who runs high school basketball AAU leagues?
 
Congrats on cheering for a team that has to cheat to win. Says a lot about you.
It really doesn't say anything at all about me personally.

Do the reports about the allegedly poor behavior of some Iowa State fans towards members of the Iowa band "say a lot" about you since you're an Iowa State fan? No, obviously not and that's behavior by fellow fans, not the team, coaches or players. Attempting such absurd generalizations is silly.
 
Last edited:
oh, i think the fact that he cheers for KU in the first place says everything we need to know...cheating or not

That and an abuse fetish he feeds by hanging out on a rival board where everyone hates him and his ******* cheating ass team. Seriously, what kinda weird duck spends their time that way? Put him on ignore a long time again. Clicked show ignored content against my better judgement and there he is going all Baghdad Bob. LOL
 
  • Agree
Reactions: VeloClone
Following rules and laws is an exercise is semantics.

It's not a violation for the Adidas guy to talk to the recruit or to encourage him to pick an Adidas school. There is nothing in that exchange that says that a rule was violated or that Self was asking him to violate a rule. Nothing. You are simply assuming that it went from that exchange to a payment. Would that be a safe assumption to make? Sure but it is still an assumption.

The ncaa cannot punish someone because they assume they broke the rules. You have to have actual proof.

Talk about twisting yourself into a pretzel.
 
Do go on about how Kansas has faced no ncaa penalties.... I can't remember the last season we didnt have a player out for a period of time due to ncaa penalty.

Dont just make crap up to magnify your rant. The truth is bad enough to make your case, dont lie to make it seem worse.

The shoe rep. that gave the money to DeSousa has already been determined by the NCAA to be a booster, and KU agreed to that terminology as it relates to him and this issue to get DeSousa reinstated this past year.
The NCAA then used that agreement to go back after KU, they are dirty, KU has always been dirty. Its a low population state with few quality BB instate players, KU has been buying players for years and that is why the report goes all the way back to 1970's. This is not new, and has been going on for decades.
Time to pay the piper and let the chips fall were they may. Do not worry, Self will quickly claim innocence, and then talk about his great desire to coach in the NBA and be hired before next season by an NBA team.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: FinalFourCy
KU has been great and will remain great. Too many natural advantages exist within the program. That said, you have to think their reign of total dominance over the league is done for a while, especially if they get hit with a multi-year postseason ban.
KU has been cheating for so long that it’s hard to know what is greatness and what’s cheating.