Kansas and N.C. State newly named in Basketball Scandal

[I.I.]

The alleged payments include an attempted $40,000 in 2015 to the father of a recruit who ultimately played for N.C. State and "at least $90,000" beginning in 2016 to the mother of a recruit who signed in Nov. 2016 with Kansas, the FBI said.

The FBI also alleges a scheme in 2017 to attempt to make payments to the legal guardian of another "top-rated high school basketball player" to outbid "another school sponsored by a rival athletic apparel company." That player, unnamed by the FBI, was said to have made a surprise commitment to Kansas on Aug. 30, 2017.

 

[TU_BLA]

The alleged payments include an attempted $40,000 in 2015 to the father of a recruit who ultimately played for N.C. State and "at least $90,000" beginning in 2016 to the mother of a recruit who signed in Nov. 2016 with Kansas, the FBI said.

The FBI also alleges a scheme in 2017 to attempt to make payments to the legal guardian of another "top-rated high school basketball player" to outbid "another school sponsored by a rival athletic apparel company." That player, unnamed by the FBI, was said to have made a surprise commitment to Kansas on Aug. 30, 2017.

There were quite a few tweets who named the player paid at Kansas as Josh Jackson. Now we’ll really see if the NCAA has any balls left or if they’ve been completely neutered

 

[lawpoke87]

NCAA about to rain hell down on K State for KU’s indiscretions

 

[TU_BLA]

It’s weird how this adidas stuff went down. Wonder if any schools who signed apparel deals with adidas are now having second thoughts. And WTH was Washington thinking? Yeah, adidas is paying them almost $12M per year to wear their gear, but do you really want to invite their problems onto your campus right now?

 

[Gold*]

NCAA about to rain hell down on K State for KU’s indiscretions

Wichita State or that NAIA school where Ballard went.

 

[PhoggyBottom]

There were quite a few tweets who named the player paid at Kansas as Josh Jackson. Now we’ll really see if the NCAA has any balls left or if they’ve been completely neutered

Josh Jackson was already on campus as of Nov. 2016. It was not him. The first player is Billy Preston who never played a minute for KU. The second player is almost certainly Silvio DeSousa. Fortunately for KU, FBI states the Adidas rep intentionally concealed the payments from the university.

 

[TU_BLA]

Josh Jackson was already on campus as of Nov. 2016. It was not him. The first player is Billy Preston who never played a minute for KU. The second player is almost certainly Silvio DeSousa. Fortunately for KU, FBI states the Adidas rep intentionally concealed the payments from the university.

He's still ineligible based on that. So KU didn't make the Final Four this year

 

[lawpoke87]

I assume KU will immediately cancel it's contract with Adidas and accept no more money from the company?

 

[PhoggyBottom]

He's still ineligible based on that. So KU didn't make the Final Four this year

Considering NCAA cleared Marvin Bagley, Wendell Carter and Miles Bridges, I'm not too worried about it.

 

[PhoggyBottom]

I assume KU will immediately cancel it's contract with Adidas and accept no more money from the company?

So you think Nike and Under Armour aren't doing the same thing?

 

[TU_BLA]

So you think Nike and Under Armour aren't doing the same thing?

They are, or at least the FBI thinks so. Weren't they part of the latest subpoenas about a month ago asking for information?

 

[lawpoke87]

So you think Nike and Under Armour aren't doing the same thing?

Oh...I assume they are. Not sure that matters though. Once a school finds out it's sponsor is going behind their back and paying their players don't they have a responsibility to cancel said contract. If a coach was caught directly paying players the school would most certainly cancel his contract. Ethically, I see very little difference.

 

[TU_BLA]

Oh...I assume they are. Not sure that matters though. Once a school finds out it's sponsor is going behind their back and paying their players don't they have a responsibility to cancel said contract. If a coach was caught directly paying players the school would most certainly cancel his contract. Ethically, I see very little difference.

This brings us to some new territory as well in terms of university relationships with apparel vendors. In this instance could said payment from vendor be construed as an act of a booster? Miami had to disassociate itself from Shapiro. Could the NCAA tell schools adidas, Nike, and Under Armour are no longer welcome to conduct business with NCAA affiliated schools because of this?

 

[lawpoke87]

Could they...yes. Will they...no. Far too much money involved most of which goes to the bluebloods.

 

[PhoggyBottom]

I don’t think it is any different than any other business that has a rogue employee. If the employee is fired and the issue is in theory resolved, then it isn’t necessarily a problem to continue the relationship.

 

[TU_BLA]

I don’t think it is any different than any other business that has a rogue employee. If the employee is fired and the issue is in theory resolved, then it isn’t necessarily a problem to continue the relationship.

Y'all can tell Phoggy getting a little nervous about how close to home this investigation is getting. While there is no overt indication that coaches knew the payments were there, someone associated with Kansas absolutely knew.

 

[lawpoke87]

I don’t think it is any different than any other business that has a rogue employee. If the employee is fired and the issue is in theory resolved, then it isn’t necessarily a problem to continue the relationship.

This isn’t a rogue employee. It’s a systematic policy on behalf of these companies to gain an advantage in the sponsorship of soon to be professional athletes. You stated above that Nike and UA are doing the same thing. How can you claim in your next post that it’s a rogue emoloyee? You all but said payoffs such as this are commonplace for these businesses (which I agree).

Which brings me back to my original question. Once a university discovers that one of its sponsors is making illegal payments to its student athletes behind its back doesn’t said institution have an ethical obligation to terminate its contract with said company? If a booster was paying money to a student athlete with the blessing or even direction of an assistant coach then that coach would be immdefoately terminated. I see very little difference.

 

[PhoggyBottom]

Y'all can tell Phoggy getting a little nervous about how close to home this investigation is getting. While there is no overt indication that coaches new the payments were there, someone associated with Kansas absolutely knew.

The only nerves I have on this is whether DeSousa will get to play next year. Preston didn’t play and the FBI specifically said the payments were concealed from KU. Plus, Duke and UNC are involved as well and the NCAA isn’t going to do anything to them.

 

[TU Sepp]

The NCAA is little more than a bunch of yes people for the blue bloods. They possess zero character qualities in how they operate. If any of the smaller schools would have been caught, they would have gotten the death penalty. The big boys get the little slap on the back of the hand and are told that's a no-no!

 

[PhoggyBottom]

This isn’t a rogue employee. It’s a systematic policy on behalf of these companies to gain an advantage in the sponsorship of soon to be professional athletes. You stated above that Nike and UA are doing the same thing. How can you claim in your next post that it’s a rogue emoloyee? You all but said payoffs such as this are commonplace for these businesses (which I agree).

Which brings me back to my original question. Once a university discovers that one of its sponsors is making illegal payments to its student athletes behind its back doesn’t said institution have an ethical obligation to terminate its contract with said company? If a booster was paying money to a student athlete with the blessing or even direction of an assistant coach then that coach would be immdefoately terminated. I see very little difference.

Nike and Under Armour are both under investigation as well. Would it be unethical to sign a new contract with a company that is under investigation? I guess you are suggesting everyone should sign with New Balance or Converse?

 

[TU_BLA]

Nike and Under Armour are both under investigation as well. Would it be unethical to sign a new contract with a company that is under investigation? I guess you are suggesting everyone should sign with New Balance or Converse?

New Balance has a far superior foot bed support than any other shoe out there...look at their recent forays into several different market areas and their success there (baseball, soccer, golf). Their golf shoes are the most comfortable I've ever had on my feet, their soccer cleats are superb as well.

 

[lawpoke87]

Nike and Under Armour are both under investigation as well. Would it be unethical to sign a new contract with a company that is under investigation? I guess you are suggesting everyone should sign with New Balance or Converse?

Under a general investigation....no. However, if a school is made aware that their sponsor is paying IT’S players large sums of money behind its back i think there’s certainly an ethical obligation to cut ties with said company in the same way you would cut ties with a booster or coach doing similar things. I see no difference from a moral standpoint.

 

[quincy101]

Ah, Billy Preston-one of the most soulful, swingin Hammond B-3 players of all time. Absolutely loved his time with Clapton. Check out "One More Car, One More Driver" EC album- one of my desert island discs.

 

[quincy101]

Never heard of Billy Preston, the hoops player, but Billy Preston, the most soulful, swingin Hammond B-3 player was my all time favorite. His time with Clapton was magic-check out EC's "One More Car, One More Driver" disc. I hope the Good Lord has found a spot in Heaven for this cat-after a life of religion, drugs,booze,religion,drugs,etc....... ( Sorry for off-topic post-just couldn't help myself ) (Sorry for BOTH posts-I screwed up the first one & got 2 of them)

Billy Preston

 

[chito_and_leon]

Nike and Under Armour are both under investigation as well. Would it be unethical to sign a new contract with a company that is under investigation? I guess you are suggesting everyone should sign with New Balance or Converse?

Substitute “Mexican drug cartel” for apparel company and re-ask the question. It’s a strange time and place when “they’re all engaged in illegal activity so it’s ok to work with this one” is considered a compelling argument, either legally or morally. Perhaps I’m hopelessly old fashioned, but KU could go without a shoe contract because it didn’t want to associate with illegal actors and it’s the right thing to do.

 

[PhoggyBottom]

Substitute “Mexican drug cartel” for apparel company and re-ask the question. It’s a strange time and place when “they’re all engaged in illegal activity so it’s ok to work with this one” is considered a compelling argument, either legally or morally. Perhaps I’m hopelessly old fashioned, but KU could go without a shoe contract because it didn’t want to associate with illegal actors and it’s the right thing to do.

Except the state of Kansas is in the same budget situation that Oklahoma is in. KU's football program makes no money. Adidas provides uniforms, shoes, equipment, practice gear, etc. to every KU sport along with cash to the university. The deal is worth $191 million over 14 years. So, I guess they could do without a contract with Adidas or Nike or UA but that would mean needing to either come up with an additional $13.5 million per year or cutting certain sports.

 

[chito_and_leon]

Except the state of Kansas is in the same budget situation that Oklahoma is in. KU's football program makes no money. Adidas provides uniforms, shoes, equipment, practice gear, etc. to every KU sport along with cash to the university. The deal is worth $191 million over 14 years. So, I guess they could do without a contract with Adidas or Nike or UA but that would mean needing to either come up with an additional $13.5 million per year or cutting certain sports.

Oh, well, if you make money from working with the criminals then of course it’s ok. Because everyone knows that money is more important than doing what’s right and ethical.

 

[PhoggyBottom]

Under a general investigation....no. However, if a school is made aware that their sponsor is paying IT’S players large sums of money behind its back i think there’s certainly an ethical obligation to cut ties with said company in the same way you would cut ties with a booster or coach doing similar things. I see no difference from a moral standpoint.

UA and Nike aren't under a general investigation. They are involved in this investigation. In fact, UA is the company that allegedly paid money to DeSousa's guardian to influence him to go to Maryland. Nike paid Marvin Bagley's family significant amounts. Under your theory, I guess every school is on notice as to these companies' business practices and should cut ties?

 

[chito_and_leon]

Except the state of Kansas is in the same budget situation that Oklahoma is in. KU's football program makes no money. Adidas provides uniforms, shoes, equipment, practice gear, etc. to every KU sport along with cash to the university. The deal is worth $191 million over 14 years. So, I guess they could do without a contract with Adidas or Nike or UA but that would mean needing to either come up with an additional $13.5 million per year or cutting certain sports.

You want to hear something hilariously old fashioned? Back in the day, people used to do the right thing - EVEN THOUGH IT COST THEM MONEY!! Sometimes they’d even do the right thing when it resulted in them being physically injured. They called it quaint old fashioned things like bravery, courage, leadership. What suckers we used to be!

 

[PhoggyBottom]

Oh, well, if you make money from working with the criminals then of course it’s ok. Because everyone knows that money is more important than doing what’s right and ethical.

Adidas isn't the criminal. It was an employee of Adidas.

 

[PhoggyBottom]

You want to hear something hilariously old fashioned? Back in the day, people used to do the right thing - EVEN THOUGH IT COST THEM MONEY!! Sometimes they’d even do the right thing when it resulted in them being physically injured. They called it quaint old fashioned things like bravery, courage, leadership. What suckers we used to be!

That is a stupid argument. First, people do the same things now. The good old days weren't actually so good. Second, you know KU is a state school and a not for profit university, don't you? The money that comes from Adidas goes back into sports programs, scholarships, salaries for all sorts of employees, and the general university fund. This isn't a deal where shareholders make less if the deal is canceled. It means sports get eliminated, people lose jobs, scholarships are reduced.

 

[lawpoke87]

UA and Nike aren't under a general investigation. They are involved in this investigation. In fact, UA is the company that allegedly paid money to DeSousa's guardian to influence him to go to Maryland. Nike paid Marvin Bagley's family significant amounts. Under your theory, I guess every school is on notice as to these companies' business practices and should cut ties?

Again...if you have notice that a contract partner of the university is illegally paying YOUR players then there is an absolute ethical obligation to cut ties. Same as their would be for a booster or coach...period.

Allegations of a contract partner paying players from other schools is obviously a problem for those schools but without direct evidence of payments to your players there is no illegal activity involving the school.

Quit the abstract references. We’re discussing detailed allegations of illegal payments of large sums of money to Kansas student athletes from a contract partner. I haven’t once blamed KU or called for any type of penalty against the Hawks. However, not severing a relationship with an entity who is illegally paying large sums of money to your student athletes is beyond unethical.

 

[TU_BLA]

That is a stupid argument. First, people do the same things now. The good old days weren't actually so good. Second, you know KU is a state school and a not for profit university, don't you? The money that comes from Adidas goes back into sports programs, scholarships, salaries for all sorts of employees, and the general university fund. This isn't a deal where shareholders make less if the deal is canceled. It means sports get eliminated, people lose jobs, scholarships are reduced.

We get that the contract w/ adidas is big time. TUs contract with adidas is pretty good for TU. And an employee of a company who is acting as an agent of the company is going to make the company guilty by association. I'd be interested as to what budget line item he was using for these transactions.

And Phoggy, maybe Under Armor paid for DeSouza, I swear I was reading where the adidas guy paid $90k to the mother of a one and done (presumed to be Josh Jackson by the context in the report) at Kansas. If true, that's 2 KU players whose families were paid for their basketball skills and by all accounts making them ineligible for receiving impermissible benefits. And it is the compliance officer's job to make sure these things don't happen, so regardless of whether or not it was hidden and supposedly without knowledge of the coaching staff, the athletic dept. is going to be in the sights of the NCAA. As is Louisville. Louisville will probably get hammered because of the numerous infractions over the past few years and then this stacked on it. All of it falls within the "Lack of institutional control" realm because the athletic depts. are charged with knowing everything about their athletes when they bring them in. And because of the scope of this happening throughout the NCAA, I am guessing the NCAA has a harsh reprimand in store for the universities, suspended players who accept money, and for those whose eligibility has been forfeited by going pro, the coach being suspended for 5-7 games OR a limit placed on off campus recruiting. All of those essentially equate to the proverbial slap on the wrist and a minor inconvenience to the program without any real punishment in terms of losing scholarships, postseason bans, etc.

 

[chito_and_leon]

That is a stupid argument. First, people do the same things now. The good old days weren't actually so good. Second, you know KU is a state school and a not for profit university, don't you? The money that comes from Adidas goes back into sports programs, scholarships, salaries for all sorts of employees, and the general university fund. This isn't a deal where shareholders make less if the deal is canceled. It means sports get eliminated, people lose jobs, scholarships are reduced.

Obviously the first part was facetious. That was obvious, right?

Oh so you guys are like Robin Hood, taking dirty money to use it to help the less fortunate? You only do it so the poor kid from the sticks Kansas can get a college education? It has nothing to do with, you know, wanting to win at all costs?

There are always consequences from doing the right thing. Sometimes you do the wrong thing for the greater good but it’s hardly a moral justification. Why doesn’t the school take money from prostitutes and pimps? That money would be used for the greater good. What kind of illegal money is ok and what kind isn’t? Who decides?

And I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but if companies lose money, they fire people too. Is it ok for a company to do illegal things if they do it to avoid firing people? What if the company does good in the world like a hospital? Can they take illegal money to avoid shutting down a clinic in the sticks where the 7 foot kid lives who you’re so generously and philanthropically worried about educating?

 

[PhoggyBottom]

We get that the contract w/ adidas is big time. TUs contract with adidas is pretty good for TU. And an employee of a company who is acting as an agent of the company is going to make the company guilty by association. I'd be interested as to what budget line item he was using for these transactions.

And Phoggy, maybe Under Armor paid for DeSouza, I swear I was reading where the adidas guy paid $90k to the mother of a one and done (presumed to be Josh Jackson by the context in the report) at Kansas. If true, that's 2 KU players whose families were paid for their basketball skills and by all accounts making them ineligible for receiving impermissible benefits. And it is the compliance officer's job to make sure these things don't happen, so regardless of whether or not it was hidden and supposedly without knowledge of the coaching staff, the athletic dept. is going to be in the sights of the NCAA. As is Louisville. Louisville will probably get hammered because of the numerous infractions over the past few years and then this stacked on it. All of it falls within the "Lack of institutional control" realm because the athletic depts. are charged with knowing everything about their athletes when they bring them in. And because of the scope of this happening throughout the NCAA, I am guessing the NCAA has a harsh reprimand in store for the universities, suspended players who accept money, and for those whose eligibility has been forfeited by going pro, the coach being suspended for 5-7 games OR a limit placed on off campus recruiting. All of those essentially equate to the proverbial slap on the wrist and a minor inconvenience to the program without any real punishment in terms of losing scholarships, postseason bans, etc.

It was not Josh Jackson. The first KU player referenced in the indictment was Billy Preston. He never played a game at KU. The second player was Silvio DeSousa. The NCAA is not going to do anything to the schools or coaches without proof that they were involved. I can pretty much guarantee you that Duke/Coach K, UNC/Roy Williams and KU/Self aren't getting hit with anything unless they pull a Sean Miller and get caught on tape.

 

[PhoggyBottom]

Obviously the first part was facetious. That was obvious, right?

Oh so you guys are like Robin Hood, taking dirty money to use it to help the less fortunate? You only do it so the poor kid from the sticks Kansas can get a college education? It has nothing to do with, you know, wanting to win at all costs?

There are always consequences from doing the right thing. Sometimes you do the wrong thing for the greater good but it’s hardly a moral justification. Why doesn’t the school take money from prostitutes and pimps? That money would be used for the greater good. What kind of illegal money is ok and what kind isn’t? Who decides?

And I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but if companies lose money, they fire people too. Is it ok for a company to do illegal things if they do it to avoid firing people? What if the company does good in the world like a hospital? Can they take illegal money to avoid shutting down a clinic in the sticks where the 7 foot kid lives who you’re so generously and philanthropically worried about educating?

The basketball program won with Nike and with Adidas and would win without any contract at all. The reason KU entered the Adidas contract was because Adidas offered to equip every sport. Nike would not. The contract does help those other sports compete but more essentially it keeps them around.

Every school takes money from prostitutes, pimps, and every other form of criminal. You think all schools are screening their donations to see how the individual earned it?

KU isn't taking illegal money. There is nothing illegal about the contract with Adidas.

 

[chito_and_leon]

Every school takes money from prostitutes, pimps, and every other form of criminal. You think all schools are screening their donations to see how the individual earned it?

Yes as a matter of fact I’m certain they do, at least for donations of signficant amounts. They probably don’t want to be an accessory to money laundering.

 

[PhoggyBottom]

You obviously don’t understand what money laundering is

 

[Li'l Eric Coley]

I'd like to hear more about the Billy Preston who plays a mean Hammond, mixed with booze and drugs.

 

[chito_and_leon]

You obviously don’t understand what money laundering is

Yes I do. It simply requires that the illegal funds be turned into something of value, like tax write offs, tickets, etc. pretty obvious kinds of things that come to donors.