Jailhawks acknowledge subpoena
- Thread starter flacat22
- Start date
Dude you’re seriously so ridiculous. Isn’t it funny how EVERY school/ coach caught up in all this recent cheating and FBI scandals claim complete innocence? I mean really .... i guess the the fbi investigators and NCAA investigators are just making it all up lol...
It’s like when UL got caught cheating ( both times) very few fans showed anger or disgust ... they deflected and came up with absurd scenarios in attempts to show they did nothing wrong.
Just admit it... just because you admit it doesn’t make you less of a fan
Such a dumb ***. How much you wanna bet a KU assist to an assistant was with Souza family and Adidas rep... together... all at once. Same time lmfao
Kansas fans have no efffinnn clue what's coming down. You always save the best for last, and expect those banners and your first final 4 in like last decade ? Cause any justice they will come down. Best for last.
When you pay for players at least pay for top 20 5 star guys lol.
All this mess for a top 30, who btw is rumored to be older than he says. Unlike buke who everyone acknowledges as 22 to 24 year old. At least to the people who matter, like NBA
KU should have never let him play. They did after all this came out. That is the only difference between UK's (Bam) and KU's situation, IMHO.
I don't think anyone will vacate games, unless they played guys after they found out that they were being investigated.
I would be fine with KU not vacating a single game and just call De Sousa ineligible from this point on. I think that would be fair.
That is, if KU is on the up and up.
Duh. Kansas is like the grenade. UK and Duke get the smoking hot girls. UNC get the decent looker and Kansas has to jump on the fattie.
You're adorable. I want to use my pinky finger to rub your little jayhawk belly.
If Bill Self actually cheated with actual proof that he was involved in cheating, like they have on coaches at Louisville and Arizona, I would demand he be fired as an alumnus of KU. The problem is he has not no matter how much you want to believe he has.
What evidence, actual evidence and not the word of a person under indictment, does the FBI have that De Sousa's guardian took money? Subpoena's are being issued to try to corroborate this person's statement. If no evidence of actual wrongdoing is obtained, then no violations exist. Should De Sousa's right to play college basketball be taken away when no evidence of wrong doing has been proven?
Rumors are that Self called Roy to see what he did and Roy said DENY, DENY, DENY.
I posted an article from the Miami Herald that suggests he was paid to play for NC State. Never said he was paid to play for Kentucky.
ROTFLMAO. This is kind of true. UK and Duke get five or so 5-stars each year, while we end up landing one each year and in good recruiting years two.
I know, but please keep up with your own posts. You have been comparing Bam and De Souza. One was paid in some way to go to KU, reverse it, the other was not paid to go to UK. We know De Souza was paid to go to Maryland. You dont have any idea what the reference to Bam in that ledger even means. So, stop comparing them.
1. There is no suggestion whatsoever that Bam, his family or any handler or adviser got money. There's simply a notation that someone who may have been able to influence his recruitment was associated somehow with a "bad loan" -- that is, failed to influence him. De Sousa is directly linked in FBI documents to huge cash payouts that went to people with direct contact to him - as is Billy Preston.
Is it a bad loan for the reason you listed or is it a bad loan since it wasn't signed and not legally enforceable or is it a bad loan because it was intended to influence him to sign with NC State, but he ended up at Kentucky? De Sousa's link is based on the word of someone under investigation by the FBI. That word was written in a document. There is no physical evidence that what was said actually is what happened.
2. Bam has not been named (with a thinly veiled investigative designation) in any FBI or prosecutorial documents as a subject of the investigation, as both De Sousa and Preston have.
I never said he was.
The comparison I am making (and I think there is no evidence that Adebayo or De Sousa are guilty of anything improper) was that IF the "bad loan" was actually true (i.e., if Adebayo or his handlers took money from an agent) and IF De Sousa's handlers took money from an agent, then both are equal NCAA violations. The alleged "bad loan" was supposedly to influence Adebayo to NC State. The alleged money paid to De Sousa's handler was first to influence him to Maryland and then supposedly (which in and of itself seems nonsensical) to reimburse De Sousa's handler who had to pay Maryland back when De Sousa decided he wanted to go to KU. Does that not seem ridiculous to you?
Again, I DO NOT believe either players are guilty of anything.
Josh Jackson was also on that list that had Adebayo on it, iirc. My underlying point is that college recruiting is corrupted by the influence of agents who are not breaking any laws by paying players or player parents to try to get them to sign with them. It is an archaic NCAA rule which is being violated.
The FBI gave Kansas an opening to call itself a victim in a budding basketball scandal, and while that's technically true in a narrow legal sense, it takes on a broader meaning when used by the school as PR cover. It becomes a laughable lie, ugly or worse in one sense and transparently empty in another.
The school's communications department should have known better. Using that word is counterproductive to the presumed intention, pulling the school's reputation closer to the fire instead of away from it. But more to the point here, the word choice makes it more difficult to have an honest conversation about the complicated black market that is college basketball and KU's place in it.
https://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/sam-mellinger/article209330689.htmlThe school's communications department should have known better. Using that word is counterproductive to the presumed intention, pulling the school's reputation closer to the fire instead of away from it. But more to the point here, the word choice makes it more difficult to have an honest conversation about the complicated black market that is college basketball and KU's place in it.
I'm going to keep hammering the same question that you always "like" but never answer..
How do you see this playing out? Do you really think Sousa ever plays? Does this uncertainty and clearly bad business with Adidas hurt Kansas recruiting.. Even more than it already has?
These are the things you should concern yourself with.. Not trying to bring Kentucky or other programs down to Kansas' level. And i dont mean in wins or history.. I mean trying to insinuate kentucky and Kansas are both looking at trouble. That this is a "us" thing and not a "you" thing..
Kansas is free and clear. DeSousa will play significant minutes this year. Our recruiting being hurt is yet to be seen. Let's see how this class shapes up. Right now I see us landing:
Hurt
JRE
Josiah James and
Samuel Williamson and possibly
Kofi Cockburn
Werent you the one that was confident you were getting Fox and Monk too?
A
anon_9qtxg60vqzy0y
Guest
There’s where you’re wrong. The Cam Newton loophole is closed. Read this and weep:
The Division I Amateurism Cabinet sponsored legislation that would include family members and other third parties who shop an athlete's services to schools for financial gain. The Division I Legislative Council passed the proposal Wednesday.
http://www.espn.com/college-sports/...es-include-parents-closes-cam-newton-loophole
I was confident about Fox until Kentucky offered, then I knew KU wouldn't land him. I was fooled about Monk.
A
anon_9qtxg60vqzy0y
Guest
You’re just hoping there isn’t evidence. This case is too evident that the handler received money from Under Armour initially, then Adidas after that. He can say he didn’t receive it all he wants now but since Maryland and Kansas have both been subpoenaed, the feds will come across the evidence somewhere. And when they subpoena him, his lies will turn into the truth. Too much smoke on this one.
A
anon_9qtxg60vqzy0y
Guest
The NCAA doesn’t need for anybody to go to court to rule on the facts. And the facts are DeSousa’s handler was paid by UA to attend Maryland and subsequently paid by Adidas to “get him out of the UA deal” so he could attend Kansas. What part about that do you not understand or do you think the feds are fabricating evidence by issuing subpoenas to Maryland and Kansas?
What’s funny is that if you read the indictment, every school that has players involved is a defrauded victim due to giving athletic scholarships to ineligible players, even if coaches were involved. Also, the feds are assuming De Sousa is ineligible, otherwise they wouldn’t care about the certification he signed.