BITB fires shot over Currie's bow, and basically calls Currie a huge POS

[MakeItRain]

JFC, we need a ruling on who to start hating now.  Dillards, our AD's office, Frank, Jake/Curt....this is all very confusing.

I pretty much hate all of them at this point.  I think I hate our compliance dicks the most though.  Frank should have "handled" this.  They got a discount on a few polos from some whore at fracking Dillards, they didn't get a money bag from a damn booster.   

I really don't understand why this is so hard for you tards to understand.  We're not rough ridin' Duke or Kansas.  Either have a far reaching compliance department or deal with a TV ban, two year post season ban and the loss of 4 scholarships.  I can't believe you fuckwads are willing to risk something bigger for 3 goddamn December games.  Get a rough ridin' grip.

[Bill Clarahan]

god dammit I want Krause back, he could have fixed all this with a contract

[sonofdaxjones]

There is no "risk everything" in these types of scenarios Make it Golden Shower. . .. geezus, talk about a rough ridin' drama queen.

[MakeItRain]

There is no "risk everything" in these types of scenarios Make it Golden Shower. . .. geezus, talk about a rough ridin' drama queen.

So you know for a fact that the snitch wouldn't have called the RCPD, KC Star, or straight to the NCAA if they were not satisfied?  They were going to snitch to the AD, with no expectations whatsoever but no one else.  As always, perfectly reasonable, Dax.

[sonofdaxjones]

There is no "risk everything" in these types of scenarios Make it Golden Shower. . .. geezus, talk about a rough ridin' drama queen.

So you know for a fact that the snitch wouldn't have called the RCPD, KC Star, or straight to the NCAA if they were not satisfied?  They were going to snitch to the AD, with no expectations whatsoever but no one else.  As always, perfectly reasonable, Dax.

Doesn't matter, it's a secondary violation, it's not a "risk everything" scenario.    The NCAA just pretty much said there's nothing they can do to a kid even if his dad did shop him around for $200K.   Even that is absolutely a clear violation of multiple NCAA rules.   Plus, don't give some spiel about it being Auburn, the NCAA has hammered Auburn repeatedly over the years.   If it's handled internally, the kids make full restitution and all of this is documented, there isn't going to be some "risk everything" scenario.   The worst possible thing to happen is to have some compliance staff that's sniffing around and sticking their head into every little thing.   Because you can't fart without committing a secondary violation.

["storm"nut]

There is no "risk everything" in these types of scenarios Make it Golden Shower. . .. geezus, talk about a rough ridin' drama queen.

So you know for a fact that the snitch wouldn't have called the RCPD, KC Star, or straight to the NCAA if they were not satisfied?  They were going to snitch to the AD, with no expectations whatsoever but no one else.  As always, perfectly reasonable, Dax.

Is it me or did my powerespect version of myself get a hold of Makeitrain's log in info and start posting.  :powerespect:

[pencat]

Kietz is full of sh1t.  First, it doesn't meet the elements of a theft charge to be prosecuted in Kansas.  That should tell you a lot.

Here's the statute:
      21-3701.   Theft. (a) Theft is any of the following acts done with intent to deprive the owner permanently of the possession, use or benefit of the owner's property:

      (1)   Obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property;

      (2)   obtaining by deception control over property;

      (3)   obtaining by threat control over property; or

      (4)   obtaining control over stolen property knowing the property to have been stolen by another.

      (b) (1)   Theft of property of the value of $100,000 or more is a severity level 5, nonperson felony.

      (2)   Theft of property of the value of at least $25,000 but less than $100,000 is a severity level 7, nonperson felony.

      (3)   Theft of property of the value of at least $1,000 but less than $25,000 is a severity level 9, nonperson felony.

      (4)   Theft of property regardless of the value from three separate mercantile establishments within a period of 72 hours as part of the same act or transaction or in two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or course of conduct is a severity level 9, nonperson felony.

      (5)   Theft of property of the value of less than $1,000 is a class A nonperson misdemeanor.

      (6)   Theft of property of the value of less than $1,000 is a severity level 9, nonperson felony if committed by a person who has been convicted of theft two or more times.

      (c)   Conviction of a violation of a municipal ordinance prohibiting acts which constitute theft as defined by this section shall be considered a conviction of theft for the purpose of determining the number of prior convictions and the classification of the crime under this section.

Notice that the control over the property ty Pullen or Kelly is not "unauthorized".  It's not known if the employee used proper authorization, but from a legal standpoint, the employee is an "agent" of the store, and Pullen and Kelly have to accept that he is acting in the interests of the store.

RCPD has no problems charging student athletes.  Why doesn't one of the geniuses that think this is a "crime" request a police report on this?

 

What about receiving stolen property? 

[MakeItRain]

There is no "risk everything" in these types of scenarios Make it Golden Shower. . .. geezus, talk about a rough ridin' drama queen.

So you know for a fact that the snitch wouldn't have called the RCPD, KC Star, or straight to the NCAA if they were not satisfied?  They were going to snitch to the AD, with no expectations whatsoever but no one else.  As always, perfectly reasonable, Dax.

Doesn't matter, it's a secondary violation, it's not a "risk everything" scenario.    The NCAA just pretty much said there's nothing they can do to a kid even if his dad did shop him around for $200K.   Even that is absolutely a clear violation of multiple NCAA rules.   Plus, don't give some spiel about it being Auburn, the NCAA has hammered Auburn repeatedly over the years.   If it's handled internally, the kids make full restitution and all of this is documented, there isn't going to be some "risk everything" scenario.   The worst possible thing to happen is to have some compliance staff that's sniffing around and sticking their head into every little thing.   Because you can't fart without committing a secondary violation.

That entire paragraph is based on subjective opinion, thankfully the people running the athletic department aren't willing to fool around with "what if's."  There is nothing consistent about how the NCAA enforces its rules.  Only a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) wouldn't   with three games at the end of December.

I know this is very difficult for you, but try to stop   about small crap.  I'd save this for when we start conference 1-3.

[MakeItRain]

There is no "risk everything" in these types of scenarios Make it Golden Shower. . .. geezus, talk about a rough ridin' drama queen.

So you know for a fact that the snitch wouldn't have called the RCPD, KC Star, or straight to the NCAA if they were not satisfied?  They were going to snitch to the AD, with no expectations whatsoever but no one else.  As always, perfectly reasonable, Dax.

Is it me or did my powerespect version of myself get a hold of Makeitrain's log in info and start posting.  :powerespect:

I sweat to God I'll fight your fat, smelly, acne faced ass.

[CNS]

There is no "risk everything" in these types of scenarios Make it Golden Shower. . .. geezus, talk about a rough ridin' drama queen.

So you know for a fact that the snitch wouldn't have called the RCPD, KC Star, or straight to the NCAA if they were not satisfied?  They were going to snitch to the AD, with no expectations whatsoever but no one else.  As always, perfectly reasonable, Dax.

Is it me or did my powerespect version of myself get a hold of Makeitrain's log in info and start posting.  :powerespect:

I sweat to God I'll fight your fat, smelly, acne faced ass.

 

[mcmwcat]

 Only a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) wouldn't   with three games at the end of December.

good rebuttal.  although we still haven't heard what Kelly's punishment is.  have we?

["storm"nut]

There is no "risk everything" in these types of scenarios Make it Golden Shower. . .. geezus, talk about a rough ridin' drama queen.

So you know for a fact that the snitch wouldn't have called the RCPD, KC Star, or straight to the NCAA if they were not satisfied?  They were going to snitch to the AD, with no expectations whatsoever but no one else.  As always, perfectly reasonable, Dax.

Is it me or did my powerespect version of myself get a hold of Makeitrain's log in info and start posting.  :powerespect:

I sweat to God I'll fight your fat, smelly, acne faced ass.

Sure. This fat ass is ready to rumble.

[sonofdaxjones]

Never said that the NCAA was consistant Rain, in fact I've been pointing out how inconsistant they've been for years.  But you're operating under the dumbass assumption that I am sayiing that K-State just look the other way, and that's not what I am saying.   I am saying you don't have to run to the NCAA on every little freaking thing, particuarly if there was not anyone in the K-State athletic adminstration or coaching staff involved in what is clearly a secondary violation at most, and even that is debateable because the actual "booster" status of the Dillards employee has not been established publically.   Handle it in house, restitution, 1 game suspension, go over rules with the entire team, ensure no one on the coaching staff was involved, ensure that it was an isolated incident.  

[Dugout DickStone]

Never said that the NCAA was consistant Rain, in fact I've been pointing out how inconsistant they've been for years.  But you're operating under the dumbass assumption that I am sayiing that K-State just look the other way, and that's not what I am saying.   I am saying you don't have to run to the NCAA on every little freaking thing, particuarly if there was not anyone in the K-State athletic adminstration or coaching staff involved in what is clearly a secondary violation at most, and even that is debateable because the actual "booster" status of the Dillards employee has not been established publically.   Handle it in house, restitution, 1 game suspension, go over rules with the entire team, ensure no one on the coaching staff was involved, ensure that it was an isolated incident.  

OR, Bill Self it and completely ignore.

[MakeItRain]

Never said that the NCAA was consistant Rain, in fact I've been pointing out how inconsistant they've been for years.  But you're operating under the dumbass assumption that I am sayiing that K-State just look the other way, and that's not what I am saying.   I am saying you don't have to run to the NCAA on every little freaking thing, particuarly if there was not anyone in the K-State athletic adminstration or coaching staff involved in what is clearly a secondary violation at most, and even that is debateable because the actual "booster" status of the Dillards employee has not been established publically.   Handle it in house, restitution, 1 game suspension, go over rules with the entire team, ensure no one on the coaching staff was involved, ensure that it was an isolated incident.  

They shouldn't inform the NCAA of NCAA violations that they know about?  I would agree with you IF the compliance department uncovered the violation, it's pretty clear that this isn't the case, they were told by the snitch.  If townies were the people who uncovered the issue you are rolling the dice by keeping it in house.

Why do you keep thinking that you have to be a booster to be penalized by the NCAA for impermissable benefits?

[sonofdaxjones]

Never said it had to be a booster . . . but there's a huge difference between some dumbass clerk at a department store giving some discounts as oppossed to Jack Vanier handing out pre-paid $1000 Visa cards . . . which is a hell of a great idea IMO.

Here's the deal on the "snitch", anybody can call up the NCAA and say anything, so what. 

[CNS]

What ever happened to the $100 handshake?   

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[theKSU]

Players aren't allowed to benefit from their celebrity status.  I don't think it matters if this clerk ever went to a game.  

BITB was talking about how great Currie is yesterday.  I don't have a problem with self-reporting this.  Players need to understand there are consequences for violating NCAA rules.  Frank too.

[Trim]

Kietz is full of sh1t.  First, it doesn't meet the elements of a theft charge to be prosecuted in Kansas.  That should tell you a lot.

Of course it fits the elements.  I've prosecuted it.

I doubt it was a jury trial.  Prosecutors get bogus pleas all the time.  Your defendant was a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), which of course, you relied upon to get your plea.

Kietz is full of sh1t.  First, it doesn't meet the elements of a theft charge to be prosecuted in Kansas.  That should tell you a lot.

Of course it fits the elements.  I've prosecuted it.

I doubt it was a jury trial.  Prosecutors get bogus pleas all the time.  Your defendant was a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), which of course, you relied upon to get your plea.

You have no idea what you're talking about.  Just stop.  When an employee of a store works with "customers" to get them free crap, it's theft.  The whole bunch of them are stealing from the store.

I'm fairly sure that this has nothing to do with boosters, ku snitches, etc.  An employee tried to give the players the same hook-up she probably gives non-playing friends.  She got busted and law enforcement was involved.  The manager there hates everyone; she is a bitter old woman.  She wouldn't discriminate between KSU ballers, squawks, students, anybody.  KSU was brought into the fold and made the call, rightly or wrongly, that they'd rather self-report then let the thing play out and catch whatever consequences the NCAA could bring should they later find out, which between the prospect of charges (which are public) and small-town-everyone-talks Manhattan, were probably pretty good.

["storm"nut]

Players aren't allowed to benefit from their celebrity status.  I don't think it matters if this clerk ever went to a game.  

BITB was talking about how great Currie is yesterday.  I don't have a problem with self-reporting this.  Players need to understand there are consequences for violating NCAA rules.  Frank too.

 :powerespect:

[sonofdaxjones]

Nope, gonna stick with the fact that there's literally 1000's of secondary violations every day all across college sports and most of them never see the light of day at the NCAA.   If it was found that somebody on the K-State staff or admin was involved, or that this was an inducement to come to K-State or stay at K-State (uh-hmm like happens at certain other schools) then yeah, I grudgingly say report it to the NCAA.  

[CNS]

Nope, gonna stick with the fact that there's literally 1000's of secondary violations every day all across college sports and most of them never see the light of day at the NCAA.   If it was found that somebody on the K-State staff or admin was involved, or that this was an inducement to come to K-State or stay at K-State (uh-hmm like happens at certain other schools) then yeah, I grudgingly say report it to the NCAA.  

I don't want to live in a world where this isn't true.

[Poster formerly known as jthutch]

Never said it had to be a booster . . . but there's a huge difference between some dumbass clerk at a department store giving some discounts as oppossed to Jack Vanier handing out pre-paid $1000 Visa cards . . . which is a hell of a great idea IMO.

Here's the deal on the "snitch", anybody can call up the NCAA and say anything, so what. 

  Yes but if the NCAA investigates and find that the Athletic dept knew about it and the department store can show reciepts etc... to collaborate it's claim then the whole department looks bad. 

To me this is setting up nice.  We turn ourselves in for something petty our preseason all american non the less.  Now we can start the real paying of player/recruits and the NCAA won't even think twice.  "What they are handing out gift cards, no way, they turn in there best players for stupid things, we will leave this one alone."

[MakeItRain]

Nope, gonna stick with the fact that there's literally 1000's of secondary violations every day all across college sports and most of them never see the light of day at the NCAA.   

No rough ridin' crap Dax, the same thing happens at K-State too.  I wouldn't be shocked if it happened in Manhattan again today.  The rough ridin' equestrian team gets impermissible benefits.  It is obvious to nearly everyone but you and Keitz that the compliance department felt like they had reason to report this specific incident.  LOL at you thinking that the compliance department calls the NCAA everytime they know an athlete got a goddamn Jimmy Johns sub brought for them.

[sonofdaxjones]

Never said it had to be a booster . . . but there's a huge difference between some dumbass clerk at a department store giving some discounts as oppossed to Jack Vanier handing out pre-paid $1000 Visa cards . . . which is a hell of a great idea IMO.

Here's the deal on the "snitch", anybody can call up the NCAA and say anything, so what.  

 Yes but if the NCAA investigates and find that the Athletic dept knew about it and the department store can show reciepts etc... to collaborate it's claim then the whole department looks bad.  

To me this is setting up nice.  We turn ourselves in for something petty our preseason all american non the less.  Now we can start the real paying of player/recruits and the NCAA won't even think twice.  "What they are handing out gift cards, no way, they turn in there best players for stupid things, we will leave this one alone."

Okay, well I am big believer in pre-emptive reporting to get out ahead of the real cheating.   Looking at the recruiting, you really think we're trying very hard (cheating) on the recruiting front??