I kinda wonder what the point of Kansas' revised amount. If the NCAA says that he needs to pay a certain amount because that's what came up in their investigation, isn't that what he has to pay? If Kansas feels that it is lower, shouldn't that have been discussed earlier? Otherwise, just be glad that he can play in conference games and shut your mouth.
A-Town you are on the ball tonight!! Dishing out informative threads like no other.
Why is having teammates that take money more punishable than actually taking money?
What a joke.
Surprised he can play this year. Thought NCAA was tough on things like this.
The NCAA Headquarters may have moved out of Kansas, but we all know where their allegiance is.
I'm just as confused as you guys. The 9 games I understand; it's 30% of the games, which is about as bright-line of a rule as you'll get from the NCAA. But, as far as I've seen, there's been no explanation where the 5,757 dollars and 58 cents figure came from. And why is KU's figure $1,150 less, to the cent, than the NCAA's figure?
The NCAA is going to look pretty bad if they don't come out and explain all of this, in my opinion. Parrish, for one, has already jumped all over it - In Selby's case, reward clearly outweighs risk - NCAA Division I Mens Basketball - CBSSports.com
And, still, I haven't seen anything that, specifically, said what Josh did wrong. All I've heard is the vague term, "impermissible benefits." Perhaps that information is coming, but I would assume they would give a justification right away when telling a kid he has to miss 9 games and pay 6 grand.
I guess the Human Fund (Money for People) is about to get $5757.58 richer. Maybe Cecil Newton will give Josh a loan to pay it off.
Selby won't pay a dime of that fine. If this was any other school this would have been a year long suspension. Absolutely ridiculous.