Silvio De Sousa is suspended two years for a rules violation that investigators agree he did not know about or benefit from. That is patently unfair and at different points in NCAA history would not have been punished.
The bigger story here, though, is that many in and around college sports believe this is merely the first step in a bigger play against the Kansas mens basketball program and Hall of Fame coach Bill Self.
De Sousa, in that way, may simply be collateral damage in a bigger power move.
I think that very much is the case, said Don Jackson, a lawyer with extensive experience representing coaches and athletes against the NCAA.
KU athletics counsel and a spokesperson for the NCAA would not comment, but this column is informed by sources familiar with the case, in and around KU athletics, and with experience on the NCAAs side.
Those with NCAA backgrounds disagreed with the assumption that De Sousas suspension was the beginning of a broader and more serious case against the university. One pointed out the difference between an eligibility case and infractions, though the former can lead to the latter.
Either way, its worth noting that the perception exists and not just inside KUs athletic department.
The NCAA wants to prove something and thats the way its been for a while, said a Division I coach. Right or wrong, theres been smoke (around KU basketball) but they havent been able to get anything to stick. The FBI and the (Adidas) trial … this is their best chance. Thats what I see.
Notably, there is at least some optimism inside KUs program that an appeal on De Sousas case could be successful.
The case centers around former Adidas representative T.J. Gassnolas testimony that he paid $2,500 to De Sousas guardian. The NCAA specified that KU must declare Gassnola as a booster before a reinstatement case is heard.
Its a critical distinction, because booster behavior triggers stiffer penalties. But Josephine Potuto, a Nebraska law professor and former chair of the NCAA infractions committee, said that KU could classify Gassnola as a booster for the sake of the appeal and decide to change later.
The appeal would be heard by people from universities and conferences, not NCAA staff. The argument from KU and De Sousa would be that the guideline leading to the punishment is unfair, or has been misapplied.
The general hope is that the suspension would be reduced and De Sousa made eligible for next season. Scott Tompsett, De Sousas lawyer, was more direct when discussing the appeal.
The NCAA still has an opportunity to do the right thing for Silvio, he said. They should take it.
NCAA enforcement is seen by many as a swinging pendulum, affected by recent cases, public opinion and self-worth. In separate conversations, three different sources who work in college athletics drew a connection between the punishments against De Sousa and Mizzou.
