It was only 19 months ago that I posted on Indiana University's questionable hiring of Oklahoma University's former head basketball coach Kelvin Sampson. Immediately following the ruling of the NCAA Committee on Infractions that Sampson had made 233 of 577 "impermissible" phone calls to recruits while at Oklahoma from 2000-04, IU athletics director Rick Greenspan and then IU President Adam Herbert publicly commented that Sampson is a man of "highest integrity" who simply made an error in judgment. Now Sampson faces more serious allegations of NCAA rules violations, including that he knowingly violated recruiting restrictions and gave IU and the NCAA's enforcement staff "false or misleading information" during their investigations (in other words, that he lied). The NCAA's enforcement staff sent a "Notice of Allegations" outlining five potentially major violations to IU President Michael A. McRobbie on Friday, which was released by the school yesterday.
Mark Alesia of the Indianapolis Star provided all the details in a very informative piece yesterday, which included a timeline of events over the past four months:
Oct. 3, 2007: In a self-report to the NCAA, IU details “more than 100” phone calls that violated the restrictions on Sampson and his staff.
Oct. 14, 2007: IU announces Sampson violated NCAA recruiting sanctions by participating in 3-way phone calls and imposed three penalties: forfeiture of $500,000 scheduled raise; loss of one scholarship; extended staff recruiting restrictions. “The rules that we broke were mistakes, but they weren’t mistakes with us hitting our chests thinking that we don’t have to worry about this,” Sampson said. Ice Miller, an Indianapolis law firm, conducted the investigation. “We had what we thought was a very thorough investigation,” athletic director Rick Greenspan said.
Oct. 16, 2007: IU announces assistant coaches made more than 100 impermissible calls. It initially reported 35 such calls.
Oct. 30, 2007: IU releases the Ice Miller report, which details Sampson’s participation in impermissible three-way phone calls.
Nov. 1, 2007: Sampson tells The Star he gave investigators “the right answer” when he said he did not knowingly participate in any three-way phone calls.
Feb. 13, 2008: After its own investigation, the NCAA charges IU with five potential “major” violations concerning recruiting by Sampson and his
staff.
What do you do right now if you're the IU president in this situation? IU has until May 8 to respond to the notice of allegations. Do you fire Sampson? It was just announced this evening that IU is launching an internal investigation into the allegations released yesterday in an attempt to accelerate the adjudication process involving Sampson. At a news conference tomorrow, McRobbie will explain the investigation procedure and name those who will conduct the investigation. Greenspan hopes to offer a recommendation within a matter of days.
According to Alesia, among the definitions of “just cause” termination in Sampson’s contract include (1) “a significant, intentional, repetitive violation of any law, rule (or) regulation” of the NCAA; (2) “failure to maintain an environment in which the coaching staff complies with NCAA … regulations”; and (3) in IU's “sole judgment” Sampson’s conduct “reflects adversely upon the university and its athletic program.”
It is in IU's best interest right now to perform a thorough internal investigation, and to do it as quickly as possible. First, if IU delays the process and it is later determined that IU knew or should have known that the allegations are true, it risks being tagged with a "lack of institutional control". Second, if Sampson is fired immediately, and before a ruling by the NCAA Committee on Infractions, it bolsters his claim that IU fired him without just cause. But if prior to firing Sampson IU performs an investigation and the investigation reveals that the allegations are true, it lends support for a just cause termination pursuant to (2) and (3).
UPDATE (2/15/08): Mark Alesia followed up with a good question and answer piece today, Analysis: What it all means.
0 comments:
Post a Comment