Question of the Week: Did the NCAA Come Down Hard Enough on Sampson/Indiana?

I don't want to say too much, because I want to hear your guys thoughts.. but I think IU got off too easy. Basically, they hired a guy everyone knew was a shady cheater. The NCAA got gun-shy seeing one of their flagship programs struggling.. but IU's current situation should have no bearing. In terms of Sampson, I'd say 7-10 years would be more appropriate than 5, but he'll be fine regardless since he's got a nice NBA gig anyways.

Lets hear what you think!

the NCAA is a joke. If Sampson was at Mercer or something, he'd be banned for a decade or more. But poor IU had some players transfer so the NCAA got scared they'd ruin the program and lose IU's big alumni base. Sampson's a fraud.

=>1) It was IU's compliance office who caught the violations and IU self reported itself. Thus there was was institutional control. Compare that to when Marshall got busted for academic fraud, financial benefits, and then had a compliance director who tried to cover it up.

Then Marshall got a less of a penalty than what IU self-imposed on itself. Kinda shoots down the "If Sampson was at Mercer or something" argument doesn't it?

2) 95% of the calls were made by basically two coaches: Sampson and Senderoff. Both of whom were fired before the season even ended. This was not a breakdown on all levels.

3) Many of the calls were not NCAA violations, but rather violations of IU's self-imposed restrictions after the school hired Sampson. NCAA cannot punish IU for violations of a non-existent NCAA rule.

4) The violations were in fact just phone calls. There were no allegations of illegal benefits except for one recruit being given an IU gym bag after attending a camp. Again, compare that to what Marshall got.

5) Shawn, your comment "Basically, they hired a guy everyone knew was a shady cheater" is off base. The fact he was a cheater in the past is irrelevant as to what IU's punishment should be. IU did not break any rules in hiring Sampson even though Sampson was a cheater at Oklahoma. Thus, it would be improper, unethical, illegal, and even morally wrong for the NCAA to punish IU for merely hiring the guy.

IU even went beyond the call of duty by self-imposing restrictions on Sampson after he was hired.

IU's punishment should be limited only to conduct that occurred at IU and was actually a violation of NCAA rules. Hiring someone who cheated in the past is not a violation of said rules. Thus that fact is irrelevant and cannot be taken into consideration.

but Sampson's...no. Should have been ten years. Todd Bozeman got ten for what he did at Cal, and while that was a different set of circumstances he didn't lie to the NCAA. Kelvin misled the NCAA and his own compliance department. If you can't even be straight with the people charged to help you stay within the rules something is terribly wrong.

=>Arf,

You claim that what I wrote was "faulty," but you fail to point out what was faulty.

A) You wrote: "Actually, Sampson DID break NCAA rules, several of them."

You need to read was I wrote more closely. I never wrote that Sampson did not commit violations at IU.

IN FACT, I wrote...

...in point 1) "It was IU's compliance office who caught the violations and IU self reported itself." --I was talking violations wasn't I.

...in point 3) "Many of the calls were not NCAA violations, but rather violations of IU's self-imposed restrictions after the school hired Sampson." --As I hope you can now see, I said only that "many" of the calls were not NCAA violations, I never said that "none" of the calls were NCAA violations.

...in point 4) "The violations were in fact just phone calls." --Again, I am writing that there were violations.

******

B) You wrote, "It certainly could be interpreted there was a lack of institutional control because Sampson was an employee of IU and he gave the NCAA false and misleading information in their investigation. Sorry, but as long as he was employed by IU what he did was their responsibility as well."

i) I do not believe you understand what "lack of institutional control" means.

Follow the address below and read up!

h ttp://compliance.pac-10.org/thetools/instctl.pdf

You will note as you read it states, "An institution cannot be expected to control the actions of every individual who is in some way connected with its athletic program. The deliberate or inadvertent violation of a rule by an individual who is not in charge of compliance with the rules that are violated will not be considered due to lack of institutional control."

It also reads that there will be no finding of lack of institutional control if:

"* if they are monitored to ensure such measures are beling followed; and

* if, on learning a violation has occurred, the institution takes swift action."

Clearly the actions of one person do not equate to "lack of institutional control." So Sampson just being an employee of IU does not make his violations a "lack of institutional control."

Also, Kelvin Sampson was not in charge of compliance. The job falls on IU's Compliance Director and Compliance Office. Since it was IU's Compliance Office that not only found the violations (that is the monitoring part of the first bullet) but also immediately began an investigation and then reported the findings to the NCAA (that is the swift action part of the second bullet).

ii) Sampson's false and misleading testimony to the NCAA was given during this past summer at a hearing in Seattle. This was many months after he was fired by IU. So he was not an employee of IU when he gave the false and misleading testimony. But that is irrelevant anyone because even if he was an employee, it still would not be lack of institutional control

iii) To use the Marshall example I used in my other post, Marshall was found to have lack of institutional control because its Compliance Director literally tried to cover up academic fraud (players getting a copy of tests days before the exam) and extra benefits (paid $25 per hour -- 5 times the market rate -- for janitorial work at a donor's business when the players did not even have to show up for work). That is the classic example of "lack of institutional control."

******

C) You wrote, "And just because IU reported itself...most schools self-report violations, that doesn't mean they're in the clear or had institutional control."

Must do. And those schools are found to not have a lack of institutional control. But definition, spotting and reporting violations IS institutional control per the link above.

******

D) You wrote, "Also, while those phone calls were not offering improper benefits necessarily, they were giving IU a competitive advantage in recruiting, which is a very big deal."

Yes it does give a competitive advantage. That is why some of the the calls were NCAA violations. Keep in mind again, that many of the calls were perfectly legal under NCAA rules. But isn't just about every NCAA rule in place to prevent giving a competitive advantage? If so, does that mean violations of every rule = major violations and lack of institutional control. Of course not.

Petty theft and murder are both crimes and those who break them are criminals, the sentences for breaking those laws are not the same because they are not equal in seriousness. Just like in criminal law, excessive phone calls and cash payments to players are both violations and those who break them are violators, the sentences for breaking those rules are not the same because they are not equal in seriousness.

******

E) You wrote, "further, the fact Sampson was a known cheater is VERY relevant to the situation because IU cannot claim it was a surprise that this happened."

Yes IU can. IU can claim they expect every employee to follow the rules. IU can claim Sampson promised he would follow the rules. If hiring someone who has broken NCAA rules in the past is a NCAA rule, then fine, NCAA can punish IU for that. But it wasn't. So they can't. In addition, if the NCAA did not want Sampson to coach anymore, the NCAA could have banned Sampson. They didn't.

IF hiring Sampson is legal, that cannot be a factor in the punishment. In hindsight, it was a poor choice of a hire no doubt. But not an illegal choice.

Question: Should Kent State be punished by the NCAA for hiring Rob Senderoff (the asst coach under Sampson who made the 85% of the prohibited calls) even though there is no allegation that Senderoff has violated any rule at Kent?

******

F) You wrote, "The NCAA can ask: did IU do EVERYTHING it could have to prevent this from happening? And the answer is NO because they still CHOSE to hire this guy, knowing it was possible it could happen again."

Again, see my response to E) above. In addition, IU can say, "yes we did. We imposed the restrictions on Sampson from day one that Oklahoma levied on him. We also added additional restrictions on Sampson beyond those imposed on him by Oklahoma. We also had weekly compliance meetings with the basketball staff. We also monitored closely the phone logs of Sampson and his staff." IU did everything possible to ensure Sampson did not repeat his behavior.

******

G) You wrote, "The NCAA's job is to ensure fair play. Sampson proved in the past he wasn't interested in this, yet IU said "we're glad to take that risk so long as we win". They deserve to face the consequences of that, which should've been more severe than they are."

I agree with you completely up until your last 8 words. IU has to face the consequences of the actions of Sampson and his assistant Rob Senderoff. I believe IU is facing those consequences and then some. The self-imposed penalties are harsher than what the NCAA has levied in the past for much worse conduct. Again, see Marshall example -- lost 1 schollie on basketball and 2 year moratorium on recruiting non-qualifiers.

Or better yet, see the Cincinnati example. Under Huggins, Ruben Patterson was allowed to drive a car for free from a dealership owned by a booster who Huggins did radio ads for, also academic fraud, and free use of A.D. phones for long distance calls valued at hundreds of dollars. UC lost 1 schollie and were not allowed to recruit JUCOs for 2 years.

******

H) You wrote, "Self-imposed sanctions are not severe because every school that imposes sanctions on itself is doing them with one eye on their best interests. In IU's case, they knew it was going to be something of a rebuilding period after Sampson was found out. In two years they're going to be right back to where they were before this year, maybe better. Real 'sanctions' would've made it harder to get to that point, and that's the point of sanctions, to create a punishment with teeth so people won't do it again."

That is not the situation here. IU has hurt itself long term. It will be 4 years before IU is seriously back to a point where it could compete for a Big Ten title or more. I have yet to read, see, or hear any commentator who said IU was giving itself a light sentence that will have no effect because the impact of the sanctions will not be felt.

In any case, that is not the point. If Columbia (a school with no hope of ever making the NCAA tourney in the near future because of lack of talent) had committed the same violations would you want extra special sanctions on them to make sure they could not compete 6 years from now. Of course not. Then why take that into consideration with IU if you are not going to consider that with Columbia.

Basically, the ability or inability to compete immediately should not factor in the equation. And if it did, should IU's plight as a result of players leaving because of the scandal being looked at in IU's favor as punishment in and of itself? Sure it is not an official sanction. But since YOU are willing to look outside for aggravating circumstances to punish IU harder (ex. the mere hiring of a coach who committed violations at another school), then under that line of logic don't YOU have to look outside for mitigating circumstances to punish IU less?

******

I) You wrote, "The NCAA's message is, so long as you look moderately interested in admitting remorse, we're not going to punish you...keep doing what you've been doing."

No. The NCAA message is "if you punish yourself above and beyond what we would have done, we will not impose anything additional. We want to encourage schools to find violations, report them, and self-correct the problems. We do not want to create a 'chilling effect' that will discourage schools from reporting violations." It is a pretty good policy IMHO.

******

J) You wrote, "Also, it wasn't made in this post but I've seen it said by many IU fans who talk about how they "cleaned house" in terms of players...that has absolutely zero to do with sanctions. Those players chose to jump ship; it had nothing to do with IU getting rid of bad apples who caused all of this."

That is false and misleading. Multiple players were kicked off the team by both interim coach Dan Dakich and then Tom Crean. Not all decided to transfer.

******

K) You wrote, "That is not a sanction; it is merely a byproduct of cheating, and if anything it helps the new coach because he's allowed to build a team of his own players right from the start and doesn't have to spend his first few years phasing out those who aren't "his guys".

I somehow doubt Tom Crean honestly saw it that way. I will give you credit though. Spinning losing EVERY 4 year scholarship player (only 2 returned, 1 was a walkon and the other--Kyle Taber--was a former walkon who got a scholarship last year as a junior) into a positive was creative.

******

IN SUMMARY: I do not see how what I wrote was in any way faulty or even slightly misleading. In fact, most of what I wrote was factually and the rest was my opinion.