[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
senderoff is out
but, I'm not sure even having a fall guy is going to get them out of trouble
it appears things might get much worse
tomorrow
[ QUOTE ]
Does any of the following apply to KS? This is part of the lack of institutional control definition.
8. A head coach fails to create and maintain an atmosphere for compliance within the program the coach supervises or fails to monitor the activities of assistant coaches regarding compliance. A head coach has special obligation to establish a spirit of compliance among the entire team, including assistant coaches, other staff and student-athletes. The head coach must generally observe the activities of assistant coaches and staff to determine if they are acting in compliance with NCAA rules. Too often, when assistant coaches are involved in a web of serious violations, head coaches profess ignorance, saying that they were too busy to know what was occurring and that they trusted their assistants. Such a failure by head coaches to control their teams, alone or with the assistance of a staff member with compliance esponsibilities, is a lack of institutional control. This is not to imply that every violation by an assistant coach involves a lack of institutional control. If the head coach sets a proper tone of compliance and monitors the activities of all assistant coaches in the sport, the head coach cannot be charged with the secretive activities of an assistant bent on violating NCAA rules.
[/ QUOTE ]
[/ QUOTE ]
There is no way they will hit a school who self-reported and self-sanctioned within 6 months of a minor violation with lack of institutional control. That is beyond silly.
Indiana will not get lack of institutional control, Indiana will not get a post season ban. Indiana will get further recruiting sanctions, and maybe the loss of some scholarships.
[/ QUOTE ]
there are many reasons
1) it might not be a minor violation as it falls into a different evaluation when it's a violation of probation--somewhat analagous to the judicial system. I can tell you from experience that any violation of a probation is a major violation in that setting.
2) IU was supposed to have safeguards and monitoring in place...those failed. It was blind luck that anything came out at all. In addition, IU sat on the information and didn't release it for quite some time.
3) It appears to be willful disregardance of the rules. It wasn't an accident or something overlooked. It was a coaching staff actively doing the same things that got the head coach in hot water before.
4) The head of the NCAA infractions committee was very upset with Sampson at the first penalty hearings. He was upset Sampson got a cushy position at a top school and seemed to not take any of the rules seriously. He strongly suggested that Sampson honor the intent of the penalties and not try to skirt things again. Sampson basically thumbed his nose at the NCAA. The NCAA doesn't like it when anyone thumbs their noses at it.
---The only way IU doesn't get a postseason ban is if the NCAA still treats IU as a favored program