Fool me once...fool me twice....Kelvin Sampson

[MyTurn2Raise]

yeah....35 specifically violate the NCAA rules everyone goes by

the over 100 is due to the special restrictions Sampson faces

EDIT: the passing of the buck onto Senderhoff is laughable. He was a Sampson asst at OU and caught there. He knew the rules. He knew the violations. Sampson knew him. This is intentionally violating the NCAA. My guess is the NCAA comes down hard just as they did on Lopes, OU asst under Sampson that violated the same rules at Fresno St later.

I'd be very surprised if IU retains postseason elgibility.

[HajiShirazu]

How can you actually get caught on this? Why not just use skype or something?

[Your Mom]

Anyone who was at OU for a while is going to be a rule breaker. It's a way of life for the Sooners.

[MyTurn2Raise]

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 ]

[MyTurn2Raise]

IU lawyers' issued their report today...looks ugly

1. Sampson lied about not knowing they were 3-way calls and he was allowed ZERO 3-way calls under his probation, which was expressly stated when IU asked for a clarification.

--the law firm was able to contact 3 of the 6 recruits involved in the 3-way calls. One didn't recall and the other two definitely said it was Senderoff and Sampson participating in the call at the same time

2. Calls were coming from multiple assistant homes even though that was forbidden and coaches' gave signed statements every month that they were not calling from home.

--It was more than senderoff, meyer got tagged as well. It is more than just the one fallguy that IU is trying to spin it off as.

3. Many calls violated NCAA rules and not only the probation.

This is more than just not understanding the probation. The rules are pretty easy to follow. 2 calls per week to recruits during their senior year in allowed periods.

4. 3-way calls were initiated by IU staff

Sampson earlier claimed they all came from recruits...not true. Sampson claims that he has 'spotty' coverage in Bloomington and would lose calls. Since he couldn't initiate calls, he'd either text message the recruit to call him back (makes sense) or call his assitant and have the assistant call the recruit and tell the recruit to call Sampson (makes no sense).

5. The weekly required meetings on compliance turned into a joke.

Sampson only attended 7 of 53 meetings. Senderoff only attended 8 of the meetings. It ended up the director of basketball operations and compliance officer meeting together over and over instead of a full coaching body priority.

6. The weekly/monthly compliance checks did not catch the violations.

It took a summer intern to stumble across them. IU did not have the internal processes in place to catch the situation and stop it early on after being mandated to put such a system in place for Sampson. This almost went unnoticed altogether.




All in all, it seems like Sampson was not following the intent or spirit of his probation. He and 2 of his assistant coaches violated rules and repeatedly lied about the violations. The violations are the exact same ones that came up at Oklahoma. At the time, the NCAA infractions committee felt Sampson was coming up with crummy excuses and not taking the situation seriously. Here, it appears Sampson just thumbed his nose at these rules mattering. Hate to tell them that they matter alot and give a school a big unfair advantage.

This should get ugly.

[BeatPurdue]

[ 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.

[EvanJC]

Speaking only for myself, I don't care at all. College players are paid, and the ones that aren't should be.

Okay, that's off topic. It's still true.

[Your Mom]

just think of what else he has done that no one has caught yet.

[RedBean]

Let me get this straight, since I know exactly zero about college basketball......coaches get in trouble for making too many phone calls?

And a three-way telephone call is taboo?

I did not know that.

[MikeyPatriot]

[ QUOTE ]
just think of what else he has done that no one has caught yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

For real. Just imagine how many 4 or 5 way calls that haven't been found out about.