Before I get started, I have to make clear that there are two things I am NOT looking to do with this entry. First of all, I'm not going to defend current (for the moment, anyhow) Indiana University basketball coach Kelvin Sampson. Secondly, I'm not going to demonize former IU coach Bob Knight.
If you're in tune with the college basketball scene (or perhaps if you just live in and around Indiana), you're aware of the situation that IU coach Kelvin Sampson has found himself in. (summary of the current situation) In short, Sampson, who was already on probation with the NCAA due to improper phone calls to recruits at his prior job at Oklahoma when he was hired at Indiana, was found to have made over 100 improper phone calls since coming to Indiana. Furthermore, last week he was accused by the NCAA of having provided false and misleading information to investigators looking into the violations, and thus Indiana was being charged with 5 major rules violations. Sampson's status at Indiana has yet to be officially sorted out, but conventional wisdom is that he will be suspended within the next few days, and dismissed shortly afterwards.
A recruiting scandal of this magnitude at a storied program like Indiana would be a compelling story all by itself. What has added a little more punch to the discussion in this case has been the proximity of this story to former Hoosier coach Bob Knight's resignation from Texas Tech. Now, contrary to what some Hoosier fans might dream, the possibility of Knight returning to finish out his career at Indiana is quite remote. However, having just come out of a time where Knight was prominent in the news and his legacy was being discussed/debate, this story has offered an interesting opportunity to compare/contrast.
What I've picked up on in the last number of days has been rather illuminating. I have heard a number of people contrast Sampson and Knight, and talk about how Knight, throughout his 42 year coaching career, did things "the right way" - using that specific phrase. I've really got to take issue with that sort of language, particularly when it's being used to draw a distinction between Sampson and Knight.
When people talk about how Knight did it "the right way", they are no doubt referring to the fact that Knight enjoyed an incredible amount of success, without ever having even a hint of NCAA violations around his programs, and that as a rule, his players graduated and stayed out of trouble. These are all highly admirable, and sadly are all becoming significantly less common in the present day. And yet, to say that Knight did it "the right way" quickly glosses over a very checkered history of his personal conduct. A quick run-down of things that Knight did/was accused of doing throughout his career: Assaulting a police officer in Puerto Rico while coaching at the Pan-Am Games, throwing a chair across the floor during a game, kicking a player (his own son, actually) during a game, berating an NCAA volunteer, choking a player during practice, having to be restrained from going after a heckling Baylor student.
As I said at the beginning, I'm not out to pile on to Bob Knight. I have an immense amount of respect for Bob Knight and his legacy as a coach. I also think that latter in his career, a number of incidents were made out to be much more than they actually were, simply because it was Knight. But the fact of the matter is that, as much as his supporters would like to idealize him after the fact, Coach Knight is far from the gold standard for doing things "the right way". He did an awful lot of things the right way, but he also did many things the wrong way due to a lack of the self control and discipline he preached to his players day in and day out. And to demonize Kelvin Sampson for making a bunch of extra phone calls to recruits, while glossing over Knight's transgressions seems to me to be rather unfair.
As I also said at the beginning, I'm not here to defend Sampson. The guy knew the rules, and he continued to break them even after being caught and put on probation at his last job. He was given a second chance by Indiana, and he threw that away. He deserves to lose his job, and quite frankly, I will be very disappointed if Indiana does not dismiss him. At the same time, it wouldn't be the first time that IU has overlooked a coach's transgressions because that particular coach was successful, and that's something that IU fans need to come to terms with.
2 months ago
4 comments:
If you're in tune with the college basketball scene (or perhaps if you just live in and around Indiana), you're aware of the situation that IU coach Kelvin Sampson has found himself in.
Sadly, I had no idea what you were talking about!
:D
That's probably because even though you live in Indiana, you haven't actually "lived" in Indiana since the story broke last week.
I would guess Sarah would know a little about what's going on, unless everything I've ever been led to believe regarding basketball in Indiana is wrong.
yes, scott, i have heard about the sampson issue. what a mess! i could probably leave a comment the size of your post, so i'll try to keep it brief.
before i start ranting with a whole slew of possibilities and unknowns, perhaps you can clarify a few things for me.
1. what are the specifics of sampson's phone call allegations (other than violating ncaa rules)?
2. are they the same allegations from his oklahoma tenure?
3. what are the ncaa's restrictions on recruiting (if you haven't already answered this in Q1)
thanks...
Welcome to my blog Sarah, glad you chose to chime in.
Rather than go question by question, because they have some interelatedness to them, I'm just going to summarize the situation as best I understand it.
When Sampson was at OU, he was found to have made 577 impermissable calls to recruits. This link provides a decent overview on what the NCAA allows in terms of phone contact from a coach based on what year the recruit is. So he made 577 calls that were outside of those guidelines in some way.
As a result of those findings, Sampson was put on probation, and was banned from any off-campus recruiting, and from calling recruits or being present while his staff was calling recruits for a year, which ended in May 24th, 2007. His staff was also restricted beyond the normal rules in terms of the number of calls they could make during that period.
The new allegations are that, since coming to Indiana, he personally participated in 10 3 way calls while he was under probation and not to be calling recruits, and that his staff made 100 calls that were in violation of the additional restrictions placed on them, and that he then followed that up by lying to Indiana and NCAA investigators. So, while at Indiana, he violated the probation he was put on due to his infractions at Oklahoma.
I think I've covered all of your questions in that summary.
Post a Comment