Even if they can't land an interview with Herbet, there's got to be sources they have that were close to the situation. There's always someone willing to talk.

Again, there's no way that Greenspan is blameless, but he's also not the King of England. He answers to the president of the university, and there has been increasing mention in recent weeks of the idea that Herbert was pushing Sampson hard. I suppose he could have said, in March 2006, “if you hire Sampson instead of John Beilein, I will resign.” But ultimately, if the president and the AD disagree after discussion, the president wins. Again, I'm not trying to be an apologist for Greenspan, who has made mistakes. But if Kravitz is going to crucify the guy, should he explain exactly what Greenspan should have done under the circumstances. I think RG deserves more criticism for the recurrence of the violations than for the hiring itself.

This article, like a good portion of his work during the Sampson Era, is simply playing to the Looper crowd. What exactly what IU supposed to do? Kravitz seems to believe that IU should have fired Sampson in October or at least in February. Apparently, Kravitz has never heard of the name “Jim O'Brien”. The fact of the matter is, even if a coach breaks every rule in the book, it isn't worth it to risk millions of dollars, plus legal fees, to fire the coach. Yeah, Greenspan was helped out by the anonymous donor, but he still got rid of Sampson at the end of the week-long investigation, and in a way that will not allow Sampson to harass the university for years and years.

i hope he lands a gig somewhere else.