Is IU guilty of “failure to monitor”?

  • 05/22/2008 8:07 am in

sampson23.jpgThe Indianapolis Star continues their stellar coverage of Indiana’s upcoming hearing with the NCAA infractions committee this morning with a look at whether or not IU was guilty of “failure to monitor,” which would likely bring a stiffer penalty if past hearings are any indication. Mark Alesia explains:

IU is accused of five potentially major rules violations in its men’s basketball program. Those do not include failure to monitor, a serious offense in the eyes of the NCAA, one that would increase the likelihood of scholarship cuts or recruiting limitations beyond what the school has already self-imposed. (A postseason ban is possible for major violations but it appears unlikely in IU’s case.)

The infractions committee could determine that because IU hired Sampson, in March 2006, while the coach was under self-imposed sanctions for major recruiting violations incurred at Oklahoma, IU should have monitored him and his staff more vigilantly.

The committee chairman at the time, Tom Yeager, told USA Today earlier this year that IU could be held responsible for Sampson’s subsequent violations.

“I think the institution’s accountability will run to things like monitoring. (IU officials) were on notice with the hire. They were at the Oklahoma hearing. I think the committee will look at it very closely, at institutional responsibility as well as individual responsibility.”

Essentially, this is going to come down to Indiana’s word against Kelvin Sampson’s word. IU will argue that it had procedures in place to monitor Sampson and staff properly, but the coaches knew about the rules and broke them anyway. Sampson, on the other hand, will say that IU waited too long to let him know of any wrongdoing.

I will say that a year-end review of phone call records by an intern is a bit on the laid back side when dealing with a coach that came with baggage. IU should have been more proactive in this regard. This is, after all, why you employ a compliance department. Monthly audits would have been a nice start.

We’ll see how this all shakes out three weeks from tomorrow when IU and Sampson meet with the infractions committee in Seattle.

Filed to:

  • JerryCT

    After reading the 700+ pages I think IU has a goood case. Most violations were on home phones and personal cell phones that coaches were supposed to manully log and did not. Is IU supposed to violate constitutional “rights to privacy” to comply w NCAA ????

    Also the “no clear competitive advantage” is a good case as well combined with self reporting, strong and reasonably quick reactions etc.

    I am baffled by Sampson's defense though about why HE and his staff did not want to monitor themselves as opposed to the Ath Dept . As a sanctioned coach I would want to be the first to know and not rely on others.

  • hoosier07

    Does anyone know if a “ruling” is determined right away after the hearing? Or do we have to drag this out even longer and wait weeks before we hear what penalties are being handed down??

  • ALH_00

    That excerpt doesn't make sense. If “monitoring” violations are not even alleged, how is it that the NCAA will punish IU for failing to monitor? Anyway, I think it's a joke to say that IU “failed”. Like Jerry points out,, most of the calls were from non-university phones and when IU did find out, they self-reported and sanctioned themselves. I sure hope that IU is telling the truth because, if so, then I don't see the NCAA putting any additional sanctions. Then again…

  • tberry

    When IU hired Sampson, whomever made the decision, they knew he had had problems and accepted responsibility for his future actions.

    Any serious effort to insure no future problems should have included a very severe monitoring program that would guarantee that any documented improprieties would be caught almost immediately and dealt with.

    Just because IU EVENTUALLY found those improprieties is no defense. IU should have been on the program and especially phone usage like stink on s**t.

    Greenspan is the AD and is ultimately responsible but I also accuse whomever was responsible for the Compliance Program. They should both loses their jobs and maybe the next to have those responsibilities will take them more responsibly.

  • The fact that an intern made this discovery really makes you wonder what the higher ups in the compliance department were doing during this time.

  • PaulMc

    All coaches sign an agreement to produce any personal record requested. There is not a violation of their constitutional rights since they signed the agreement. The players if requested must also produce any personal records if requested.

    IU dropped the ball on the oversight. My hope is the NCAA feels IU has taken enough proactive steps in order to curtail any additional punishment.

  • BobbyDigital

    This is completely off subject, but did anyone else see that Will Gladness died last week? Sounds like he was a hell of a good guy. Hadn't thought about him in years and its a shame for him to make the news like this…

    http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Sports/226480/

  • cojames

    Sounds like a hell of a guy and someone we could all learn a lot from, and it's a tragedy something so unfortunate happened to such a good person. My prayers go out to his family, friends, and the kids whose lives he touched on a daily basis.

  • In the Long Beach State case mentioned by Alesia, the NCAA enforcement staff alleged a number of things, but did not charge Long Beach with “institutional failure to monitor.” The Committee on Infractions informed Long Beach before the hearing that even though the enforcement staff hadn't charged it, the Committee was going to consider institutional failure to monitor. Long Beach had the chance to defend itself against the charge at the hearing and to file post-hearing responses. In the Long Beach case, there weren't any new factual allegations. The Committee believed that the facts supported such a charge, even though the enforcement staff had not asserted it. For a variety of reasons I think it's unlikely, but it certainly is possible that the Committee could add counts against IU that weren't charged by the enforcement staff.

  • I was just going to post about this. Seen it on Big Ten Fever forums. Prayers sent heavenward for his family/friends.

  • As the report details, they were conducting regular checks of the cell phone and office phone records of all coaches. It isn't as if they stuck the records in a pile and didn't review them until the summer. What made them difficult to detect was that the three way call notation appeared only on Sampson's record of incoming calls, not on Senderoff's record of outgoing calls. The problem would not be apparent when just looking at one set of records, but only upon viewing the two sets of records together. Obviously, if it was caught later, it should have been caught sooner, but I don't think it's fair to suggest that the compliance depatment wasn't doing anything. They were conducting regular checks.

    If I wanted to enter black helicopter land, I would examine not the failure to discover the calls in the first place, but whether there were any rumblings that led IU to specifically check for three way calls in the year-end review.

  • hoosierfan27

    RIP Will. Our prayers are with you and your family.

  • MikeinNC

    I think IU is in a solid position here. They had ongoing monitoring in place, and the only reason the calls were not immediately discovered was that KS & Company were being very cagey in how they gamed the system. I don't think Sampson's claims will have a whole lot of weight with the NCAA, in a he said/she said I think IU wins hands down.

  • hoosier07

    Does anyone know if a “ruling” is determined right away after the hearing? Or do we have to drag this out even longer and wait weeks before we hear what penalties are being handed down??

  • ALH_00

    That excerpt doesn't make sense. If “monitoring” violations are not even alleged, how is it that the NCAA will punish IU for failing to monitor? Anyway, I think it's a joke to say that IU “failed”. Like Jerry points out,, most of the calls were from non-university phones and when IU did find out, they self-reported and sanctioned themselves. I sure hope that IU is telling the truth because, if so, then I don't see the NCAA putting any additional sanctions. Then again…

  • tberry

    When IU hired Sampson, whomever made the decision, they knew he had had problems and accepted responsibility for his future actions.

    Any serious effort to insure no future problems should have included a very severe monitoring program that would guarantee that any documented improprieties would be caught almost immediately and dealt with.

    Just because IU EVENTUALLY found those improprieties is no defense. IU should have been on the program and especially phone usage like stink on s**t.

    Greenspan is the AD and is ultimately responsible but I also accuse whomever was responsible for the Compliance Program. They should both loses their jobs and maybe the next to have those responsibilities will take them more responsibly.

  • The fact that an intern made this discovery really makes you wonder what the higher ups in the compliance department were doing during this time.

  • PaulMc

    All coaches sign an agreement to produce any personal record requested. There is not a violation of their constitutional rights since they signed the agreement. The players if requested must also produce any personal records if requested.

    IU dropped the ball on the oversight. My hope is the NCAA feels IU has taken enough proactive steps in order to curtail any additional punishment.

  • BobbyDigital

    This is completely off subject, but did anyone else see that Will Gladness died last week? Sounds like he was a hell of a good guy. Hadn't thought about him in years and its a shame for him to make the news like this…

    http://www.nwanews.com/adg/Sports/226480/

  • cojames

    Sounds like a hell of a guy and someone we could all learn a lot from, and it's a tragedy something so unfortunate happened to such a good person. My prayers go out to his family, friends, and the kids whose lives he touched on a daily basis.

  • In the Long Beach State case mentioned by Alesia, the NCAA enforcement staff alleged a number of things, but did not charge Long Beach with “institutional failure to monitor.” The Committee on Infractions informed Long Beach before the hearing that even though the enforcement staff hadn't charged it, the Committee was going to consider institutional failure to monitor. Long Beach had the chance to defend itself against the charge at the hearing and to file post-hearing responses. In the Long Beach case, there weren't any new factual allegations. The Committee believed that the facts supported such a charge, even though the enforcement staff had not asserted it. For a variety of reasons I think it's unlikely, but it certainly is possible that the Committee could add counts against IU that weren't charged by the enforcement staff.

  • I was just going to post about this. Seen it on Big Ten Fever forums. Prayers sent heavenward for his family/friends.

  • As the report details, they were conducting regular checks of the cell phone and office phone records of all coaches. It isn't as if they stuck the records in a pile and didn't review them until the summer. What made them difficult to detect was that the three way call notation appeared only on Sampson's record of incoming calls, not on Senderoff's record of outgoing calls. The problem would not be apparent when just looking at one set of records, but only upon viewing the two sets of records together. Obviously, if it was caught later, it should have been caught sooner, but I don't think it's fair to suggest that the compliance depatment wasn't doing anything. They were conducting regular checks.

    If I wanted to enter black helicopter land, I would examine not the failure to discover the calls in the first place, but whether there were any rumblings that led IU to specifically check for three way calls in the year-end review.

  • hoosierfan27

    RIP Will. Our prayers are with you and your family.

  • MikeinNC

    I think IU is in a solid position here. They had ongoing monitoring in place, and the only reason the calls were not immediately discovered was that KS & Company were being very cagey in how they gamed the system. I don't think Sampson's claims will have a whole lot of weight with the NCAA, in a he said/she said I think IU wins hands down.