Uh, didn't Dakich address that head-on with his statement that IU ASKED these kids to come?

I fancy myself a disciplinarian and you also have to acknowledge which party has been through the recruiting process before, probably DOZENS of times, and seen exactly which 'type' of kid would succeed in that particular environment with those particular expectations. The kids' heads are spinning while being recruited. They literally have no clue on who to trust, even if they've had a solid two-parent upbringing. If they haven't, a la Ellis, he can probably count on two hands the number of people in his life to that point that have NOT betrayed him.

This is the second time I've listened to Dakich's reply to Hillman, and I respect him even more for it now than I did when I first heard it live.

As much as the IU faithful (and I'm not saying it would be any different for Purdue fans, mind you) want to fence off this incident and just blame a handful of people as 'bad' to distance them from the IU community, the fact of the matter is we ALL live in a shades of gray world.

Uh, didn't Dakich address that head-on with his statement that IU ASKED these kids to come?

I fancy myself a disciplinarian and you also have to acknowledge which party has been through the recruiting process before, probably DOZENS of times, and seen exactly which 'type' of kid would succeed in that particular environment with those particular expectations. The kids' heads are spinning while being recruited. They literally have no clue on who to trust, even if they've had a solid two-parent upbringing. If they haven't, a la Ellis, he can probably count on two hands the number of people in his life to that point that have NOT betrayed him.

This is the second time I've listened to Dakich's reply to Hillman, and I respect him even more for it now than I did when I first heard it live.

As much as the IU faithful (and I'm not saying it would be any different for Purdue fans, mind you) want to fence off this incident and just blame a handful of people as 'bad' to distance them from the IU community, the fact of the matter is we ALL live in a shades of gray world.

This discussion about “thugs, punks, and at risk players” is not about where they come from and upbringing, but rather their character and attitude.

I work in higher ed and see kids all the time who have come from bad homes, bad schools, and bad communities that do nothing to encourage or help their kids. Some of them are the brightest, most motivated kids I work with. Some are pretentious little pains in the ass. I see the same thing from the well off kids, so it is not about whether they are from the rough parts of town, or from broken homes. It is about their attitude, and their willingness to play by the rules and not engage in activities that hurt their team or the university. Character kids may not win as many games for you, but you at least have a team dedicated to upholding the university traditions and winning the right way.

Sampson and Co. did not look at the CHARACTER of the kids they were recruiting. they saw a skill set and name, and that's it. So long as they were beating folks, it didn't matter how. Sampson looked at NCAA compliance the same way, and you see how bad that went down.

Bottom line is that walking a line in their shoes is BS, Mike. These were kids that NEVER should have been wearing the Cream and Crimson. I am not saying some kids don't need a chance. I am saying that if we get kids with GOOD CHARACTER, their upbringing and background is irrelevant.

This discussion about “thugs, punks, and at risk players” is not about where they come from and upbringing, but rather their character and attitude.

I work in higher ed and see kids all the time who have come from bad homes, bad schools, and bad communities that do nothing to encourage or help their kids. Some of them are the brightest, most motivated kids I work with. Some are pretentious little pains in the ass. I see the same thing from the well off kids, so it is not about whether they are from the rough parts of town, or from broken homes. It is about their attitude, and their willingness to play by the rules and not engage in activities that hurt their team or the university. Character kids may not win as many games for you, but you at least have a team dedicated to upholding the university traditions and winning the right way.

Sampson and Co. did not look at the CHARACTER of the kids they were recruiting. they saw a skill set and name, and that's it. So long as they were beating folks, it didn't matter how. Sampson looked at NCAA compliance the same way, and you see how bad that went down.

Bottom line is that walking a mile in their shoes is BS, Mike. These were kids that NEVER should have been wearing the Cream and Crimson. I am not saying some kids don't need a chance. I am saying that if we get kids with GOOD CHARACTER, their upbringing and background is irrelevant.

This discussion about “thugs, punks, and at risk players” is not about where they come from and upbringing, but rather their character and attitude.

I work in higher ed and see kids all the time who have come from bad homes, bad schools, and bad communities that do nothing to encourage or help their kids. Some of them are the brightest, most motivated kids I work with. Some are pretentious little pains in the ass. I see the same thing from the well off kids, so it is not about whether they are from the rough parts of town, or from broken homes. It is about their attitude, and their willingness to play by the rules and not engage in activities that hurt their team or the university. Character kids may not win as many games for you, but you at least have a team dedicated to upholding the university traditions and winning the right way.

Sampson and Co. did not look at the CHARACTER of the kids they were recruiting. they saw a skill set and name, and that's it. So long as they were beating folks, it didn't matter how. Sampson looked at NCAA compliance the same way, and you see how bad that went down.

Bottom line is that walking a mile in their shoes is BS, Mike. These were kids that NEVER should have been wearing the Cream and Crimson. I am not saying some kids don't need a chance. I am saying that if we get kids with GOOD CHARACTER, their upbringing and background is irrelevant.

This discussion about “thugs, punks, and at risk players” is not about where they come from and upbringing, but rather their character and attitude.

I work in higher ed and see kids all the time who have come from bad homes, bad schools, and bad communities that do nothing to encourage or help their kids. Some of them are the brightest, most motivated kids I work with. Some are pretentious little pains in the ass. I see the same thing from the well off kids, so it is not about whether they are from the rough parts of town, or from broken homes. It is about their attitude, and their willingness to play by the rules and not engage in activities that hurt their team or the university. Character kids may not win as many games for you, but you at least have a team dedicated to upholding the university traditions and winning the right way.

Sampson and Co. did not look at the CHARACTER of the kids they were recruiting. they saw a skill set and name, and that's it. So long as they were beating folks, it didn't matter how. Sampson looked at NCAA compliance the same way, and you see how bad that went down.

Bottom line is that walking a mile in their shoes is BS, Mike. These were kids that NEVER should have been wearing the Cream and Crimson. I am not saying some kids don't need a chance. I am saying that if we get kids with GOOD CHARACTER, their upbringing and background is irrelevant.

This discussion about “thugs, punks, and at risk players” is not about where they come from and upbringing, but rather their character and attitude.

I work in higher ed and see kids all the time who have come from bad homes, bad schools, and bad communities that do nothing to encourage or help their kids. Some of them are the brightest, most motivated kids I work with. Some are pretentious little pains in the ass. I see the same thing from the well off kids, so it is not about whether they are from the rough parts of town, or from broken homes. It is about their attitude, and their willingness to play by the rules and not engage in activities that hurt their team or the university. Character kids may not win as many games for you, but you at least have a team dedicated to upholding the university traditions and winning the right way.

Sampson and Co. did not look at the CHARACTER of the kids they were recruiting. they saw a skill set and name, and that's it. So long as they were beating folks, it didn't matter how. Sampson looked at NCAA compliance the same way, and you see how bad that went down.

Bottom line is that walking a mile in their shoes is BS, Mike. These were kids that NEVER should have been wearing the Cream and Crimson. I am not saying some kids don't need a chance. I am saying that if we get kids with GOOD CHARACTER, their upbringing and background is irrelevant.

This discussion about “thugs, punks, and at risk players” is not about where they come from and upbringing, but rather their character and attitude.

I work in higher ed and see kids all the time who have come from bad homes, bad schools, and bad communities that do nothing to encourage or help their kids. Some of them are the brightest, most motivated kids I work with. Some are pretentious little pains in the ass. I see the same thing from the well off kids, so it is not about whether they are from the rough parts of town, or from broken homes. It is about their attitude, and their willingness to play by the rules and not engage in activities that hurt their team or the university. Character kids may not win as many games for you, but you at least have a team dedicated to upholding the university traditions and winning the right way.

Sampson and Co. did not look at the CHARACTER of the kids they were recruiting. they saw a skill set and name, and that's it. So long as they were beating folks, it didn't matter how. Sampson looked at NCAA compliance the same way, and you see how bad that went down.

Bottom line is that walking a mile in their shoes is BS, Mike. These were kids that NEVER should have been wearing the Cream and Crimson. I am not saying some kids don't need a chance. I am saying that if we get kids with GOOD CHARACTER, their upbringing and background is irrelevant.

Dakich could have made a statement plain and simple. He didn't have to mention who said it or what was said. He's obviously in the position to make a statement regarding those kids (who, by the way, we liked when they were winning games for IU), but he lowered himself by attacking Hillman.

We all make mistakes, usually not on a stage as large as Hillman or Dakich… this is probably not the end of this one and what happens next will be a good indication of character.

And we know how the media is these days… controversy=ratings, and unfortunately, Danny is media.

Dakich could have made a statement plain and simple. He didn't have to mention who said it or what was said. He's obviously in the position to make a statement regarding those kids (who, by the way, we liked when they were winning games for IU), but he lowered himself by attacking Hillman.

We all make mistakes, usually not on a stage as large as Hillman or Dakich… this is probably not the end of this one and what happens next will be a good indication of character.

And we know how the media is these days… controversy=ratings, and unfortunately, Danny is media.

Dakich could have made a statement plain and simple. He didn't have to mention who said it or what was said. He's obviously in the position to make a statement regarding those kids (who, by the way, we liked when they were winning games for IU), but he lowered himself by attacking Hillman.

We all make mistakes, usually not on a stage as large as Hillman or Dakich… this is probably not the end of this one and what happens next will be a good indication of character.

And we know how the media is these days… controversy=ratings, and unfortunately, Danny is media.

Dakich could have made a statement plain and simple. He didn't have to mention who said it or what was said. He's obviously in the position to make a statement regarding those kids (who, by the way, we liked when they were winning games for IU), but he lowered himself by attacking Hillman.

We all make mistakes, usually not on a stage as large as Hillman or Dakich… this is probably not the end of this one and what happens next will be a good indication of character.

And we know how the media is these days… controversy=ratings, and unfortunately, Danny is media.

Dakich could have made a statement plain and simple. He didn't have to mention who said it or what was said. He's obviously in the position to make a statement regarding those kids (who, by the way, we liked when they were winning games for IU), but he lowered himself by attacking Hillman.

We all make mistakes, usually not on a stage as large as Hillman or Dakich… this is probably not the end of this one and what happens next will be a good indication of character.

And we know how the media is these days… controversy=ratings, and unfortunately, Danny is media.

Dakich could have made a statement plain and simple. He didn't have to mention who said it or what was said. He's obviously in the position to make a statement regarding those kids (who, by the way, we liked when they were winning games for IU), but he lowered himself by attacking Hillman.

We all make mistakes, usually not on a stage as large as Hillman or Dakich… this is probably not the end of this one and what happens next will be a good indication of character.

And we know how the media is these days… controversy=ratings, and unfortunately, Danny is media.