“It’s hard for me to talk to (recruits) and feel like it’s going to be a lot more than what it has already been. I’d be shocked. I really would.”

Crean said the ability to recruit and award an equal number of scholarships is “paramount to your success past, present and future.”

“And right now, as we look at the future of the program, we have been hit extremely hard by that. We’ve paid a price. Let’s move forward and let’s give ourselves a chance to get back on a level playing field.”

As much as I would like to see this story end with no further penalties, I would be shocked if the NCAA doesn’t do something based on the time and energy they’ve committed to the situation. The ideal scenario for the program would be a post season ban for the upcoming season as it’s highly unlikely that a Kyle Taber led club has a chance to make it to March. However, the loss of additional scholarships beyond this season could be catastrophic because the 2009 class is already one scholarship over the limit. Additionally, it’s important that Crean rectifies the academic problems from last season immediately as a low APR score holds the potential for more scholarship losses.

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. – Indiana University has submitted a written response to the NCAA Committee on Infractions regarding Allegation 6 which charges the University with “Failure to Monitor” in the Association’s ongoing investigation regarding the men’s basketball program.

“We have submitted our response as instructed by the NCAA,” said Director of Athletics Rick Greenspan.  “President McRobbie has consistently stated his strong belief that the IU athletic department met or exceeded standards in the area of monitoring, and we hope for a successful adjudication of this allegation.”

The Athletic Department has also released three documents that include the complete detailed response sent to the NCAA Infractions Committee:

• Main document – 72 pages
• NCAA exhibits document 1 – 27 pages
• NCAA exhibits document 2 -49 pages

Obviously, there’s a lot of information to dig through in these documents, but let’s hope this is the last significant development in this whole ordeal and the NCAA reaches a verdict before the season tips off. The last thing Tom Crean needs is the uncertainty of a fiasco he had no involvement in hanging over his first season in Bloomington.

Update: The hearings will continue into Saturday. No big news from Friday, but reporters from the AP caught up with Sampson and here’s what he had to say about the hearings: “It went well. It’s a process. We’ll be back tomorrow.” That’s some groundbreaking stuff, Kelvin. IU officials had no comment.

Today, Kelvin Sampson has his date in court with the NCAA — the day he’s supposedly been looking forward to in order to set the record straight. So what happens on this Friday the 13th? Does Sampson win the court over and pull out an O.J. Simpson-esque victory? Does the courtroom turn into a scene from A Few Good Men … YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

And most importantly, how worried are we the NCAA is going to drop the hammer and further sanction the men’s basketball program when a decision is announced a month or so from now? A little worried? Sort of worried? Not really worried because the penalty will be light if there’s any penalty at all?

(Those of you looking for specifics of how everything will go down, Mark Alesia of The Indianapolis Star has you covered.)

Holler at us in the comments with thoughts and we’ll do our best to get some coverage up as the day unfolds.

Also, for some background on how it’s all come to this, check out our time line with links to coverage after the jump…

October 2007

• New sanctions to be imposed on Indiana coaching staff
• Unraveling the latest Sampson debacle
• Plenty of questions remain unanswered
• Sampson and IU media relations: Nevermind that big crimson elephant over there, please
• Report: Rob Senderoff will resign
• Rob Senderoff and the myth of the lone dialer
• IU issues release with further details on sanctions
• Senderoff dismissal raises more questions

December 2007

• Indy Star reveals names involved in three-way calls

January 2008

• Note to self: Don’t ask Kelvin about sanctions

February 2008

• Katz and ESPN: Major violations at IU
• NCAA report says Sampson lied about calls
• Summary of NCAA allegations
• A matter of when, not if…
• Audio from Rick Greenspan’s press conference
• Surprise, surprise: Sampson ducks questions about major violations
• Rumor alert: After one-week investigation, Sampson suspension likely
• If this is it…
• Team meeting called; Sampson buyout imminent?
• End of the line: Kelvin Sampson out at IU
• Statement from Kelvin Sampson

May 2008

• Report: Indiana agrees with NCAA allegations
• Documents containing IU’s reponse to the NCAA
• Kelvin Sampson responds to NCAA
• NCAA reduces T-shirt gift to secondary violation

June 2008

• NCAA case summary released
• Kelvin Sampson might or might not check caller ID
• Jerry Green: “No way that could’ve been an accident”
• Someone’s not telling the truth

Here’s what Sampson said on November 13, 2007: “There was never, there was never an instance where I was on the phone with a kid where Rob Senderoff talked.”

However, interviews conducted by Mark Neyland of the NCAA enforcement staff with Yvonne Jackson (mother of Devin Ebanks), Will Buford, DeJuan Blair, Yancey Gates and Demetri McCamey tell a different story.

Transcripts of those conversations after the jump.

Mark Neyland: How certain are you about the portion of the call where there was an actual three-way conversation (with Sampson and Senderoff)?

Yvonne Jackson: Oh, I’m, I’m certain, I’m very certain of that.

Neyland: Uh, was, to your knowledge was, was coach Sampson aware that this call was a three-way call?

Jackson: Uh, I, I, I would have to think that he might’ve known that he was being attached to, uh, onto me. Uh, now how they did it, I can’t really, I don’t really know. But I, I, I believe so.

—

Mark Neyland: Well, tell me as much as you can remember, about, uh, about that phone call. Like, uh, how did you end up getting on the phone and, and, you know, who was saying what?

Will Buford: Well, the assistant coach (Senderoff), I was talking to the assistant coach at first, and he called the head coach and put him on three way.

Neyland: How certain are you that the assistant coach let the, let the head coach know that you were on the phone.

Buford: I’m positive.

—

Mark Neyland: How certain are you that they were both involved at the same time in the phone call whether it be they were together in person together or whether it be on three way, how certain are you that they were both involved in the actual call?

DeJuan Blair: They both were on the phone, I’m, they both was on the phone talking, we all was on the phone. And it could’ve been, like I said, it could’ve been, uh, uh, a speaker phone. You know, I don’t, I, I was at my house so I can’t say what was, what was going on at Indiana, so.

—

Mark Neyland: So in terms of, of this phone conversation, was, were all three of you, both you, coach Senderoff and coach Sampson having a conversation between the three of you?

Yancey Gates: Yes.

—

Mark Neyland: How certain are you that it was actually three-way conversation with all three of you on the phone at the same time talking?

Demetri McCamey: Uh, the, it was, like I said, like a regular three, ’cause there’s only three people on the phone. There was no more of the coaches or nothing.

Neyland: But you’re sure all three of you were on the phone at the same time?

McCamey: Yes.

Neyland: And are you sure that coach Sampson was talking to coach Senderoff while you were on the phone, too?

McCamey: Yes.

—

I’d put the chances of Sampson being the person telling the truth at say, zero percent.

Here’s a transcript of Green’s conversation with Neyland, from the NCAA case summary:

Neyland: Now, it’s uh, Indiana University has reported a, a number of phone calls, uh, that, uh, they believe have violated the Committee on Infractions’ sanctions that were in place. I guess the, the, the question I, I have to ask you, uh, as being sort of overseeing the compliance of that, in your mind, how, how could that have happened?

Green: In my opinion, I don’t, I don’t, I, I see absolutely, uh, no way, uh, that that could’ve been an accident, that they, it had to have been done purposefully because there was too much information that was given to the coaching staff, uh, in my opinion, to keep them from making a major mistake. That they were informed, maybe not the first day, maybe not the first month, but after it got going, everybody, in my opinion, knew the process, what we needed to do and I, I don’t see any way possible it could have happened, uh, legally.

November 13, 2007

Mark Neyland, NCAA assistant director of enforcement
Mike Glazier, Sampson’s legal counsel
Kelvin Sampson, former head men’s basketball coach

Neyland: And what about in terms of caller ID? Were there numbers popping up on your phone?

Sampson: Yes.

Neyland: You could actually see the numbers?

Sampson: Sometimes, sometimes it wouldn’t matter. If it was a number that wasn’t plugged in, uh, as, uh, I would answer the phone not knowing who it was and, like, take my sheet and see if that, uh, corresponded.

Glazier: And make sure you’re clear on, on between cell phone and home phone, too.

Sampson: Yeah, The home phone, the caller ID didn’t show up until after the second or third ring. It only showed incoming call. There was no caller ID on my home phone.

Neyland: Now, with respect to your cell phone, is it safe to say that you would on a consistent basis or pretty much always look at the caller ID and, and maybe try to figure out who it was or?

Sampson: Uh, just, just depends on how many I had in a row. Uh, uh, a lot of times when the phone would ring, I may glance at it, but as I was going from my couch to the front door, I’m just trying to get a connection.

Glazier: There’s also an assumption in the question that you look at the, at the caller ID each time you answer it, and you need to tell him whether or not that is or is not the case.

Sampson: No. I don’t always look at the caller ID, wouldn’t have mattered. I had to take the call and if it’s a number I didn’t recognize, I’m trying to search to see who it is.

January 29, 2008

Sampson in a conversation with Ice Miller councel Robin Miller

Sampson: Uh, there was a lot of, uh, you know, we’re going back a year and a half now. Uh, lot of instances when the phone ran, I, I, you know, neither paid attention to the caller ID or it might’ve been a number I didn’t recognize. Like, some of these guys had so many different cell phone numbers, I, I didn’t know who it was that would’ve been calling. Uh, during, Mark asked me last time, do you always look at the caller ID? I, I do now, and I probably did before the sanction period. But during the sanction period, if the phone rang I answered it, home, home and the cell phone.

Harris: Can I clarify one thing? Do you remember every prospect calling you or someone related to each of the prospects mentioned calling you?

Sampson: Both. I remember just the, the, the only time I can, the only time, uh, time I could talk to those guys were, I had to wait on ‘em to call. A lot of times they would give me a list I’d take home. Uh, they said, coach, if this number shows up on caller ID, here, here’s who it is. Problem is that it’s not always the number that showed up. It was always different numbers…uh, and, you know, coach Sen, Senderoff, coach McCallum, coach Meyer, coach Senderoff called my phone more than anybody. Uh, and usually when he called me it was to say did so-and-so call you? And I’d say, no, haven’t heard from him yet. And he said, okay. I’ll, I’ll, I’ll, I’ll call his coach and make sure he calls you. So, uh, he’ll call you in five minutes. So between, in those five minutes, I might’ve had three other calls coming in. So, I’m talking to whoever’s, whoever’s on that phone, and a lot of times I didn’t know who it was. I’d say, hello, and the kid would start talking. Uh, and it might not have been the number, it might have not been the number. I mean, these kids have so many different cell phone numbers today. Uh, I didn’t, uh, then usually when I’m on the phone with a kid, kid, especially in August, September, OCtober, November of that year, there’s just so many calls coming in to my, uh, phone that it didn’t matter. If sometimes, year, most of the times I look at caller ID, uh, it’s a habit, uh, we all have. But it wouldn’t have mattered. I had to answer the phone.

Remember that T-shirt that former assistant coach Jeff Meyer gave Derek Elston? The charge has been reduced from a major violation to a secondary violation:

The NCAA defines secondary violations as isolated or inadvertent, and not giving a team a significant competitive advantage.

The charge involved an impermissible recruiting contact with Derek Elston of Tipton, Ind., during a basketball camp last summer. Former IU assistant coach Jeff Meyer was alleged to have given Elston’s coach a backpack and T-shirt.

Meyer concedes an impermissible meeting occurred but said the timing was a technical and unintentional violation. Regarding the backpack and T-shirt, Meyer said he is a longtime friend of the coach’s family and often gave them gifts from various stops in his coaching career.

This is a first here at Inside the Hall. Good news and NCAA allegations in the same post. It’s almost worth getting excited over until you remember there are four other violations that include the words “Kelvin Sampson,” “lying,” and “major.”

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.

Here’s my favorite bit:

When I arrived at Indiana University, I hired an experienced staff and made my expectation of strict compliance with NCAA rules and with the restrictions imposed upon our staff very clear. As set forth in detail in the body of my Response, each member of my staff confirms that my expectations were made clear. I endorsed and cooperated fully with the monitoring systems set in place by Indiana’s athletics compliance staff. I relied upon the monitoring program that was set in place. Again, the statements of my staff as set forth in my Response confirm this. I told my staff repeatedly that I never again wanted to go through an experience like I had in the Oklahoma case and that we as a staff needed to completely buy into the monitoring systems implemented by Indiana’s compliance program.

[ ... ]

Accordingly, I cannot adequately describe in words how stunned I was to learn from Mr. Greenspan later that summer that the compliance office’s review of my staff’s phone records had revealed possible violations. First, I could not believe that if in fact the records showed violations, some since my staff’s earliest days at the University, the matters had not been detected and brought to the attention of Mr. Greenspan and myself much earlier so they could have been addressed in a timely fashion. And second, given how strongly and frequently I had communicated to my staff that I expected 100 percent compliance – I could not believe that NCAA rules and Committee on Infractions’ imposed restrictions had apparently been disregarded.

Look: Kelvin could very well be right here. (Not likely, though.) But knowing what we know, for him to have the audacity to try and pin this on the compliance staff, that he “relied” on them to do their job, that there was really nothing wrong from his end, well, that’s just some weird logic.

When this stuff originally hit, he said he didn’t “knowingly” violate any rules. And in this letter, again, he didn’t really place anything on himself. At some point — especially when you’ve been caught for this stuff before — you have to at least place some of this on yourself. Even if you didn’t think you were doing anything wrong, you were still doing something wrong.

Or I guess you can take a buyout, get a job in the NBA and peace out of the college game for good. That works pretty well, too.