As we sit here in the aftermath of the Kelvin Sampson resignation/buyout, the question has been raised by numerous commentators and fans — exactly who was responsible for bringing a known cheater to Bloomington to take over a program known for its adherence to NCAA rules?

Even before Sampson took the ziggy, we’d already seen IU fans and media observers breaking down into different thought camps. Those who want Athletic Director Rick Greenspan out of his job have claimed that he was ultimately responsible for Sampson’s hiring. Those who want Greenspan to stay have claimed that it was actually the fault of former IU president Adam Herbert, who supposedly forced Greenspan into choosing Sampson.

We haven’t heard from Sampson yet about who hired him (and I imagine we never will). But there were a couple of interesting stories today that, taken at face value, indicate that NO ONE was responsible for Sampson’s hiring. And if you believe that…then you’re more gullible than I thought possible. More after the jump.

Herbert, who is still employed at the university as a president in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA), gave an interview yesterday with a  reporter from the Florida Times-Union, in which he claimed that Greenspan recommended that Sampson be hired, based upon a six hour meeting that the two had with Sampson about the NCAA violations he’d committed at Oklahoma. In the words of Herbert:

“I knew it was an issue that would raise eyebrows,” Herbert said. “We came away from that meeting feeling like [Sampson] was someone who understood what he went through [at Oklahoma] and wasn’t likely to make the same mistake again.

“When you’re looking at someone who is one of the best coaches in America, who had 20-win seasons for a decade, this became a value hire for us. … It was worth giving him a second chance.”

I’m sorry, what? Hiring a known cheater to take over a law-abiding college basketball program is a “value hire”? A six-hour conversation is enough to be certain that he’ll never make the same mistake again?

The author of the article, Gene Frenette, also posted a blog with more extensive comments about the hiring. Here are the more complete quotes regarding the hiring process:

 ”What role did I play in the selection process? Did I tell the athletic director [Rick Greenspan] to hire this guy? The process does speak to the level of attention we addressed to it. The university has always used essentially the same decision-making process. The AD has responsibility for the selection and evaluation of coaches, along with raises and firing.

“[Greenspan] recommended [Sampson] to the president, and I concurred with that, and the belief that we had every confidence that the letter and spirit of this agreement would be met. We had to have a pretty high comfort level [to hire him].”

Ah, I see. So apparently, Greenspan DID recommend Sampson, and Herbert just rubber-stamped it? Well, maybe…or maybe not. If you read Mr. Frenette’s blog a bit more closely, there’s also mention of the involvement of two Indiana University trustees in the process. Herbert’s comments indicate that the trustees reviewed the situation, reviewed the hiring, and were on board with all of it.

So, case closed, right? Greenspan recommends Sampson, Herbert and the Trustees agree, and that’s that.

Except the president of the Board of Trustees seems to disagree with the characterization of his role in the process by Herbert. According to an Indianapolis Star interview with BOT president Steve Ferguson:

Stephen L. Ferguson said he spoke to Sampson for the first time after word of the hire had leaked publicly and the coach had already told his players at Oklahoma he was leaving.

That appears contrary to remarks by Herbert at Sampson’s introduction as IU’s men’s basketball coach on March 29, 2006. According to the text of Herbert’s opening statement, Ferguson and former trustee Jeffrey Cohen gave “many hours of consultation and participation in the due diligence process.”

On Monday, Ferguson said of those remarks: “I’m not sure that characterizes my involvement.”

 

Ferguson said the hire was “an administrative decision,” not a trustees’ decision, and that “I think everyone’s extremely disappointed this didn’t turn out to be a more positive situation.”

More from Ferguson:

Ferguson said he spoke with Sampson for about an hour before having to leave because of a business obligation.
“My main message was, if he came to Indiana University, we have high expectations, and I said, ‘I want you to understand that, and are you committed to that?’ ”
According to Ferguson, Sampson answered, “I understand what you expect.”

Can we read between the lines of Ferguson’s comments? If so, then this appears to have been Greenspan (and Herbert’s) decision, not the trustees.

Does it matter whose decision it was? Absolutely, because Indiana University is about to embark on a search for a new head coach. If Rick Greenspan’s recommendation was to hire Sampson in spite of the considerable baggage he was bringing with him from Oklahoma, and things worked out as poorly as they did, then I can think of no conceivable reason why he should be a part of the new head coaching search. How can you trust someone to hire a coach when their demonstrated judgment on the hiring of the last coach was so atrocious? Couple that with the fact that Greenspan knew of Sampson’s prior violations, and knew that the Athletic Department would have to exercise extreme vigilance in monitoring Sampson and his assistants for violations of both NCAA rules and NCAA sanctions. The Athletic Department, under Greenspan’s watch, did neither, and is as responsible for IU being in this mess as Sampson and his assistants are.

Finally, some more from Herbert:

Herbert, who left the IU presidency in July, has talked with Sampson about the present charges. Despite the coach’s negative standing in the court of public opinion, Herbert believes things could change when Sampson presents his case to the NCAA Infractions Committee.

“I’ve talked with him about it, but I won’t characterize [the discussion],” Herbert said. “We don’t know his side of the story. He has to be given the opportunity to state his case. I know there are more facts to come out than have come out.”

My view at the time, and still is, was that when you have a chance to hire someone with his track record and whose only offense was telephone calls, and we took a look at all of them. . . . When you look in the broader scheme of things, it was worth giving him a second chance.”

Now, wait a second. Didn’t Indiana University just go through a seven-day “investigation” into these allegations? What exactly doesn’t the university know already about Sampson’s side of the story?

As for Herbert’s “second chances”…sir, I’ve had enough of it. It was never the place of you (or Mr. Greenspan) to use the IU basketball program to dole out second chances to convicted NCAA cheats. Neither of you have any ties to Indiana University except your paycheck. For the hundreds of thousands of IU basketball fans out there, you’ve used your “second chance” to tarnish the image of a program with a proud basketball heritage. There were dozens of qualified coaches available in 2006 who didn’t have Sampson’s record of cheating and of not graduating student-athletes.

One thing seems clear to me - Rick Greenspan should not be given a “second chance” to further sully the reputation of IU basketball. He should bear the full responsibility for the Sampson hire, and should under no circumstances be given the responsibility of choosing the next coach of Indiana basketball.