But that starts with the head coach, by the tone he sets and by the consequences he imposes for those who fail to make academics the priority they must be. Neither Sampson nor any coach is an innocent bystander or, in any way, immune from responsibility in regard to academics any more than they are immune from imposing and enforcing standards regarding off court / field conduct.
I said he played a part as an employee. IU has academic monitors, they ignored what was happening...they are just as guilty. Greenspan should've stepped in and applied the proper "consequences" to both the players, and KS.
They were absolutely an issue well before he was fired. It's a myth that grades tanked only after he got the boot. As for his role, he could've easily suspended or benched guys who weren't doing their work. He didn't.
He didn't and neither did the school...they are both to blame.
IU isn't immune but Sampson was the head coach. He was the one primarily responsible.
I disagree, IU is ultimately responsible....KS was put in charge and should shoulder a large portion of the blame, but in the end it's on IU.
Oh, I don't disagree that IU deserved everything they got as a result of hiring him. But he was, in fact, responsible for how he ran the program, and that included the academic standards, which were abused for much of his tenure.
We will have to agree to disagree. If IU is allowing its coaches to dictate their academic standards than the problem is much worse than a rogue coach
Check previous text that I said about IU Scott... "When you argue with an Idiot no one knows the difference". IU Scott just like The Spa likes to talk to hear their heads rattle... they talk out of both sides of there mouth at once and tries to dazzle everybody with their brilliance... but only shows how shallow and feeble minded they really are... Thanks for confirming this with your text and calling him out...I'm sure I'm going to get a response telling me how bad my spelling is and how I need a history lesson and how wrong I am and how intelligent he is... I feel so Humbled when I'm in the presence of such Devine Indinty and Brilliance as these individuals think they are... But they only show their Ignorance..
Can't say I've seen this out of the Spa (not saying you haven't), and generally I avoid getting in someone else's pissing match. But that was one of the most classic "semi-pregnancy" posts you'll ever see.
The Spa didn't agree with my post... Which is fine this is what this site is all about people expressing their difference of opinions... But instead of just expressing their opinion they had to start babbling about so called misspelled words... Apparently it wasn't so badly misspellings that they couldn't read it or understand what I was saying... No they had to try and show their brilliance and comment on a misspelled word or two... So disagree with my opinion... no problem... Critique my writing kinda goes over the line of etiquette... and very rude
To be fair, it's the content of your posts that stand out as being completely uninformed as respects Sampson. You weren't close in just about everything you claimed. Your spelling and grammatical issues make whatever it is you're trying to say extremely difficult to determine. But, to reiterate, it's the content of your posts that's inconsistent with the facts.
So please Spa tell me the inconsistency of my facts, and everyone else seemed to fully read and under what I was saying, you where the Only one that commented on supposed misspelling ... So again Professor enlighten us with your infinite wisdom
You claimed he did what he was hired to do. That's false. He wasn't hired to cheat. He cheated. He wasn't hired to lie about it. He lied about it on multiple occasions. He wasn't hired to allow the academic performance of the team to largely disintegrate. It did. Each of these were directly in conflict with the standards he agreed to when he accepted the job. He failed at each, which is why your posts saying he did what he was hired to do was and is and will forever be blatantly false.
He was hired knowing that's how he operates..one could argue he was doing what he was hired to do...Be Kelvin Sampson
Your right about a couple things.. No he wasn't hired to cheat, he wasn't hired to lie and he wasn't hired to let academic performance to fail... Neither was Burce Pearl, Roy Williams, Rick Pitino... or many other coaches that where caught lying... They were hired to Win Badketball Games... and that's what they do I'm sure there's no where in any of their contracts that stipulates that they lie and cheat... Duh...
On several occasions, he committed to his soon-to-be superiors that the transgressions at OU would not be repeated at IU. He was told repeatedly that IU had no interest in anyone who wasn't prepared to adhere to the rules. He assured them they had nothing to worry about. He failed to keep that very basic commitment. And then he lied about it on multiple occasions. In spite of their obviously questionable judgment in hiring him, they still were convinced that he'd follow the rules and play it straight. He didn't.
His initial press conference he was asked about his poor grad rates...he replied the players that wanted to graduate did....IU knew what they were getting.
So, Pearl has been chased out the door at several schools and Williams, of the current NCAA investigation includes allegations against either him or the Men's program at UNC, will likely walk the plank, too. I'm not aware of Pitino's lying and cheating, unless you're trying to implicate him in the escort stuff (and there's been no evidence presented that he knew anything about it).
I think one guy badly wanted to hire his friend, but that doesn't mean IU wanted him to ignore the academic performance of the team.
IU didn't want him to ignore the academics? The fact that they chose to ignore it kinda contradicts that idea. IU paid lip service for the public to eat up.
The academics weren't fine until the end. And suggesting that IU chose to ignore it really isn't rooted in reality. Not really sure what the point of your posts are here. IU clearly screwed up hiring Sampson. He was a poor choice who never should have been considered for the job. If you knew what happened, you'd realize that one guy drove the hiring, overriding the preference of his AD and easily moving around the ambivalence of a President who cared little about athletics. It was a poor choice and they paid a heavy price as a result.
I know who pushed the hire and I also know very little was done to stop the players behavior. If IU truly, truly, cared they would've stepped in and handled things....they chose to ignore it, just like KS. They threw out the standard Lip service, and you ate it up
So, IU "chose to ignore it" but "the academic support staff did a damn good job"? You're arguing yourself into the ground with those obvious contradictions. And if you believe that academics only went down at the end, you don't really know what happened at all, which is why your story keeps swerving all over the place and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
You always ask for links to prove posts...how about you...gotta a link proving any of this? Your claims ring a bit hollow. If the grades were as bad as you claim, how were they all eligible?
"They" are Sampson and his staff. "They" chose to ignore the drug use and behavior issues. Aside from failed drug tests (which occurred) and the mandatory and tiered punishments that resulted, where did the University fail when Sampson did not? As for academic eligibility, do you have any idea what it looked like after Crean came in? And do you really think that all occurred in a few weeks?
No I do not believe that the team had 19 Fs when KS was fired....they stopped going to class. And fwiw I don't believe the things were ever as bad as we were led to believe. They played the PR game and the mindless followed along
