|Indiana braces for possibility of more penalties|
|Written by Admin|
|Tuesday, 30 September 2008 12:54|
In the school's response to the latest NCAA allegation, that it failed to monitor coach Kelvin Sampson, university officials argued the self-imposed penalties have been strong enough - even though they are bracing for additional sanctions from the phone-call scandal that rocked the school's signature program.
``The university recognizes that a probationary period will likely be imposed and suggests that it begin on the date of the (June) hearing,'' the report said.
It's unclear whether the university anticipates a postseason or television ban. But, clearly, Indiana believes the infractions committee will hand down harsher punishment when it rules on the case, probably sometime in October.
igators. Sampson has repeatedly denied providing false and misleading testimony and said he was unaware the phone calls were not allowed under the probation he incurred for a similar scandal at Oklahoma.
Originally, the NCAA accused Indiana of five major violations, then reduced that to four. Indiana concurred with the NCAA's assessment on all four charges.
In June, less than two weeks after Indiana's hearing in front of the infractions committee, the NCAA charged the university with failure to monitor.
University officials, who released their response Monday, are now arguing their own actions have been tough enough to avoid additional penalties.
Since February, the program has undergone a major housecleaning.
Indiana bought out Sampson's contract, and Greenspan, who hired Sampson, has announced he will resign in December. None of Sampson's assistants were retained and all but two players from last season's roster have either transferred or been kicked off the team.
The university also has restructured its compliance office and included a provision in new coach Tom Crean's contract that gives Indiana the right to fire him if he or his staff members commit NCAA infractions.
The school, which has not been found guilty of a major infraction since 1960, contends the publicity from this case has already damaged its reputation.
``Practically speaking, the fallout from this self-reported infractions case has been a devastating sanction in and of itself,'' the report said. ``The intense scrutiny and negative public relations of the past year has been tantamount to a probationary period.''
But will those points convince the infractions committee Indiana has done its part to clean things up?
In its defense, Indiana cited a committee member's own words and the precedent established in a 2003 case against the Chicago State women's basketball program. In that case, Chicago State avoided being found guilty of lack of institutional control because the infractions committee believed the coach was acting on her own.
Indiana contends Sampson and his staff were doing the same thing.
University officials also quoted a comment made by a committee member at June's Knight Commission meeting that infractions cases should be not be used to ``cripple'' a team and should instead focus on making the institutions better.
Indiana believes there's a different agenda, though.
``Unfortunately, it now appears that the committee may be ignoring the counsel it provided to the membership in the Chicago State infractions report, and has instead determined that a failure to monitor is appropriate only because Indiana University hired Sampson,'' the report said, referring to Sampson's previous phone-call scandal at Oklahoma.