Temple coach John Chaney has been the center of controversy since ordering a player to commit rough fouls last week. AP

Say what you will about Temple hatchet-man Nehemiah Ingram. But at least when he was sent in by coach John Chaney to commit mayhem against St. Joseph's the other day, he did so swiftly and decisively, even if he did engage in some of the worst thuggery we've seen on a basketball court in recent memory. Ingram appears to be the only person in this sorry mess capable of acting without checking to see which way the wind of public perception is blowing first.

Everyone else has been plagued by second thoughts and changes of heart that are brought on to avoid looking bad. Begin with the real culprit: Chaney himself, who despite his distinguished career as a coach and mentor, did something more appalling than anything we've ever seen from Bob Knight, which is saying quite a bit. Upset with what he felt was overly physical play by St. Joe's, Chaney sent in Ingram, a seldom-used 6-foot-8, 250-pound bruiser he described as a "goon," to even the score by committing hard fouls. Ingram dutifully did what Chaney told him, elbowing one Owl in the head and sending another, senior John Bryant, flying on a layup attempt. Bryant broke his arm on the landing, which sidelines him for the final games of his college career.

That was last Tuesday. On Wednesday, Chaney slapped his own wrist, announcing that he would serve a self-imposed one-game suspension. After Bryant's fracture was revealed, the university extended Chaney's suspension to the rest of the regular season -- a whopping three games. Only after media and public outcry over that weak brand of discipline did Chaney declare Monday that he would not coach in the Atlantic 10 postseason tournament. Again, his decision, not the university's.

Chaney, to his credit, has expressed his remorse in every way he can think of, apologizing to Bryant, meeting with the player's family and offering to pay his medical bills. He insists he sees the error of his ways. But if that's true, why the repeated amending of his punishment? If Chaney truly understood how reprehensible his actions were, he would have not only accepted but insisted on a suspension for the rest of the season at a bare minimum. He would have found it unconscionable to coach a game while Bryant was unable to play one. Instead, he tried to see how light a punishment he could escape with without making the media howl. He seemed to be saying: How about a one-game suspension? Not enough? OK, three games. No? OK, throw in the conference tournament. Is that good enough?

Temple and the Atlantic 10 haven't exactly covered themselves in glory. What in the name of Knight were athletic director Bill Bradshaw, university president David Adamany and Atlantic 10 commissioner Linda Bruno thinking when they allowed Chaney to discipline himself, not once, but twice? An administrator with any backbone would have stepped in, banned Chaney from coaching for the rest of the season and made it clear that even a hint of such behavior ever again would result in his immediate firing. Instead Adamany, Bradshaw and Bruno essentially curled up in a ball and hoped the national attention would just go away.

Bryant should be outraged at Chaney. He should be outraged at Ingram -- who, despite the fact he was following his coach's orders should receive at least a one-game suspension as well. The malevolence with which he carried out those orders is as much his responsibility as Chaney's. But Bryant should be just as outraged at the university and conference officials who are supposed to ensure that certain standards of sportsmanship and fair play are upheld. Blame Chaney for doing the wrong thing. Blame his bosses for doing next to nothing.