Breaking down Indiana's penalty

Last month, SI senior writer Jon Wertheim filed a story detailing the decline of the Indiana University basketball program in the wake of the Kelvin Sampson recruiting scandal. He reacts with today NCAA's decision to place the school on probation for three seasons.

Q: First, was this the decision you expected and what is your take?

A: Well, it's still shocking to see a headline that has "Indiana basketball" and "probation" in the same sentence. For however people may have felt about Bob Knight -- or, for that matter, Mike Davis -- even the staunchest critics were willing to concede the program was a clean one, an island of rectitude in college basketball. But given both the fact pattern and the inauspicious NCAA hearing in Seattle last summer, this is about as favorable an outcome as the school could have hoped for.

Q: Is the moral here to install self-imposed penalties before the NCAA beats you to the punch?

A: The first moral is to screen your employees. Kelvin Sampson came with significant baggage after his rules violations at Oklahoma and the skeptics who were saying "a leopard doesn't change his spots," were, unfortunately, proven correct. On the other hand, the "by-the-book" Indiana compliance officials who challenged Sampson -- and were not supported as they should have been by the athletic department higher-ups -- are the kind of employees you want. In a stunningly short period of time, the entire program, if not the entire athletic department, cratered.

But as far as self-imposed penalties, I think they are well-received by the NCAA. Indiana docked itself scholarships, imposed recruiting restrictions, cooperated once the investigation was underway and clearly that was looked upon favorably. I think there were other factors as well. Virtually the entire cast from this ugly saga is gone. Sampson and Rob Senderoff, the complicit assistant coach who was also sanctioned today, are both long gone. The embattled athletic director, Rick Greenspan, has resigned effective at the end of the year. The president, Adam Herbert, who was a Sampson ally, is gone. (Though they weren't implicated in this, even most of the roster of players from last season is gone.) So whom, really, would harsh penalties have been punishing? Also, inasmuch as "just desserts" is a goal of the NCAA, look at the state of the Indiana program right now -- this once-storied program brought to its knees -- and it's clear they've suffered plenty already.

Q: Do you think Kelvin Sampson's penalty was a fair one?

A: In the course of writing the story for SI, I spoke with Sampson several times. He was willing to accept responsibility to a point but also feels that a lot has been blown out of proportion. I suspect he feels more so now, getting hit with a five-year show-cause order, a penalty more grave than the one the program received and one that will make it hard for him to coach at a reputable college program again. On the one hand, I see his point: for all the corruption one hears about in the college game -- no-show jobs, hundred-dollar handshakes, academic fraud, boosters paying AAU coaches -- unauthorized phone calls is not exactly a felony. On the other hand, what he did was sensationally stupid, reckless even: if you get Program A (in this case Oklahoma) in hot water for making unauthorized calls, wouldn't you be painstakingly sure not to make the same error at your next job?

Q: Does today's announcement help Indiana's recruiting?

A: Absolutely. And keep in mind, as bad as the Hoosiers will be this season, help is on the way already. In practical terms, today's decision helps because the program wasn't hit with an additional loss of scholarships or television appearances, etc. But more than that, from an image standpoint, Tom Crean and the current coaches can say to recruits, "The past is the past. Now we rebuild this program to what it once was."