IU's flight for Evanston leaves at 10AM, and I'll be at the airport to see if all of the players will be boarding. That's not true, but someone will, and I will be incredibly happy if several players don't go.
There has been nothing more annoying than the recent success experienced by IU. All of a sudden, they're a major college basketball program, despite the years of mediocrity that have preceded this season's achievements. Now, the team (and some fans) is rallying behind a man that has lied to the NCAA, after committing numerous blatant and serious violations.
A couple of years ago, IU players and fans stood up for then-coach Mike Davis. His situation, while ostensibly similar, was different due to the circumstances surrounding him. Davis wasn't producing, and a change was needed. Standing up for Davis was expected, and warranted. However, standing up for Sampson is absurd.
Sampson's "resignation" is not a subjective decision made by the higher-ups in IU's athletic office. Instead, it has been made by IU's history and reputation. Much of what is said by IU supporters, to a point of great annoyance, pertains to the cleanliness of the program. That cleanliness is a great source of pride for many, and to forfeit it would be tragic and devestating to the already fragile image of IU basketball.
However, the players are muddying the waters. The mere suggestion of a boycott already diminishes IU's once proud reputation, but carrying out such an act of defiance would be highly destructive. Thus, I hope it goes down.
I'm not that lucky, unfortunately. I don't see any way possible that IU isn't seen at Northwestern tonight, as skipping Friday's practice will probably serve as the Hoosiers only exhibition of rebellion.
Get Blitzed
1 comment:
First off, I don't think Sampson should have been fired. The NCAA gives an accused institution 90 days to respond, and Kelvin Sampson should have been given 90 days. There is something called due process in this country. I know IU forced his resignation so it would look "tough" in the eyes of the NCAA and possibly mitigate future punishment. That shouldn't have been relevant. After all, if the NCAA gives 90 days, it shouldn't matter if you fire him during the first week of the 90 days, or the last week. That's the time period the NCAA has set up and they should live with it.
Secondly, are there fans seriously saying that Greenspan should be fired for hiring a coach that went 41-14? Are you kidding me? Sampson had committed only minor violations at Oklahoma, not a reason to never give this guy an opportunity at a big college program again. Sampson had been a head coach for 23 years with few violations. It was very reasonable for Greenspan to think Sampson's actions at OU were an anomaly.
And this notion that IU was a clean program before Sampson? Give me a break. They had Bob Knight for god's sake. Sure, Knight may have been clean in the eyes of the NCAA, but he wasn't clean in the eyes of the law. He physically and verbally abused players, assaulted a security officer, and said "I think that if rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it." He constantly preached discipline and professionalism but rarely exercised those virtues himself. He was a complete asshole. Sure, maybe he didn't cheat the NCAA, but he scarred IU much worse than Kelvin Sampson.
Post a Comment