a risk that should not have been taken
Hiring a risky candidate as coach should have meant that strict and well regulated procedures were established to ensure 100% compliance with the rules. This responsibility squarely falls on the administration's shoulders. They were not up to the challenge, but they are quick to protest their innocence. McRobbie didn't stop with the earth-shattering news above. He had more to say:
Some have said that there is a lot of blame to be shared in all of this, suggesting -- and perhaps hoping -- that there can be a dilution of personal responsibility under some notion of collective guilt. I reject that notion completely and I hope this committee will, as well.
Although it is true that all parties before this committee made some mistakes, there clearly exists a higher level of blame in this matter that we believe should be assigned to coaches Sampson and Senderoff. And we believe the evidence in this case strongly supports that.
He hired Sampson. He announced that Sampson was legit and had learned from his mistakes. He failed to monitor the coach. He allowed the exact same violations which had been censured in Oklahoma to occur in Indiana. Now he walks away with a thick wad of cash and a possible book deal.
Why doesn't the administration just tell this man to take his stuff and leave? Why is he allowed to stay through December?
I guess the good news for IU basketball is that it can't get any worse.
She noted that schools often say, "Hey, look, it was the coach. We had no idea he was doing it. We had a compliance system in place that was adequate and reasonably constituted to check violations, and we didn't detect it."
Potuto added, "What's missing from that is institutions only can act through individuals. . . . The university has to be responsible for the acts of those who do things on their behalf or in their name, however much the university would say, 'This is not the kind of conduct I want.' "