Mike DeCourcy, Andy Katz, and various other seem to be jumping on the "Senderoff as fall guy" bandwagon. Inside the Hall also suggests that the Senderoff dismissal was botched and also mentions Greenspan's characterization of Senderoff's resignation as "voluntary." There are a few points to consider. First, as Greenspan noted, Senderoff and IU have entered a severance agreement. Those agreements don't appear out of thin air. The Ice Miller report makes clear that Senderoff hired an attorney months ago, and it's safe to assume that his attorney has been involved in recent days. It's possible that IU always was going to get rid of Senderoff, but the terms of the severance hadn't been fully agreed upon two weeks ago. It's also possible that Greenspan got additional pressure from above. President McRobbie seems to have been in the loop from the beginning, but the trustees and big donors may not have been. Finally, it may seem silly for Greenspan to claim that Senderoff resigned voluntarily, but a) almost certainly, the severance agreement requires him to say that, and b) that term is favorable to Senderoff. In a high profile personnel decision such as this one, where everyone "knows" what happened, perhaps it's of no value. But what if you were forced out by your employer? Would you prefer it be characterized as a resignation or a firing?
I suppose I'm less than troubled by this because from the beginning, I've been surprised that Senderoff could survive. Overall, I think he's a well-meaning guy and I expect he will land on his feet in the coaching profession, but his departure is in IU's interest. In any event, I think this story might look a bit different if we knew what was going on behind the scenes.