Will Indiana University Men's Basketball Head Coach Kelvin Sampson be fired due to the NCAA investigation into alleged recruiting violations?

I disagree. Bought out of a contract is, essentially, fired.

Bought out is not the same as fired..a buy out can be done for a number of reasons..a buy out is a mutual agreement which may or may not be in his contract..a firing means at least one of the parties (the one being fired) is opposed to it or has no say..if he was going to be fired he would have had to have been suspended first and been allowed an appeal or he could have sued the school..this happened with a different coach

Buying out a coach midseason, when your team is top 15, because of recruiting violations, equals being fired. There is no doubt here.

the question says "fired" not bought out or any other mitigating cicumstances..he was not fired..if every question was settled with one thing equaling another there would be many answers for many questions..if buyout was an option it would be different but its not

His midseason "buyout" is a firing, in the spirit of the question. The details are irrelevant.

He resigned and was bought out. That clearly is NOT fired. This question should be settled as a NO.

Not gonna argue this anymore, it's the old rules vs. standards debate. You read this strictly, literally, whereas I'm looking more at the spirit of the question, what was meant. You can't say with a straight face he agreed to a buyout out of the blue. He was fired. Whether or not the record reflects that, you know he was. As to what the answer to this question should be, I'll leave it up to the admins.

Sampson wasn't forced to take the buyout - he took the $750K to avoid a wrongful termination lawsuit. He could have turned down the offer, been fired and sued afterward.

Disclosure: I don't have any H$ on this.

Interesting that the first news source tagged to this question references "If Kelvin Sampson gets fired today, what's ... "

The phrase "resigned for the benefit of the corporation" comes to mind ...

Trying to "predict" -- which is what Hubdub is about -- means trying to predict how the "news" will "read" (be) in the future.

Hell, I don't remember if I have money on this (I suppose I could check but I am too damn lazy.) And it si hubdub dollars, and in beta to boot, so who really cares? But, Jbolli is right here. Strictly speaking, obviously the university didn't fire him (then they'd have to pay on the contract, or litigate, etc.). But in the world of "university speak", Sampson just got fired. He took the buyout to save himself (mostly) and the university (as an afterthought) a little embarrassment. But he was bought-out so the University could try to protect itself from more sanctions and so it could save itself being in the news. Coaches do not get bought-out when things are going well. Now, if the question had been written, will Sampson lose his job because of the investigation, would you still be arguing this? If so, then you either are so concerned about your bet that you are looking for a way to get money, or you really choose to misunderstand the world of big-time college athletics. I bring up the hypothetical because that is what the question is really asking. Did he technically get "fired"? Obviously not, because the university did not terminate him, thus requiring them to keep paying him, etc. Did he get "fired" for all practical purposes? You betcha. In fact, you could say the settlement details of the question left this open. Will he get the "ax" for all this? He just did.

question-will sampson be fired?-must be reported by reputable news source-since all the reputable news sources report it as him resigning officially how can it be read into a firing..they are not the same..no news source is reporting that because he officially resigned regardless of how anybody feels about the circumstances..it cant be yes because it is not being reported as such

I agree crudsy. This should be settled immediately as a NO. Suspended until settled so no one can wager and profit from events that have already took place.

Why isn't this being settled. It is clear that he was NOT fired. Whats the confusion?

bought out is not fired

bought out is bought out
fired is fired
is is is

Wow, I had no idea this question would cause such a stir.

I think it should be settled yes...according to Wikipedia firing is...."Depending on the case, the decision may be made by the employee, the employer, or mutually agreed upon by both." In this case he left by mutual decision. It has been reported he had no option to stay, he was terminated one way or another...thus it is appropriate to say he was fired.

http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=37906&cat=6

Kelvin Sampson Fired As Indiana Coach After Violations

Atlanta, GA 2/22/2008 11:50 PM GMT (FINDITT)

As is often the case, an employment contract for "big bucks" prohibits an individual from being "fired". Wherein the other terms for "removal" of that individual come into play ...

In hindsight, this question should have been voided wayback, or it should have been a no-brainer, because Sampson had a clause in his contract making it impossible to "fire" him, technically speaking. But whatever. Only hubdub money anyway.