We recently had the opportunity to talk with former Richmond basketballer Eli Holman. He has completed the first summer session at Detroit, his new school, and is now awaiting fall classes.

Asked why Detroit and why Coach Ray McCallum, Holman said, "Coach McCallum was my main recruiter [when Holman was at Richmond High and McCallum an Indiana assistant] and we built a personal relationship that goes beyond basketball. I can talk to him about anything. Indiana is a great university, I enjoyed my time there and felt a lot of love from a number of people but I was just close with Coach McCallum and I'm excited now about being at Detroit."

Holman shoots his trademark lefty jumper during a game last season while at Indiana

About what he gleaned from his IU departure and the resulting media frenzy, Holman offered, "There's a lesson in everything. I definitely have learned whether it be from my time at Indiana or my past high school experiences.

He added, "It's interesting how I shock people when what they have read about me is different from what they see in person. I get asked 'are you the same guy?'"

Would he like to play for Indiana was a question he brought up. His response: "I would love to. It would be fun because I respect the coaches and the players. I'm hoping they get into the tournament and do some damage."

As for the fast-approaching school year, Holman may find himself eligible to play but he cautioned, "It's a process, we're working on it and hoping for the best."

The following is a commentary about Holman, the media and Indiana University.

News flash: Eli Holman isn't a saint nor has he ever made claim to such a status. Our efforts were in vain in trying to locate any instance in which he invoked his name alongside that of the likes of Mother Teresa. Holman's past is certainly well documented as is departure from Indiana. It is the latter that truly deserves a second look.

But first a brief and obligatory summary: Yes, his making contact with a referee during a December 2005 game in his junior season at Richmond High was absolutely wrong. Period. No ifs, ands or buts.

That on court decision resulted in Holman becoming ineligible to play for the rest of his junior season.

That was followed by anger management counseling, alongside earning better high school grades, buttressed by the enrollment in classes at Contra Costa Community College, ones that aided in Holman's collegiate eligibility.

Even the referee involved in the incident wished Holman to be reinstated for his senior season.

Then in late January, 2007, Holman was shot at while arriving at a party for a Richmond High girls basketball player.

Eventually, he was reinstated and played as a senior.

Okay, now let's de-construct that fractious last meeting between Holman and new Indiana Coach Tom Crean, consciously attempting to employ minimal speculation.

Initial news stories, based on a police report utilizing input from Crean and other university staff, had Holman throwing a potted plant, with one television feature indicating Holman aimed the plant at Crean.

From the Andy Katz/ESPN article on the subject came this: "...According to an Indiana source, Holman became agitated once Crean told Holman of the process for transferring. The source said Holman was yelling and stormed out of Crean's office. He picked up a plant on a nearby desk and tossed it..."

Later, in other articles, the truth dribbled out: "...Capt. Jerry Minger of the IndianaUniversity police department said police were called as more of a precaution and that no one felt threatened. Police did not arrest Holman, but took a statement from Crean and others who witnessed the outburst, Minger said. 'It was first reported that he threw a potted plant, and later the secretary said he knocked it off as he was leaving,' Minger said. 'No one said anything about feeling threatened or like the anger was directed at a specific person...'"

But the media had already painted the portrait and subsequently numerous bloggers enjoyed having a field day with it all. As for the issuance of retractions or clarifications, well, that doesn't draw page views so...

Then there was Crean's statement, as issued by the university:

"We met with Eli Holman this afternoon. He had a good meeting with our assistant coaches earlier in the day. I felt like he still was not sure whether or not he wanted to be here which surprised me because everything we have seen from him had been very positive in terms of staying at Indiana and moving forward.

I have no idea what made him change his mind and arrive at this point. He indicated that he would like to leave Indiana, although I was hopeful that we could work through this situation to come to an arrangement we both were comfortable with and to take some time to make a decision.

The conversation was very cordial but unfortunately, it did not end that way. His behavior took me, along with the other people in the office, by surprise. We saw him as a danger to himself and wanted to take precautionary measures to help him. We felt bad for Eli and hopefully were able to help him..."

Point one: Regardless of what Holman said when and to who, he told Crean in the meeting that he wished to leave Indiana. Crean obviously wasn't happy but the mature response to that statement would have been: 'I wish you well with your decision' then declare the meeting over and move on. It's reminiscent of a situation where you turn down a salesman's offer but he tries to leverage his position to force an unwelcome reconsideration, leading to the well worn adage 'what part of no don't you understand.'

Point two: The "we saw him as a danger to himself" phrase is entirely self-serving and simply reeks, period.

Crean didn't hear the response he wanted, nor did Holman and it was the former who refused to accept the choice. Afterwards, the IU spin machine placed the white hat on Crean and the black one on Holman, an over-simplified good guy versus bad guy scenario and the media swallowed it completely and compliantly.

To his credit, Holman did later issue an apology for his behavior.

Nobody else did so.

Players come to a school generally because of the coach and/or sometimes one of the assistants. Shout 'hallelujah' about Kelvin Sampson's inevitable departure from IU and you will receive a justified chorus of 'amens' back but his firing still came as a loss to the young men he coached. In the crucible of collegiate sports, the IU administration became the heavy in the minds of the players, forcing their coach out and eventually also his main assistant, Ray McCallum.

 

The latter was the focal point in the recruitment of much of the Hoosier roster and players wished him to be named the interim head coach. Right or wrong, when Sampson and then McCallum disappeared so did the player allegiance to the school. Plus, with NCAA probation looming it should have come as no surprise that some of the basketballers decided to move on.

Now maybe Holman had been intent on transferring since the day Kelvin Sampson departed or came to his decision after he visited California while on break and chose to withhold the information. If so, that isn't being straight up but consider the situation: any early-announced departure would have planted a large target on Holman's back for the remainder of his stay in Indiana, leaving himself open to threats and abuse. What would you have done in that situation?

Of course, the vast majority of the IU fans who post at the numerous Indiana basketball sites and message boards -- the same ones who solidly had Holman's back prior to his departure -- did just that once the announcement was made and for some time afterwards. Nice words were not used. Once the decision became public, Holman immediately morphed into a hooligan and a pariah -- the 'saint when he's with us and sinner when he's not' fickleness that dominates fandom.

The bottomline is we all should be wishing for a win-win out of this -- that the IU basketball program gets righted and again becomes a great experience for its student-athletes members and that Eli Holman prospers as a person and athlete now at Detroit.