Here’s what’s next for KU Athletics in its fight against the NCAA
Kansas Athletics received a notice of allegations, then an amended one. Within 35 days it responded to the NCAA, and then last week, the NCAA gave its answer back.
With all those events now in the past — and five Level I violations still looming — the attention of those around KU Athletics now turns to this:
What’s next?
Though nothing is official yet, it seems likely that the next steps will involve this NCAA case proceeding through a different process than has previously been available.
For KU in particular, this path appears to be the best option available as the school continues to stand up to the NCAA regarding its serious allegations against both coach Bill Self and the men’s basketball program.
Previously, this would be the time when KU would be scheduling a hearing with the NCAA’s Committee on Infractions. However, following the advice of Condoleezza Rice-led commission on college basketball, the NCAA has introduced another option, creating the Independent Accountability Resolution Process (IARP), which focuses on handling complex cases with the goal of minimizing conflicts of interest by utilizing NCAA outsiders to gather evidence and deliver rulings.
There’s good reason for KU to potentially think it would not get a fair hearing with the NCAA’s Committee on Infractions. The NCAA’s most recent response to KU was at times laced with emotional language, which included pointed attacks at Self that alleged he was “directly involved” with violations while also going as far to point out that he wore an Adidas T-shirt and a money chain in a Late Night promotional video that was posted to social media the same week that KU’s original notice of allegations became public.
A potential message there: The NCAA is taking this thing personally. Which means KU isn’t likely to feel good about its chances in front of the Committee on Infractions, a 10-person group made up mostly of member school administrators who come together under the NCAA’s umbrella.
There’s another reason KU could favor the IARP: The school is attempting to make a legal argument that former Adidas representative T.J. Gassnola should not be considered a booster, and that type of appeal is likely best heard by others with law backgrounds.
The IARP provides that. With this option, the five people who determine a school’s fate — that is, they review the allegations, conduct a hearing, and determine whether violations took place before giving out any penalties — come from a selection of the 15-person Independent Resolution Panel; this group is mostly comprised of individuals with extensive legal experience, as opposed to the Committee on Infractions, which primarily has members whose past has been in college sports administration.
It’s not assured yet, however, that KU will be advancing to the new IARP. Movement toward that could come quickly, though, as the NCAA rules state that a referral request for a case — either from the school, Committee on Infractions or NCAA enforcement — to go to the IARP must come within 15 calendar days of the Committee on Infractions receiving the NCAA’s response to a school.
KU reported that it received the NCAA’s reply on May 6. That would point to May 21 — Thursday — as a potential deadline for there being some word of this case moving toward the new IARP process.
It wouldn’t guarantee it going there, though. When cases are forwarded along to the IARP, the five-person Infractions Referral Committee determines whether a case should be seen by the new panel. The school, Committee on Infractions and NCAA enforcement also each have 20 calendar days to submit a response to the referral request, stating their position on whether they believe it should be reviewed by the new IARP.
So far, only one case has been officially accepted by the Infractions Referral Committee, as the NCAA announced on March 4 that Memphis’ ruling would come from the new independent panel.
The Raleigh News & Observer reported earlier this month that NC State’s NCAA case had been recommended to the IARP, but it has not yet been added to the official list, meaning it potentially has not been ruled upon yet by the referral committee.
KU’s case going to the IARP could carry risks. For example, the IARP’s decision is considered final with no NCAA process available for an appeal. That might not concern KU much, however, as the NCAA’s appeals process would take roughly another six months and rarely is successful; NCAA data from 2017-18 reported that among 19 violations that were appealed to the five-person Infractions Appeals Committee, 16 were upheld while three were vacated.
Another factor: KU appears to have other legal options even if handed a harsh punishment. As ESPN analyst Jay Bilas suggested to The Star last September, one option would be taking the NCAA to federal court over a perceived unjust ruling, which wouldn’t require any sort of NCAA appeal.
Though the recent coronavirus pandemic could still change the timeline, already delaying some deadlines in the IARP to May 31, a rough estimate would have KU’s case resolved by either late 2020 or early 2021.
This much is clear: The dispute is coming closer to a conclusion. Whether KU’s case ends up with the Committee on Infractions or with the new IARP, a first resolution with the case — including the delivering of potential penalties — should be coming in a matter of months.
This story was originally published May 15, 2020 at 11:25 AM.
