KU’s infractions case reaches ‘line in the sand’ landmark. Here’s what’s next
The Kansas athletic department’s NCAA infractions case will be heard by an independent panel.
The newly formed IARP — Independent Accountability Resolution Process — announced Wednesday that KU’s case had been accepted.
This process — not available to programs in previous years — appears to be the best option available for KU as the school continues to stand up to the NCAA following its allegations of five Level I violations committed by both coach Bill Self and the men’s basketball program.
Naima Stevenson Starks, the NCAA’s VP of Hearing Operations, spoke Wednesday to The Star about the road ahead. She could not comment specifically about KU’s case, and instead only spoke in generalities about the process.
“This is at least a disclosure point, a line in the sand, so to speak, where you know where a case sits, whether it’s in one process or another,” Stevenson Starks said of a case being accepted to the IARP. “So I think that is a benefit to having that kind of information, at least at that high level, being available.”
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 the second option of the IARP, which uses NCAA outsiders to gather evidence and deliver rulings on complex cases.
The next step is for an independent resolution panel (IRP) to be created for KU’s case. There are 15 members of that panel, and five would be chosen by an oversight committee to participate directly with KU’s matter.
The oversight committee also chooses an independent investigator and advocate that will make up the Complex Case Unit (CCU). This group conducts any further investigation needed for the case while also getting additional information needed for the subsequent hearing.
Stevenson Starks estimated that the timeline for the IRP and CCU appointments “won’t be far off,” with that likely happening next week.
After that is completed, the CCU evaluates the NCAA’s case, determining whether it needs additional investigation. The CCU also can amend the current notice of allegations against a program, adding or subtracting violations that were originally alleged by the NCAA’s enforcement staff.
From there, one of the five people chosen for the IRP would be selected as the chief panel member. That person is ultimately going to have control over the case’s timeline.
The reason for that? That chief panel member will eventually be in charge of the “Case Management Plan,” which spells out deadlines for each step of the case. That outline will move the process all the way to an eventual hearing in front of the five-person IRP.
Stevenson Starks said impacts of coronavirus aren’t likely to have much impact on the timeline of the case; on June 1, the IARP released a statement saying that hearings and oral arguments will be conducted virtually when appropriate. Stevenson Starks said other cases previously referred to the IARP — Memphis and NC State — have already had CCUs appointed that are active.
Stevenson Starks said it could be a possibility for a school’s hearing to be conducted virtually if warranted as well. The final determination for that potentially happening would be made by the case’s IRP.
The NCAA’s announcement Wednesday about the case will be its last for a while. The organization, via the IARP’s rules, will not make any public comment until a final ruling by the IRP. That means even a potential change in the notice of allegations will not be disclosed publicly.
Because this process has not played out before, Stevenson Starks wouldn’t guess as to how long it would take until a final ruling is made, saying many steps along the way could alter the schedule.
A rough estimate, though, could have KU’s case resolved by either late 2020 or early 2021.
There was some reason for KU to think it would not get a fair hearing with the infractions committee. A recent NCAA 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 the NCAA’s original notice of allegations against KU became public.
A potential message there: The NCAA was taking this thing personally. Which means KU wasn’t likely to feel good about its chances in front of a 10-person committee made up mostly of NCAA member school administrators.
Self’s lawyers Scott Tompsett and Bill Sullivan previously released a statement on Self’s behalf in May when responding to the NCAA’s claims against the coach, stating the allegations were an “incomplete collection of misleading assertions, conclusory statements and groundless insinuations.”
There’s another possible reason KU favored 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 from the IRP who determine a school’s fate mostly have extensive legal experience, as opposed to the Committee on Infractions, which primarily has members whose past has been in college sports administration.
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. Self, through a letter from Tompsett, also stated last month that he was considering potential legal action against the NCAA as a result of this case.
This story was originally published July 1, 2020 at 3:39 PM.
