KU wants its NCAA infractions case split ... while also hinting at a future game plan
Both Kansas Athletics and the NCAA’s Committee on Infractions are in agreement: KU’s men’s basketball infractions case should be heard by the NCAA’s new independent resolution panel.
There are still many disputes, though, and documents recently released by KU also outline a potential road map for the department if it believes it does not receive a favorable ruling.
Late Monday, KU released four documents on its public affairs website: the Committee on Infractions’ recommendation that KU’s infractions case go in front of the new Independent Accountability Resolution Process (IARP), KU’s response to that referral and also statements from men’s basketball coach Bill Self and assistant coach Kurtis Townsend.
Taken together, the crux of those memos reveals the following:
• Committee on Infractions chair Carol Cartwright believes KU’s case belongs with the IARP
• KU agrees with that stance, though it believes its three football violations listed in the Notice of Allegations should be separated and resolved through the NCAA’s typical Committee on Infractions process “for immediate resolution”
• Cartwright and the Committee on Infractions remain frustrated by KU’s “adversarial posturing,” while also four times in its recommendation accusing KU of an alleged “illicit recruiting scheme”
• Self takes exception to that “illicit recruiting scheme” language, and through a statement by his attorneys reiterates the argument that he and his staff did not have knowledge of Adidas employees’ payment to KU basketball players
• KU and Self, in their letters, both make intentions clear that they reserve the right to have a potential independent panel’s decision reviewed by a federal court if they so choose.
This back and forth continues the next step in the NCAA process when it comes to these complex cases.
Another committee — the five-person Infractions Referral Committee (IRC) — will decide whether the case ultimately will be seen by the IARP. Previous cases indicate that KU could expect to be accepted — or not — into the IARP in about four weeks, which would be late June or early July.
A rough estimate, at this point, would still have an expectation of KU’s entire case being completed in late 2020 or early 2021, depending on how the process plays out.
Cartwright cited many reasons she believed this particular matter should get to the IARP. KU’s notice of allegations, which includes five of the most severe Level I violations alleged against the men’s basketball program, “involves one of the premier men’s basketball programs in the country, one of the winningest head coaches in Division I men’s basketball history who is in the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame and alleged violations that are central to a federal lawsuit. Few cases have so much at stake,” Cartwright wrote.
Among Cartwright’s six listed reasons that the independent process would be best included:
• major policy issues that may implicate NCAA core values and commitments to the NCAA Collegiate Model
• lack of acceptance of core principles of self-governance
• perceived misconduct
• the scope and scale of the case and other factual complications
• potential confidentiality breaches
• increased stakes
Cartwright also noted that the foundation of the NCAA’s case — designating Adidas employees such as T.J. Gassnola as KU boosters — was a “critical question,” and also “an area that could benefit from independent decision making in the IARP.”
In her letter, Cartwright also accused KU Athletics of trying to steer the public narrative by its immediate release of documents and statements once the NCAA’s original notice of allegations was made public in September. She claims KU released information that could potentially be considered a breach of confidentiality with the case, while also saying some of KU’s public commentary could “potentially support disciplinary action.”
KU and Self disputed those declarations.
“Mr. Self has responded and will continue to respond honorably, responsibly, and vigorously to the false allegations which groundlessly confront him,” his lawyers, Scott Tompsett and William M. Sullivan, wrote in a statement. “Contrary to the assertions by the COI in the Petition, there is no requirement, nor does the NCAA membership expect, that coaches accused of NCAA violations accept baseless allegations unconditionally when legitimate and substantial challenges to such allegations exist.”
In summary, Cartwright stated the NCAA’s best interests would be best served by KU’s case going to the IARP.
KU and Self agreed with the men’s basketball part of that. Self’s statement said he “believes the only option going forward is for the case to be referred to the Independent Accountability Resolution Process.”
Townsend took a similar stance, saying he believed, because the Committee on Infractions stated it did not want to hear this case, that it might be predisposed against him if it subsequently was forced to do so.
For football, KU believed that case should be separated out because those three violations — two are Level II and one Level III — were self-reported, agreed upon by the school and, as KU argues, “do not form the basis for a failure to monitor or lack of institutional control allegation.”
The school also warned that while it believes it’s more likely to receive a fair decision through the IARP, use of that process “should not result in the inability to have the decision of the Independent Resolution Panel (IRP) reviewed by the federal courts, as the Rice Commission recommended.”
This story was originally published June 8, 2020 at 8:41 PM with the headline "KU wants its NCAA infractions case split ... while also hinting at a future game plan."
