Some 3,800 miles from the Manoa campus, one of the most turbulent — and expensive — chapters in the history of University of Hawaii athletics nears a defining point Thursday in Dallas.

At a boutique hotel a couple of fast breaks from the Southern Methodist University campus, the NCAA Committee on Infractions is scheduled to conduct a hearing into "Case No. 00020."

The closed-door session in a hotel meeting room set up to resemble a courtroom will be the latest step in a 19-month process that has resulted in seven major allegations against the UH men’s basketball program, contributed to the shakeup of the coaching staff and produced a grievance and a lawsuit, all of which could end up costing the school upwards of $1.5 million in the final accounting.

In the more immediate term, the decision shaped by the hearing, which has twice been rescheduled and moved from Arizona, will frame the brunt of responsibilities — UH or Gib Arnold — for the controversial saga that has cast a cloud over the institution and its former men’s basketball coach. And it will help decide whether this year’s team incurs additional penalties, including being barred from postseason play.

For all the drama of Thursday’s hearing — to which the parties have been pledged to silence by the NCAA — the actual decision could be a month or more in coming. "Once a hearing occurs, typically a decision is released within four to six weeks," an NCAA spokeswoman told the Honolulu Star-Advertiser.

When a decision is announced, either party may appeal it.

Penalty uncertainty

Not since 1977, when the NCAA Committee on Infractions ruled on "Case No. 560 — (the) University of Hawaii", an episode that largely revolved around the men’s basketball program, has the school faced such scrutiny from the governing body of college athletics.

Back then UH received two years’ probation from the NCAA, and the fallout severely set back recruiting and other elements of the program so that it effectively impacted the basketball team for nearly a decade.

This time, after receiving the NCAA’s 42-page Notice of Allegations in January, UH offered a "no excuses" response and self-imposed several of its own penalties in June, including loss of one scholarship for each of the 2015-16 and 2016-17 seasons, reduced practice time by one hour each week for the 2015-16 season, prohibitions on the director of operations, prohibition of coaches conducting on-campus evaluations of players for the first five official visits of 2015-16, a $10,000 fine and the vacating of 36 combined victories from the 2012-13 and 2013-14 seasons.

For several months, up through at least February, UH had also considered self-imposing a one-year postseason ban. Based upon advice from its Alabama law firm of Lightfoot, Franklin & White, which specializes in NCAA infractions cases, and amid an outcry from basketball fans, UH chose not to impose the ban.

UH officials said they calculated that the other self-imposed penalties along with the termination of head coach Arnold and assistant Brandyn Akana and suspension of All-Big West Conference player Isaac Fotu (who subsequently turned pro) would be enough to mollify the NCAA.

"The NCAA tends to look favorably upon schools that demonstrate a willingness to take action themselves," said a mainland college executive who has appeared at several NCAA Committee on Infractions hearings but is not authorized to speak about the UH case.

Meanwhile, the uncertainty over what, if any, additional penalties might be imposed on UH by the NCAA has hung over recruiting, where it has been used against the Rainbow Warriors by other schools, UH officials have said.

It is a sign of the importance of the hearing to UH that the school could have as many as eight people present.

Along with attorneys from the Alabama firm, UH Associate General Counsel Ryan Akamine is expected to represent UH at the hearings since his boss — Carrie K. S. Okinaga, UH general counsel and vice president for legal affairs — will be on Maui later that day to brief regents on a tentative six-figure settlement with Arnold.

By policy, the Board of Regents must approve any settlement in excess of $500,000. Arbitration of Arnold’s grievance against UH is in abeyance, pending Board of Regents approval of the tentative settlement.

Manoa Chancellor Robert Bley-Vroman, Athletic Director David Matlin, former AD Ben Jay, Compliance Director Amanda Paterson and men’s basketball coach Eran Ganot are expected to attend the NCAA hearing.

Arnold is expected to have three attorneys: two from Honolulu, James Bickerton and Stephen Tannenbaum, and Kansas City-based Scott Tompsett, a specialist in NCAA infractions.

Akana, who has taken a position at Brigham Young University-Hawaii, has not made any public comments and is not expected to attend the hearing.

Much of the UH contingent is scheduled to arrive Wednesday and hold a "run-through" session in preparation for Thursday’s hearing.

Let the arguments begin

Once in the hearing, people who have experienced past NCAA hearings say, the parties’ attorneys will be able to make statements and answer the panel’s questions but are not normally allowed to cross-examine participants or call witnesses.

The case will be heard by a seven- to eight-member panel drawn from a 24-member pool composed of officials and faculty from NCAA member institutions, former coaches and administrators and the public.

Much of the participants’ initial arguments and charges are contained and backgrounded in summaries and responses shared with the NCAA and each other from as far back as June. UH and Arnold’s representatives have declined to make them available to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser.

Bickerton cited potential liability issues for refusing to release his client’s argument. A request for UH’s copies under the State’s Open Records Law was refused by the school and an opinion from the State’s Office of Information Practices has been pending since July.

A UH spokesmen declined to discuss the school’s position entering the hearing. But UH is expected to portray Arnold as a "rogue" coach whose behavior "undermined our program," as Bley-Vroman suggested in earlier public statements.

In a supplemental response to NCAA allegations obtained by the Star-Advertiser under the State’s Open Records Law, UH has said, "… Arnold attempts to deflect responsibility for his violations through a disjointed attack on the university’s compliance office and, more specifically, its compliance director (Paterson)."

Arnold’s camp, meanwhile, is expected to argue that any violations committed by the former coach were not willful, resulted from a weak compliance structure and were based on information furnished by staffers, ex-coaches and former players with axes to grind.

In addition Bickerton claimed in an earlier statement that the "UH Administration was bent on getting rid of Gib Arnold so they could get a regents’ friend in as coach."

Bickerton said, "They had picked out the person they wanted as replacement coach and they were going to make sure Gib Arnold did not get back in as coach."

On Friday, Bickerton said, "Gib is looking forward to the NCAA hearing that is the last piece of the puzzle and to put it all behind him and move ahead."