Even as the University of Hawaii filed its intention to appeal a postseason ban of its men’s basketball team, the school is exploring “Plan B” options.

In what was described by officials as a “one page” notice to the NCAA Wednesday, UH said it was appealing what it sees as an undeservedly “harsh” postseason ban for the 2016-17 season, the most severe of the nine penalties handed the school last month.

But if UH’s appeal is not upheld by the NCAA’s five-member Infractions Appeals Committee, the school wants to know if it would have the option of moving the ban to another season.

“The university strongly believes that the ban unfairly penalizes student-athletes for the misdeeds of individuals no longer with the program and is requesting that the NCAA reconsider the penalty,” UH said in a statement.

Athletic director David Matlin said, “We have asked for clarification of what we could do (if the ban remains), but we haven’t asked to move it. We just asked if it was possible. We haven’t heard back yet.”

The 2016-17 season is a key one for the Rainbow Warriors whose presumptive senior class would include Aaron Valdes, Stefan Jankovic, Stefan Jovanovic and Mike Thomas.

If UH is banned from postseason play in 2016-17 they would all be free to transfer to another school without sitting out a season. That option would not be open to the players if the ban were pushed back to 2017-18. Only players who would be seniors in 2017-18 would have the option.

It is unlikely the ban could be implemented this year although Syracuse last year banned itself from the 2014-15 postseason on Feb. 4, 2015, four months after appearing before the NCAA Committee on Infractions.

Matlin said UH was not risking deeper sanctions by appealing and said, “I have every confidence that it will be fairly listened to.”

He declined to give odds on UH’s chances but said Big West Conference Commission Dennis Farrell was in “full support of the appeal.”

UH contends the NCAA has historically, “banned schools from postseason play when it was determined that there was a ‘Lack of Institutional Control’ or ‘Failure to Monitor’ by an institution.”

UH was cited for neither and noted, “the Committee on Infractions recognized, in its findings, the university’s ‘prompt acknowledgment and acceptance of responsibility and imposition of meaningful corrective measures and/or penalties.’”

Matlin said UH is seeking clarification of how the NCAA intends to calculate the one percent of the basketball program’s operating budget penalty and whether UH’s self-imposed ban of one scholarship will be figured in the overall penalty.

UH now has 30 days to present its case after which the NCAA has 30 days to respond.