The University of Hawaii has charged a powerful NCAA committee with “an abuse of discretion” in imposing “an unprecedented” postseason ban on its men’s basketball team for 2016-17 and is asking an appeals panel to “vacate” the penalty.
In addition, “This penalty most significantly impacts existing student-athletes who had nothing to do with the underlying violations,” UH’s appeal asserted. “A postseason ban has no effect on the former coaches who actually committed the violations and who the university no longer employ(s).”
The charges and request are contained in a 66-page appeal drafted by UH’s Alabama-based attorneys and submitted by the school to the NCAA Infractions Appeals Committee on Monday.
The Honolulu Star-Advertiser obtained a redacted copy of the appeal under the state’s open records law.
The postseason ban was the most severe penalty handed down Dec. 22 by the NCAA’s Committee on Infractions and, if upheld by the appeals panel, gives players who would be seniors next season, including the core of the 2016-17 team, the option of transferring without penalty.
Aaron Valdes, Stefan Jankovic, Stefan Jovanovic and Mike Thomas are among those who would have the option to transfer to other programs without sitting out a season, the requisite waiting period.
The appeal is scheduled to be heard by a five-member panel. An NCAA spokeswoman said, “Generally speaking, an appeals case takes five to eight months, assuming there are extensions or delays.”
In contesting the postseason ban, an appeals process that could take several months, UH maintains, “There is no rational basis in this case for the imposition of such a penalty.”
Citing 13 cases adjudicated by the COI between 2009 and 2016, UH’s appeal says: “The COI does not explain how this case could be so substantially different from all of these cases so as to justify the imposition of the postseason ban. When this heavy volume of contrary precedent is coupled with the absence of any explanation for the deviation from that precedent in this case, it is apparent that the COI’s decision to impose this penalty was arbitrary and capricious.”
The case against UH largely “involved unethical conduct on the part of two former coaches (Gib Arnold and Brandyn Akana),” the university maintains. “Not a single Level I violation (the most severe) was found nor was there a finding of lack of institutional control or failure to monitor, yet the university was treated more harshly than programs committing serious Level I violations involving significantly larger numbers of student-athletes over much longer time periods. Under no set of circumstances, whether under the new or old penalty structure, is a postseason ban appropriate on the university’s men’s basketball program.”
UH also asserts: “On the facts of this case, which involved Level II and Level III violations exclusively and no institutional violations, the COI’s imposition of a postseason ban is unprecedented and excessive such that it constitutes an abuse of discretion. Put simply, there has never been a case in which a postseason ban has been imposed against an institution based upon violations even remotely comparable to those the COI found in this case.”
UH’s appeal argues: “The university has acknowledged throughout this case that violations of NCAA legislation occurred in its men’s basketball program and has not made any effort to evade responsibility for the violations properly attributable to the university. The university self-imposed penalties that were appropriate under the applicable bylaw for the type of violations at issue and consistent with precedent from the COI. The university was shocked, however, to receive a postseason ban for the exclusively Level II and III violations the COI found in this case.”
UH also defends then-compliance director Amanda Paterson, who has since been promoted to assistant athletic director. In its Dec. 22 findings, the COI said: “The relationship between (Arnold) and the director of compliance (Paterson) was tense to the point of being nearly dysfunctional. Communication between the two was poor and overshadowed by an ongoing personality conflict.”
The COI concluded, “Had they worked more collaboratively in their dealings, at least some of the violations in this case likely would not have occurred.”
In its appeal, UH fired back: “This relationship was not the cause of Arnold’s and Akana’s decisions to commit multiple acts of unethical conduct. Finally, and most importantly, this relationship did not prevent the compliance director from performing properly her job-related duties as evidenced by the fact that there was no allegation or finding of a failure to monitor in this case.”
Additionally, UH claimed: “No matter how much the COI may have disapproved of the relationship between the former head coach and the compliance director, it requires rank speculation to conclude the relationship was the cause of any violation. Accordingly, it cannot justify imposing more severe penalties on the university for those same violations that it otherwise would have received.”
Along with the postseason ban for 2016-17, the NCAA sanctions included the loss of two scholarships for each of the 2016-17 and 2017-18 seasons for seven violations of NCAA rules.
The school was punished for allowing the basketball team’s director of operations to coach the team during practices, failing to report extra benefits provided to athletes, and misleading the NCAA during the investigation, among other things.
The next step in the process is the COI response followed by a further UH response and appeals committee review.
University of Hawaii Appeal Redacted
