The University of Hawaii says a postseason ban of its men’s basketball team should be overturned because an NCAA committee “abused its discretion” and penalized the school under the wrong version of its bylaws.

“The imposition of a postseason ban against the University’s men’s basketball team is excessive when the specific facts of this case are considered,” UH said in an 18-page rebuttal to the Committee on Infractions filed Friday by its Alabama-based law firm.

UH had until Monday to reply to the COI’s defense of the penalties it announced Dec. 22, 2015, the most severe of which was the postseason ban for the 2016-17 season.

The final decision on whether to overturn the postseason ban rests with the Infractions Appeals Committee, which reviews the submissions by UH and the Committee on Infractions.

Neither UH nor the NCAA has released a copy of the COI’s defense. The Star-Advertiser has sought its release under the state’s open records law.

UH said it expects a decision from the IAC “within the next 60 to 90 days.”

In the interim, at least two UH juniors who could have returned to school next season, Aaron Valdes and Stefan Jankovic, have said they will pursue professional careers.

A key issue in the now two-year-old case is determining the predominance of violations since the NCAA has changed its penalty structure in recent years.

UH maintains “The violations predominately occurred before Oct. 30, 2012” and argues that “requires that the penalties be imposed under the more lenient penalty structure” in force at the time.

UH said, “There is no dispute that, if the prior penalty guidelines had been used, a postseason ban would not have been imposed. Moreover, even under the new penalty guidelines, such a penalty would not be appropriate because there is no objective evidence establishing that this case should be established as ‘aggravated.’”

UH claims, “The COI has deviated sharply, without explanation, from applicable precedent. This case does not involve a single Level I violation or a finding of lack of institutional control or failure to monitor. Under these circumstances, the COI abused its discretion in imposing the postseason ban on the University’s men’s basketball program. Accordingly, the University respectfully asks this Committee to vacate that penalty.”