Does the University of Hawaii athletic department have more to fear from the NCAA than just the pending judgment against the men’s basketball program?

People who say they have either read or been briefed on former coach Gib Arnold’s reply to the NCAA’s Notice of Allegations say the document has the potential to raise additional issues.

The 51-page reply to the NCAA’s Jan. 30 charges is said to point a finger in the direction of at least two UH programs beyond Arnold’s (2010-14) Rainbow Warriors, who have been the focus of the 15-month process.

The allegations contained therein are apparently incendiary enough that both UH and Arnold, bitterly divided on most everything else in this case, agree on one point: neither will release a copy yet.

The NCAA has a copy, UH has a copy and Arnold’s attorneys have them. And, to this point at least, none of them are publicly sharing.

Arnold’s Honolulu attorney, James Bickerton, declined to make a copy available, saying, "…portions of it deal with personnel matters that we don’t have any privilege to publish anywhere beyond (replying) to the NCAA."

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser’s request for a copy from UH under the state’s open records law is currently under review "… to determine whether the record is exempt from disclosure under (Hawaii Revised Statutes)," a school spokesman said.

In its only statement on Arnold’s reply to the NCAA Notice of Allegations, UH has said, "We respect Coach Arnold’s right to defend himself and look forward to the NCAA ruling so we can move past this unfortunate time period in UH men’s basketball. We are excited about the future under new head coach Eran Ganot."

Paralleling the NCAA investigation is what has become a particularly acrimonious four-month grievance process in which Arnold is seeking $1.4 million in payment for termination without cause that the former coach contends he is owned under terms of his 2011 contract.

UH has disputed the claim. The next step, after an abortive mediation effort, is arbitration.

In its action, the NCAA has alleged seven violations of its rules by UH, all of them of the Level I or Level II variety, the most severe of the four categories.

In their written replies to the charges, which were filed last month, UH and Arnold were given the opportunity to present what they felt might be "mitigating" factors in the case.

In Arnold’s case, we’re told his reply charges varying standards in dealing with different teams when it came to dealing with potential NCAA violations. The claim, according to people familiar with Arnold’s reply, is that at least two other UH programs have engaged in practices that should have been reported to the NCAA’s Enforcement Division but apparently weren’t.

One of the examples is said to allege academic improprieties and another reportedly charges an illegal tryout.

UH and Arnold are scheduled to address the pending NCAA charges July 16-17 at a hearing in Indianapolis.

At this point, we are left to wonder if that will be the last UH will see of the NCAA for a while.

Reach Ferd Lewis at flewis@staradvertiser.com or 529-4820.