There was no fanfare to commemorate the occasion, but last week marked two and a half years since the NCAA investigation of the men’s basketball program descended upon the University of Hawaii campus.
There has been no closure, either.
While the NCAA gumshoes have come and gone and billable hours for attorneys have mounted and the second anniversary of the firing of Gib Arnold approaches this month, the bulging file on what long ago became known as case No. 00202 still remains open and unsettled.
| TIMELINE ON UH CASE
March 2014: NCAA sends investigator to UH campus.
Oct. 28, 2014: UH announces firing of Gib Arnold.
Jan. 30, 2015: NCAA issues Notice of Allegations.
May 15, 2015: UH submits official response to NCAA Notice of Allegations.
July 2, 2015: NCAA announces amended Notice of Allegations.
Oct 15, 2015: NCAA holds hearing on the case in Dallas the same date as UH Board of Regents on Maui approve settlement with Arnold.
Dec. 22, 2015: NCAA announces sanctions, including 2016- 17 postseason ban.
Jan. 6, 2016: UH announces intent to appeal NCAA ruling.
Feb. 8, 2016: UH files 26-page appeal.
March 28, 2016: UH receives Committee on Infractions response.
April 8, 2016: UH issues reply to COI response and says “A decision from the Infractions Appeals Committee is expected within the next 60 to 90 days.”
|
And the new-look Rainbow Warriors have begun preparing for a third season under the now-familiar cloud of uncertainty.
Whether the postseason ban for the 2016-17 season will be upheld or vacated sits squarely in the lap of the Division I Infractions Appeals Committee, where it has resided for six months.
In one of its few public predictions of a timeline, UH said in April that “a decision from the (IAC) is expected within the next 60 to 90 days.”
These days even some UH figures briefed on the NCAA process are struggling to read the tea leaves as the process drags on. Monday a UH official admitted to frustration, saying, “(I) still have no idea what it will be or a timeline for when it might come. It really is all speculation at this point.”
Officially, UH spokesman Dan Meisenzahl would say only, “The University of Hawaii is looking forward to the NCAAʻs decision.”
Meanwhile, as it stands now, UH would be ineligible for the Big West Tournament as well as any other glimpse of postseason play.
If UH wasn’t going to get its postseason back, some folks reason, then the NCAA would have already slammed the gavel down on the school’s appeal.
But, others surmise, that even if the IAC sees some merit in UH’s argument it might just mean it is proceeding gingerly lest a precedent be set.
UH certainly has test-case potential straddling as it does two differing penalty structures, one that became effective Aug. 1, 2013 and one previously in place.
One of UH’s key contentions in its last major filing, an April 8 reply to response from the Committee on Infractions, asserts that penalties assessed under the new version of NCAA bylaws do not apply because “violations predominately occurred before (the cutoff period).”
A letter in support of UH’s position, asserting that a postseason ban was not appropriate under the circumstances and the penalty excessive, was reportedly sent to the NCAA on UH’s behalf by the Big West.
Over the past 15 years, major case appeals have averaged about a 33 percent success rate, but recent numbers have been running well below that.
In two high-profile cases over the past year, the IAC upheld sanctions against the Southern Methodist men’s basketball program in April but earlier modified penalties against Syracuse men’s basketball, including restoration of four scholarships and postseason money.
The fact is, said a person briefed on the UH case, “you never know what the NCAA is going to decide.”
Which is why you don’t want to land in their cross-hairs.
Reach Ferd Lewis at flewis@staradvertiser.com or 529-4820.
