Advertisement

Monday, October 11, 2021

IARP timeline in Kansas basketball infractions case includes key developments but few details from past 16 months

A University of Kansas basketball player wears an adidas practice jersey in this file photo from March 2016.

A University of Kansas basketball player wears an adidas practice jersey in this file photo from March 2016.

Advertisement

The Independent Accountability Resolution Process on Monday released a timeline of the developments in the infractions case against the University of Kansas men’s basketball team.

However, in the 52 entries that outlined updates in the case from May 8, 2020 through Aug. 30, 2021, none of them hint at any kind of projected ruling or outcome.

The release of Monday’s timeline is the result of an IARP rule change, adopted in early August, that was created to bring more transparency to the process.

IARP spokesperson and senior account director for Indianapolis-based marketing and advertising firm, Borshoff, Kelly Hoffman told the Journal-World Monday that details about when a ruling would be made were not available in order “to protect the integrity” of the IARP.

The entries on Monday's timeline, which are listed chronologically by date, lack specific details and generally include one-sentence documentation of any relevant movement in the case.

The entries cover everything from responses filed by KU or the IARP to dates of general correspondence from both sides and the issuance of a case management plan as well as requests for extensions or clarification on the details within the case.

The first 12 entries, which fall under the heading “Referral Request Process” date back more than a year and provide a look at the steps that led to KU’s case being accepted onto the IARP track.

The next 11 entries fall under the “Case Management Plan Development” heading and they include three entries for correspondence from KU or Head Men’s Basketball Coach Counsel, along with responses to that correspondence, a proposal for scheduling deadlines on March 17 and the issuing of a Case Management Plan on April 1.

Given the fact that the IARP has drawn criticism for how long the process has taken in each of the six cases it is currently reviewing, it’s worth noting that there was a five-month gap between entries following a response from the IARP’s Infractions Referral Committee on Sept. 16, 2020 and Correspondence from Kansas on Feb. 21, 2021.

It has been reported in the past that the COVID-19 pandemic played a role in slowing down the process. That five-month gap of inactivity is by far the longest in KU’s case.

The remaining 29 entries fall under the heading “Investigation” and the most notable of those appears to be correspondence from KU and legal counsel for head coach Bill Self in May regarding the “appearance of a conflict of interest.” No further details were given and the IARP’s Complex Case Unit responded to those inquiries within a week.

According to the timeline, on Aug. 9, the chief panel member issued the first of two amended case management plans. Amended case management plan No. 2 was issued two weeks later on Aug. 23.

During that same time frame, the timeline outlines corre-spondence from Self regarding recusal, which is defined as the withdrawal of a judge, prosecutor or juror from a case on the grounds that they are unqualified to perform legal duties because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality.

Eight days later, the Complex Case Unit responded to the recusal correspondence. No further details were provided.

The most recent entry on the timeline — dated Aug. 30, 2021 — notes that the CCU submitted a response regarding addi-tional clarity and position regarding investigative matters.

It is not yet known when, or if, the existing timeline will be up-dated again.

Hoffman told the Journal-World that the timelines released Monday include “key procedural actions in the lifecycle of the case after they have occurred, showing where they are in the process.”

“Once a decision has been made, information will be publicly released,” Hoffman added.

In addition, according to NCAA Bylaw 19.01.4, institutions and involved parties, including any representative or counsel, may not comment on the details or substance of any pending infractions cases.

All rulings by the IARP are final and not subject to appeal, which is different from rulings handed down by the more traditional NCAA Committee on Infractions.

None of the six cases that are on the IARP track have reached resolution. KU became the third school to enter the IARP path, behind Memphis and North Carolina State and ahead of LSU, Arizona and Louisville.

The NCAA’s case against KU, which includes allegations of five Level 1 infractions, a charge of head coach responsibility and a tag of lack of institutional control, was accepted by the IARP on July 1, 2020.

———

The following entries were taken directly from the IARP's timeline

REFERRAL REQUEST PROCESS:

May 2020

May 18 — “The chair designee of the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions, requested the Infractions Referral Committee refer the Kansas infractions case to the Independent Accountability Resolution Process.”

May 21 — “The managing director of enforcement, submitted a response to the referral request.”

June 2020

June 5 — “Kansas assistant men’s basketball coach, submitted a response to the referral request.”

June 8 — “Kansas, the head men’s basketball coach and the former head football coach submitted responses to the referral request.”

June 12 — “Counsel for the head men’s basketball coach submitted a request to preserve evidence.”

June 12 — “Kansas submitted a request for whether the case will proceed as one infractions case or as multiple separate cases.”

June 12 — “The Infractions Referral Committee met to consider the referral request.”

June 17 — “The chair designee of the Committee on Infractions submitted a letter regarding whether the case will proceed as one infractions case or as multiple separate cases.”

June 19 — “The Infractions Referral Committee met to consider the referral request.”

June 26 — “The Infractions Referral Committee met to consider the referral request.”

July 2020

July 1 — “The Infractions Referral Committee referred the Kansas infractions case to the Independent Accountability Resolution Process.”

July 6 — “The chair designee of the Committee on Infractions submitted a letter regarding a memorandum from the enforcement staff regarding amendments to its written reply and statement of the case. The letter also discussed the Committee on Infractions’ jurisdiction regarding the case.”

CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT:

July 2020

July 30 — “The Independent Accountability Oversight Committee appointed hearing panel members and the Complex Case Unit, which is comprised primarily of external investigators and external advocates.”

Aug. 2020

Aug. 19 — “Kansas submitted a letter regarding a potential conflict of interest or appearance of partiality regarding a hearing panel member.”

Sept. 2020

Sept. 16 — “The chief panel member submitted a response regarding the potential conflict of interest or appearance of partiality.”

Feb. 2021

Feb. 21 — “Kansas submitted a request related to attendance at on-campus interviews conducted by Complex Case Unit. On that same day, the chief panel member submitted a response to Kansas.”

Feb. 22 — “The Complex Case Unit submitted a request for reconsideration.”

Feb. 24 — “The chief panel member submitted a response to the Complex Case Unit.”

March 2021

March 10 — “The chief panel member requested an update regarding the status on proposed scheduling deadlines.”

March 17 — “The parties submitted proposed scheduling deadlines.”

March 17 — “The Complex Case Unit and Kansas submitted a joint motion to separate allegations and make an expedited determination regarding two allegations.”

March 24 — “Counsel for the head men’s basketball coach submitted a request to preserve evidence.”

April 2021

April 1 — “The chief panel member issued a case management plan.”

INVESTIGATION:

April 2021

April 2 — “The chief panel member provided a response to joint motion to separate allegations and make an expedited determination regarding two allegations.”

April 2021

April 8 — “The managing director of enforcement responded to the Complex Case Unit’s record request.”

April 14 — “Counsel for the head men’s basketball coach submitted a motion to compel production of certain information.”

April 16 — “Counsel for Kansas submitted a request regarding production of certain documents and proposed interview.”

April 19 — “The Complex Case Unit submitted a request to extend and stay deadlines in the case management plan.”

April 23 — “The managing director of enforcement submitted a letter regarding production of certain documents.”

May 2021

May 3 — “The chief panel member confirmed receipt of correspondence and granted the Complex Case Unit’s request to stay deadlines in the case management plan.”

May 10 — “Counsel for Kansas submitted a supplemental letter regarding production of certain documents.”

May 10 — “Counsel for the head men’s basketball coach submitted a reply in further support of the motion to compel production of certain information.”

May 12 — “The chief panel member submitted a letter regarding receipt of correspondence.”

May 14 — “Counsel for Kansas submitted a letter regarding a conference to resolve the outstanding disputes between the parties.”

May 19 — “Counsel for Kansas submitted a letter regarding appearance of a conflict of interest.”

May 24 — “Counsel for the head men’s basketball coach submitted a letter regarding appearance of a conflict of interest.”

May 26 — “The Complex Case Unit submitted a response regarding appearance of a conflict of interest.”

June 2021

June 3 — “The chief panel member submitted a letter regarding receipt of correspondence.”

July 2021

July 14 — “The vice president of hearing operations submitted a letter regarding recusal.”

July 15 — “The NCAA vice president of hearing operations submitted a letter concerning potential or actual conflicts of interest.”

July 21 — “The Complex Case Unit submitted a clarification regarding production of information.”

July 22 — “The chief panel member issued a decision related to the request to compel production of certain information.”

July 22 — “Counsel for the former head football coach submitted a letter to the chief panel member of intent to publicly disclose certain information.”

July 26 — “The chief panel member responded to the letter from the former head football coach regarding the intent to publicly disclose certain information.”

Aug. 2021

Aug. 4 — “The chief panel member held a status conference with the parties to discuss, among other things, the processing deadlines outlined in the case management plan.”

Aug. 9 — “The chief panel member issued an amended case management plan no. 1.”

Aug. 17 — “The head men’s basketball coach submitted correspondence regarding recusal.”

Aug. 19 — “The head men’s basketball coach requested an extension of the supplemental investigation period.”

Aug. 19 — “Kansas submitted a request for clarification of requests to compel certain documents.”

Aug. 23 — “The chief panel member issued an amended case management plan no 2.”

Aug. 25 — “The Complex Case Unit submitted correspondence related to the head men’s basketball coach’s response dated August 17, 2021, regarding recusal.”

Aug. 30 — “The Complex Case Unit submitted a response regarding additional clarity and position regarding investigative matters.”

Comments

Dale Rogers 2 weeks, 1 day ago

I'm confused. With the "new" rules regarding the "Independent" Accountability Resolution Process being required to use NCAA investigation materials...

  1. Is the IARP REQUIRED to CONSIDER the NCAA materials or are they required to AGREE and not question those materials? Are they allowed to REJECT or choose to ignore any of the NCAA material they disagree with or are not convinced by?

  2. Is the IARP still allowed to do additional investigation of their own? I think they are ALLOWED to use whatever they have already done but what about in the future? Can they still do more investigation on their own?

  3. If the NCAA will provide all the investigation then "Independent" should be removed from their title and their decision should be subject to appeal.

Not at all happy about this change unless I am misconstruing the impact.

Matt Tait 2 weeks, 1 day ago

What I was told when the rule change became public was that the new rules were for all future cases and that KU's case would be allowed to proceed as is, under the old rules since the changes came about mid-case.

Hope that helps some.

Dale Rogers 2 weeks ago

Thank you, Matt. I'd rather they find some other way to speed things up and not by requiring use of NCAA materials which precipitate the request to use the IARP in the first place.

Adam Bengtson 2 weeks, 1 day ago

Glad to know, we are on pace for verdict during the 2027-2028 season.

Matt Tait 2 weeks, 1 day ago

I put it on the calendar for August 2025 ;-) so don't get lazy with your following of this thing. That's right around the corner, ya know!!!

Brian Wilson 2 weeks, 1 day ago

Yep, kind of what I thought. The NCAA, opinionated and marxist, with all of the compalints against them, as well as their history of being unfair, create some "other entity" so they can wash their hands, dump it on some "other entity", leave them holding the bag with no idea on what to do, while hopefully making themselves look good.

KU has a pretty good case for "Due Process" and right to speedy proceedings.

Matt Tait 2 weeks, 1 day ago

The whole thing has definitely been dragged out way too long, regardless of the outcome. But one thing you have to remember is that this is not a legal proceeding. It's an independent organization (the NCAA/IARP) running its business and therefore things like due process and the right to this or that do not apply as they would if this were playing out in a court of law.

Took me a while to digest that, so just passing it along as a reminder.

Robin Smith 2 weeks ago

You clearly don't know what Marxist means.

Pius Waldman 2 weeks, 1 day ago

Even with a non-guilty decision there is little doubt that especially recruiting it affected decisions by recruits. My guess is probation is probably a fair result. NCAA has problems that need attention. In the past schools have agreed with NCAA decisions but it appears KU is not agreeing so a harsh penalty is highly unlikely.

Dale Rogers 2 weeks ago

And it also is ammunition for coaches recruiting against us for the same recruits.

Dirk Medema 2 weeks, 1 day ago

Dale - It seems there is a difference between investigation material/data and analysis/opinion/decision.

Example A fact we know is one of the basketball moms used bribe $ to buy her son a car, which he brought to campus and drove in an accident. We know that students have to register vehicles on campus. The analysis/opinion/decision could be that KU should have known how the car was purchased or whatever and the university didn’t take proper action. It’s also possible to arrive at a different conclusion based on the same facts. KU obviously came to a different opinion. Guessing the iarp will land somewhere in the middle.

Jeff Coffman 2 weeks ago

Wouldn't the fact that individual no matter how you evaluate the front end, never played a game for KU basketball?

In fact, all players that were identified in the case never played a game for KU until their case was finalized by the NCAA.

Brian Skelly 2 weeks, 1 day ago

Look, it appears from the 10k foot view that the issues here relate to Adidas and it's relationships with KU staff, personnel, and players.    This has hatched out this way with other schools under scrutiny.

Because this is clearly going to keep dragging on and on and on -- and it's clear KU will fight any ruling that they feel is unjust legally -- what makes me wonder is what happens when the issues that come to light are what will be at the time functionally NIL issues?    And it appears like a lot of that is how this is going to go down.

This has hurt KU's recruiting for sure.    But to be honest,   it appears that going after kids transferring already in school is going to be more and more common.    I don't think it affects that at all.

Im confident something will come down on KU.    The question is what,  and will it matter in the end?

Layne Pierce 2 weeks ago

Gentleman

The NCAA needs to be reformed itself. It has too long had a policy of lettting things get out of control, and then to save itself it attacks schools whose prestige and glamour can be used to justify its existence, and its failure to control rather than just police college athletics. Except, of course where Duke is concerned. They run the only antiseptically clean program in the country. Just look at the perfection of the Zion Williamson situation.

There is no excuse for this lynch mob going on as long as it has gone. It amounts to a penalty of years, even before the real decision.

Given that the control of the NCAA over football is getting weaker and weaker, it is only a matter of time before the major schools separate themselves from the NCAA games and tricks, and form a different concept, one that focuses on control and administration, and does not act punitively to cover its own failures.

RCJh

Dale Rogers 2 weeks ago

You forgot UNC who got only a hand tap (not even a slap) for giving passing grades to student athletes for classes that do not exist. If I recall, UNC argued that since it also did the same for non-athlete students it therefore is outside the purview of the NCAA and the NCAA thanked them and walked away.

RJ King 1 week, 1 day ago

Are you addressing some type of Gentlemen's Club Layne? Or just excluding the ladies from your opinions?

Robin Smith 2 weeks ago

The whole thing is utterly ridiculous. This is a sham proceeding.

Rodney Crain 2 weeks ago

Is the IARP volunteers or are they just trying to milk these cases to keep a paycheck coming by not doing anything?

Matt the Hy-----phen thing is happening again.

Sign in to comment