What is the time and procedure on UL's appeal

[ColonelCat]

When do they have to have their appeal to the NCAA? And what happens after that?

I have lost track of that info, and the threads are not noticeable..

Thanks

 

[SpamburgerHamburger]

I think they have 45 days to enter any appeals, and then another 90 days or something or the NCAA to respond to the appeals. Something like that.

 

[mebeblue2]

i think they had 15 days to appeal then 45 days after to argue, then the NCAA has 30 days to give final judgement
for a total of 90 days

 

[gossie21]

We're all over the place. I thought it was 30 days to appeal.

I do know they have 45 days to notify the NCAA of which games will be vacated. They still have about 20 days before that deadline runs out. I'm going interested to see if they follow through with that. As far as I know there is no stay on appeal provision. And there are certain penalties they still haven't implemented almost 30 days later.

 

[anon_9qtxg60vqzy0y]

Pitino has 15 seconds to appeal his suspension.

 

[BBUK]

Not sure on this but I'd sure like to know about anything unc has going as far as an initial finding or whatever. Ridiculous as I am under the impression u of l's issue was started way after unc's...amazing to state the least.

 

[Bluest Member]

I'm anxious to see if the scum liars at UL will be honest in vacating all the games ineligible players played in including the 2013 Championship or what the NCAA does if they try to cheat

 

[Shawn (uk7spd)]

I don't remember the exact timeline, but someone had it laid out. It is like 15 days to notify of intent to appeal. Then 30 days to file appeal, then 30 days for NCAA response, then hearing, and then ruling. He bottom line is that this won't be finished until October I believe.

 

[CardChipper]

If each step takes the maximum amount of time, it will be late October early November before anything is heard back from the NCAA.

 

[KMKAT]

UNC is the best kept quiet scandal under Emmert. Simply no accountability so far in their investigation. He couldn't wait to speak out against Penn State.

How Roy is still the head of basketball at that university is beyond common sense. As his old mentor said to Doherty when he took the job, 'Don't change anything'.

As far as UL, its not looking good for any 'appeal' to justify that way of thinking that UL/Jurich has. IMO, since Pitino is considering a lawsuit, I'd hit him even worse before the final decision comes down.

 

[CardChipper]

The main point of the UL appeal is the implied "value" of the impermissible benefits. Ms. Powells "madam" logbook implies around $5600 worth of "parties", and the book is handwritten, which is why there has been no grand jury indictment in a criminal court-there is essentially no evidence. Thus the focus of the appeal will be that millions in penalties are being assigned over essentially worthless benefits.

 

[Shawn (uk7spd)]

The main point of the UL appeal is the implied "value" of the impermissible benefits. Ms. Powells "madam" logbook implies around $5600 worth of "parties", and the book is handwritten, which is why there has been no grand jury indictment in a criminal court-there is essentially no evidence. Thus the focus of the appeal will be that millions in penalties are being assigned over essentially worthless benefits.

That would be an interesting approach, if for nothing else because that would not challenge the vacation of games (and the title). And the "worthless benefits" argument has already been tried and failed, which I think was a stupid strategy from the beginning by UofL. This was never about the "amount" of value. This was about the "type" of value. The NCAA concluded that these were Level I because of the type and number of benefits, not because of the value.

UofL looked really slimy (shocker) arguing "Hey, we get it, it looks bad, but doesn't matter because these sex parties for recruits/players did not cost that much and didn't really help us that much." NCAA hit them hard accordingly, and if they keep it up, they will lose the appeal for the same reasons. The right approach would have been to say from the outset: "Look, we get it. This was messed up. But this was a rogue employee who did something insane. We will sit out the tournament. We will return some funds. We will put measures in place. But there is no reason to touch the banners because most of those kids were never involved, and they worked their butt off to win those games. And the few that were involved were young kids that did not know any better and were pushed by a rogue employee."

 

[sefus12]

The main point of the UL appeal is the implied "value" of the impermissible benefits. Ms. Powells "madam" logbook implies around $5600 worth of "parties", and the book is handwritten, which is why there has been no grand jury indictment in a criminal court-there is essentially no evidence. Thus the focus of the appeal will be that millions in penalties are being assigned over essentially worthless benefits.

The NCAA has twice stated that the monetary value does not matter in this case. I see no way the appeal will change that.

 

[sefus12]

That would be an interesting approach, if for nothing else because that would not challenge the vacation of games (and the title). And the "worthless benefits" argument has already been tried and failed, which I think was a stupid strategy from the beginning by UofL. This was never about the "amount" of value. This was about the "type" of value. The NCAA concluded that these were Level I because of the type and number of benefits, not because of the value.

UofL looked really slimy (shocker) arguing "Hey, we get it, it looks bad, but doesn't matter because these sex parties for recruits/players did not cost that much and didn't really help us that much." NCAA hit them hard accordingly, and if they keep it up, they will lose the appeal for the same reasons. The right approach would have been to say from the outset: "Look, we get it. This was messed up. But this was a rogue employee who did something insane. We will sit out the tournament. We will return some funds. We will put measures in place. But there is no reason to touch the banners because most of those kids were never involved, and they worked their butt off to win those games. And the few that were involved were young kids that did not know any better and were pushed by a rogue employee."

That would have never worked either. All it takes is one contributing player to disqualify the team. By all accounts they had at least 2 or 3 of their main players who were involved.

 

[WeWant9]

I love that UL is sticking to their guns on the dollar amount and saying its a "worthless benefit." Even after the NCAA said the dollar amount had nothing to do with it.

 

[Shawn (uk7spd)]

That would have never worked either. All it takes is one contributing player to disqualify the team. By all accounts they had at least 2 or 3 of their main players who were involved.

Easy to say that now, but there was no solid precedent in place. The NCAA could have just as easily gone the other way on the question of retroactive ineligibility, because we know the NCAA is somewhat arbitrary. Yes, they cited the Memphis case, but that was academic ineligibility. They also cited Syracuse, but that was also somewhat apples and oranges. The bottom line is that UofL has a legitimate argument, and one they will undoubtedly make on appeal, that even though this looks really bad, it just doesn't make sense to punish to this extent for a few players that became "ineligible" for extra benefits. It is a parade of horribles argument. The NCAA ruling, to the extent it stands, is basically setting a precedent that any extra benefit makes a player retroactively ineligible forever if caught after the games have been played, which is pretty damn harsh. That means if a player got $100 gift card from a booster in his sophomore year, even though he could have paid that back and sat some games if it was caught during his playing time, that now means that all games he ever played in are vacated.

The fact that the NCAA felt the need to justify the punishment in this case on grounds that the violations were unique and "repugnant" just shows that this was always about the "type" of violations rather than the "value" of violations, which is why I think if UofL would have been contrite from the outset and not attempted to stand firm on the "these sex parties weren't worth much" argument, they may have been able to convince the NCAA to not go down the "everyone is forever ineligible" road.

 

[cbrwalt]

I get paying back money

Not sure how you pay back a strip show or a sex act

 

[blubo]

A few players didn't just "become ineligible for extra benefits," the university payed minors for the purpose of providing sex to minors. i think all would agree that is way more egregious than providing a $100 gift card.

The monetary value of the impermissable benefit was never a part of the ncaa's charges.

 

[Shawn (uk7spd)]

I get paying back money

Not sure how you pay back a strip show or a sex act

That goes to a larger question of how to handle "services" benefits as opposed to "money" benefits. But if something like the UofL situation was discovered during the seasons where the players involved were still playing, I highly doubt the players would be ineligible forever. The NCAA would come up with some way for them to regain their eligibility, likely involving community service and sitting games. That is the argument UofL will make. I am just setting the stage. Obviously I will laugh my ass off if the banner does come down.

 

[Kentucky31]

I have it on good accord that Pitino will be replaced with Donovan immediately upon Pitino's resignation. The Banner will stay and the NCAA will reward Lville millions in restitution and the NCAA will issue a written apology. The young men that were at these parties were just being kids and Katina made up all the money changing hands was a lie because she was in love with McGee. And after Petrino leaves for the HC job at New England they have Jon Gruden salivating at the opportunity at the Ville. He has already bought a horse farm outside of Rubbertown.

 

[LouievileKat]

Louisville has X number of days to appeal. The NCAA will likely be slow in responding due to staffing fluctuations replacing all the employees who died of laughter.

 

[westerncat]

I have it on good accord that Pitino will be replaced with Donovan immediately upon Pitino's resignation. The Banner will stay and the NCAA will reward Lville millions in restitution and the NCAA will issue a written apology. The young men that were at these parties were just being kids and Katina made up all the money changing hands was a lie because she was in love with McGee. And after Petrino leaves for the HC job at New England they have Jon Gruden salivating at the opportunity at the Ville. He has already bought a horse farm outside of Rubbertown.

 

[catdance]

The main point of the UL appeal is the implied "value" of the impermissible benefits. Ms. Powells "madam" logbook implies around $5600 worth of "parties", and the book is handwritten, which is why there has been no grand jury indictment in a criminal court-there is essentially no evidence. Thus the focus of the appeal will be that millions in penalties are being assigned over essentially worthless benefits.

They have the only evidence that they need. Eye-witness testimony, plus UofL has already admitted that it happened by sanctioning themselves.

 

[ModernThirst_Bill]

They had 15 days to notify the NCAA they would appeal, then according to Eric Crawford:
then 30 days to file a formal written appeal. After U of L files its appeal, the NCAA has 30 days to respond in writing. The school then gets 14 days to file a rebuttal, and the NCAA’s enforcement office has 10 days to submit its own thoughts on the arguments after that.

So there is a max of 84 days from the time they notify the NCAA they will appeal until final resolution.

 

[irishcat1965]

The main point of the UL appeal is the implied "value" of the impermissible benefits. Ms. Powells "madam" logbook implies around $5600 worth of "parties", and the book is handwritten, which is why there has been no grand jury indictment in a criminal court-there is essentially no evidence. Thus the focus of the appeal will be that millions in penalties are being assigned over essentially worthless benefits.

Lol. You and the rest of the bird brains keep telling yourself that. If you think that chit will fly, I have some ocean front property by Minardi Hall to sell you. Whores are included since I know how important they are to UL athletics.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

That goes to a larger question of how to handle "services" benefits as opposed to "money" benefits. But if something like the UofL situation was discovered during the seasons where the players involved were still playing, I highly doubt the players would be ineligible forever. The NCAA would come up with some way for them to regain their eligibility, likely involving community service and sitting games. That is the argument UofL will make. I am just setting the stage. Obviously I will laugh my ass off if the banner does come down.

I don't agree with either of your posts. Had this same situation been discovered while involved players still had eligibility, I think the same outcome would have occurred. This case isn't about services or money, it is about ethics and upholding certain promises of NCAA members. Nothing of significance is likely to happen through the appeal. I found this brief article from the NCAA interesting.

http://www.ncaa.org/enforcement/enforcement-process-penalties

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

The main point of the UL appeal is the implied "value" of the impermissible benefits. Ms. Powells "madam" logbook implies around $5600 worth of "parties", and the book is handwritten, which is why there has been no grand jury indictment in a criminal court-there is essentially no evidence. Thus the focus of the appeal will be that millions in penalties are being assigned over essentially worthless benefits.

If that is their angle, that will only prove to the NCAA that UL still hasn't learned its lesson. This has nothing to do with value. This issue is about ethics. Perhaps that's why it's in your and UL's blind spot.

 

[Shawn (uk7spd)]

I don't agree with either of your posts. Had this same situation been discovered while involved players still had eligibility, I think the same outcome would have occurred. This case isn't about services or money, it is about ethics and upholding certain promises of NCAA members. Nothing of significance is likely to happen through the appeal. I found this brief article from the NCAA interesting.

http://www.ncaa.org/enforcement/enforcement-process-penalties

First, I am making UofL's argument, which is the same argument we would make it if happened to us. Second, not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that the games the players played in would be vacated, or also that they would be forever ineligible with no chance to regain eligibility? If you are saying the latter, I disagree under these circumstances. But who knows how the NCAA would handle it.

I of course agree that the appeal will likely (and hopefully) do nothing.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

First, I am making UofL's argument, which is the same argument we would make it if happened to us. Second, not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that the games the players played in would be vacated, or also that they would be forever ineligible with no chance to regain eligibility? If you are saying the latter, I disagree under these circumstances. But who knows how the NCAA would handle it.

I of course agree that the appeal will likely (and hopefully) do nothing.

I am saying the games would be vacated and the players would be permanently ineligible. The players are culpable as well and this was a severe violation ncaa principles. The punishment would match the severity.

 

[gossie21]

They had 15 days to notify the NCAA they would appeal, then according to Eric Crawford:
then 30 days to file a formal written appeal. After U of L files its appeal, the NCAA has 30 days to respond in writing. The school then gets 14 days to file a rebuttal, and the NCAA’s enforcement office has 10 days to submit its own thoughts on the arguments after that.

So there is a max of 84 days from the time they notify the NCAA they will appeal until final resolution.

NCAA Bylaw 32.10 covers the appeals procedure (p. 396 of the manual)

Then there is a handy flow chart in Figure 32-2..... which confirms Crawford's timeline is correct. I'll provide the timelines and actual dates below (all timeframes start running from the day the penalties were announce, which was June 15th). This is assuming neither side requests or is granted an extension of time.

Notice to Appeal ... not later than 15 days - June 30th
Response in support of Appeal ... 30 days - July 30th
NCAA Response to UofL .... 30 days - August 29th
UofL Rebuttal .... 14 days - September 13th
NCAA response to rebuttal ..... 10 days - September 23rd
Appeals Committee reviews the appeal and either rules or schedules a hearing. There is no time frame for the hearing, or a ruling. Just guessing*, but it could take 60 days to schedule the hearing, then 60 days to announce the final decision. So we could be looking at mid-January before the appeal is resolved.

I did a word search on the manual, and could find no provision allowing for a stay pending appeal. So if the banner is coming down, they will have to pull it down at least until the appeal is over


*In the original case the COI's final response was submitted in March, then the hearing was held on April 20th, after which they stated it could take 60 days for a written decision, then the penalties were announced on June 15th.

 

[weatherbird]

First, I am making UofL's argument, which is the same argument we would make it if happened to us. Second, not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that the games the players played in would be vacated, or also that they would be forever ineligible with no chance to regain eligibility? If you are saying the latter, I disagree under these circumstances. But who knows how the NCAA would handle it.

I of course agree that the appeal will likely (and hopefully) do nothing.

One caveat to think about, normally in these issues, players are not in the middle of their playing careers. Most player issues, academic or otherwise, are brought to light before they play games. The regaining of eligibility is usually dependent on some "correcting of the wrong", ie paying money back and such.The correcting of the wrong has either taken place, or a plan is set forth for doing this before the player actually regains his/her eligibility. So long story short, if this happened during the season, they would regain eligibility upon completion of "correcting the wrong", which is something they cannot proactively do.

John Wall had issues due to some monetary benefit (as others have), and his regaining of his eligibility was contingent on sitting out 2 games and repaying the monetary value. Repaying the value corrected the wrong, and sitting out was the punishment. He corrected the wrong before he played games, and then did his "time". Without repaying the value, he is sitting longer than 2 games. In fact, he is probably sitting until he repays it, or has a plan to do so (as was the case with the Kansas guard).

So for the UL players, correcting the wrong today would allow them to become eligible (though most would be ineligible now for other reasons) now, but would not make them retroactively eligible.

 

[Shawn (uk7spd)]

One caveat to think about, normally in these issues, players are not in the middle of their playing careers. Most player issues, academic or otherwise, are brought to light before they play games. The regaining of eligibility is usually dependent on some "correcting of the wrong", ie paying money back and such.The correcting of the wrong has either taken place, or a plan is set forth for doing this before the player actually regains his/her eligibility. So long story short, if this happened during the season, they would regain eligibility upon completion of "correcting the wrong", which is something they cannot proactively do.

John Wall had issues due to some monetary benefit (as others have), and his regaining of his eligibility was contingent on sitting out 2 games and repaying the monetary value. Repaying the value corrected the wrong, and sitting out was the punishment. He corrected the wrong before he played games, and then did his "time". Without repaying the value, he is sitting longer than 2 games. In fact, he is probably sitting until he repays it, or has a plan to do so (as was the case with the Kansas guard).

So for the UL players, correcting the wrong today would allow them to become eligible (though most would be ineligible now for other reasons) now, but would not make them retroactively eligible.

Of course, but the other poster was arguing that, based on the type of conduct, that the players would have never been able to regain their eligibility, even if caught during their playing careers. It is unclear if the NCAA would feel that way. They clearly believe that the "repugnant" nature of the violations warrants special treatment, and I believe the same, but I still highly doubt that if this was brought to light earlier that there would never be a path for the players in question to regain their eligibility.

 

[CardChipper]

I don't expect sympathy here. My point was that the "benefits" are things that most guys' crazy uncle gave them on their 16th birthday. I don't condone it, but I did have very similar things offered to me when I came of age. The righteous indignation is laughable.

 

[lkc1234]

I'm anxious to see if the scum liars at UL will be honest in vacating all the games ineligible players played in including the 2013 Championship or what the NCAA does if they try to cheat

The NCAA already knows the players and games involved. It is only a formality for UL to respond in writing.

 

[WeWant9]

My point was that the "benefits" are things that most guys' crazy uncle gave them on their 16th birthday.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

I don't expect sympathy here. My point was that the "benefits" are things that most guys' crazy uncle gave them on their 16th birthday. I don't condone it, but I did have very similar things offered to me when I came of age. The righteous indignation is laughable.

Um, what kind of family did you grow up in that would allow you to view a university paying for strippers and prostitutes as, to paraphrase you, insignificant? At any rate, that bit of insanity has nothing to do with UL's situation. It also has nothing to do with monetary value, it never did. This is all about ethical misconduct of the most unsavory type. Zippy is a fool and you seem to be following right behind him.

Please understand this. A university arranged for and paid for strippers and prostitutes, both for recruits and players. Some of these kids were minors and the activities even went to a parent and others who accompanied recruits. Let me say this for you again, a university arranged for and paid for strippers and prostitutes, both for recruits and players. That university is a member of the NCAA which specifically states that doing so is a violation, a serious one because it affects the integrity of the NCAA and the core values of the NCAA. Monetary value won't matter as that is not the issue at hand.

You guys can hang onto your irrational hope in the appeals process and even more irrational hope that a judge is going to inject himself into a properly conducted investigation, hearing and punishment. For heavens sake, UL already admitted it happened. The NCAA can't and I mean can't backtrack on the impermissible benefits. The wins, banners and money are simply the dominos that fall automatically after players are ruled ineligible due to impermissible benefits. NC is gone, you may as well learn to accept it now.

 

[weatherbird]

Of course, but the other poster was arguing that, based on the type of conduct, that the players would have never been able to regain their eligibility, even if caught during their playing careers. It is unclear if the NCAA would feel that way. They clearly believe that the "repugnant" nature of the violations warrants special treatment, and I believe the same, but I still highly doubt that if this was brought to light earlier that there would never be a path for the players in question to regain their eligibility.

While I agree that if UL doesn't take a hard line in the beginning that things might have turned out differently, I'm not sure taking that stance now will help them. By doing that now, in an effort to lessen the penalties only makes them look insincere and dishonest. The lack of action to clean it up once it was basically admitted that it happened shows a lack of remorse, and is likely the reason they were hit like they were to begin with. I do not see any Avenue through an appeal that does anything for UL. Can't argue the monetary value as the NCAA clearly stated that it had no bearing on the case. Arguing that any penalty was too harsh for the crime basically admits that you don't plan on reforming anything, and that arguing it was a rogue employee would not be true as it would be unlikely you would have stopped it even if you knew. I see no reasonable Avenue for the appeal that would do anything other than make the university look worse if that's even possible. But then again, we are dealing with the NCAA.

 

[Bluest Member]

I don't expect sympathy here. My point was that the "benefits" are things that most guys' crazy uncle gave them on their 16th birthday. I don't condone it, but I did have very similar things offered to me when I came of age. The righteous indignation is laughable.

Evidently that's the difference then,my family never BOUGHT PROSTITUTES for Children

 

[ColonelCat]

Of course, but the other poster was arguing that, based on the type of conduct, that the players would have never been able to regain their eligibility, even if caught during their playing careers. It is unclear if the NCAA would feel that way. They clearly believe that the "repugnant" nature of the violations warrants special treatment, and I believe the same, but I still highly doubt that if this was brought to light earlier that there would never be a path for the players in question to regain their eligibility.

How do you repay sexual favors? With more sexual favors? Since the players didn't receive monies, re-paying is kinda impossible.

 

[bigbluehomer]

The main point of the UL appeal is the implied "value" of the impermissible benefits. Ms. Powells "madam" logbook implies around $5600 worth of "parties", and the book is handwritten, which is why there has been no grand jury indictment in a criminal court-there is essentially no evidence. Thus the focus of the appeal will be that millions in penalties are being assigned over essentially worthless benefits.

If it were only that simple. The "issue" that UL is appealing is that their violations were listed as "Level 3" but UL is receiving "Level 1" punishment. The NCAA clearly has that right and latitude since their ability (rules, bylaws, etc.) to punish in that manner is referenced more than once in the infractions report (unless I'm mistaken). To paraphrase - the NCAA can enact Level 1 punishment for Level 3 violations if the violations were of such an reprehensive nature. Like, oh, I don't know......providing alcohol and prostitutes to 16 and 17 year olds. The monetary value has no, repeat for clarity, no bearing on how the NCAA ruled.

Exactly who do you think on the appeals committee is going be the one to stand up and say providing hookers to their players along with plying 16 and 17 year old kids with alcohol and hookers doesn't deserve serious and harsh punishment? In case you don't know, there won't be any UL folks on it.

Now if the Level 3 violations were something along the lines of a booster providing a Mecedes for a player to drive around in the summer, Like Chane for instance, then UL might have a case for excessive punishment.

The continued defiance from Rick, not to mention the beyond laughable "I didn't know" position, has really helped your case also. Just the subliminal value of how that's weighing on the NCAA is priceless all on it's own.

Anyways. Good Luck on the appeal. LOL!