It was only a matter of time before news would leak out regarding Arizona’s alleged NCAA infractions. It turns out it took only about 48 hours for a news outlet to state UA was served nine allegations of misconduct, five of which are classified as Level I violations.
The Athletic broke the news Sunday morning.
Level I violations are considered the most serious.
The Arizona Board of Regents has scheduled a meeting for Monday to discuss the Notice of Allegations and its contents.
Arizona was sent the notice on Thursday but declined to release details of its contents, saying it didn’t want to compromise the integrity of the investigation.
It was expected Arizona would receive at least one or two serious penalties, one that included lack of institutional control and failure to monitor by the university and lack of head coach control by UA men’s basketball coach Sean Miller.
Arizona’s outside counsel, Paul Kelly, said the school will ask for the case to be reviewed by the Independent Accountability Resolution Process.
According to the Athletic, “Kelly notes the nine allegations are greater than the number of violations alleged in any of the cases that have emerged as a result of the investigation into college basketball conducted by the U.S. Attorney of the Southern District of New York.”
According the NOA through the Athletic, one of the aggravating factors in the report was the refusal of former assistant coaches Book Richardson and Mark Phelps to speak with the NCAA’s investigators after they were dismissed by the school. The NCAA argued Arizona “compromised the integrity of the investigation and failed to cooperate.”
Kelly characterizes this as “adversarial posturing” and writes that Arizona “strenuously denies this allegation and intends to establish that this claim is unfounded.”
Quoting an unidentified UA spokesperson, the Athletic, said UA decided to go through the IARP was “based solely on our desire to seek as prompt a resolution as possible to the process.”
What’s important to the UA – as is with every school – is the need for fairness. It’s the reason why it requests the process go through the IARP.
According to the report, Kelly closed his referral by stating that the school wants “a neutral and unbiased tribunal to hear the evidence, consider the legal and factual arguments, and issue a decision that is fair and just.”