NCAA enforcement staff in its formal response to Louisville's rebuttal to one Level I allegation and three Level II violations committed by the men's basketball program all but formally rejected the Cardinals' arguments. A 70-page document released Monday by the university, showed the NCAA determined that U of L did not provide any documentation that would warrant a lesser penalty range than the NCAA previously decided on in its original Notice of Allegations.
"The enforcement staff is unaware of any factual information that warrants a lower penalty range for the institution related to the Level I and II violations present in this case," the response reads in part. The enforcement staff said the same of Rick Pitino's assertions in his response to a Level II violation for failing to promote an atmosphere of compliance, saying, "the enforcement staff is unaware of anything in this case's factual information that warrants a lower penalty range for Pitino."
Pitino was the head coach at Louisville at the time of the alleged violations.
"Pitino spends approximately 10 of his 30-page response voicing complaints about the NCAA national office and enforcement staff," the document says of the former Louisville coach who is now at Iona. "While the hearing process provides Pitino the opportunity to respond to an allegation that names him as an involved individual as he sees fit, his grievance about the NCAA national office and enforcement staff is incorrect, unfounded and nothing more than a verbose attempt to distract the panel from considering the issue before it, which is whether the factual information in this case supports that Pitino failed to demonstrate that he promoted an atmosphere for compliance in the institution's men's basketball program during the final year of his tenure as the head men's basketball coach."
Louisville in its response to the NCAA had argued that its alleged misdeeds -- tied to the corruption scandal in college hoops that broke in 2017 -- should be classified as Level II-mitigated. Louisville's case for lowering the penalty was that it "arises out of a criminal conspiracy to defraud the University of Louisville" because Adidas reps and a basketball middleman were found to be involved in a pay-for-play scandal that ensnared the program unwittingly. The NCAA on the other hand asserts that Adidas was a representative of the institution's athletics interest, thus qualifying the apparel giant as a booster and making their involvement in recruiting activities nefarious.
"The enforcement staff refers the panel to section II-C-1 of this reply and asserts that Adidas is a representative of the institution's athletics interest," the enforcement staff said in its written reply. "Adidas' financial contributions to the institution's athletics programs were large, formal and well-known by the institution and its athletics department administration. Furthermore, Adidas actively assisted the institution's athletics marketing staff in promoting the institution's athletics department and its athletics teams."
Louisville is hoping to avoid major sanctions in the case but the NCAA's response is a shot across the bow to those aspirations. Further concerning for Louisville brass is that it could in the eyes of the NCAA be treated as a repeat offender, given that at the time of the violations it was serving NCAA probations related to the stripper scandal that forced the program to vacate the 2013 NCAA men's basketball championship.
