Breaking down each of the 7 NCAA violations filed against Louisville basketball

The University of Louisville recently responded to seven allegations lodged by the NCAA's complex case unit against the Cardinals men's basketball team, setting the stage for a contentious hearing in the Independent Accountability Resolution Process.

Here, we break down what each of the NCAA's allegations are, their severity and how Louisville is responding.

Related: Infractions backlog likely to push Louisville basketball's case into a sixth year

NCAA's Complex Case Unit's allegations against Louisville men's basketball:

1. Adidas and Louisville coaching staff made impermissible recruiting offers

Employees of Adidas, representing the university’s athletics interest, made an impermissible recruiting offer of $100,000 and arranged for a $25,000 extra benefit to the father of basketball prospect Brian Bowen. Additionally, former Louisville assistant coach Jordan Fair was knowingly involved in an impermissible recruiting inducement of $11,800 to $13,500 to Brad Augustine, a non-scholastic boys basketball coach associated with prospects. Former Louisville assistant coach Kenny Johnson knowingly provided a $1,300 extra benefit to Bowen’s father. Fair and Johnson’s actions violated NCAA principles of ethical conduct. (Note: Louisville redacted the names of Bowen and his father in publishing the Notice of Allegations, but the allegations are based on admissions the father made in court).

Severity: Level I. Complex Case Unit says violations were A) not isolated or limited: B) provided or were intended to provide an extensive recruiting advantage; C) provided or were intended to provide substantial or extensive impermissible benefits; D) involved third parties in recruiting violations that institutional officials knew about; E) involved cash payments intended to secure, and which resulted in, the enrollment of a prospect; F) were intentional; G) involved unethical conduct; and H) seriously undermined or threatened the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model.

CCU says IARP could issue a show-cause order for Johnson and Fair.

Louisville’s response: U of L says it cannot be held responsible for the “self-serving criminal misconduct” of Adidas employees and disputes CCU’s contention that they are “representatives of the institution’s athletics interests.” University agrees Fair engaged in unethical conduct by failing to report a meeting he attended in Las Vegas in which a bribery scheme was discussed, but that he was not an active participant. It also says the weight of credible evidence does not support allegations against Kenny Johnson.

Louisville’s analysis: Level II. U of L says Fair’s unethical conduct violation is the only portion of the allegation the school says is supported by the evidence.

2. Kenny Johnson, Jordan Fair participated in impermissible recruiting activities

Former Louisville assistant coaches Kenny Johnson and Jordan Fair participated in impermissible recruiting activities related to a basketball prospect and individuals associated with basketball prospects. Violations included impermissible in-person off-campus recruiting contact with a prospect; impermissible contact and/or communication with individuals associated with Team United and providing impermissible transportation to Christian Dawkins and Brad Augustine while they accompanied prospect on an unofficial visit.

Severity: Level II. CCU says violations were A) intentional; B) not isolated or limited; C) involved multiple recruiting violations; D) provided or were intended to provide more than a minimal recruiting advantage; E) even if individually they are Level III violations, collectively are Level II; and F) compromised the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model.

CCU says IARP could enter a show-cause order for Johnson and Fair.

Louisville’s response: University self-reported an impermissible recruiting contact by Johnson and acknowledges transportation violations. It disputes that Johnson engaged in impermissible communication in exchanging greetings with an administrator for a non-scholastic basketball team at an off-site event.

Louisville’s analysis: Level III. In light of the infractions' "relative lack of severity," U of L says the allegation should be downgraded from Level II.

What to know: Louisville takes issue with all 7 infractions alleged by NCAA. Here's what that means

3. Rick Pitino's failure to promote compliance within U of L program

Former U of L coach Rick Pitino violated head coach responsibility legislation by failing to promote an atmosphere of compliance within the men’s basketball program. Specifically, CCU says he failed to conduct an inquiry of Adidas’ James Gatto’s role in the recruitment of Brian Bowen despite knowledge of an alleged cash offer by another institution (DePaul) and he did not report Gatto’s offer of assistance to U of L's athletics compliance staff.

Severity: Level II. CCU says head coach responsibility violation compromises the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model.

CCU believes IARP could prescribe head coach restrictions on Pitino.

Louisville’s response: U of L acknowledges Pitino should have reported the phone call from Gatto but he “is not alleged to have done or said anything improper,” and that record shows Pitino made “reasonable efforts to ascertain the circumstances surrounding Bowen’s recruitment."

Louisville’s analysis: No violation.

4. Inadequately monitoring Brian Bowen's recruitment

The University of Louisville violated the NCAA's principle of rules compliance by failing to adequately monitor the recruitment of Brian Bowen. Despite its recent involvement in an infractions case involving recruiting and extra benefit violations (related to the earlier stripper scandal), Louisville failed to heighten its monitoring of the circumstances surrounding the sudden and belated signing of Bowen, involving an impermissible offer and extra benefit from representatives of the institution’s athletics interest (Adidas employees).

Severity: Level II. Failure to monitor is presumed to be a Level II violation. It was not a Level I violation because the Complex Case Unit concluded the violations were not “substantial or egregious,” but it compromised the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model.

Louisville’s response: Reiterating that it should not be held responsible for the actions of Adidas employees, and citing conspirators’ “extraordinary effort to conceal their misconduct,” U of L says nothing surrounding Bowen’s recruitment demonstrates a breakdown in the monitoring process.

Louisville’s analysis: No violation.

5. Using graduate assistants for on-court activities

Louisville basketball staff violated NCAA bylaws by allowing graduate assistants, managers and non-coaching staff members to participate in impermissible on-court activities with men’s basketball players from 2018-10 through 2020-21 seasons.

Severity: Level II. CCU says violations were A) not isolated or limited; B) provided or intended to provide more than a minimal competitive advantage, and C) were more serious than a Level III violation.

Louisville’s response: U of L agreed that graduate managers participated in practice in 2018-19 and 2019-20, but not in 2020-21 "when such participation met legislation exceptions."

Louisville’s analysis: Level III. U of L says the violations were limited in nature and reflected a misunderstanding of the rules.

U of L coverage: The curious escape clause in women's basketball coach Jeff Walz's extension with Louisville

6. Making recruiting videos of prospects

Louisville basketball staff violated NCAA bylaws by producing and showing, playing or providing personalized recruiting videos and recruiting aids to basketball prospects containing the recruits’ names, pictures and/or likenesses. In addition, basketball staff created personalized pamphlets and itineraries for recruits for use on official and unofficial visits.

Severity: Level II. CCU says violations were A) not isolated or limited; B) involved multiple recruiting violations; C) provided or were intended to provide more than a minimal recruiting advantage, and D) were more serious than a Level III violation.

Louisville’s response: Though the recruiting videos did not comply with NCAA legislation when they were created, U of L says rules changes “expressly permit such videos.” Personalized pamphlets, U of L says, comply with NCAA’s general correspondence provisions.

Louisville’s analysis: Level III, "at most." Recruiting videos provided no more than “a minimal recruiting advantage."

7. Chris Mack's part in allegations 5 and 6

Former Louisville head coach Chris Mack is presumed responsible for the violations described in allegations 5 and 6 and did not rebut the presumption of responsibility. CCU says Mack did not demonstrate he promoted an atmosphere of compliance because of his personal involvement in the violations or impermissible conduct.

Severity: Level II. CCU says Mack’s head coach responsibility violation is a “significant breach of conduct” that compromised the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model.

CCU says IARP could subject Mack to head coach restrictions.

Louisville’s response: U of L says because the violations committed during Mack’s tenure were of Level III severity, they do not warrant a head coach responsibility charge.

Louisville’s analysis: No violation.

Aggravating factors in the U of L violations

1) Multiple Level I and II violations. CCU alleges one Level I violation and six Level II violations.

Louisville’s response: U of L disputes the level of violations. Instead of one Level I and six Level II violations, Louisville says it should be charged with one Level II and no more than three Level III violations.

2) A history of major violations by U of L’s men’s basketball program. The CCU cites four previous infractions cases involving Louisville basketball, from 1957, 1996, 1998 and 2017.

Louisville’s response: U of L acknowledges previous infractions cases, but says the only recent case occurred in 2017 and involved a “rogue” staff member (Andre McGee).

3) Violations were premeditated, deliberate or committed after substantial planning.

Louisville’s response: University says no institutional staff members were involved in making arrangements related to the Bowen bribery case and Fair’s presence at the Las Vegas meeting was not planned.

4) Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded violations or related conduct. Johnson, Fair and Mack were cited.

Louisville’s response: U of L disputes that Johnson and Fair qualify as “persons of authority,” and the violations attributed to Mack’s tenure should be considered Level III and, therefore, do not rise to an aggravating factor.

5) One or more violations caused significant ineligibility to a student-athlete (Bowen).

Louisville’s response: U of L says Brian Bowen was never declared ineligible, though he was withheld from practice and competition. It says his amateur status was jeopardized by the actions of Adidas and not the university.

More coverage: Rick Pitino out to stop book that paints him as party to Adidas bribery scheme at Louisville

6) A pattern of non-compliance within the men’s basketball program. At the time of the more recent violations, Louisville was awaiting a decision from the NCAA’s Committee on Infractions on previous Level I violations associated with the stripper scandal, and was subsequently placed on probation.

Louisville’s response: Characterizing its most serious violation as Level II, U of L says that does not demonstrate a pattern of non-compliance. Moreover, U of L contends, “CCU has — without any basis in infractions case precedent — attempted to link a current infractions matter to the university’s prior infractions case.”

7) Intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA constitution and bylaws. Relates to Allegation #1 and the Adidas bribery scheme.

Louisville’s response: U of L is not responsible for the actions of Adidas employees.

Mitigating factor in the U of L violations

1) Louisville’s history of reporting Level III or secondary violations. CCU says U of L reported 89 Level III or secondary violations between 2015 and 2019.

Louisville’s response: University agrees.

Additional mitigating factor in the U of L violations

1) Prompt acknowledgment of violations, acceptance of responsibility and imposition of meaningful corrective measures. U of L cites the unpopular removal of Pitino and athletic director Tom Jurich following 2017 disclosures by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York.

2) Implementation of methods designed to ensure rules compliance and satisfy institutional/coaches’ control standards. U of L says the system in place exceeded guidelines and minimum standards for rules education and monitoring recruiting visits.

3) No prior case has held an institution responsible for the conduct of employees of a corporate sponsor, much less individuals who were knowingly defrauding the institution.

4) U of L assisted the U.S. Department of Justice to determine the full scope of the matter, producing almost 4,000 documents.

5) Investigation first launched in 2017 following disclosures by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York has exacted a significant cost. The university has suffered a “demoralized alumni, a disheartened fanbase, and a swift decline in ticket sales, sponsorships, donations, and revenue.”

This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: Louisville basketball's 7 infraction allegations outlined by the NCAA