Tennessee, Jeremy Pruitt vs NCAA: Everything you need to know about hearing

More than two years after Tennessee fired football coach Jeremy Pruitt for cause, they will reunite at an NCAA hearing in Cincinnati.

The three-day hearing will begin Wednesday.

Pruitt, former defensive coordinator Derrick Ansley and UT will face an NCAA Committee on Infractions panel for their part in a high-profile recruiting scandal involving 18 Level 1 violations alleged to have been committed from 2018-21.

Here are answers to the key questions about the hearing.

VOLS AT NCAA HEARING Why Tennessee will fight failure to monitor violation

TOPPMEYER Jeremy Pruitt is just a sideshow. Real showdown is Tennessee vs NCAA

How does the hearing work?

NCAA hearings are closed to media and the public, but there’s a general setup.

An NCAA Committee on Infractions panel, likely seven people, will hear arguments and decide whether violations occurred and what penalties are appropriate.

The panel includes current or former university presidents, athletics directors, conference commissioners, former coaches, campus compliance officials, faculty athletic representatives and members of the public with formal legal training.

The panel reviews the facts of the case. The NCAA enforcement staff presents its findings. Pruitt, Ansley and UT can argue against the allegations. And the panel can question all parties.

But the panel does not have subpoena power. It can request witnesses, but they don’t have to appear.

When will penalties be imposed?

Late spring or likely summer.

In many cases, the panel releases its final report, including penalties, in about six to eight weeks. But complicated cases like UT’s can take longer.

In 2021-22, eight cases in Division I reached the hearing phase, and most were complex. They averaged 103 days to be resolved after the hearing.

That means Pruitt and UT may have to wait until July or August to find out their penalties. They can appeal, but that process can take several months.

Who will be there on Jeremy Pruitt’s side?

Pruitt should be accompanied by his attorney, Henry Gimenez, from the Birmingham-based firm Lightfoot, Franklin & White.

Gimenez specializes in representing universities and coaches in NCAA cases. In 2022, he got favorable results for Memphis, LSU and Arizona in their high-profile NCAA cases. Gimenez may also be joined by Hallett Ruzic, the firm’s NCAA specialist.

JEREMY PRUITT'S DAY IN COURT Why fired coach wants to finally face Tennessee and NCAA in hearing

'THAT'S NOT THE CASEY I KNEW' How Jeremy Pruitt’s wife went from rule enforcer to rule breaker

Don’t expect Pruitt’s wife, Casey, to attend even though the NCAA alleged she committed multiple violations.

A decade ago, Casey Pruitt worked in NCAA compliance at Troy, Oklahoma and Florida State. But she didn’t work in college athletics at the time of the alleged violations, so an NCAA ruling has no bearing on her.

There’s also no guarantee that Ansley will show up. He left college football for the NFL, where NCAA penalties can’t be enforced. In February, the Los Angeles Chargers promoted Ansley from defensive backs coach to defensive coordinator.

Who will be there on Tennessee’s side?

UT listed six representatives in its response to the notice of allegations: Chancellor Donde Plowman, chief of staff Matthew Scoggins, athletics director Danny White, deputy athletics director Cameron Walker, senior associate athletics director Jonathan Bowling and general counsel Ryan Stinnett.

Expect any or all of them to attend the hearing.

Phillip Fulmer, who was athletics director during Pruitt's tenure, also could appear to answer questions. However, Fulmer was not mentioned in the NCAA notice of allegations or UT's response.

UT is represented by the firm Bond, Schoeneck & King, which the university has paid about $1.5 million in legal fees over the course of the investigation. Specifically, Kyle Skillman and Michael Sheridan, have done much of the work as outside counsel.

Michael Glazier, who worked on the university’s internal investigation, also could appear.

Glazier, who worked seven years on the NCAA’s enforcement staff, has represented universities in scores of NCAA cases since the 1980s. He has worked with UT previously.

Glazier assisted the university during the NCAA's probe of the athletic department that led to the 2011 firing of men's basketball coach Bruce Pearl.

Skillman also advises NCAA institutions during enforcement investigations and helps universities investigate and report NCAA violations. Sheridan previously served as the NCAA’s associate director of enforcement, where he led investigations and delivered oral arguments on behalf of the NCAA in hearings like this one.

What will they say to reporters?

Probably very little.

Under member-imposed confidentiality rules, neither the NCAA nor the involved parties or school can comment about the case until the Committee on Infractions releases its full decision.

That doesn’t prohibit Pruitt or UT administrators from commenting generally on their mood or the weather in Cincinnati. Both could be good at the start of the hearing but get worse by the end. Sunny skies are supposed to give way to thunderstorms by Friday.

What is UT trying to accomplish?

The NCAA alleged that all but one of the 18 violations were committed by Jeremy Pruitt, his wife, former coaches and staff members and a booster.

ADAMS How could you make a case for Jeremy Pruitt vs NCAA? With a big imagination

But the one exception – a Level 1 allegation of failure to monitor – is why UT sought a hearing.

UT argues that Pruitt and the other individuals knew what they were doing was wrong and intentionally kept the university in the dark. But the NCAA contends that UT should be held responsible for failing to “deter or detect more than 200 separate violations, involving more than a dozen football staff members,” according to its report.

A UT victory would mean the panel drops the failure to monitor violation or downgrades it to Level 2. Either would soften penalties.

What is Pruitt trying to accomplish?

Pruitt’s side of the story hasn’t been told because UT declined a public records request by Knox News to see Pruitt’s response to the NCAA. It cited Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and Tennessee Code bylaws that deal with confidentiality of intercollegiate athletics programs.

But, presumably, Pruitt wants to clear his name, avoid a show-cause penalty and get the $12.6 million buyout that UT denied him. He would have to be cleared of violations to get that money, which appears to be a tall order.

A show-cause penalty means an individual is not allowed to coach or recruit in college for a period of time unless their future employer can successfully argue otherwise to the NCAA. If Pruitt avoided a show-cause penalty, he would be a coveted defensive coach in college football.

Expect Pruitt to argue that he had no knowledge of violations committed by his subordinates.

Former UT assistants Brian Niedermeyer and Shelton Felton, former director of player personnel Drew Hughes and former student assistant Michael Magness already accepted show-cause penalties.

If claiming ignorance of violations doesn’t work, Pruitt could make it harder on the university by saying UT employees outside of the football program were aware of wrongdoing.

Adam Sparks is the Tennessee football beat reporter. Email adam.sparks@knoxnews.com. Twitter @AdamSparks. Support strong local journalism by subscribing at knoxnews.com/subscribe.  

This article originally appeared on Knoxville News Sentinel: Tennessee, Jeremy Pruitt vs NCAA: What you need to know about hearing