Bayno’s dismissal won’t help Rebels’ appeal to NCAA

Steve Addy

Friday, Jan. 5, 2001 | 10:30 a.m.

When UNLV formally appeals the NCAA's postseason ban against the basketball program, the removal of coach Bill Bayno will not figure into the university's plea for mercy.

So much for conventional wisdom.

Since Dec. 11 when UNLV reassigned Bayno in the aftermath of major NCAA sanctions, including four years' probation, it has been widely assumed that the NCAA would view his removal as a good-faith gesture that helps the Rebels' appeals case.

But the coaching change won't be a major part of UNLV's strategy when university officials go before the NCAA Infractions Appeals Committee, probably next month.

Attorney Mike Glazier, who is handling UNLV's case, said the committee generally doesn't consider measures taken by a university after sanctions are levied. He has argued dozens of infractions cases before the NCAA.

"It's an unwritten rule," Glazier said Thursday from his office in Overland Park, Kan. "The committee will judge the appeal based on the issues directly relating to the appeal."

So, even if the committee is reminded that Bayno is no longer the Rebels' coach, any perceived PR value -- that UNLV is serious about "cleansing the program" -- will be nullified.

"That won't be one of the strong points the university makes," Glazier said. "But I've never gotten a sense that the basis for (Bayno's removal) had anything to do with (bolstering the appeal) anyway."

UNLV senior associate AD Jerry Koloskie echoed Glazier's stance, saying Bayno's dismissal "really doesn't matter" in the appeal.

Koloskie said UNLV will not contest the NCAA's findings from the infractions case, which resulted in probation through Dec. 12, 2004; postseason ineligibility this season; scholarship limits the next two seasons; and various other penalties.

The university is appealing only the postseason ban, claiming the team gained no competitive advantage from recruiting violations pertaining to Lamar Odom in 1996 and '97, and that this year's players are being unfairly penalized for violations unrelated to them.

UNLV officials and Glazier have refused to speculate on their chances of winning the appeal, but Glazier noted that only one NCAA postseason ban has been overturned.

In a 1998 infractions ruling, Louisville was banned from postseason basketball in 1998-99, but the NCAA rescinded the ban on appeal because it uncovered a procedural error that had proved detrimental to the school's case preparation.

Glazier wouldn't discuss the specifics of UNLV's appeal, but said he'll cite standards used by the NCAA to levy previous postseason bans. Prominent among those standards are competitive advantage, whether the improperly recruited player(s) in question remain in the program, and lack of institutional control.

"Over the last five or six years, there have been close to 30 cases with postseason bans," Glazier said. "In almost all of those cases, there was an underlying finding of lack of institutional control. There was no finding of that against UNLV. Those are the issues the appeals committee will have to examine."

Such an examination won't begin until UNLV files its appeal. The university has until Jan. 21 -- 30 days after president Carol Harter officially notified the appeals committee of UNLV's intentions. The committee will have 30 days to consider UNLV's argument, and the university has also been granted an in-person hearing, whose date and site have not been determined.