First, for those that say "Just ignore the penalties, what more can they do?"
Failure to fully implement the prescribed penalty may subject the institution, and/or an institution employing an involved individual under a show-cause order, to further disciplinary action by the Committee on Infractions
In regards to determining penalties and the level of violations
19.11.2 Factors Affecting Penalties. The hearing panel shall determine whether any factors that may affect penalties are present in a case. The panel shall weigh any factors and determine if a case should be subject to standard penalties or if the case should be classified with aggravation or mitigation, and therefore subject to a higher or lower range of penalties. Absent extenuating circumstances, core penalties corresponding to the classification shall be prescribed as set forth in Figure 19-1. 19.11.2.1 Aggravation. A case where aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors. Cases should not be classified as aggravated solely because the number of aggravating factors is larger than the number of mitigating factors. An egregious aggravating factor may outweigh multiple mitigating factors. 19.11.2.2 Standard. A case where no mitigating or aggravating factors are present or where aggravating and mitigating factors are generally of equal weight. 19.11.2.3 Mitigation. A case where mitigating factors outweigh aggravating factors. Cases should not be classified as mitigated solely because the number of mitigating factors is larger than the number of aggravating factors.
In regards to aggravating and mitigating factors
19.11.3 Aggravating Factors. Aggravating factors are circumstances that warrant a higher range of penalties in a particular case. A hearing panel of the Committee on Infractions determines whether aggravating factors are present in a case and the weight assigned to each factor. Examples of aggravating factors include but are not limited to the following:
(a) Multiple Level I violations by the institution or involved individual;
(b) A history of Level I, Level II or major violations by the institution, sport program(s) or involved individual. Additional considerations include: (1) The amount of time between the occurrences of violations; (2) The similarity, severity and types of violations involved; (3) Efforts to implement previously-prescribed corrective measures; and (4) Other factors the committee deems relevant to the infractions history.
(c) Lack of institutional control;
(d) Obstructing an investigation or attempting to conceal the violation;
(e) Unethical conduct, compromising the integrity of an investigation, failing to cooperate during an investigation or refusing to provide all relevant or requested information;
(f) Violations were premeditated, deliberate or committed after substantial planning;
(g) Multiple Level II violations by the institution or involved individual;
(h) Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation or related wrongful conduct;
(i) One or more violations caused significant ineligibility or other substantial harm to a student-athlete or prospective student-athlete;
(j) Conduct or circumstances demonstrating an abuse of a position of trust;
(k) A pattern of noncompliance within the sport program(s) involved;
(l) Conduct intended to generate pecuniary gain for the institution or involved individual;
(m) Intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA Constitution and bylaws; or
(n) Other facts warranting a higher penalty range.
19.11.4 Mitigating Factors. Mitigating factors are circumstances that warrant a lower range of penalties in a particular case. A hearing panel of the Committee on Infractions determines whether mitigating factors are present in a case and the weight assigned to each factor. Examples of mitigating factors include but are not limited to the following:
(a) Prompt self-detection and self-disclosure of the violation(s);
(b) Prompt acknowledgement of the violation, acceptance of responsibility and (for an institution) imposition of meaningful corrective measures and/or penalties;
(c) Affirmative steps to expedite final resolution of the matter;
(d) An established history of self-reporting Level III or secondary violations;
(e) Implementation of a system of compliance methods designed to ensure rules compliance and satisfaction of institutional/coaches control standards;
(f) Exemplary cooperation such as: (1) Identifying individuals (to be interviewed by the enforcement staff), documents and other information of which the enforcement staff was not aware; (2) Expending substantial institutional resources to expedite a thorough and fair collection and disclosure of information; or (3) Recognizing and bringing to the attention of the enforcement staff, in a timely manner, additional violations discovered in the investigation of which the enforcement staff was not aware. (g) The violations were unintentional, limited in scope and represent a deviation from otherwise compliant practices by the institution or involved individual; or (h) Other facts warranting a lower penalty range.
In reading that, Missouri's appeal is going to be largely reliant on mitigating Factor F. "We did all those things and the COI decided it didn't matter. And it should."
Other relevant notes:
19.12.2.2 Stay of Penalties. Upon the timely filing of a notice of intent to appeal and unless ordered otherwise by the Infractions Appeals Committee, any penalties prescribed by a hearing panel of the Committee on Infractions shall be stayed during the pendency of the appeal.
19.12.7 Final Decision not Subject to Further Review. Any decision of the Infractions Appeals Committee shall be final, binding and conclusive, and shall not be subject to further review by any governance body.
Failure to fully implement the prescribed penalty may subject the institution, and/or an institution employing an involved individual under a show-cause order, to further disciplinary action by the Committee on Infractions
In regards to determining penalties and the level of violations
19.11.2 Factors Affecting Penalties. The hearing panel shall determine whether any factors that may affect penalties are present in a case. The panel shall weigh any factors and determine if a case should be subject to standard penalties or if the case should be classified with aggravation or mitigation, and therefore subject to a higher or lower range of penalties. Absent extenuating circumstances, core penalties corresponding to the classification shall be prescribed as set forth in Figure 19-1. 19.11.2.1 Aggravation. A case where aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors. Cases should not be classified as aggravated solely because the number of aggravating factors is larger than the number of mitigating factors. An egregious aggravating factor may outweigh multiple mitigating factors. 19.11.2.2 Standard. A case where no mitigating or aggravating factors are present or where aggravating and mitigating factors are generally of equal weight. 19.11.2.3 Mitigation. A case where mitigating factors outweigh aggravating factors. Cases should not be classified as mitigated solely because the number of mitigating factors is larger than the number of aggravating factors.
In regards to aggravating and mitigating factors
19.11.3 Aggravating Factors. Aggravating factors are circumstances that warrant a higher range of penalties in a particular case. A hearing panel of the Committee on Infractions determines whether aggravating factors are present in a case and the weight assigned to each factor. Examples of aggravating factors include but are not limited to the following:
(a) Multiple Level I violations by the institution or involved individual;
(b) A history of Level I, Level II or major violations by the institution, sport program(s) or involved individual. Additional considerations include: (1) The amount of time between the occurrences of violations; (2) The similarity, severity and types of violations involved; (3) Efforts to implement previously-prescribed corrective measures; and (4) Other factors the committee deems relevant to the infractions history.
(c) Lack of institutional control;
(d) Obstructing an investigation or attempting to conceal the violation;
(e) Unethical conduct, compromising the integrity of an investigation, failing to cooperate during an investigation or refusing to provide all relevant or requested information;
(f) Violations were premeditated, deliberate or committed after substantial planning;
(g) Multiple Level II violations by the institution or involved individual;
(h) Persons of authority condoned, participated in or negligently disregarded the violation or related wrongful conduct;
(i) One or more violations caused significant ineligibility or other substantial harm to a student-athlete or prospective student-athlete;
(j) Conduct or circumstances demonstrating an abuse of a position of trust;
(k) A pattern of noncompliance within the sport program(s) involved;
(l) Conduct intended to generate pecuniary gain for the institution or involved individual;
(m) Intentional, willful or blatant disregard for the NCAA Constitution and bylaws; or
(n) Other facts warranting a higher penalty range.
19.11.4 Mitigating Factors. Mitigating factors are circumstances that warrant a lower range of penalties in a particular case. A hearing panel of the Committee on Infractions determines whether mitigating factors are present in a case and the weight assigned to each factor. Examples of mitigating factors include but are not limited to the following:
(a) Prompt self-detection and self-disclosure of the violation(s);
(b) Prompt acknowledgement of the violation, acceptance of responsibility and (for an institution) imposition of meaningful corrective measures and/or penalties;
(c) Affirmative steps to expedite final resolution of the matter;
(d) An established history of self-reporting Level III or secondary violations;
(e) Implementation of a system of compliance methods designed to ensure rules compliance and satisfaction of institutional/coaches control standards;
(f) Exemplary cooperation such as: (1) Identifying individuals (to be interviewed by the enforcement staff), documents and other information of which the enforcement staff was not aware; (2) Expending substantial institutional resources to expedite a thorough and fair collection and disclosure of information; or (3) Recognizing and bringing to the attention of the enforcement staff, in a timely manner, additional violations discovered in the investigation of which the enforcement staff was not aware. (g) The violations were unintentional, limited in scope and represent a deviation from otherwise compliant practices by the institution or involved individual; or (h) Other facts warranting a lower penalty range.
In reading that, Missouri's appeal is going to be largely reliant on mitigating Factor F. "We did all those things and the COI decided it didn't matter. And it should."
Other relevant notes:
19.12.2.2 Stay of Penalties. Upon the timely filing of a notice of intent to appeal and unless ordered otherwise by the Infractions Appeals Committee, any penalties prescribed by a hearing panel of the Committee on Infractions shall be stayed during the pendency of the appeal.
19.12.7 Final Decision not Subject to Further Review. Any decision of the Infractions Appeals Committee shall be final, binding and conclusive, and shall not be subject to further review by any governance body.
