Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="BillSU, post: 2273528"] [B]Looks like we wait a couple of months or more to see the NCAA’s Final ruling.[/B] [B][SIZE=7]After hearing, UNC now awaits NCAA ruling in academic case[/SIZE][/B] [LIST] [*]By Aaron Beard, AP sports writer [/LIST] Aug 17, 2017, 3:20 PM ET [I] [/I] [ATTACH=full]107302[/ATTACH]The Associated Press University of North Carolina athletic director Bubba Cunningham returns after taking a break during an NCAA hearing Wednesday, Aug. 16, 2017, in Nashville, Tenn. It has taken more than two years for North Carolina to appear before an NCAA infractions committee panel since initially being charged with five top-level violations amid its long-running academic scandal. (AP Photo/Mark Zaleski) [URL='http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/hearing-unc-now-awaits-ncaa-ruling-academic-case-49278750'][U]more +[/U][/URL] [URL='http://abcnews.go.com/topics/news/north-carolina.htm'][U]North Carolina[/U][/URL] has wrapped up a two-day hearing with an NCAA infractions committee panel that will decide whether the school faces penalties tied to its multi-year academic scandal. Now the case goes into yet another holding pattern. School officials spent much of Wednesday in a closed-door meeting with committee members in [URL='http://abcnews.go.com/topics/entertainment/tv/nashville-callie-khouri.htm'][U]Nashville[/U][/URL], Tennessee. They returned Thursday morning for a second session lasting about 4? hours with the panel that will determine whether UNC faces penalties such as fines, probation or vacated wins and championships. NCAA spokeswoman Stacey Osburn confirmed the hearing was complete but both sides were mum afterward. Osburn didn't comment further because the panel must deliberate before issuing a ruling, which typically comes weeks to months after a hearing. UNC athletics spokesman Steve Kirschner said the school wouldn't have any comments about the hearing either. Getting through the hearing process was a major step toward resolution in a delay-filled case tied to irregular courses, though there's still the potential for the case to linger beyond a ruling if UNC decides to appeal or pursue legal action. The school faces five top-level charges, including lack of institutional control. The focus is independent study-style courses in the formerly named African and Afro-American Studies (AFAM) department. The courses were misidentified as lecture classes that didn't meet and required a research paper or two for typically high grades. In a 2014 investigation, former U.S. Justice Department official Kenneth Wainstein estimated more than 3,100 students were affected between 1993 and 2011, with athletes making up roughly half the enrollments. The NCAA has said UNC used those courses to help keep athletes eligible. The case grew as an offshoot of a 2010 probe of the football program that resulted in sanctions in March 2012. The NCAA reopened an investigation in summer 2014, filed charges in a May 2015, revised them in April 2016 and then again in December. Most notably, the NCAA originally treated some of the academic issues as improper benefits by saying athletes received access to the courses and other assistance generally unavailable to non-athletes. The NCAA removed that charge in the second Notice of Allegations (NOA), then revamped and re-inserted it into the third NOA. UNC has challenged the NCAA's jurisdiction, saying its accreditation agency — which sanctioned the school with a year of probation — was the proper authority and that the NCAA was overreaching in what should be an academic matter . [B]The NCAA enforcement staff countered in a July filing: "The issues at the heart of this case are clearly the NCAA's business."[/B] [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?