On two previous occasions, the Oregon football program has run afoul of NCAA rules.

First, there was a two-year probation beginning in 1981 for violations in recruiting, use of funds and academic standards. Rich Brooks was the coach.

And then in 2004, another two years of probation was levied after assistant coach Gary Campbell's alleged improper conduct in the recruitment of running back J.J. Arrington, who eventually landed at California. Mike Bellotti was the coach.

The NCAA deemed both sets of violations as "major," but it's the latter that might have bearing on the

.

According to NCAA rule 19.5.2.3.1, a school "shall be considered a 'repeat' violator if the Committee on Infractions finds that a major violation has occurred within five years of the starting date of a major penalty. For this provision to apply, at least one major violation must have occurred within five years after the starting date of the penalties in the previous case."

Per the public infractions report, UO opened its five-year window May 4, 2004.

Skip ahead to Feb. 24, just a couple of weeks ago, when the university released "

," two drafts of heavily redacted material that contain transgressions alleged to have occurred between 2008-2011, spanning the end of Bellotti's tenure and the beginning of Chip Kelly's as head coach.

While UO representatives continue to maintain no charges have been agreed to, despite the presence of the word "agreed" throughout the documents, there seems to be some sort of cooperation at work.

An NCAA spokesperson, while not commenting specifically on UO, said whenever there is back-and-forth during the process between a school under investigation and the NCAA, it is understood the preferred course is summary disposition.

In its online glossary of terms, the NCAA defines summary disposition as "a cooperative process between the school, involved individuals and the NCAA enforcement staff."

It continues, explaining how an in-person hearing in front of the Committee on Infractions can be avoided. But then, in bold print, is the kicker:

"A school that would become a repeat-violator cannot use the summary disposition process and must go before the Committee on Infractions."

Which begs the question: Did any of the offenses currently being investigated fall within the five-year window, possibly triggering repeat violator status?

The university isn't providing any answers.

An e-mail to the compliance office was forwarded to the sports information office, which on Tuesday and again Wednesday said it was looking into the matter. Late Wednesday, the message finally reached the top of the department.

"We will continue to fully cooperate with the NCAA in this matter," UO athletic director Rob Mullens said. "As we have stated on multiple occasions, we cannot discuss any details of the review."

Last March, NCAA spokesman

-- again, speaking in generalities and not about UO -- the Committee on Infractions will review all past cases.

"While the committee would not apply the enhanced repeat violator penalties if the institution was beyond the five-year period, the committee does look at past cases (particularly those within the past decade) to see if there are similarities with the current case. Any such similarities could be taken into account when assessing penalties."

--