CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – The University of North Carolina will receive its infractions report on Friday after more than three years since the NCAA reopened its investigation into academic irregularities in the formerly named African and Afro-American Studies department.

Inside Carolina has provided details of the years-long investigation in a question-and-answer format below.

What is this case about?

Here is what it’s not about, according to the NCAA enforcement staff: “This case is not about so-called fake classes or easy courses.”

While the legitimacy of the AFAM courses in question has been a focal point in the media, the NCAA has acknowledged it has no jurisdiction to judge academic rigor on the campus of its member institutions. The NCAA instead is arguing that special arrangements between AFAM department staff and ASPSA academic counselors, in the form of registering student-athletes for classes and obtaining, suggesting and submitting assignments for the student-athletes, were not generally available to the student body. That’s a critical element in the NCAA’s lack of institutional control and impermissible benefits allegations.

UNC believes the aforementioned special arrangements fall under Bylaw 16.3, which means this case is largely about bylaw interpretation.

Why were there three notices of allegations?

Simply put, the NCAA’s various attempts to allege impermissible benefits related to the AFAM courses have consistently been challenged by UNC’s counsel, thereby resulting in a moving of the goal posts, according to documents made available through public records requests. Since the NCAA is out of its jurisdiction when it comes to academic rigor, its approach has been on the aforementioned special arrangements, which traverses subjective terrain considering the NCAA bylaws require academic counseling and tutoring services be made available to student-athletes.

In August 2015, three months after the NCAA sent its first notice of allegations, NCAA vice president of enforcement Jon Duncan expounded on a theory known as the totality of the circumstances in a meeting with UNC officials to explain the initial impermissible benefits charge. The theory, which is a method of analysis to make decisions based on a collection of data rather than a strict interpretation of specific rules, was offered at a time when the enforcement staff was having difficulty applying its own bylaws to the allegation.

Rick Evrard, UNC’s outside counsel, offered this written response: “There is no known basis or precedent for the vice president of enforcement or the enforcement staff to establish this type of theory and threshold for the purpose of applying it to conduct permitted by NCAA rules in order to justify making a charge that violations of NCAA bylaws have occurred.”

During that same time period, NCAA director of enforcement Tom Hosty also acknowledged that while a small sample of emails in 2011 did not demonstrate an extra-benefit violation, a large volume of such data resulted in the initial impermissible benefits charge. UNC countered by noting the lack of precedent in turning a permissible benefit into an impermissible benefit by sheer volume.

Eleven months later, the enforcement staff removed the impermissible benefits charge from its amended notice of allegations. Following a controversial procedural hearing last October, Committee on Infractions chief hearing officer Greg Sankey and his panel requested the enforcement staff to review the amended notice of allegations, after which a third notice of allegations was delivered with the impermissible benefits charge back in place.

When was the Committee on Infractions hearing and how was it set up?

UNC appeared before the COI panel at the Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center in Nashville on Aug. 16-17. The COI hearings are similar to standard court proceedings. The Committee on Infractions acts as the judge and jury while the NCAA enforcement staff presents its case and UNC assumes its role as the defense. NCAA bylaws allow for opening and closing statements, presentation of factual information, arguments and explanations of the alleged violations. UNC’s hearing spanned two days and largely involved panel members asking questions of all involved parties, according to sources familiar with the proceedings. Those sources indicate UNC’s hearing was neither hostile nor argumentative.

Who makes up the Committee on Infractions?

The NCAA Board of Directors appoints a Committee of Infractions that’s composed of no more than 24 members to act as hearing officers in infractions proceedings. Member credentials range from current or former university presidents to former NCAA coaches to university staff or faculty. Members are appointed to three-year terms, which begin on Aug. 1, and may be reappointed for additional terms not to exceed nine years on the committee.

There are seven committee members comprising UNC’s hearing panel.

* Greg Sankey, commissioner, Southeastern Conference, and chief hearing officer

* Dr. Carol Cartwright, president emerita, Kent State and Bowling Green State Universities

* Alberto Gonzales, dean and Doyle Rogers Distinguished Professor of Law, Belmont University College of Law

* Eleanor Myers, associate professor of law emerita and interim associate dean for students at Temple University

* Joseph Novak, retired football coach, Northern Illinois University

* Larry Parkinson, director, Office of Enforcement, for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, public member, Washington, D.C.

* Jill Pilgrim, attorney and co-founder of Precise Advisory Group, public member, New York, New York

Who represented UNC at the hearing?

In addition to UNC’s outside counsel (Bond, Schoeneck & King), the NCAA requested the following individuals attend:

* Lissa Broome, faculty athletics representative

* Bubba Cunningham, director of athletics

* Larry Fedora, head football coach

* Sylvia Hatchell, head women's basketball coach

* Vince Ille, senior associate director of athletics/compliance

* Marielle vanGelder, compliance officer

* Roy Williams, head men's basketball coach

Why did Fedora, Hatchell and Williams have to attend?

It is standard practice for the current head coaches of programs referenced in a notice of allegations to attend the hearing, according to Joel Curran, UNC’s vice chancellor of University communications.

Does the Committee on Infractions have latitude in expanding or reducing the scope of the allegations?

Yes. Bylaw 19.7.7.4 states that while the hearing should focus on the general scope of the notice of allegations, the COI is allowed leeway in determining potential violations based on information developed or discussed during the hearing. Given Sankey’s directive to the NCAA enforcement staff to revisit the amended notice of allegations last November, this particular line may be concerning for UNC: “In any case, the panel may make specific factual findings based on information presented by the parties or at a hearing even if different from the notice of allegations.”

Has the COI hearing ever worked in an involved party’s favor?

Yes, although it’s fair to say it’s not the norm. In 2011, the COI ruled that former Tennessee head coach Lane Kiffin did not commit major infractions during his tenure in Knoxville and therefore would not be penalized. In 2013, Miami athletic director Blake James described the COI’s sanctions surrounding booster Nevin Shapiro as “fair but significant.” Miami officials had previously stated its intent to appeal any penalties beyond what the institution self-imposed, but the sanctions were accepted and no appeal was filed.

More recently, Syracuse and Louisville have both vented about NCAA sanctions that included suspensions for their head basketball coaches. Earlier this month, Louisville described the penalties for its basketball escort case as “draconian" and "grossly disproportionate" in its appeal letter, according to the Louisville Courier-Journal. In 2016, Notre Dame appealed sanctions vacating two years of football wins due to academic misconduct, calling the punishment “unjustified.”

An exhaustive 2016 report by Temple University’s Sport Industry Research Center that analyzed all 554 major Division I infractions cases dating from 1953 to 2014 found that conference membership had little to no effect on the severity of penalties handed down by the Committee on Infractions.

How does the appeal process work if UNC decides to go that route?

The Infractions Appeals Committee is composed of five members. Similar to the Committee on Infractions, the Appeals Committee members serve three-year terms. The committee is tasked with affirming, reversing, vacating and/or remanding the COI panel’s findings, conclusions and penalties.

If UNC elects to appeal, the institution must deliver its notice of intent to appeal to the Infractions Appeals Committee no later than 15 calendar days after the infractions report is released. UNC would be able to specify whether it wanted to submit its appeal in writing or to appear before the committee to make its case, and then would have 30 days to file its appeal once the IAC acknowledges receipt of its intent to appeal.

According to Bylaw 19.10.2.2, penalties levied by the COI panel “that have been appealed shall be stayed during the pendency of the appeal.”

NCAA guidelines indicate a 110-day timeline for the appeal process, according to the organization’s website. The decision of the Infractions Appeals Committee is final. Cunningham has said UNC would exhaust the NCAA process before considering potential legal action.