technically the appeals process is supposed
8/22/2010 10:02:23 PMBy: SCtrojan2k3
to only be about three months, a little over 100 days. I posted the full schedule a month or so ago, but off the top of my head -
- COI releases its report
- The institution has 14 days to announce an appeal
- Institution then has 30 days to write the appeal and submit it.
- The investigators have like 7 days to 'clarify' their findings
- The COI then has 14 days to write a response to the appeal
- University has another 14 days to write a final statement
something like that. maybe one more month somewhere. I know USC and mcnair were both granted extensions on their initial appeals (i think two weeks). still, this should be wrapped up by October. however, USC has publicly stated they don't expect a decision till Spring (but then again, USC's legal team didn't even know they could appeal the vacated wins, even though that is the most common appeal request). Not sure how but I'm sure the NCAA drags this on for as long as possible. They have already shown a complete lack of respect for their own processes and policies (ie, responding to the USCfootball.com report immediately despite it being policy to never comment on cases, especially before appeals are heard).
I think the Committee that handles the appeals only meet a few times a year, and are scheduled to meet sometime in september and november.
- COI releases its report
- The institution has 14 days to announce an appeal
- Institution then has 30 days to write the appeal and submit it.
- The investigators have like 7 days to 'clarify' their findings
- The COI then has 14 days to write a response to the appeal
- University has another 14 days to write a final statement
something like that. maybe one more month somewhere. I know USC and mcnair were both granted extensions on their initial appeals (i think two weeks). still, this should be wrapped up by October. however, USC has publicly stated they don't expect a decision till Spring (but then again, USC's legal team didn't even know they could appeal the vacated wins, even though that is the most common appeal request). Not sure how but I'm sure the NCAA drags this on for as long as possible. They have already shown a complete lack of respect for their own processes and policies (ie, responding to the USCfootball.com report immediately despite it being policy to never comment on cases, especially before appeals are heard).
I think the Committee that handles the appeals only meet a few times a year, and are scheduled to meet sometime in september and november.
Related Posts
- McNair wants to sue NCAA, not appeal (views: 689) -- SC66 (99.50.124.249) -- 8/22/10 07:52 PM
- One really important point (views: 341) -- SC66 (99.50.124.249) -- 8/22/10 11:05 PM
- The MILLION $$ question is: Will Reggie testify.. (views: 214) -- BobbyG (174.67.208.17) -- 8/22/10 10:42 PM
- I hope fluffy sues that piece of (views: 453) -- San Clemente (69.234.100.221) -- 8/22/10 09:02 PM
- maybe there will be a class action (views: 269) -- San Clemente (69.234.100.221) -- 8/22/10 09:03 PM
- Like I said yesterday... (views: 221) -- Pooh Bah (71.118.33.139) -- 8/22/10 09:36 PM
- try him at the haig (views: 189) -- San Clemente (69.234.100.221) -- 8/22/10 09:06 PM
- This site has really gone to the dogs!! (views: 110) -- 28isnot41 (72.200.104.163) -- 8/22/10 09:25 PM
- every dog has its day (views: 86) -- Lexo (97.93.51.2) -- 8/22/10 09:28 PM
- It's "The Hague, Bill...noone spells it the haig (views: 105) -- stevers (76.115.8.151) -- 8/22/10 09:15 PM
- too much "Haig & Haig" Pinch? (views: 90) -- Hillside (99.167.103.229) -- 8/23/10 11:24 AM
- deleted (views: 56) -- Hillside (99.167.103.229) -- 8/23/10 11:23 AM
- when did that become one word??? (views: 85) -- Lexo (97.93.51.2) -- 8/22/10 09:18 PM
- He was referring to Peter Noone of his fave band (views: 106) -- ferd (76.174.241.172) -- 8/22/10 09:29 PM
- lol nm (views: 52) -- Lexo (97.93.51.2) -- 8/22/10 09:34 PM
- He was referring to Peter Noone of his fave band (views: 106) -- ferd (76.174.241.172) -- 8/22/10 09:29 PM
- This site has really gone to the dogs!! (views: 110) -- 28isnot41 (72.200.104.163) -- 8/22/10 09:25 PM
- maybe there will be a class action (views: 269) -- San Clemente (69.234.100.221) -- 8/22/10 09:03 PM
- Serious question (views: 301) -- ucberkgrad (99.38.254.45) -- 8/22/10 08:56 PM
- I'd say Antitrust (views: 105) -- MVT (193.200.150.152) -- 8/23/10 11:38 AM
- Are Punitive (3x) Damages Possible? (views: 66) -- Hillside (99.167.103.229) -- 8/23/10 11:21 AM
- the NCAA maligned his character in a (views: 258) -- Lexo (97.93.51.2) -- 8/22/10 09:15 PM
- Re: the NCAA maligned his character in a (views: 138) -- ucberkgrad (99.38.254.45) -- 8/23/10 08:42 AM
- Re: Re: the NCAA maligned his character in a (views: 101) -- SOTrojan (12.146.203.100) -- 8/23/10 11:49 AM
- Huge mistake on their part (views: 102) -- Tookie the Condor (96.244.82.107) -- 8/23/10 11:54 AM
- the lawyer has already taken the case (views: 122) -- Lexo (97.93.51.2) -- 8/23/10 10:11 AM
- Re: Re: the NCAA maligned his character in a (views: 101) -- SOTrojan (12.146.203.100) -- 8/23/10 11:49 AM
- He essentially can't work in CFB for a year (views: 150) -- Tookie the Condor (96.244.82.107) -- 8/22/10 09:21 PM
- Re: the NCAA maligned his character in a (views: 138) -- ucberkgrad (99.38.254.45) -- 8/23/10 08:42 AM
- Not an expert but I hunch it'll be eight figures (views: 253) -- Tookie the Condor (96.244.82.107) -- 8/22/10 08:07 PM
- and people wonder why Garrett reacted the way he (views: 213) -- Lexo (97.93.51.2) -- 8/22/10 08:47 PM
- McNair v. NCAA ...will the defense call its next (views: 405) -- Lexo (97.93.51.2) -- 8/22/10 08:01 PM
- My only question, for either of you guys..... (views: 278) -- GNTrojan (76.95.204.130) -- 8/22/10 08:16 PM
- Re: My only question, for either of you guys..... (views: 192) -- Tookie the Condor (96.244.82.107) -- 8/22/10 08:50 PM
- Tarkanian, asst. bb coaches, Okla and Ga (views: 178) -- SC66 (99.50.124.249) -- 8/22/10 10:59 PM
- USC should move quickly and seek (views: 259) -- Lexo (97.93.51.2) -- 8/22/10 08:41 PM
- I think seeking injunctive relief would be a (views: 71) -- GTrojan (76.88.226.11) -- 8/23/10 04:19 PM
- great point.... (views: 57) -- Lexo (97.93.51.2) -- 8/23/10 10:37 PM
- I'll be very pleased if a decision is made.... (views: 221) -- GNTrojan (76.95.204.130) -- 8/22/10 08:48 PM
- technically the appeals process is supposed (views: 172) -- SCtrojan2k3 (68.231.189.49) -- 8/22/10 10:02 PM
- Thanks...nm* (views: 55) -- GNTrojan (76.95.204.130) -- 8/22/10 10:35 PM
- thanks for the clarification..... (views: 102) -- Lexo (97.93.51.2) -- 8/22/10 10:09 PM
- technically the appeals process is supposed (views: 172) -- SCtrojan2k3 (68.231.189.49) -- 8/22/10 10:02 PM
- I think seeking injunctive relief would be a (views: 71) -- GTrojan (76.88.226.11) -- 8/23/10 04:19 PM
- Re: My only question, for either of you guys..... (views: 192) -- Tookie the Condor (96.244.82.107) -- 8/22/10 08:50 PM
- My only question, for either of you guys..... (views: 278) -- GNTrojan (76.95.204.130) -- 8/22/10 08:16 PM