While yesterday’s announcement that the Michigan football program allegedly violated NCAA regulations was billed as the culmination of the NCAA’s four-month long evaluation of Michigan’s Athletic Department's compliance with NCAA rules, it was by no means the end of the process.

The NCAA’s notice of allegations, which was made public in a University press conference yesterday, was the next step in a chain of proceedings that will now span at least one year — from when the allegations were first published in the Detroit Free Press in August of 2009 until at least when the University goes before the NCAA’s Committee on Infractions this upcoming August.

The University now has 90 days to formally dispute or agree with the allegations. In a series of interviews following the announcement, experts on the process, politics and implications of NCAA investigations said that while the outcome of the case is difficult to predict, most institutions typically end up agreeing with the NCAA’s findings — often resulting in penalties for the schools.

Some of the experts said the University may not face as serious repercussions as programs facing allegations pertaining to specific student-athletes.

But others said that, in cases like this, the fact that the NCAA found enough evidence to send the notice could be a bad harbinger for the University, which could ultimately be penalized with probation for a couple of years or a decrease in the number of coaches who can participate in practices.

No matter the final outcome, the experts interviewed yesterday said that University officials have a lot of heavy digging left to do and sleepless nights ahead of them before the process is finally concluded.

Josephine Potuto, chair of the NCAA Committee on Infractions from 2006 to 2008, said in an interview that NCAA allegations most often result in penalties.

“The enforcement staff at the NCAA does a pretty good job of investigating, and they should, and they’re pretty responsible about only bringing allegations where they think there’s enough evidence for the Infractions Committee to make the finding that there was a violation,” Potuto said.

Potuto — who said she couldn’t comment on the NCAA allegations specifically brought against the Michigan football team, but rather only on the general allegation and penalty process — said that typically, a university will agree with the alleged violations brought forth by the NCAA.

“There isn’t going to be an argument about did it occur, or did it not occur,” Potuto said. “The argument will be about how much responsibility should be taken here, how big was the violation and what kinds of penalties should happen.”

But until the hearing, Potuto, who is now a law professor at the University of Nebraska and represents that school on NCAA committees, said a university faced with NCAA allegations must put a lot of time into responding to the allegations.

“Between now and the Committee on Infractions hearing and any findings by the Committee on Infractions, it’s a major distraction for a university, for anybody else who’s involved,” Potuto said. “It’s going to take a lot of person hours to get together, write the response, to get together all the exhibits and that’s also true if there’s anybody at risk.”

Potuto said if allegations are made against specific individuals, a university not only has to deal with the repercussions for the institution, but also probable internal problems.

“It’s not a happy place to be in terms of negative publicity that just the allegations bring,” Potuto said.

Potuto said NCAA allegations allow an institution the opportunity to reassess its conduct and to make revisions when necessary.

“If the university is doing things right, it’s a time to really take a look at how it was doing things in the past and to consider whether there are different ways of doing things or better ways of doing things,” Potuto said.