North Carolina Tar Heels: The Response
The North Carolina Tar Heels seem to be suggesting the NCAA may not have the jurisdiction needed over the issues in the NOA.
The response by the North Carolina Tar Heels to the notice of allegations sent by the NCAA dropped yesterday. There are no real surprises in the document except that there are constant references to the NCAA’s lack of jurisdiction to punish the school over some of the offenses since they are academic in nature.
Before getting down to specifics, remember the NCAA response to Penn State in wake of the Jerry Sandusky revelations. The NCAA charged in and inflicted deep penalties on Penn State despite there being no clear guidelines that they could even make a move like that. The school didn’t fight it (they were in a tough spot) much, but over time it became obvious to the NCAA that it had gone too far. They then began to taper back Penn State’s penalties.
Reminding the NCAA that there they have no proper jurisdiction is a subtle reminder to the NCAA of how they may have mishandled the Penn State situation. Therefore the association may think twice before going down that road again.
More from North Carolina Tar Heels
- NC Colleges Provide Coronavirus Results from Athletic Departments
- UNC Football gets Commitment from Top Cornerback
- Four North Carolina players selected in first round of MLB Draft
- UNC Destroyed by Coach Duggs and Tennessee in NCAA Football 14
- UNC Basketball: Former Tar Heel star calls out Roy Williams
It also seems like a change of tone. For the entirety of the time that the NCAA has been on campus, the school has been cooperative with the investigation. In some cases they were more cooperative than necessary. Now, the school seems to be setting up a tougher approach as the process continues.
The charges themselves include some oddities. Deborah Crowder and Dr. Julius Nwang’oro are charged simply with not complying with the investigation. There is a failure to monitor charge regarding the African and African-American Studies Department and the athletic academic advisors. According to Chip Patterson of CBS Sports, the school is claiming the monitor charges are accreditation issues not NCAA issues.
Finally there is the lack of institutional control charge. That is the biggest one the NCAA can levy, but the school will argue that they never broke a NCAA bylaw.
Next: Three on Preseason ACC List
Frankly, I would like the mess to end. The time period in question has shrunk to after 2005 basketball championship and the affected sports have shrunk as well. Yet this will probably play out the long way. The NCAA has sixty days to set a hearing date and then there is no telling when a final decision will be made.