NCAA infractions case No. 00231 started by followed the "typical" NCAA Division I process (depicted here) when UNC notified Enforcement of its hiring of Kenneth Wainstein and the firm of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. UNC had chartered Wainstein/Cadwalader to conduct an independent review of the academic irregularities first uncovered in August 2011, while UNC was still in the midst of a previous NCAA infractions case.
Though Wainstein's investigation was into the academic issues at the University, the issues impacted athletics since many athletes had taken the irregular courses and academic counselors to athletes had coordinated those student-athlete enrollments and had been involved in progress completion. Because of past questions of possible violation of NCAA bylaws, the Athletics Department Associate Athletics Director,Vince Ille, notified NCAA Enforcement, in the event the investigation revealed any new information regarding potential NCAA infractions..
Below, the NCAA infractions process graphic taken from the NCAA Division I Manual has been modified to reflect the actions and events that have taken place in UNC's case:
- Highlighted in red are the completed steps that have followed the "typical" process.
- In yellow are where the process has deviated.
A deviation from "typical" does not mean it breaks from NCAA protocol. There can be divergence from "typical" - even unprecedented - and still conform to NCAA rules and guidelines.
Summary of Deviations:
In August 2015, UNC reported new information to Enforcement that resulted in UNC and Enforcement agreeing that the Notice of Allegations required Amending.. After notifying the Committee on Infractions of the delay and reopening of the investigation, the process "looped" back over the course of August 2015 to April 2016, resulting in the issuance of an Amended Notice of Allegations (ANOA). This is not "typical" but neither is it unusual.
The process resumed the "typical" path, entering the COI hearing phase with the written responses of all parties and scheduling of a hearing.
Here, the process took a highly unusual and unprecedented departure from "typical" when the COI scheduled a hearing on threshold procedural and jurisdiction issues that UNC and the Infractions staff were unable to resolve in pre-hearing conferences. Typically, the COI will consider both threshold and substantive issues at a single hearing, but due to the complexities of the threshold issues, chose to segregate the two and address threshold issues only at the first hearing.
After the hearing, the process deviated in yet another unprecedented fashion after the COI hearing panel rejected UNC's jurisdictional arguments. Since the ANOA had been previously modified based on the jurisdictional arguments that the COI had rejected, the Panel suggested that Enforcement revisit the Allegations and determine if they should be Amended yet again. The Enforcement apparently agreed and took the opportunity to redraft the Notice of Allegations, reintroducing some of the allegations it had previously removed. This created another "loop" that returned the process back to the start of the hearing phase.
As of the time of this posting (February 17th, 2017) the process is back within the 90-day period during which involved parties may submit written responses to the new set of allegations. Unless an extension is granted, responses are due March 13th, 2017, after which up to 60 days will elapse for Enforcement to respond, any pre-hearing conferences to take place, and all materials are to be forwarded to the COI. At which time, another hearing before the Panel will be scheduled, only this time it will consider the allegations on their merits and not jurisdictional or procedural basis (though UNC may lodge its objections to the COI's previous ruling, for the record.)
If UNC still feels its procedural/jurisdictional arguments had been unfairly and improperly rejected, it will likely take advantage of the Appeals process, which is a separate process defined by the NCAA Bylaws.
