This page is an attempt to index and catalog the recent articles published on this blog that have been offered as rebuttals to the various UNC defense arguments.
Official Arguments Made by UNC
On Jurisdiction Issues
- The "No Violation Previously Determined" Argument
- The first prong in the triad of related arguments (for others, see below), claiming that NCAA investigators were privy to all relevant information in 2011, 2012 and 2013, during which it had determined that no NCAA bylaws had been broken. The conduct identified was deemed to not fall within NCAA jurisdiction.
On Enforcement Procedural Issues
- The "No New Information" Argument
- Related to the "No Violation Previously Determined" argument above, UNC objects to the claim that the Wainstein investigation uncovered anything materially new regarding conduct that would result in a reversal of the prior determination that no NCAA bylaws had been violated.
- The "Finality" Argument
- The third of three arguments in which UNC claims in its Response to the Amended Notice of Allegations that the current case is an improper continuation of the 2012 NCAA infractions case, during which it had already been determined that the conduct under inspection did not violate NCAA bylaws, and that determination should be binding.
- The "Exclude Wainstein Interviews" Argument:
- UNC argues in its Response to the Amended Notice of Allegations that the interviews of Nyang'oro and Crowder, along with any statements or findings stemming from those interviews, should be barred from consideration in this infractions case because the interviews were not conducted in accordance with NCAA bylaw requirements.
- The "Incomplete Disclosure" Argument
- UNC argues that it was entitled to disclosure of all relevant records relating to the previous infractions case, including internal emails between NCAA department staff members that provided insight into the previous staff determinations on NCAA jurisdiction.
- The "Statute of Limitations" Argument
- UNC disputes the Enforcement staff's marking of when the clock "tolled" for determining applicability of statute of limitations rules.
On Committee on Infractions Procedural Issues
- The "Rationale for the 1st Amended NOA Changes" Argument
- UNC's defense of the changes to the original NOA. This is related to the jurisdictional "no violations previously determined" argument and procedural "finality" argument above. Also serves as base support for the "absence of information" and "ANOA fairly aligned" arguments below.
- The "COI's Absence of Information" Argument
- UNC objects to the COI hearing panel rejection of its request to introduce key communications documents into the record prior to the hearing and complains that the panel relied on the absence of that information to reach its decision.
- The "COI Intervention" Argument
- UNC characterizes the issuance of the 2nd Amended Notice of Allegations as intervention by the COI hearing panel in over-stepping its authority and "directing" the Enforcement staff to revise the NOA again.
- The "ANOA Fairly Aligned" Argument
- UNC argues that the 1st ANOA "appropriately addressed" allegations within NCAA jurisdiction, in contrast to the original NOA and the 2nd ANOA.
- The "Other Ways COI Was Unfair" Arguments
- UNC protests the denial of "good cause" to introduce key material evidence prior to the October 2016 procedural hearing, the misleading hearing agenda that UNC was led to believe would not be addressing reasons for the "reshaping" of the NOA, and the Panel's exploitation of an "incomplete record" at the hearing.
Miscellaneous Unofficial Arguments from UNC affliated interests
- The "COI Chair Endorsed the ANOA" Argument
- The argument that Greg Sankey knew of the rationale for the NOA-ANOA changes and approved the ANOA before its issuance.
- The "NCAA Investigators Colluded with Wainstein" Argument
- An unsubstantiated allegation from a UNC fan posing as an NCAA critic.
- The "Chief Hearing Officer's Conflict of Interest" Argument
- A specific objection by pro-Tar Heel partisan outlets to COI chairman Greg Sankey being the chief hearing officer in UNC's case. Not yet voiced by UNC officials.
- A related but general objection to the NCAA's Committee on Infractions policy of appointing COI members from within NCAA's membership. Not voiced by UNC officials, but ACC commissioner has commented.
- The "Greg Sankey Violated 19.5.1.2" Argument
- An unofficial objection by pro-Tar Heel partisans to Greg Sankey's alleged involvement in the NOA-ANOA evolution which, if true, would preclude him from assignment to the hearing panel in UNC's case.
- The "Unprecedented 3 NOAs" Argument
- The complaint heard from UNC partisans and UNC's athletics director in unofficial commentary about the unprecedented -- and implied unfair -- nature of the three versions of the Notice of Allegations.
- The "Unprecedented Procedural-Only Hearing" Argument
- The complaint heard from UNC partisans and UNC's athletics director in unofficial commentary about the unprecedented -- and implied unfair -- nature of holding a procedural-only hearing, separate from an infractions hearing on the merits.
- NCAA President's violation of "Non-Disclosure Rule" Argument
- An unofficial complaint by UNC partisan media outlet about Mark Emmert's public comment after UNC's release of the Wainstein Report while an active investigation was underway.
