North Carolina responds to the NCAA's allegations: What it said and what's next

North Carolina admitted wrongdoing but challenged the NCAA's authority

The University of North Carolina responded to the NCAA's amended Notice of Allegations on Monday and released its response to the public on Tuesday. The response both admitted wrongdoing as it pertains to the alleged violations but also challenged the NCAA's ability to prosecute or punish the school based on academic issues.

"Our response to the ANOA addresses the scope of the NCAA's regulatory authority as stated in its bylaws. This case involves core institutional issues--academic issues--not covered by the NCAA's bylaws. It also looks at issues regarding fairness and consistency and the NCAA's statute of limitations," the school said in a release.

Targeting the NCAA's jurisdiction over academics is done publicly here by UNC and may have been part of the discussion behind the scenes as well. The school was sure to point out that it has been cooperative with the association during the investigation process, but now the determined tone of the response has set up a fascinating hearing process for the Committee on Infractions.

The NCAA's case against North Carolina has been multi-pronged and extended for more than six years, covering both an agent scandal in the football program (for which the team was punished with probation, scholarship reductions and a one-year postseason ban) and an academic scandal involving the entire athletic department and a series of "anomalous" classes that went unchecked in the African-American Studies department.

The allegations, according to the NCAA, summarized:

Allegation No. 1: Jan Boxill, women's basketball athletic academic counselor in the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes (ASPSA) knowingly provided extra benefits in the form of impermissible academic assistance and special arrangements to women's basketball student-athletes.

Response: North Carolina agrees "that in 15 of the 18 alleged instances, Boxill provided extra benefits in violation of Bylaw 16.11.2.1 in her capacity as an ASPSA academic counselor." However, UNC is arguing that her actions do not fall under the NCAA's definition of unethical conduct, "even though her actions fell short of the University's own standards."

Allegation No. 2: Deborah Crowder, former student services manager in the African and Afro-American Studies department, violated the NCAA principles of ethical conduct during the NCAA's investigation.

Response: UNC agrees with the charges relating to Crowder's failure to cooperate "despite repeated requests by the enforcement staff and the University."

Allegation No. 3: Dr. Julius Nyang'oro, former chair of the African and Afro-American Studies department, violated NCAA principles of ethical conduct during the NCAA's investigation into UNC.

Response: UNC agrees with the charges relating to Nyang'oro's failure to cooperate "despite repeated requests by the enforcement staff and the University."

Allegation No. 4: From the 2005 fall semester through the 2011 summer semester, the University of North Carolina violated the NCAA Principle of Rules Compliance in its failure to monitor the ASPSA and the African and Afro-American Studies department.

Response: North Carolina is fighting the failure to monitor charge, believing the issues fall under the jurisdiction of the school's accrediting agency, SACSCOC, not the NCAA.

Allegation No. 5: The NCAA has charged UNC with a violating the NCAA Principle of Institutional Control and Responsibility.

Response: North Carolina does not agree with the lack of institutional control charge. Bubba Cunningham said Tuesday on a conference call that while academic irregularities didn't meet the standards of the university they didn't necessarily violate an NCAA bylaw.

So what happens now?

1. The NCAA has 60 days to respond to the response, at which time it will set a date for UNC's Committee on Infractions hearing.

2. School officials and relevant coaches will appear before the NCAA's Committee on Infractions. There is no official timetable on when the hearing will take place.

3. The NCAA announces the results of the hearing, which include any sanctions for the school or athletic department. These sanctions can then be appealed or accepted by the school.

The final step could come months after the hearing, so it's a good bet that this story will continue to drag on through the college football season and at least into the start of the 2016-17 men's basketball and women's basketball season.