While not nearly as important for the well-being of the university as a whole, UNC also faced the possibility of serious sanctions from the NCAA. Under Folt's leadership, the university later went on to deny that the academic fraud was specifically benefiting athletics in its defense to the NCAA, broadly attempting to insulate the UNC administration from the findings of the Wainstein Report and the allegations of UNC whistleblower Mary Willingham. One of the key assertions the university made in its own defense was that the NCAA did not have jurisdiction, since the university created and offered "no-show" courses not as part of a systemic effort to benefit athletes, but the student body in general. While citing the failure of multiple UNC administrators to cooperate with the investigation, the NCAA's Committee on Infractions did not hold UNC responsible, finding that "no-show" classes were not specifically designed to benefit athletes. This finding led both fans and media across the country to question "the integrity of the NCAA, suggesting that UNC's case would open the doors for other universities to set up similar no-show classes so long as non-athletes could enroll."
