per AJC: significant announcement for GT football

ThisIsAtlanta

Break In Case Of Emergency
Staff member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
61,115
If you compare what happened here to the Cam Newton situation before the SECCG, it seems that Auburn handled it correctly, and we didn't.

They ruled him ineligible (I believe), they appealed to the NCAA, made their case and got him officially cleared by the NCAA.

We apparently blew the NCAA off, and went forward with our players assuming that we'd be able to address the issue appropriately later.

The reason we have been stripped of our ACCCG title is because we used players that had been ruled ineligible. The dollar value of this or that has nothing to do with it. The DRad communication to CPJ, or the discussions between CPJ and the players have nothing to do with it.

My two cents.

So, no matter how we can appeal and make the case that these players should not have been ruled ineligible in the first place, the fact will remain that we ignored the NCAA decision, did not follow an appropriate process, and didn't make the case before the players played the game. If the NCAA doesn't hold their line on that, then all sorts of teams will have a precedent that they can address issues later as well.
This is the way I see it as well, with the exception that it appears we may have vetted this with the NCAA indirectly and gotten a green-light to play them. If that turns out to be the case, we have a case.
 

wesleyd21

Dodd-Like
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
16,143
What pisses me off:

AJ Green sells a jersey for $1,000 and gets suspended 4 games.

Demarius Thomas wears a pair of $45 tennis shoes and the entire program gets put on probation for 4 years.

Like CPJ said. "Life isn't always fair."
 

alpha

Dodd-Like
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
5,563
If you compare what happened here to the Cam Newton situation before the SECCG, it seems that Auburn handled it correctly, and we didn't.

They ruled him ineligible (I believe), they appealed to the NCAA, made their case and got him officially cleared by the NCAA.

We apparently blew the NCAA off, and went forward with our players assuming that we'd be able to address the issue appropriately later.

The reason we have been stripped of our ACCCG title is because we used players that had been ruled ineligible. The dollar value of this or that has nothing to do with it. The DRad communication to CPJ, or the discussions between CPJ and the players have nothing to do with it.
Yes, Cam was declared ineligible then reinstated on the same day which was a couple of days before a game. So with everything behind us, they technically did the right thing (which is to say... did everything NCAA told them or expected them to do).

However, since the Auburn issue happened a full year after our investigation, did NCAA's bylaws or instructions clearly state that GT should hold the players out until the NCAA has cleared them? Maybe Auburn asked the right questions last year and we didn't the year before.

Lastly, the biggest difference between the Auburn investigation and our investigation was that, the NCAA got pissed that DRad told CPJ and CPJ asked Morgan Burnett about the cell phone allegation. NCAA stated that by us doing this, it "appeared" to have been done to coach our players on what to say when the NCAA AGA interviewed the player. Is this even a bylaw? Considering how high-profile the Auburn case was, are they saying that Gene Chizik never had a meeting with Cam Newton before NCAA came on their campus for interviews? I highly doubt it.
 

HelluvaMGTmjr

Damn Good Rat
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
1,480
What pisses me off:

AJ Green sells a jersey for $1,000 and gets suspended 4 games.

Demarius Thomas wears a pair of $45 tennis shoes and the entire program gets put on probation for 4 years.

Like CPJ said. "Life isn't always fair."
I don't know...seems to me the AJ Green punishment was much worse. Probation doesn't mean squat and has no bearing on the season. Your #1 bad ass WR getting suspended for 1/3 of the season is very bad for business.
 

yellowphysics

Jolly Good Fellow
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
1,676
Yes, Cam was declared ineligible then reinstated on the same day which was a couple of days before a game. So with everything behind us, they technically did the right thing (which is to say... did everything NCAA told them or expected them to do).
The NCAA had little financial interest in keeping bebe or Morgan eligible. I'm guessing they would not have been reinstated so quickly as Cam.
 

beej67

new around here
Joined
Oct 18, 2002
Messages
56,552
They ruled him ineligible (I believe), they appealed to the NCAA, made their case and got him officially cleared by the NCAA.

We apparently blew the NCAA off, and went forward with our players assuming that we'd be able to address the issue appropriately later.
We were made aware of the allegations the TUESDAY BEFORE THANKSGIVING, WITH THE GEORGIA GAME COMING UP, and had to make our decision then. Even so, it was an easy decision that the ACC vetted.

Auburn knew they'd have time to get the appeal done / etc. Someone clearly set us up, in my opinion.
 

alpha

Dodd-Like
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
5,563
The NCAA had little financial interest in keeping bebe or Morgan eligible. I'm guessing they would not have been reinstated so quickly as Cam.
Exactly. I'm just using Cam as an example considering NCAA had no proof, only allegations.

If I use OSU's case as an example, it's even more mind blowing. There was proof that players received free tattoos yet they still declared them "eligible" (what the hell does this mean now anyway?) and let them play in the Sugar Bowl and allowed OSU to suspend them five games in 2011. Yet, Terrell Pryor is no longer with the team. So, we could have said, let them DT and MB play and they can be punished the following year. Again, of course, none of these things are in the NCAA bylaws and they are pulling random öööö out of their ass.
 

coit

Y’all got any more of that D Fence?
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
87,927
What pisses me off:

AJ Green sells a jersey for $1,000 and gets suspended 4 games.

Demarius Thomas wears a pair of $45 tennis shoes and the entire program gets put on probation for 4 years.

And the key difference is that UGA sat AJ out, and we didn't sit our guys out. Had the UGA thing surfaced in November like ours did, AJ would not have played against us, or in their bowl game, assuming the self-imposed penalty would've been the same.
 

coit

Y’all got any more of that D Fence?
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
87,927
We were made aware of the allegations the TUESDAY BEFORE THANKSGIVING, WITH THE GEORGIA GAME COMING UP, and had to make our decision then. Even so, it was an easy decision that the ACC vetted.

This is something I must've overlooked. Did GT indeed get the ACC office involved? That could help our case.
 

jacket1515

Jolly Good Fellow
Joined
Aug 21, 2002
Messages
1,835
jacket1515's summary of this issue for dummies:

1) Somebody gave DT $312 worth of clothes. There is no clear evidence of who gave him the clothes, but it could have been his cousin. He gave all but $45 worth of the clothes back (side note; the DeDe situation provided a greater $ value of benefits to TJB and is considered a minor violation). There is no proof that MB received any clothes.
2) Under advice of the ACC & legal counsel, Tech did not rule DT or MB ineligible. The likelihood is that even if they had they would have (eventually) been reinstated. Even though they would not have been ineligible the NCAA is taking away our ACCC because they were ineligibly eligible. Or something.
3) MB supposedly got given a cell phone by Calvin Booker. Even though it was proven that MB's cell phone was bought by his mom (i.e. he was not ineligible), the NCAA thinks we should have ruled him ineligible.
4) MB was told (along with CPJ) about the situation and upcoming interview even though the NCAA told us that only the DoA and ADoA could know about it. CPJ and DR told him to tell the truth to NCAA investigators. Because of this, we get 4 years probation.
5) Some basketball stuff
 

ramblinzach

Flats Noob
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
571
We were made aware of the allegations the TUESDAY BEFORE THANKSGIVING, WITH THE GEORGIA GAME COMING UP, and had to make our decision then. Even so, it was an easy decision that the ACC vetted.

Auburn knew they'd have time to get the appeal done / etc. Someone clearly set us up, in my opinion.
I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist but the timing is ridiculous and the amount of money that attracted this is also ridiculous.

Ridiculous.

Just wanted to say it again.

ridiculous
 

coit

Y’all got any more of that D Fence?
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
87,927
According to our chief legal advisor at the time, yes.

Check out the second quote from my post here:

In order to have sufficient information to render a decision on eligibility, President Peterson asked the University’s then-chief legal advisor, Randy Nordin, for a recommendation as to his assessment of the eligibility of these two individuals. The President ultimately made the decision to allow the young men to compete based primarily upon that recommendation which was presented in a November 25, 2009, e-mail from Nordin to the director of athletics, Dan Radakovich, on which President Peterson was copied (See Exhibit 3-4). According to
Nordin, his position was based upon the lack of information that a violation occurred and that the investigation by the NCAA was not complete. During his interview, when asked about the reasons for his recommendation, Nordin mentioned: (i) an interpretation received from the Atlantic Coast Conference; (ii) the institutional interview with Thomas on November 24; and (iii) his conversation with Radakovich.

So, it sounds like we made the decision without informing the NCAA? Sounds like we should've (if we didn't) written the NCAA, told them that we dispute their claim of ineligibility, and asked them to defer their decision until their investigation could be fully completed.

But maybe we did all of that?
 

alpha

Dodd-Like
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
5,563
So, it sounds like we made the decision without informing the NCAA? Sounds like we should've (if we didn't) written the NCAA, told them that we dispute their claim of ineligibility, and asked them to defer their decision until their investigation could be fully completed.

But maybe we did all of that?
That is basically the mistake both Bud and DRad admitted that they made in hindsight.

If the above quote was written like this, they wouldn't have been able to take our ACC Championship away:

(i) an interpretation received from the NCAA
Not sure what made them think just getting an interpretation from the ACC was enough to declare the players as eligible to play. I guess they were expecting that NCAA would eventually agree with the ruling given that they didn't have any evidence.
 

hdtvfan

Dodd-Like
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
2,659
This is something I must've overlooked. Did GT indeed get the ACC office involved? That could help our case.
I think that we did and would hope that it would help our case. I do believe that we should appeal and make a stink out of this, would love to see some of this crap reduced or overturned.
 

ElCidBUZZingFAN

Dodd-Like
Joined
Nov 1, 2006
Messages
24,540
Does a conference ever go to bat for one of its teams in cases such as this? Basically, I wonder how involved the ACC will be in our appeal.
 

ramblinzach

Flats Noob
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
571
I think that we did and would hope that it would help our case. I do believe that we should appeal and make a stink out of this, would love to see some of this crap reduced or overturned.
You think Swofford has the spine to stand up for something that isn't in Carolina?
 

Stick

Flats Noob
Joined
Jul 4, 2004
Messages
509
jacket1515's summary of this issue for dummies:

4) MB was told (along with CPJ) about the situation and upcoming interview even though the NCAA told us that only the DoA and President could know about it.
ftfy
 
Top