Analyzing the penalty

[andrew]

So I was in and out of meetings most of the afternoon and didn't get to share my thoughts on the penalties. Since I know you all value my opinion so much, here they are:

1. They were definitely looking to make an example out of us. Calling a press conference and making a big deal out of a couple hundred dollars' worth of benefits? This is the type of stuff that is normally a secondary violation that carries no penalty. Plus, they basically said it outright: "This case provides a cautionary tale of conduct..."
2. This isn't a case of being so mad at Ohio State that Georgia Tech gets punished. No scholarship reductions? No postseason ban? This is the NCAA being in full bitch mode and taking no prisoners. In fact, their reaction to something as minor as this makes me think the hammer is going to come down on OSU...hard. They basically did what we did, only times 100.
3. On appeal, I believe we will keep the ACC championship. It still seems unclear whether Thomas should even have been ineligible...again, that is the type of thing that normally gets off with no punishment at all. We'll have to carry the probation though, since the NCAA wouldn't make a big show of all this and then take it all back.
4. It's commonly said that vacating wins isn't really a punishment at all, not even a slap on the wrist, because you can't take away memories. I think all of our feelings today have proven that theory false.
5. All that said...it could be a lot worse. Yeah it's embarrassing as hell, yeah probation is bad news, but we didn't lose any scholarships and we weren't banned from any bowls. Life will go on and we won't be at a competitive disadvantage as a result of this. Given what we were all fearing during the day, I'll take this.
6. Dede is one dumb bitch. Also she should probably be put on suicide watch...only half joking.

 

[gtbuzz2011]

I agree with everything, especially #3. Very poor evidence against Tech knowingly allowing a questionably eligible player to play in one of the biggest games of the year.

Side note- Jeff Schultz sucks. He said that we did the same thing as the mutts with AJ except uga did right by holding out AJ for the first four games last season. I guarantee they would have played him had it been against UF or us.

 

[PM Gold]

The mutts always get their probations thrown out...maybe we need to read their playbook.
What bothers me is this penalty doesnt fit the "crime"

 

[gtzulu]

Good opinions, all of them. I am crossing my fingers on #3. I think the reason we care about the vacation is that we as Tech fans feel insulted because we pride ourselves on winning the right way--and we did.

 

[vapspwi]

I agree with everything, especially #3. Very poor evidence against Tech knowingly allowing a questionably eligible player to play in one of the biggest games of the year.

Apparently the president of Tech believed, with advice from the ACC, the NCAA, and others that we were most likely OK to play Bay Bay. From what I've read today, "questionably eligible" seems like too strong a statement.

JRjr

 

[GT98]

[*]On appeal, I believe we will keep the ACC championship. It still seems unclear whether Thomas should even have been ineligible...again, that is the type of thing that normally gets off with no punishment at all. We'll have to carry the probation though, since the NCAA wouldn't make a big show of all this and then take it all back.

[/LIST]

Based upon Dr. Peterson's letter, GT and the ACC thought that the player in question was eligible. I would think GT has a good shot of keeping the title on an appeal and the NCAA would make GT pay the fine and stay on the 4 years probation deal.

Bigger deal is no loss of schollies or postseason ban. I thought we would be looking at that when the "big" news broke this morning.

 

[aeromech]

#3, if you read Peterson's letter to the NCAA he admits he made a mistake by not ruling Thomas ineligible. While I personally think that is questionable, it will be hard to argue on appeal that he may not have been ineligible, since GT has already admitted in writing that he should have been. Peterson's letter should have never been edited by a lawyer in my opinion.

 

[gtzulu]

BTW, did anyone else as a first reaction think Paul Johnson had stepped down when they saw 550 people online and a mega thread that said "Important News" for Georgia Tech?

 

[GT98]

BTW, did anyone else as a first reaction think Paul Johnson had stepped down when they saw 550 people online and a mega thread that said "Important News" for Georgia Tech?

Thankfully no. I did however expect to see a loss of a bunch of schollies.

I'll never forget, I was on my honeymoon in Hawaii when I saw the ESPN ticker for the probation/loss of schollies thanks to Carol Moore back in '03.

 

[GT98]

#3, if you read Peterson's letter to the NCAA he admits he made a mistake by not ruling Thomas ineligible. While I personally think that is questionable, it will be hard to argue on appeal that he may not have been ineligible, since GT has already admitted in writing that he should have been. Peterson's letter should have never been edited by a lawyer in my opinion.

Didn't he state that GT thought he was eligible along w/the ACC? Or I am losing my mind...

 

[gtzulu]

Thankfully no. I did however expect to see a loss of a bunch of schollies.

I'll never forget, I was on my honeymoon in Hawaii when I saw the ESPN ticker for the probation/loss of schollies thanks to Carol Moore back in '03.

You knew it wasn't going to be anything good. What important news could possibly be good?

 

[aeromech]

Didn't he state that GT thought he was eligible along w/the ACC? Or I am losing my mind...

Yes, he stated that and should have stopped there. On page 2 he further says:

"The decision to allow the student athlete to play was likely incorrect"

"One of my primary reasons for not declaring the young men ineligible...However, in hindsight, more detailed and accurate information might have been helpful and may have resulted in a different decision."

 

[GT98]

You knew it wasn't going to be anything good. What important news could possibly be good?

Generally, any news about your team in the offseason isn't good. Sure, maybe a commit or 2, but generally news ain't good.

Still, I guess that I still have that image of standing in the hotel seeing the '03 team get gutted on the espn ticker. My first thought was loss of schollies.

Thankfully, we dodged that one. Other than the AJC/turds on sports radio that I don't listen to, I would imagine that this won't be thought of by the average sports fan in a few weeks. Still hope that we appeal...

 

[GT98]

Yes, he stated that and should have stopped there. On page 2 he further says:

"The decision to allow the student athlete to play was likely incorrect"

"One of my primary reasons for not declaring the young men ineligible...However, in hindsight, more detailed and accurate information might have been helpful and may have resulted in a different decision."

Thanks for the clarification. I would imagine that GT has a decent point on the appeal to argue if that the school and the league thought that he was eligible, then it was ok to play him. I don't particularly like the last 2 sentences that you quoted, but I don't think that it kills the case. Perhaps, Dr. Petersen should have stated that GT acted based upon the information available and that the league cleared the player as well.

GT clearly needs better legal counsel--preferably counsel that is familiar w/the NCAA.

 

[JJacket]

The decision to play a student athlete - especially in this case - should err in the favor of the student athlete. He's the one busting his ass to play football and study, he's the one getting ööööing slammed to the ground play after play, and he's the one risking lifelong injury on every play. Screw the NCAA.

The NCAA is a big sham. I wish someone would do an investigation on all of those old codgers and see how many confilict of interests they can come up with among NCAA execs (golf memberships, tickets, vacations etc....).

 

[aeromech]

GT clearly needs better legal counsel--preferably counsel that is familiar w/the NCAA.

This. I would have thought after our last little episode with the NCAA this would have been fixed. It is like we went from no legal counsel to poor legal counsel, maybe now we finally have good legal counsel.

 

[cantSpellConvictWithoutVT]

The following argument is admittedly a bit of a simplification, but there seems to be an obvious contradiction here:

The NCAA can mollycoddle the likes of UNC and Auburn since the powers that be have plead ignorance of any wrongdoing despite the complete and utter lack of institutional control.

And yet the infractions committee today made it obvious that their decision was made less on the grounds of the the $312 violation and more on the grounds that GT did not "cooperate" which stems in large part to the lack of information flowing to the top (Bud's office). So Bud's decision was made not knowing of the extent of the violations, not unlike the case with Thorp and Butch supposedly having no clue about wrongdoings, and yet we get nailed.

Meanwhile, the NCAA and UNC can be seen teabagging in Piedmont Park.

Too bad this precedent was not clearly established at the time of Bud's letter.

 

[hdtvfan]

You knew it wasn't going to be anything good. What important news could possibly be good?

Fool that I am, my first thought on hearing that there was important news for GT football is that we were going to get selected for one of the kickoff games. Boy, did that go in a totally different direction, I should have known better than to think that it might be good news.

 

[GT98]

This. I would have thought after our last little episode with the NCAA this would have been fixed. It is like we went from no legal counsel to poor legal counsel, maybe now we finally have good legal counsel.

GT needs an Ed Tolley to represent them. Think that this öööö would even have been an issue if Ugag was involved and Tolley on the case?

 

[Yukonwreck]

Are we still eligible to compete for the conference championship?