per AJC: significant announcement for GT football

ramblinzach

Flats Noob
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
571
We'll just have to be content with the '09 record as the NCAA left it.

We're Coastal Division champs who defeated the Atlantic division champs.
Once officially, then again just for öööös and giggles but not a trophy.
 

GT to AZ

Helluva Engineer
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
2,059
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 wonder if they thought we didn't have enough time or they didn't think they needed to declare them ineligible and have them quickly reinstated. The sCam Newton case had not yet happened at that time so it wasn't an obvious reference like it is now.
 

GT to AZ

Helluva Engineer
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
2,059
I don't think our situation can be compared to the Auburn and Cam Newton case. Basically, Auburn was able to put the screws to the NCAA by threatening to hold him out of the game. The consequences of that would be huge, and the NCAA backed down because they knew they didn't have sufficient evidence to jeopardize the championship game. Auburn was able to say, "put up or shut up!" I don't think DR would have had any influence on the NCAA by threatening to do the same with Thomas.
I disagree. It's the BCS that cared so much about the game, not the NCAA. Your post is pure speculation.
 

Allen Koholic

Likes dick drawings.
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
25,776
Can't the ACC say, based on the collective results of the 2009 football season, that Tech, having only one conference loss, is the de facto winner of the 2009 Championship? The ACCCG never happened, but based on records, we were the best team that season. Like how the Big 10 was doing it.

That would be some really funny öööö.
 

GT to AZ

Helluva Engineer
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
2,059
As mad as everyone is right now, can you imagine if we had beaten ugay in '09 and the NCAA vacated that win too? Talk about chaos......and maybe some death threats for the NCAA.
 

lonestarjacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
10,278
As mad as everyone is right now, can you imagine if we had beaten ugay in '09 and the NCAA vacated that win too? Talk about chaos......and maybe some death threats for the NCAA.

Shouldn't our loss be vacated as well? Only fair.:wink:
 

lonestarjacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
10,278
Is the NCAA policy "guilty until proven innocent?" In other words, if there are allegations against a player, is the institution expected to sit that player out until they can prove that they aren't guilty of the alleged violation?
+1

Was going to post the same thing. It fails the test of logic. I don't care what Auburn did or didn't do.

It is a matter of who is to judge the risk and make the decision, the NCAA or the school. If fault is found afterwards and the school made the decision to take the risk, then the consequences make sense. But if no fault is found (not suspiscion, but fault) then obviously the school made the RIGHT decision.

The NCAA wants the schools to cede the judgement to them on whether a player should be instated, whether they have evidence or not.

In hindsight, we should have made the same deal Auburn did as I am sure they knew he would be reinstated by the NCAA before they ever gave them the option.

Who holds the NCAA accountable for their actions?
 

FatJacket

Helluva Engineer
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
2,205
Can't the ACC say, based on the collective results of the 2009 football season, that Tech, having only one conference loss, is the de facto winner of the 2009 Championship? The ACCCG never happened, but based on records, we were the best team that season. Like how the Big 10 was doing it.

That would be some really funny öööö.
Allen, ask Philthy if his leg was never broken inthe game that never happened?
 

jacket67

Dodd-Like
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
15,392
I disagree. It's the BCS that cared so much about the game, not the NCAA. Your post is pure speculation.
Yes, it is pure speculation. But to say that the NCAA wouldn't care about how their investigation might effect the outcome of the BCS championship is crazy. I'm sure they would have ruled Newton ineligible if they had real evidence in the case. Auburn could have insisted on playing him all along, and the NCAA could sit back and wait however long they wanted to rule him ineligible retrospectively, and hand down penalties on Auburn. That would be easy. Instead, Auburn said based on the investigation, we won't play him. Without a valid case, the NCAA would have looked terrible and lost all credibility as an enforcement agency for influencing the game. The NCAA does not want to put itself in a position of taking an action and then not being able to support it later. If every rumor, accusation or investigation has the effect of disqualifying players before the facts are known, it will become a farce. I believe the NCAA knows this and hopes to avoid any rulings on eligibility prior to completing a 2 year investigation. DR gave them the perfect loophole by allowing them to rule on a procedural error and mostly ignore eligibility. Unfortunately, not many programs can force the NCAA's hand the way Auburn did.
 

GT to AZ

Helluva Engineer
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
2,059
Yes, it is pure speculation. But to say that the NCAA wouldn't care about how their investigation might effect the outcome of the BCS championship is crazy. I'm sure they would have ruled Newton ineligible if they had real evidence in the case. Auburn could have insisted on playing him all along, and the NCAA could sit back and wait however long they wanted to rule him ineligible retrospectively, and hand down penalties on Auburn. That would be easy. Instead, Auburn said based on the investigation, we won't play him. Without a valid case, the NCAA would have looked terrible and lost all credibility as an enforcement agency for influencing the game. The NCAA does not want to put itself in a position of taking an action and then not being able to support it later. If every rumor, accusation or investigation has the effect of disqualifying players before the facts are known, it will become a farce. I believe the NCAA knows this and hopes to avoid any rulings on eligibility prior to completing a 2 year investigation. DR gave them the perfect loophole by allowing them to rule on a procedural error and mostly ignore eligibility. Unfortunately, not many programs can force the NCAA's hand the way Auburn did.
I see what your saying now. I interpreted your first comments as the NCAA being manipulated by Auburn due to financial interest rather than what you just described.
 

jacket67

Dodd-Like
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
15,392
As a follow-up to my previous post, I should point out that, while the NCAA has no interest in ruling on eligibility the week after they start an investigation, they do not seem to be willing to let programs do an internal investigation. This creates the "catch-22" that DR found himself in the week before the UGA game. A rumor about Thomas triggered an NCAA investigation, and Tech was notified with instructions not to pursue the facts themselves. In such a situation, the NCAA ruling will not come for 2 years and the program is unable to evaluate the risk of playing the athlete by conducting their own investigation. With the consequences being what they are, schools will be forced to consider every rumor grounds to sit the involved athlete for at least the rest of the season, pending NCAA judgement. Let the rumors begin!
 

Diseqc

Dodd-Like
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
47,787
Someone's not exactly helping matters...
Not that it matters who a professional athlete works out with, but I actually feel Bilbo got unfairly treated by the GTAA. He didn't seem to be involved at all, and was surprised that they banned him from Tech.
 
Top