per AJC: significant announcement for GT football

To be appealed --OR--not? Sounded like they accepted the sanctions--this is SO stupid.
 
If you honestly think GT is accepting the sanctions, you are as stupid as Dede. Seriously. GTFO.

Gt will not only appeal, but I expect they'll manage to demand an apology from the NCAA for wasting our ööööing time.
 
JacketFan77 said:
Really? That's the BIG DEAL? As DRad said, the student would have gone to CPJ as soon as the NCAA contacted him. Is it really our fault that the NCAA has some retarted SOP for interviewing student athletes under investigation? For most of them, their coach is like their second father. Give me a ööööing break. DRad's only öööö up was overlooking that the NCAA rules are not common sense rules.
Click to expand...

It is the big deal. The doc seems to suggest that we pulled bey bey aside and fed him what he was supposed to say / let him know what he was going to be asked about. If that's the case its sketchy.

Beside the point - DRad should have taken the NCAA's request not to tell anyone else at face value. Lesson learned.
 
Legal Jacket said:
It is the big deal. The doc seems to suggest that we pulled bey bey aside and fed him what he was supposed to say / let him know what he was going to be asked about. If that's the case its sketchy.

Beside the point - DRad should have taken the NCAA's request not to tell anyone else at face value. Lesson learned.
Click to expand...

The doc suggests that. DRad denies it. Hello appeal.
 
ND_jacket said:
There were definitely a couple of moments where their true feelings were abundantly clear. I don't think anything the NCAA can point to and say "OMG, look what you said!", however. They also did a very good job of admitting to mistakes and describing corrective actions. It's the "Yes, we made mistakes, but you don't have this 100% correct, so let's meet in the middle on these sanctions." response. Honestly, if we got the earlier wins we had to vacate reinstated (we'd been misapplying an eligibility rule for multiple years, which is really a big oversight problem), the mea cupla here should be enough to keep the ACC title.

Also curious about a statement from the girl up in NC.
Click to expand...

Didn't Bud say wtte "we're looking to move forward". It sounded more to me that we didn't agree with everything, but accept the sanctions. In fact, that was one of the questions directly to Bud, and he really came off as "we're going to accept the sanctions".
 
JacketFan77 said:
The doc suggests that. DRad denies it. Hello appeal.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And the doc makes accusations that they probably have no evidence for.
It sounds like the had Bebe guilty from the start, then he denied and they couldn't prove it, so then they blamed it on Tech "coaching" Bebe's responses.
We WILL appeal, and we will get it reduced.

It's funny to me how the NCAA seems to move a lot quicker when investigating Tech.
 
txsting said:
Didn't Bud say wtte "we're looking to move forward". It sounded more to me that we didn't agree with everything, but accept the sanctions. In fact, that was one of the questions directly to Bud, and he really came off as "we're going to accept the sanctions".
Click to expand...

He also said "we've had this report for less than 24 hours. We are going to review it and then decide on how to proceed."
 
So I read through the response, most of it anyways, its all pseudo legalistic prattle, but anyways, only mention of Bilbo in the entire document is under the punitive actions page "Disassociated former student-athletes Calvin Booker and Damarius Bilbo from using any athletics department facilities and receiving complimentary tickets from any student-athletes and/or staff members, effective November 19, 2009."

Did I miss something about Bilbo in here?
 
JacketFan77 said:
The doc suggests that. DRad denies it. Hello appeal.
Click to expand...

The only thing Drad denies is that there was intent. He admits to taking the substance of the matter to CPJ. That is where he opens himself up to strong critique. That constitutes a major violation, obviously.

How exactly is DRad going to prove his intent? If he doesn't have any recorded evidence, it's just a "he said, she said". If this was going on UGA or Alabama, what would your opinion be based on the above facts?

The NCAA angle is weak as well - I suspect they don't have strong evidence of a cover up. They just noticed that the story changed and they put 2 and 2 together. They made an inference.

I'll go on the record and guess there is no appeal. I don't see much basis for it. Does anyone find any steak in the reasons DRad gave for making his "managerial decision"? None of it really landed with me.
 
txsting said:
The only thing Drad denies is that there was intent. He admits to taking the substance of the matter to CPJ. That is where he opens himself up to strong critique. That constitutes a major violation, obviously.

How exactly is DRad going to prove his intent? If he doesn't have any recorded evidence, it's just a "he said, she said". If this was going on UGA or Alabama, what would your opinion be based on the above facts?

The NCAA angle is weak as well - I suspect they don't have strong evidence of a cover up. They just noticed that the story changed and they put 2 and 2 together. They made an inference.

I'll go on the record and guess there is no appeal. I don't see much basis for it. Does anyone find any steak in the reasons DRad gave for making his "managerial decision"? None of it really landed with me.
Click to expand...

Fine, noob. You can come back on here in a few weeks and post an "I told you so" thread and fap away over it in your mom's basement. Until that day, stfu.
 
It's days like today I'm glad StingTalk uncensored this word:
öööö!
 
RamblinPeck said:
So I read through the response, most of it anyways, its all pseudo legalistic prattle, but anyways, only mention of Bilbo in the entire document is under the punitive actions page "Disassociated former student-athletes Calvin Booker and Damarius Bilbo from using any athletics department facilities and receiving complimentary tickets from any student-athletes and/or staff members, effective November 19, 2009."

Did I miss something about Bilbo in here?
Click to expand...
Bilbo's been mentioned as a runner for an agent as well.
 
txsting said:
The only thing Drad denies is that there was intent. He admits to taking the substance of the matter to CPJ. That is where he opens himself up to strong critique. That constitutes a major violation, obviously.

How exactly is DRad going to prove his intent? If he doesn't have any recorded evidence, it's just a "he said, she said". If this was going on UGA or Alabama, what would your opinion be based on the above facts?

The NCAA angle is weak as well - I suspect they don't have strong evidence of a cover up. They just noticed that the story changed and they put 2 and 2 together. They made an inference.

I'll go on the record and guess there is no appeal. I don't see much basis for it. Does anyone find any steak in the reasons DRad gave for making his "managerial decision"? None of it really landed with me.
Click to expand...

Pretty much how i see it.
 
txsting said:
Didn't Bud say wtte "we're looking to move forward". It sounded more to me that we didn't agree with everything, but accept the sanctions. In fact, that was one of the questions directly to Bud, and he really came off as "we're going to accept the sanctions".
Click to expand...
You clearly do not understand how this game is played. Until your team has fully analyzed every weakness of the NCAA report and decided on the best avenue for appeal, you play it a bit conciliatory while still insisting on your version of the facts. The lawyers (and thank god the idiot Randy Nordin who got us into this mess, in part, is no longer involved) will dissect the thing into little tiny pieces and decide how to proceed. Every thing you say at the press conference could be used by the NCAA to shoot down your appeal, so you don't say too much until you know what approach to take to the appeal.
 
A lot of you guys are confusing this whole process with the US justice system. It's not the same thing. The NCAA is the detectives, court, appellate court, prosecutor, jury, and judge.

I think if there is anything that we've learned from what's been happening with NCAA violations in the last 24 months, it's that the NCAA doesn't like to be embarrassed and they can pull up a ridiculous bylaw to cover up their own asses. This is exactly what's happening to us now.

Has there ever been any precedent on the NCAA apologizing for their mistakes?
 
ND_jacket said:
You clearly do not understand how this game is played. Until your team has fully analyzed every weakness of the NCAA report and decided on the best avenue for appeal, you play it a bit conciliatory while still insisting on your version of the facts. The lawyers (and thank god the idiot Randy Nordin who got us into this mess, in part, is no longer involved) will dissect the thing into little tiny pieces and decide how to proceed. Every thing you say at the press conference could be used by the NCAA to shoot down your appeal, so you don't say too much until you know what approach to take to the appeal.
Click to expand...

You're right. Of course the early response leaves wiggle room and doesn't come down too harshly. We can freely move in whichever direction we would like. Though, I disagree that the direction is clearly an appeal.
 
alpha said:
A lot of you guys are confusing this whole process with the US justice system. It's not the same thing. The NCAA is the detectives, court, appellate court, prosecutor, jury, and judge.

I think if there is anything that we've learned from what's been happening with NCAA violations in the last 24 months, it's that the NCAA doesn't like to be embarrassed and they can pull up a ridiculous bylaw to cover up their own asses. This is exactly what's happening to us now.

Has there ever been any precedent on the NCAA apologizing for their mistakes?
Click to expand...
The other thing that's distinctively NCAA is their tendency to over-sanction at first so that they can give something back on appeal. Their case on lack of cooperation is weak at best, so I could see the appeals committee keeping the fine (What's $100,000 when we're paying two former coaches millions per year?) but letting us have the ACC title.
 
txsting said:
You're right. Of course the early response leaves wiggle room and doesn't come down too harshly. We can freely move in whichever direction we would like. Though, I disagree that the direction is clearly an appeal.
Click to expand...

What is there to be gained by not appealing? What do we have to lose by appealing?
Answer those two questions and the direction is towards appeal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top