Georgia Tech wants its ACC title back. Its reputation, too.
On Thursday, the school notified the NCAA that it will appeal the July 14 ruling that stripped the school of its 2009 ACC football title. It will also appeal findings that it failed to cooperate and failed to meet obligations and conditions of NCAA membership in an investigation that began on an ultimately unfounded tip that former football player Morgan Burnett had received steak dinners and a cellphone from an agent.
“There’s been one successful appeal in the last 13, but this case has been so different than so many others that I would hope that in the end, the appellate group looks at the unique nature of this case, and we have a better opportunity specifically as it relates to [the vacated title],” athletics director Dan Radakovich said.
Tech will have 30 days, until Aug. 27, to file a written appeal. While the school can amend the list of findings or penalties it seeks to challenge, Tech’s notification did not include an intention to appeal the “preferential treatment” ruling regarding former football player Demaryius Thomas. The NCAA determined that Thomas had received $312 worth of clothes from his cousin’s roommate.
The school also didn’t include in the appeal form other penalties besides the vacated title — including four years’ probation and a $100,000 fine — or the “impermissible tryout” ruling regarding the men’s basketball team.
Tech officials, who pride themselves on the school’s integrity and honor, have chafed at the NCAA’s conclusion that it hindered the investigation and appeared to manipulate information to justify playing Thomas in games vs. Georgia, Clemson in the ACC championship and Iowa in the Orange Bowl. School president G.P. “Bud” Peterson has acknowledged mistakes in the process, but contended the school acted in good faith.
A school statement released Thursday said that Tech has “an unwavering commitment to the integrity of its athletics program, including full cooperation with the NCAA. We were very disappointed with the Infractions Committee’s ruling, and we feel that we owe it to our institution and to the student-athletes impacted by the ruling to exercise the appeal provided by the NCAA.”
As Radakovich noted, history does not support Tech’s efforts. In 2008, the NCAA raised the standard for overturning a penalty from it being found inappropriate based on evidence and circumstances to it being found “excessive such that it constitutes an abuse of discretion.” In the 13 appeals heard since, appellants have been successful only once, Alabama State in 2009.
Regarding the violations findings, Tech contended that they were “clearly contrary to the evidence presented to the [infractions] committee,” one of the three standards that must be met to overturn a finding.
Tech’s written appeal will begin a series of filings from the infractions committee, the school and possibly the NCAA enforcement staff that will conclude with a hearing before the infractions-appeals committee, a five-person group of four current or former staff members of NCAA schools or conferences and one member of the general public unaffiliated with the involved school.
Associate athletic director Wayne Hogan said the process could last into 2012.
About the Author
