Earlier today, many an individual connected to the sport were caught off-guard when reports surfaced that the NCAA was set to announce its findings followed an investigation into the Georgia Tech football program.
First of all, there was nary a clue that Tech was even under investigation. Secondly, there were no details provided as to what exactly the NCAA had looked into, other than rumors that football players may have been the recipients of some free clothes or something along those lines.
The NCAA, however, has spoken, and cleared up the mystery surrounding the Yellow Jackets. Somewhat.
In its report released this afternoon, the NCAA concluded that an unnamed former Tech player received impermissible benefits from the “friend of an employee of a sports agency based in Atlanta, Georgia.” “Student-athlete 1" as the now-former player is described in the report, received several items of clothing from the friend of the sports agency employee worth $312 according to the NCAA.
Additionally, the report reads, “in November 2009, the NCAA agent, gambling and amateurism activities (AGA) staff developed information that a former Georgia Tech football student-athlete (“agency employee”) was working for an Atlanta-based professional sports agency and that he had provided impermissible benefits to a current Georgia Tech football student-athlete (“student-athlete 2").” The NCAA found that, in the case of student-athlete 2 -- who is a current player -- Tech officials “prepped” the player prior to his questioning by the NCAA; “The committee did not make a finding that student-athlete 2 received clothing, as he consistently denied this, although his denials may have been the result of the institution failing to protect the integrity of the NCAA’s investigation.”
As a result of the impermissible benefits found to have been received by student-athlete 1, and the university’s actions pertaining to providing information to student-athlete 2 ahead of his sit-down with the NCAA, the Association found the football program guilty of three major violations (a fourth violation was attributed to the basketball program):-- Preferential treatment. [NCAA Bylaw 12.1.2.1.6]
In October 2009, a friend of an employee of a sports agency based in Atlanta, Georgia, provided a then football student-athlete (“student-athlete 1") several items of clothing valued at approximately $312.
-- Failure to cooperate. [NCAA Bylaws 19.01.3 and 32.1.4]
On November 16, 2009, the institution failed to protect the integrity of the investigation and violated the cooperative principle when, contrary to specific instructions from the NCAA enforcement staff, institution staff members spoke to student-athlete 2 and told him the issues and related matters that would be the subject of his upcoming November 18, 2009, interview with the NCAA.
-- Failure to meet the conditions and obligations of membership. [NCAA Constitution 3.2.4.3 and Bylaw 14.11.1]
In late 2009, the institution failed to meet the conditions and obligations of membership in that the institution did not withhold student-athlete 1 from competition when the institution was made aware of information which raised serious questions about whether he was involved in violations of NCAA legislation and thus should have been declared ineligible.
Additionally, a secondary violation was uncovered during the course of the NCAA’s investigation:
As a result of those major violations, the Tech football program received the following sanctions:
-- Public reprimand and censure.
-- Four years of probation from July 14, 2011 through July 13, 2015. The public report further details the conditions of this probation.
-- A $100,000 financial penalty.
-- Head coach Paul Johnson will be required to “attend an NCAA Regional Rules Seminar in 2012.”
-- A vacation of all contests won by the football team during the 2009 season after November 24, which is when the university was alerted to the potential eligibility issues.
The latter penalty means that the Yellow Jackets will be forced to vacate their 2009 ACC title game win over Clemson. If they had beaten Iowa in the Orange Bowl a month later, and if they hadn’t lost to Georgia the week prior to the ACC title game, those wins would’ve been vacated as well as the NCAA concluded they played two players whose eligibility would’ve been in doubt.
For the complete report, you can click HERE if you have a minute or sixty to kill.
The school is expected to address the NCAA’s report in a 4:30 ET press conference this afternoon.