Skip to content

NCAA denies Georgia Tech appeal; ’09 ACC title still vacated

Paul Johnson AP

It’s officially official: Georgia Tech is no longer the ACC’s champion for the 2009 season.  Nor is anyone else, for that matter.

Eight months after appealing the NCAA’s decision to sanction the football program for events that occurred in late 2009, the Yellow Jackets announced Friday that The Association has denied said appeal.  The NCAA handed down its ruling to the school earlier this morning.

The NCAA announced last July that the Yellow Jackets football program had been found to have committed three major violations: preferential treatment, stemming from a former Tech player-turned-sports agency employee giving impermissible benefits to a then-current player; failure to cooperate, stemming from the university allegedly “prepping” another player prior to his interview with the NCAA; and failure to meet the conditions and obligations of membership, a charge that was the result of Tech failing to withhold for three games the player who had received impermissible benefits.

As a result, Tech was fined $100,000, placed on probation for four years and vacated any wins for the 2009 season that occurred after Nov. 24.  Included in the latter penalty was the stripping of the ACC title, which was the only penalty the university did not agree with and appealed.

“We are disappointed with the ruling of the NCAA appeals committee, but respect the process and the NCAA’s decision,” said Georgia Tech President G.P. “Bud” Peterson. “We felt we owed it to the Georgia Tech community and to our student athletes to exercise the appeals process provided by the NCAA in order to defend the integrity of Georgia Tech and to reaffirm our commitment to the principles and obligations of the NCAA.”

The ACC title was the only win vacated by the program.  Two other games were played after the athletic department was alerted to potential eligibility issues involving a football player  — former wide receiver Demaryius Thomas — but both of those were losses.

As noted by Tech in its release, the ruling issued today is the final decision in the NCAA appeal process.

Permalink 9 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Atlantic Coast Conference, Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets, Rumor Mill, Top Posts
9 Responses to “NCAA denies Georgia Tech appeal; ’09 ACC title still vacated”
  1. thekatman says: Mar 9, 2012 11:34 AM

    What happened to the NCAA mandate of 2 lost schollies per player over 3 years? Hmmmm. This makes the NCAA COI schollie debacle against USC seem even more insidious.

  2. thraiderskin says: Mar 9, 2012 1:16 PM

    USC deserved more! They pretty much let Bush and Mayo get paid lots of money and its a big time program (national championship caliber, in both sports).

  3. thekatman says: Mar 9, 2012 1:48 PM

    Unfortunately, you are spouting out misinformation, but it’s not your fault. The press and ESPN made a lot of errors in their reporting of the USC Bush issue.

    USC did not apy any money to Bush or his family. That problem was pure greed by Reggie’s parents, who instead of waiting a year for Reggie to graduate and make his millions, they took money from 2 criminals who were trying to use Reggie’s name as bait to get other athletes to sign with them and their very new and immature sports marketing company. Yes Reggie took about $16000 from them as well, but that was after his USC football days were over, but he was still finishing up the Spring 2006 semester.

    The NCAA COI did not accuse USC of any wrongdong in this case, other than “they should’ve known” that Reggie’s parents were taking money from the two criminals, Lake and Michaels, 120 miles away from campus. Sincce when is a university responsible for what a student athlete’s parents do? Especially when the family doesn’t even live nearby?

    So you think it’s OK for Cam Newton’s dad to shop him around for $180k – $200k then, right? That was wrong too, but nothing came out of that. The NCAA stated that since money wasn’t exchanged “as far as they’ve investigated”, then Cam was eligible. That was wrong too. The rule book stated that any sort of shopping an athlete is cause for sanctions and penalties.

    As for OJ Mayo, Miek Garrett, the AD at the time, knew Mayo was taking money from unscrupulous source, but not from USC. Mayo had been taking money since he was playing bball in the 8th grade. But Garrett needed a star player to bring in the crowds at the newly opened basketball arena. Yes, USC self sanctioned and they’re still being hurt by that.

    The 3rd athlete was a female tennis player from Eastern Europe who used an athletic dept calling card and called her family, to the tune of $7000. Guilty as charged, but no big deal.

    With the NCAA onsite at Oregon, they’ll uncover much more than a little Willie Lyles activity.

    With Ga Tech, they should lose 2 schollies per guilty player over 3 years…. that’s the rule,. though it seems the NCAA uses the rule book only when it feels like it. There is so much inconsistency with the NCAA’s approach to these kinds of issues, that this is the reason they are looking at ways to streamline the rulebook, shorten the investigation process… USC’s investigation took 4+ years, and publish specific penalties and sanctions for the various infractions.

  4. thraiderskin says: Mar 9, 2012 1:53 PM

    hmm… I was under the impression I said “LET” them get paid. However, I do appreciate the correction.

  5. jmb795 says: Mar 9, 2012 2:56 PM

    Is there a new ’09 champion?

  6. John Taylor says: Mar 9, 2012 3:03 PM

    @jmb795: no. The title’s been vacated.

  7. deanmarkley says: Mar 9, 2012 3:56 PM

    The “vacating” thing does not make sense to me. It skews statistics in that it makes a loss without creating a win. If a team cheats and has to “vacate” a win, why not award the opponent a win and any title involved?

  8. dmcgrann says: Mar 11, 2012 12:15 AM

    deanmarkley, I agree. But, it’s been a convenient out since Roger Maris’ asterisk.

  9. charliewade says: Mar 11, 2012 8:20 AM

    Oh no’s! They will have to take down any banners and stop mentioning they won that title from three years ago in publications.


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!