GA Tech is upset with their sanctions.

[scbamaman1]

Article in the AJC says that Ga Tech doesn't like to be punished for cheating over the last several years. http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/gatech/stories/0302appeal. What makes this so funny is that Ga Tech fans think they are above sanctions.

 

[scbamaman1]

If you get a broken link msg. Scroll down to Sports and click on Tech and there are a couple of interesting stories about their problem.

 

[Alanbama27]

I agree with Tech on one major issue and that is the way the NCAA decides to handle the statute of limitations. The NCAA basically decides when it begins and ends and there is no logical way to understand the statute or how it is decided upon. As for losing seasons based on the play of ineligible players...we lost an entire year due to one player being deemed as ineligible, so I think it's a one to one ratio. For every year a player plays who is later found to have been inelgibile, you lose a year from the record books. It doesn't matter to me if you have 5 players who are inelgible for one year or one...it's the same forfeit.

 

[kcin_4_BAMA]

In 2004, the NCAA notified Tech that an anonymous tipster had reported violations

Uh, oh.....looks like the phat one is at it again. I guess, like he said: "If you're not cheating, uhh, I mean moving ahead, you're backing up"

RTR-stop the streak

 

[Bama323]

I wonder how many times UT has been reported anonymously? My guess would be more than once.

 

[scbamaman1]

I think Ga Tech got out light compared to what Bama received. We were taken to the cleaners over a player getting $200 for signing a contract on a napkin in a bar after a bowl game. If you read the law suit that is discussed in the other article it implies that the Ga Tech President was involved in the cover-up. Their whole problem was LOIC. I wonder how long Ga Tech had been using players that were not eligible before 1998?

 

[CapstoneStan]

I think the deal on the napkin was $400, but either way that napkin caused a lot of problem for Alabama.

 

[Bama 13-0]

I always thought the "deal on a napkin" thing was mostly urban legend. If an agent was really hounding Langham for his signature, I would imagine that he would have a valid contract handy. My guess is that Langham signed a real contract, but Coach Stallins didn't give it much thought because he didn't think Langham took any money.

 

[Bama 13-0]

I always thought the "deal on a napkin" thing was mostly urban legend. If an agent was really hounding Langham for his signature, I would imagine that he would have a valid contract handy. My guess is that Langham signed a real contract, but Coach Stallins didn't give it much thought because he didn't think Langham took any money.

Sorry for the double post. Moderators, delete this one, or both , if you are so inclined.

 

[scbamaman1]

The point I was trying to make was that I didn't think the napkin deal reached the level of the Administration allowing ineligible players play for 6 years. The UA has never been hit with LOIC and that is what Ga Tech is guilty of doing. Face it, if a player does not pass his courses everyone at the university know it happened. Ga Tech got off light. They are beginning to sound like UTK.