NCAA Press Release Archive
« back to archive | Back to NCAA.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
NCAA News Release
|
NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee Upholds Five Findings Of Violations And Vacates Two Penalties Against The Georgia Institute Of Technology
|
For Immediate Release
Thursday, May 18, 2006
|
Contact(s)
Gail Dent Associate Director of Public and Media Relations 317/917-6117
|
INDIANAPOLIS --- The NCAA Division I Infractions Appeals Committee upheld five findings of violations and vacated two penalties against the Georgia Institute of Technology that involved its athletics program between the 1988-89 and 2004-05 academic years.
Specifically, the violations centered on 17 student-athletes over a six-year period being certified as making satisfactory progress toward their degrees even though their academic work did not meet the standards established by NCAA bylaws. All 17 student-athletes were improperly certified as eligible through Georgia Tech�s then existing certification process. For example, six student-athletes were allowed to use courses in which they received grades of D even though their majors required a grade of C or higher in order for those courses to count toward their degrees.
In its November 2005 report, the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions found that Georgia Tech had allowed a breakdown in its eligibility certification process and also had failed to exercise necessary institutional control. Though the committee felt that the university�s self-imposed penalties were meaningful, the committee levied additional penalties because it believed that the university had obtained a substantial competitive advantage because of the large number of prominent student-athletes who competed while ineligible.
In its written appeal, Georgia Tech asserted that the findings of violations II-A-1-c; II-A-1-f; II-A-2-f; and II-A-3-b, which involved football student-athletes who competed while ineligible, should be set aside because those penalties were based on events that occurred prior to the year 2000 and therefore should have been barred by the statute of limitations in NCAA Bylaw 32.6.3. Georgia Tech also asserted that penalties III-C, III-F and III-H, involving limitations on grants-in-aid and vacating football team records, were inappropriate and excessive.
In its written report, the Infractions Appeals Committee upheld findings II-A-1-c; II-A-1-f; II-A-2-f; and II-A-3-b without further review stating that Georgia Tech had failed to raise the statute of limitations issue during the Committee on Infractions hearing. The Infractions Appeals Committee determined that any statute of limitations issue must be raised in a manner, and at a time, sufficient to provide the Committee on Infractions with a reasonable opportunity to consider the matter.
Regarding the penalty for grants-in-aid limitations [III-C], the Infractions Appeals Committee found no basis to conclude that the penalty was excessive or inappropriate. Georgia Tech originally self imposed penalties to reduce the number of initial counters by six for the 2005-06 and 2006-07 academic years. The Committee on Infractions imposed an additional penalty limiting the university to 79 overall counters for the 2006-07 and 2007-08 academic years. The Infractions Appeals Committee determined that such a penalty is not inappropriate because it is provided for in Bylaw 19.5.2.1-(e). The Infractions Appeals Committee found further that there was no basis on which to conclude that the penalty was excessive.
Regarding the penalties related to the vacation of football team records for all contests during the seasons in which ineligible student-athletes competed [III-F, III-H], the Infractions Appeals Committee determined that the Committee on Infractions� decision was excessive in that the penalty was inconsistent with the Infractions Appeals Committee�s action in similar cases. Thus, the Infractions Appeals Committee reversed penalties III-F and III-H which related to the vacation of Georgia Tech's football team records.
The members of the Infractions Appeals Committee who heard the case are: Christopher Griffin, Foley & Lardner LLP, chair; William Hoye, University of Notre Dame; Noel Ragsdale, University of Southern California; Allan Ryan Jr., Harvard University; and Robert Stein, American Bar Association.
|
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy
| |
