re: AU fans, what do you know about Paul Parker?

quote:

---

But well played on dragging this out until the 2nd page.

---

200?

quote:

---

Spiderman?

---

Que?

A lot of reading but I will bold the important parts that I see, I am sure you can find more that you like better:

This is how the saga unfolded, as reconstructed from NCAA and Tech documents:

Nov. 11, 2009: Wilson, assistant director of the NCAA’s agent, gambling and amateurism activities unit, phones Paul Parker, then Tech’s assistant athletic director for compliance, to request an interview with Burnett regarding information the NCAA had gathered that Burnett might have been given a cellphone and other benefits by a sports agent through Booker. Wilson instructs Parker that no one else is to be informed of the matter except Tech’s president and athletic director. Despite being told by Parker of that restriction, athletic director Dan Radakovich informs head football coach Paul Johnson.

Nov. 14, 2009: Tech defeats Duke 49-10 in Durham, N.C., to clinch the ACC Coastal Division title. Outside the team bus after the game, Johnson talks to Burnett about the NCAA matter. The safety tells the coach he has done nothing wrong.

Nov. 16, 2009: Several Tech officials — Radakovich, Johnson, Parker and associate athletic director Paul Griffin — meet with Burnett. (They “provided, before the NCAA could conduct its interview, information about what would be discussed,” infractions committee chairman Dennis Thomas said Thursday. “Enforcement staff had indicated that should not be the case.”)

Nov. 18, 2009: During a bye week on Tech’s football schedule, Wilson arrives on campus to interview Burnett, who denies receiving improper benefits. But as often happens in NCAA probes, one thing leads to another, and at some point during the day information surfaces that another player, wide receiver Thomas, received free clothing.

Nov. 19, 2009: Wilson interviews Thomas, asking him a series of questions about clothes he was given when he and Burnett made an October 2009 visit to Thomas’ cousin’s Atlanta home. The cousin’s roommate and Booker also were at the home at the time. Thomas tells Wilson the clothes were an early Christmas gift from the cousin’s roommate, but under questioning he acknowledges the gift might have been intended to encourage him to sign with an agent. “I mean, I really don’t know,” Thomas tells Wilson. “I don’t know what’s going on.”

Nov. 24, 2009: In an 8:18 a.m. email to Tech, the NCAA says Burnett and Thomas might have jeopardized their eligibility and that if Tech continues to play them, it will need to justify the decision. In such situations, colleges often declare athletes ineligible and seek their reinstatement from the NCAA — a process that can take from hours to weeks. Tech officials re-interview Thomas, who this time says the clothes were a gift from his cousin rather than his cousin’s roommate.

(About 18 months later, the infractions committee would listen to a recording of this interview. “Rather than being probative, the interview appeared to be conducted to elicit the ‘right answer’ from [Thomas] and to justify not withholding him from competition,” the committee concluded.)

Nov. 25, 2009: Georgia Tech President G.P. “ Bud” Peterson, acting on a recommendation from the university’s then-general counsel, Randy Nordin, decides not to declare Burnett or Thomas ineligible for the Nov. 28 game against Georgia.

Dec. 2, 2009: In another email, the NCAA staff reiterates concerns about the players’ eligibility. Nevertheless, Tech plays them in the Dec. 5 ACC title game against Clemson.

January 2010: Burnett and Thomas play in the Orange Bowl game against Iowa and then leave Tech early for the NFL draft.

May 2010: A separate investigation into the men’s basketball program begins after two Tech staffers run afoul of NCAA rules regarding tryouts: A graduate assistant helped in the operation of an AAU tournament on campus, and an academic advisor reported his evaluations of several prospects in the tournament to the coaching staff.

Oct. 11, 2010: In a two-page letter to NCAA director of enforcement Ameen Najjar, Peterson writes: “Georgia Tech may have misinterpreted legislation, failed to forward detailed information through the chain of command to the President’s Office, and received bad advice from the legal counsel assigned. However, Georgia Tech did not abandon its principles of integrity nor its obligations under NCAA legislation in allowing one or more student-athletes to compete when it knew the student-athletes should have been withheld.”

Peterson acknowledges in the letter, though, that he “can understand that it now seems” the decision to play them in the final three games of the 2009 season “appears to be in defiance of the NCAA.”

Dec. 21, 2010: Tech receives from the NCAA a “notice of allegations,” which combines the issues regarding the football and basketball programs into one case.

March 17, 2011: Tech submits its response, disputing the football allegations and arguing the admitted basketball violations should be considered secondary rather than major.

April 15, 2011: The infractions committee convenes in Savannah to hear the case. Among Tech’s large delegation: Peterson, Radakovich, Johnson, Gregory and, although he was fired a month earlier, Hewitt. The hearing lasts nine hours. Tech officials, who previously thought the investigation might result only in secondary violations and minimal penalties, return to Atlanta bracing for much worse.

July 14, 2011: The NCAA releases the verdict. The infractions committee finds Thomas received preferential treatment when he accepted $312 worth of clothing but does not find the gift was agent-related, calling that a “close question.”

The committee finds Tech guilty of failure to cooperate for informing Burnett of the issues that would be raised in his interview with the NCAA, but does not find a preferential-treatment violation regarding Burnett — perhaps, it says, because Tech’s actions “tainted” the interview and “impeded” the investigation.

The committee also finds Tech failed to meet the conditions and obligations of NCAA membership by allowing Thomas to continue playing despite “ample warning” his eligibility was in question.

And as for basketball, the committee finds Tech committed a major violation regarding the on-campus tournament and imposes some recruiting restrictions.

No, it wasn't ITAT:

LINK

quote:

---

blueTunaTiger



posts in possibly epic thread

---

had to post just to be a part of it

scAUbinsky article

Speaking of scAUbinsky, what the hell happened to dirtydiddyaubie?

I imagine Mr. Parker has some splainin to do and may be looking for his 3rd job in the last 4 months.

quote:

---

I imagine Mr. Parker has some splainin to do and may be looking for his 3rd job in the last 4 months.

---

Agree with this if Scarbinski is correct.


Another part of Scarbinskis article:

There's another Auburn connection to the Georgia Tech case. Contrast the way Tech handled its dilemma during the 2009 football season with the way Auburn handled the question of Cam Newton's eligibility last season.

Both schools were in the hunt for championships. Both schools no doubt felt pressure to keep important players on the field, if at all possible, for the biggest games at the end of the season.

Auburn, even though it believed neither the school nor Newton himself were guilty of any violations, declared him ineligible and applied for his reinstatement. The NCAA reinstated him, and he didn't miss a game.

I'm guessing Nbamalum already knew the answer to his question.