Author: RWHill
• Thursday, July 16th, 2009

When ACU announced it was appealing some of the NCAA sanctions in February, here is what athletic director Jared Mosley said:

“We were surprised by the penalty in football that asked us to vacate the 2007 wins and associated records there. We had a chance the last couple of weeks to look into that a little deeper and feel that it’s going to be worth our time and effort to put in the work and then look at case precedent and file our own appeal of those penalties they outlined for us.”

The problem with this approach is that by challenging some of the sanctions, ACU implied that other sanctions were legitimate.

For example, by not challenging the track sanctions, the school suggested that it agreed with a ludicrous penalty leveled because the Hillcrest Church of Christ hosted a Christmas party that some track athletes attended.

By picking and choosing which sanctions to appeal, ACU inadvertently undermined its best argument: that the entire NCAA investigation was absurd.

Tomorrow, we’ll close out our series on the NCAA sanctions against ACU by looking at what could have been said and how it might have made a difference.

Category: TEXAS | Tags:
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Leave a Reply