Gurley had representation from the get-go. And he didn't speak with UGA officials until after receiving counsel from William King, his attorney. By now we know that the number of people with specific details of the investigation were few, and that is something McGarity confirms in his comments. But word is UGA didn't ask Todd if he'd received money for his autograph. He offered that to Compliance.
Now, once that was done, it appears UGA did everything it could possibly do to control the amount of damage to Todd's playing time/college career. A student athlete tells you (in front of counsel) he took money and broke a rule, you can't cover that up. Yes, there are some programs that would give it a shot. But we should all know by now that if UGA attempted to, they'd fail. And then Indianapolis would burn the mother down.
(BTW, the timing of the Bauerle case is intricately sewn within the fabric of this investigation. Intricately. We should all be aware of that as well.)
Next, Emerson hits on another key point:
The indefinite suspension of Gurley was announced on the evening of Oct. 9. From then until Oct. 22, when UGA sent in to the NCAA its request for reinstatement, the wait was for Gurley and King to go through their options, according to McGarity.UGA administration first gained knowledge of the situation on (the evening of) October 7th, completed their investigation by close of business October 9th, and then waited for Gurley and his lawyer to put the ribbon on. Finally, on October 22nd, UGA was able to submit its request for reinstatement.
 |
| VIA |
What took so long? Two weeks for King to sign off on what sounds like a pretty tidy investigation, at least according to McGarity. You could surmise they were hoping to put more pressure on the NCAA to rubber stamp it I guess. Or maybe there were people in Gurley's camp trying to convince him to walk away.
I'll resist any further wild speculation because I truly don't know. But it seems clear from this timeline laid out last night, that UGA arrived at the same $3000 figure and was completely done with the minutiae and the details within about 48 hours. The fact that the rest took so much longer is probably not an important detail. Probably. But I do think it's curious.
Lastly, the gray area in what happened between UGA submitting for Gurley's reinstatement after two games and the NCAA deciding on four games (with the tone of leniency on its breath) remains very, very unclear. I had been going on the assumption that UGA had found the Bryan Allens $400 and the NCAA had found the rest, especially when taking into account that they came back and asked for more information over that following weekend. Turns out they were on the same page as far as dollar figures from the outset.
Did Richt's comments earlier in the week have an effect on the NCAA's mood? Hard to say for sure without completely speculating. Did the Bauerle case have more weight on the Gurley decision than we think? I'd like to think not. Most likely it's that the NCAA felt more strongly towards the fact that Gurley had done this on multiple occasions over the course of multiple years with multiple brokers than UGA Compliance did.
To close, the most important point to date is that the Todd Gurley case has not cost Georgia a single win in the time that all this came to light earlier last month. Although we may never know any more details in the case, it's important to look at it with a keen eye. I agree with McGarity in that Coach Richt put it best when he said, "When rules are broken you don't control discipline. That's called life."
Lesson learned. Again.
