Georgia: Guilty until proven innocent? Please explain.

The University of Georgia is now requesting that the NCAA tell the university that its initial determination that Todd Gurley is ineligible for accepting money for signing autographs was clearly wrong.  

Here is how this rather curious process works as set forth in NCAA bylaws 14.10, 14.11, and 14.12.  First, it is the obligation of the university to immediately withhold an athlete from competition if the university determines that the athlete "is ineligible under the [NCAA’s] constitution, bylaws, or other regulations."  Then, after the university makes such a determination, if the university "concludes that the circumstances warrant restoration," it  may then appeal to the "Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement" for restoration of the athlete’s eligibility.  The Reinstatement Committee can then restore the athlete's eligibility only if, after reviewing the eligibility dispute, it decides that the "circumstances clearly warrant restoration."

Georgia decided that Gurley is ineligible under NCAA rules and is appealing its decision because (for some unreported reason) it now believes Gurley should NOT be ineligible; and Georgia must convince a reviewing committee made up of members selected by the NCAA that its determination of ineligibility was clearly wrong.  Why isn't the media demanding to know from Georgia the reason it now believes Gurley should not be ineligible?  Make Georgia tell us what has suddenly changed.  Did Georgia make the mistake of declaring Gurley ineligible without sufficient evidence that Gurley accepted money?  Is there new evidence that has surfaced suggesting that Gurley did not accept money?  Or is it simply because Gurley has "admitted his mistake"?