School needs to make up their mind

Not D-1 and the Ivy does recruit and allows exceptions. How is it you enjoy the games if you are sick of the players? And btw, a lot of schools who quit the game before, plus some that never had it, are clamoring now to restart or start a program. The oft used phrase by the UM AD in the 60 Minutes segment of wtte: Our athletics are the front porch to our house/school, is still valid. If 2 houses are otherwise equal, but one has a nice front porch and the other doesn't, which do you choose?

If the football program is so poisonous to the school's mission statement, why does the football program still exist? I get your point about maybe the first 75 years, but what about the most recent 25?
 
Ivy League is D-1. Not FBS in football though, as explained above by ND.

Ivy league also makes slight exceptions for athletes, and give them fake academic scholarships in some cases or scholarships funded by people who specifically give to athletes, and therefore a criteria for receiving the academic scholarship is that you're also an athlete or something like that.
 
GoldZ said:
Not D-1 and the Ivy does recruit and allows exceptions. How is it you enjoy the games if you are sick of the players? And btw, a lot of schools who quit the game before, plus some that never had it, are clamoring now to restart or start a program. The oft used phrase by the UM AD in the 60 Minutes segment of wtte: Our athletics are the front porch to our house/school, is still valid. If 2 houses are otherwise equal, but one has a nice front porch and the other doesn't, which do you choose?
Click to expand...

Well, the places I'd like to live likely wouldn't have front porches. I actually don't have a front porch because front porches don't really make sense for the building I live in. I chose this building for its other factors and none of the buildings like it have front porches.

(Man, that analogy actually worked out better than I thought it would and actually fit my situation.)

I'm also enjoying the game less and less in previous years as I watch scandal after scandal break and then schools with the scandal go undefeated (Ohio State) or continue to field teams stacked with talent (USC) or even have the NCAA bless their fake majors (UNC).

If the football program is so poisonous to the school's mission statement, why does the football program still exist? I get your point about maybe the first 75 years, but what about the most recent 25?
Click to expand...
I already answered that. It would take something monumental to happen for us to stop playing D1 football when we've been playing it for 100 years and so many people enjoy it.

The football program in its current incarnation isn't poisonous to the school's mission statement at this point. It could become so though. Turning out to have fake majors available to all students so we could keep exceptions eligible like UNC did would be poisonous, and that would also be the sort of thing that I think could cause us to stop playing D1 football.

Thank God that hasn't happened yet, but once we start down the road of altering the curriculum with football as a driving factor, we start down that slippery slope.
 
andrew said:
The football program isn't poisonous to the school's mission statement at this point. It could become so though. Turning out to have fake majors available to all students so we could keep exceptions eligible like UNC did would be poisonous, and that would also be the sort of thing that I think could cause us to stop playing D1 football.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody is arguing for fake majors. Even so, UNC still ranks higher than Tech on USNW Public University list. As does about 1/2 the ACC.

A lot of you act like having one easier major would be the kiss of academic death, yet the evidence is that it has no negative affect on overall academic rating whatsoever.
 
ramblinwise1 said:
I don't think anybody is arguing for fake majors. Even so, UNC still ranks higher than Tech on USNW Public University list. As does about 1/2 the ACC.

A lot of you act like having one easier major would be the kiss of academic death, yet the evidence is that it has no negative affect on overall academic rating whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Do you think people at UNC argued for fake majors?
 
andrew said:
Do you think people at UNC argued for fake majors?
Click to expand...

No, but how is that relevant? Who should make the decisions such as this? Students? Faculty? Alumni? You can't please everyone. Only time will tell if the fake majors at UNC will hurt their brand.

The bizarre thing is that the NCAA has said there is no violation so far and the public is getting used to hearing about questionable tactics and outright cheating. More complacent.

I think college athletics are about to rupture over these issues. The continued stratification in competitiveness will force more and more schools to either "run with the big dogs or get on the porch". Tech still needs to decide and do something according to its decision. I think the status quo is actually hurting Tech's brand. We are becoming the Washington Generals of college football.
 
ramblinwise1 said:
I don't think anybody is arguing for fake majors. Even so, UNC still ranks higher than Tech on USNW Public University list. As does about 1/2 the ACC.

A lot of you act like having one easier major would be the kiss of academic death, yet the evidence is that it has no negative affect on overall academic rating whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Actually, only UNC and UVA rank higher than Tech on the public university list; I wouldn't call that half of the ACC.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/top-public
 
GT1992 said:
The exceptions were decreased after flunkgate. In today's world with APR, it would make us ineligible for post-season play. The Hill logically decided, having data that we don't, that less exceptions would mean less flunking out. I've seen the argument that it was because our support system in the AA was lacking, but they simply haven't proven that it has improved to the point where additional exemptions would be warranted without increasing the chances of embarassment of NCAA sanctions.
Click to expand...

Why is this an issue that fans, the Hill, or anyone outside the AA is even discussing?

We pay a football coach over $2 million per year to put a winning football team on the field. We pay an AD approximately $600K (or will when we hire another, if he makes about the same as DRad did) to make sure our athletic operations are meeting all expectations...including APR. If those people say they need more exceptions, let them have the exceptions. If those exceptions fail out of school and cause the APR to suffer, fire the coaches and the AD.

Additionally, can all of you academic snobs stop with the horseshit argument of "those exceptions of yesteryear would never make it today"? Those kids were "exceptions" at the time...meaning that the Hill didn't think they'd make it then. Newsflash, many of them did.

I happen to be very good friends with Dennis Scott, who also was one of those academic exceptions. He not only managed to survive for 3 years in the classroom at GT, he's working on completing his degree from GT during off seasons of work now. Why? Because he'd like to have his jersey retired at GT and that won't happen unless he receives his degree.

My point is that you all just assume that these guys will fail out...disregarding completely the fact that there are support measures in place now for academics that simply were not in place when flunkgate happened. That travesty happened, not because the students weren't capable, but because of a: coach who wasn't making sure his athletes were going to class, an academic advisor who really didn't give a crap about her job, and a crotchedy old fart who was close to retiring...one who was our NCAA Compliance Director, but who didn't attend the annual meetings for the 2 previous years and didn't know that the requirements had changed. Lest we forget, 8 of the 10 kids who were "ineligible" were still eligible by NCAA standards, just not by GT's standards. And this was what had changed...causing them to be ineligible across the board.
 
Last edited:
Having that one, easier degree program gets around the objections based on APR. It would improve APR.
 
daBuzz said:
Why is this an issue that fans, the Hill, or anyone outside the AA is even discussing?

We pay a football coach over $2 million per year to put a winning football team on the field. We pay an AD approximately $600K (or will when we hire another, if he makes about the same as DRad did) to make sure our athletic operations are meeting all expectations...including APR. If those people say they need more exceptions, let them have the exceptions. If those exceptions fail out of school and cause the APR to suffer, fire the coaches and the AD.

Additionally, can all of you academic snobs stop with the horseshit argument of "those exceptions of yesteryear would never make it today"? Those kids were "exceptions" at the time...meaning that the Hill didn't think they'd make it then. Newsflash, many of them did.

I happen to be very good friends with Dennis Scott, who also was one of those academic exceptions. He not only managed to survive for 3 years in the classroom at GT, he's working on completing his degrree from GT during off seasons of work now. Why? Because he'd like to have his jersey retired at GT and that won't happen unless he receives his degree.

My point is that you all just assume that these guys will fail out...disregarding completely the fact that there are support measures in place now for academics that simply were not in place when flunkgate happened. That travesty happened, not because the students weren't capable, but because of a: coach who wasn't making sure his athletes were going to class, an academic advisor who really didn't give a crap about her job, and a crotchedy old fart who was close to retiring...one who was our NCAA Compliance Director, but who didn't attend the annual meetings for the 2 previous years and didn't know that the requirements had changed. Lest we forget, 8 of the 10 kids who were "ineligible" were still eligible by NCAA standards, just not by GT's standards. And this was what had changed...causing them to be ineligible across the board.
Click to expand...

The other side doesnt want to give up that power.
 
daBuzz said:
Why is this an issue that fans, the Hill, or anyone outside the AA is even discussing?

We pay a football coach over $2 million per year to put a winning football team on the field. We pay an AD approximately $600K (or will when we hire another, if he makes about the same as DRad did) to make sure our athletic operations are meeting all expectations...including APR. If those people say they need more exceptions, let them have the exceptions. If those exceptions fail out of school and cause the APR to suffer, fire the coaches and the AD.

Additionally, can all of you academic snobs stop with the horseshit argument of "those exceptions of yesteryear would never make it today"? Those kids were "exceptions" at the time...meaning that the Hill didn't think they'd make it then. Newsflash, many of them did.

I happen to be very good friends with Dennis Scott, who also was one of those academic exceptions. He not only managed to survive for 3 years in the classroom at GT, he's working on completing his degrree from GT during off seasons of work now. Why? Because he'd like to have his jersey retired at GT and that won't happen unless he receives his degree.

My point is that you all just assume that these guys will fail out...disregarding completely the fact that there are support measures in place now for academics that simply were not in place when flunkgate happened. That travesty happened, not because the students weren't capable, but because of a: coach who wasn't making sure his athletes were going to class, an academic advisor who really didn't give a crap about her job, and a crotchedy old fart who was close to retiring...one who was our NCAA Compliance Director, but who didn't attend the annual meetings for the 2 previous years and didn't know that the requirements had changed. Lest we forget, 8 of the 10 kids who were "ineligible" were still eligible by NCAA standards, just not by GT's standards. And this was what had changed...causing them to be ineligible across the board.
Click to expand...

Excellent post daBuzz!---I've said as much now on several threads. You'll get short thrift however on here from the athletic haters/academic purists. Be sure and write to the new AD and Prez Petersen. I certainly will.
 
Let me add that a couple of easy A's that I took in school, "Introduction to Textile Engineering", and "Introduction to Ceramic Engineering", both turned out to include information that I regularly have used in my work for the last thirty years. They were easy A's for me and a few football players, but they were actual courses that didn't include calculus.

Personally, I think the faculty purposely holds football to the grind stone and prefers it to struggle. Allowing a Top 20 team to continue on doesn't look good for a research institution. And they are dead wrong and going to cost us lots and lots of money as well as top billing in the south and Georgia.
 
GT just needs to build its national brand. Point of fact, I think a move to the Big Ten would do that.
 
midatlantech said:
Personally, I think the faculty purposely holds football to the grind stone and prefers it to struggle. Allowing a Top 20 team to continue on doesn't look good for a research institution. And they are dead wrong and going to cost us lots and lots of money as well as top billing in the south and Georgia.
Click to expand...

you don't have to think...know

75% of the athletic board is made up of....you guessed faculty.

Wonder why stuff doesn't move?
 
daBuzz said:
Why is this an issue that fans, the Hill, or anyone outside the AA is even discussing?

We pay a football coach over $2 million per year to put a winning football team on the field. We pay an AD approximately $600K (or will when we hire another, if he makes about the same as DRad did) to make sure our athletic operations are meeting all expectations...including APR. If those people say they need more exceptions, let them have the exceptions. If those exceptions fail out of school and cause the APR to suffer, fire the coaches and the AD.

Additionally, can all of you academic snobs stop with the horseshit argument of "those exceptions of yesteryear would never make it today"? Those kids were "exceptions" at the time...meaning that the Hill didn't think they'd make it then. Newsflash, many of them did.

I happen to be very good friends with Dennis Scott, who also was one of those academic exceptions. He not only managed to survive for 3 years in the classroom at GT, he's working on completing his degree from GT during off seasons of work now. Why? Because he'd like to have his jersey retired at GT and that won't happen unless he receives his degree.

My point is that you all just assume that these guys will fail out...disregarding completely the fact that there are support measures in place now for academics that simply were not in place when flunkgate happened. That travesty happened, not because the students weren't capable, but because of a: coach who wasn't making sure his athletes were going to class, an academic advisor who really didn't give a crap about her job, and a crotchedy old fart who was close to retiring...one who was our NCAA Compliance Director, but who didn't attend the annual meetings for the 2 previous years and didn't know that the requirements had changed. Lest we forget, 8 of the 10 kids who were "ineligible" were still eligible by NCAA standards, just not by GT's standards. And this was what had changed...causing them to be ineligible across the board.
Click to expand...

100% perfectly right. I made the same point earlier.

APR is a freaking excuse

Here is a fact. Historically we have more normal students that fail out with GREAT GPAs and GREAT SAT's than SA's. I can't think of one football SA that failed out in the past 7 years, and if one its one or two. I guarantee the normal student populous is higher than that. Secondly, when we DID allow exceptions we again, maybe 1 academic casualty a year, out of 85. That is still below the student populous and doesn't hurt APR much if any. Its a chance, we need to be still willing to take. And a small one

APR is a total excuse. Dabuzz is 100% correct on the history and exceptions were and are not a problem, nor never have been. What was, was oversight and support and it became an excuse for change to clamp down on athletics.
 
DressCheeseSideSeaboard said:
How?
Click to expand...

because a lot of people north of the Mason-Dixon line don't know about GT's stellar academic reputation. I think northern exposure would get high schoolers to check it out and take note.

Plus we already have recruiting strongholds in the SE.

Moving to the Big Ten means we can promise players a warm home stadium, but they still get to be seen by friends and family in the midwest on road games.

being the warmest weather Big Ten team would have its disadvantages in terms of travel costs, but we could be an attractive fit for a lot of midwesterners.

I wouldn't mind a few more exceptions though too.
 
DressCheeseSideSeaboard said:
How?
Click to expand...

its a much more national conference. ACC is very regional. The west coast follows big ten due to history and rose bowl tie ins. The east coast follows big ten, simply because its a national brand. Mich OSU, etc etc.

GT in the big ten, IF WE ARE COMPETITIVE, which we won't be with the current rules, would definitely raise its national brand in athletics and it does, like it or not, spill over to the school

With all due respect to GT, like it or not; no one on the left coast gives a flip. Both sports and academia. They have Cal Tech, stanford, cal etc. Believe me, all those hold a hire brand than GT.

GT is not where gold colored folks think it is.
 
GTCrew4b said:
because a lot of people north of the Mason-Dixon line don't know about GT's stellar academic reputation. I think northern exposure would get high schoolers to check it out and take note.

Plus we already have recruiting strongholds in the SE.

Moving to the Big Ten means we can promise players a warm home stadium, but they still get to be seen by friends and family in the midwest on road games.

being the warmest weather Big Ten team would have its disadvantages in terms of travel costs, but we could be an attractive fit for a lot of midwesterners.
Click to expand...

I can confirm GT academia reputation in the NE and west is more likely to be coupled with georgias than MIT.

It is what it is. People just don't get that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top