THE OFFICIAL Firing, House Cleaning, Night of Long Knives, Celebration, Disappointment Thread.

vapspwi said:
They pussified Tech sometime in the ‘00s to get the retention rates up for ranking purposes. It’s pretty sad, because (even though I made it through Tech easier than most in the early ‘90s), I firmly believe that going through that fire makes you stronger than the “it’s just like high school” version.

JRjr
Click to expand...

Old guys like to think it was this, but really it's just that they started weeding out the marginal students during admissions instead of after enrollment. If the student body has stayed roughly the same size while the school has become drastically more selective, well, you do the math. GT would still utterly flatten most people, it's just that they aren't getting in in the first place now.
 
Akinji07 said:
I don’t know man. The board turned into a ööööshow so I’m just going along with it. I’ll be posting a Bulgur recipe in this thread shortly.
Click to expand...
It really has. What the hell.

If this:
pianoman said:
Research money is the focus
Click to expand...
and this:
1982Jacket said:
Many GT alums are not football fans or sports fans. Maybe/probably more than most colleges - especially in the South, where a larger percentage of Tech alums are not from and/or no longer live. So what? They support the hell out of Tech. Get your priorities right and stop bashing Tech alums.
Click to expand...
are the attitude, then what business do we have competing with the gaggers? I'm not even saying you are both wrong in your emphasis on academics vs. sports, but I think you ignore the obvious upshot of your view, which is we'll never regularly beat schools who emphasize sports, whatever form that takes. You may think this tradeoff is worth it, but don't be a bitch about the likely outcome of it. Everyone says be "Stanford" but the gaggers, Bamas, and Clemsons of the world would beat the öööö out of them every year too. Make your tradeoff, but own it if you do.

EDIT: I, for one, am not sure that doing everything humanly possible (from school emphasis to admissions, etc.) to get the absolute highest academic ranking is the best thing for the Institute long-term, even outside of sports.
 
StraightFresh said:
Old guys like to think it was this, but really it's just that they started weeding out the marginal students during admissions instead of after enrollment. If the student body has stayed roughly the same size while the school has become drastically more selective, well, you do the math. GT would still utterly flatten most people, it's just that they aren't getting in in the first place now.
Click to expand...
I don't buy it. You didn't live through it. I knew guys on Presidential Scholarships that flunked out. You think the admissions office can tell which 4.4 1500 is which? Nonsense.
 
StraightFresh said:
Old guys like to think it was this, but really it's just that they started weeding out the marginal students during admissions instead of after enrollment. If the student body has stayed roughly the same size while the school has become drastically more selective, well, you do the math. GT would still utterly flatten most people, it's just that they aren't getting in in the first place now.
Click to expand...

Undergrad enrollment has increased significantly - per GT fact books, undergrad enrollment hovered around 9000 through the 80s and was just under 9500 in 1995. It was 16,561 and growing in 2020.

JRjr
 
StraightFresh said:
Old guys like to think it was this, but really it's just that they started weeding out the marginal students during admissions instead of after enrollment. If the student body has stayed roughly the same size while the school has become drastically more selective, well, you do the math. GT would still utterly flatten most people, it's just that they aren't getting in in the first place now.
Click to expand...
That and getting rid of drownproofing.
 
This might be copium sniffing on my part, but losing Gibbs isn't the worst case scenario for 2022. I took a look at the QB stats in our P5 games this year and Yates had one TD pass, one rushing TD, and two picks. That's in five P5 starts and taking all of the snaps in four of them. The two touchdowns he was responsible for were against BC. No points against CU, ND, UG, or the handful of series vs UNC.

If Sims decides to leave then the new OC better be as good with X's and O's as PJ or Collins is a dead man walking.
 
StraightFresh said:
Old guys like to think it was this, but really it's just that they started weeding out the marginal students during admissions instead of after enrollment. If the student body has stayed roughly the same size while the school has become drastically more selective, well, you do the math. GT would still utterly flatten most people, it's just that they aren't getting in in the first place now.
Click to expand...

One huge difference now is how many classes taken at a time. Prior to the Olympics and the switch to semesters, 18 hours was a standard load, not 15. IE required 212 qtr hours went I graduated in 1981 - that is 141 semester hours, not 120. I never had less than 5 classes and 6 was more common to graduate in 4 years. The state of Georgia was tired of paying for 5 years of undergrad on average and GT normalized to national standard of 120 after the switch.

Quarters instead of semesters also meant 3 midterms and 3 sets of finals, not 2.
 
When I was in school from ‘88 until ‘94 (undergrad + grad), we were on quarters. 12 hours was the minimum for full time, 15 was the norm (i.e., to keep a President’s Scholarship), and 17+ wasn’t unusual. And like you said, you had to take more than 15 per quarter to graduate in a “normal” 4 years/no summers (15 hours a quarter, 3 quarters a year, 4 years is 180 hours, and degree programs often required 200+ hours).

The switch to semesters definitely had an impact on GT more than a lot of other state schools in terms of the breadth of curriculum for a degree program, as well as stuff like the coop program.

JRjr
 
covingtonjacket said:
It really has. What the hell.

If this:

and this:

are the attitude, then what business do we have competing with the gaggers? I'm not even saying you are both wrong in your emphasis on academics vs. sports, but I think you ignore the obvious upshot of your view, which is we'll never regularly beat schools who emphasize sports, whatever form that takes. You may think this tradeoff is worth it, but don't be a bitch about the likely outcome of it. Everyone says be "Stanford" but the gaggers, Bamas, and Clemsons of the world would beat the öööö out of them every year too. Make your tradeoff, but own it if you do.

EDIT: I, for one, am not sure that doing everything humanly possible (from school emphasis to admissions, etc.) to get the absolute highest academic ranking is the best thing for the Institute long-term, even outside of sports.
Click to expand...
The false dichotomy between academics and athletics is like saying, "this college has a really great housing system for the students, and as a result it's not able to provide decent meals." Just the contrary! The factors that make any academic department run well – like good management, careful staffing, retaining the best and dismissing the worst, using your dollars wisely, etc. – are the same things that make an athletics department run well.
 
JJacket said:
I don't give a flying frogs ass where he went to school. Part of our problem, as GT football fans, is the looking down our nose at anyone who potentially could be a fan. GT football has the image of being snobbish little know it all nerds. Doesn't help when a snobbish know it all nerd proves any potential fans right by being a snobbish asshole.

But good for you guys. Run off the recruits we are recruiting now being idiots. Run off the fanbase. Run off everyone. None of y'all are putting up the cash to do anything because most of you whiners are cheap bastards who are happy to cry, stamp your feet, complain, and wait for OTHER people to fund your tantrum.

The rational ones know Collins isn't going anywhere untill the end of next season, at earliest, and would much rather not have to read your same, repetitive bullshit for the next 8 months.
Click to expand...
Weren't you ööööting on me for going to CNU?
 
18in32 said:
The false dichotomy between academics and athletics is like saying, "this college has a really great housing system for the students, and as a result it's not able to provide decent meals." Just the contrary! The factors that make any academic department run well – like good management, careful staffing, retaining the best and dismissing the worst, using your dollars wisely, etc. – are the same things that make an athletics department run well.
Click to expand...
I am not so sure the dichotomy is false if your expectations are competing in athletics with the football "factory" schools. As detailed many places on ST, our student body size and demographics do not lend itself to the commitment and resources that sustained athletic success requires. Although the standard management and decision-making principles you listed surely apply to both, I do not see why it is out of the realm of possibility that some of the factors that push GT into elite academic territory would be a negative with regard to athletics.

How to address this? The administration could dip into the Institute's vast financial resources to support athletics. It could also deliver the message to students that athletic support is important and expected (even if no admissions changes were made whatsoever).
 
JJacket said:
Did you attempt to secure the funding to buy Collins out? Did you call Zelnak to see if he would find it for you? Did you cash your 401k to do it? Sell the house? We don't have the damn money. You're like an impetulant child demanding mommy buy you an expensive toy when she doesn't have the money. Just keep demanding what you aren't gonna get or, get the öööö over it.
Click to expand...
nope. Not one more dime under the current regime. When we get serious again, I'll be back at The Varsity and walk over.
 
vapspwi said:
AP classes can apparently bump you over 4.0. My high school was just adding AP my last couple of years (graduated in ‘88), but I don’t think we did 4.0+. But the valedictorian transferred in from a dinky Christian school with like a 4.2 somehow.

JRjr
Click to expand...
My oldest grandson’s high school gives higher quality points for Honors classes and even higher quality points for AP courses. He didn’t qualify for AP, but is in mostly Honors classes where offered. His GPA is 4.2+ on the 5 point scale and ~3.3 on the traditional 4 point system. Not uncommon for really good students in our school system to have graduating GPA’s of 4.7+.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top