Another Curry question

pocket_watch

Dodd-Like
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
2,953
Do you think Curry may have scared Clough and others off with his public statements that Ga. Tech should compete every year for championships?
Also, in a radio interview Bill was anything but blindly supportive of CG regarding his future at Tech.
Was he a wee bit ambitious in his comments for a research university?
 

bizzybee

Damn Good Rat
Joined
Nov 1, 2001
Messages
1,147
What a pathetic state of affairs if our Pres. could bee scared by ambition to win! If that is the case, we might as well abandon all competitive sports at GT. The greatest need now is for a STRONG, TOUGH AD who WILL DEMAND MORE...not the opposite.
 

ncjacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Jun 17, 2002
Messages
14,639
That's one reason I like Curry. He has high expectations and he also is someone who can stand up to the faculty and the Hill on academic issues because he has credibility on the subject.
 

TerminusTechie

Varsity Lurker
Joined
Jan 20, 2005
Messages
193
That would be terrible if our academic leaders purposely want to hold back GT sports or are afraid of success.

Maybe I am naive, but I just don't see that view as a general policy of the GT academic administration. I am sure that there are some professors who are against NCAA sports in universities, but I do not think they have much voice in the administration nor is their position a majority view of the faculty.

I want to win every Saturday, and national championships are something for which to strive. However, I do want to make sure that we educate the players as GT's side of the bargain for the players giving their all on the field. To compensate for the weak academic background of many high school athletes, we have to provide the highest quality academic support for our athletes that is possible.

The relationship between the GTAA and the Hill should not be antagonistic, and I do not think the relationship was so contentious under Homer Rice.
 

gtyellowjackets

Dodd-Like
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
2,548
Clough's contract is up in two years. He most likely will be gone then. Hopefully we can get a guy in who cares about the athletics department...
 

RamblinPeck

Jolly Good Fellow
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
1,928
I'll go on record and let you guys know that you are completely wrong on Clough, I don't know if there will ever be documented "written down" evidence that will prove it. But Clough loves Tech, and Tech athletics. He's excited to see us do well.

You all are just scapegoating when you blame Clough. The man is in charge of the whole of the Institute, not just the athletics. He is doing everything in his power to put Tech in a position to be success on the field and in the academic circles, however, the further you are from a problem (Gailey) the less speed at which you can move to correct those problems. Tech is very much between a rock and a hard place with a lot of these descisions, and Clough has to think about 10-15 in the future for each descision he makes, therefore he has to take into account he we'll took to other coaches in the future if we had only given Gailey 3 years, what the conference changes would mean, etc, etc.

He is ian incredibly smart man, and not just some ivory tower academic as a lot of you seem to think. Does he make mistakes? Yes, everyone does. But Clough is one of the bright spots in this whole crazy ordeal that has been Tech football for the past 5 years, and is a man of integrity and vision who is doing his damnedest to make sure that Tech suceeds in all facets, and has stood up for athletics in numerous occasions over the years... he gets it guys. I wish some of you would.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rant.gif
 

gtyellowjackets

Dodd-Like
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
2,548
How do you know what Clough has done or not done for the AA? I remember seeing guy that posts (on the Hive)under the moniker 1951 saying he knows Clough personally and wrote him a letter about the football program, the admissions issues for athletes getting very difficult, etc... Clough writes him back that "football is just a game" and offers nothing more.

I am a GT grad, a former SA, 3 year starter, captain of my team, and helped rebuild the athletic program when it was in shambles, in the 1980's. I want to see every reasonable consideration given to the AA by the Hill. Maybe O'Leary hurt things. I don't know. But I can't see the current situation (regrading admissions, majors, eligibilty, etc...) as being optimal for the AA. I want a president that is willing to make every effort to find that balance between academics and athletics for the GT SA. It can only come from the school president and I don't see it happeneing now...
 

pocket_watch

Dodd-Like
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
2,953
RP, I respect your right to hold any opinion you do. I am obviously one of the large group that believes Clough is passive about the football program. I won't say anti football, that would go to far.

There are far too many specific instances where he has made clear his opinion that Ga. Tech's commercial and social interest is research. Anything else is either fun and games, or just a nuisance.
You will never hear me say that he's not brilliant. He just doesn't feel the need to win football championships. I think he is making his point.
 

GTCrew

Patrick Henry
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
49,873
What do you think about Curry\'s chances of pushing

a program for athletes through. We have to face the facts. The new NCAA progress requirements will kill us if we recruit anything less than exceptional SAs. So the staff is doing a great job keeping us competitive under the current environment.

If we do not 'find' a Duke style degree for the borderline SAs we will be in the cellar very soon. And not just in football.

Let Clough and the hill see how being an embarrassment in sports helps our regular student recruiting.

I hate to be a realist, but we probably need a total meltdown in both sports to get help from the hill. For that to happen we need to fire Gailey and replace him with a 'hot' coach and then tick off Hewett enough for him to run to the Knicks (that job is open every 3-5 years).
 

RamblinPeck

Jolly Good Fellow
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
1,928
[ QUOTE ]
How do you know what Clough has done or not done for the AA? I remember seeing guy that posts (on the Hive)under the moniker 1951 saying he knows Clough personally and wrote him a letter about the football program, the admissions issues for athletes getting very difficult, etc... Clough writes him back that "football is just a game" and offers nothing more.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not here to argue about that. Whether someone is for or against something is all conjecture until theres recorded evidence of it, and right now everything is anecdotal. However, this does seem like a bit of BS to me, if he knows Clough personally then why would he send a letter about the issue? Lots of people say they "know" people, when in reality they're met them once and then they send an angry email.

[ QUOTE ]

I am a GT grad, a former SA, 3 year starter, captain of my team, and helped rebuild the athletic program when it was in shambles, in the 1980's. I want to see every reasonable consideration given to the AA by the Hill. Maybe O'Leary hurt things. I don't know. But I can't see the current situation (regrading admissions, majors, eligibilty, etc...) as being optimal for the AA. I want a president that is willing to make every effort to find that balance between academics and athletics for the GT SA. It can only come from the school president and I don't see it happeneing now...

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree about it being a two way street, and I believe that Clough wants the best for academics. I also believe that Clough won't take advantage of a young man by giving him a worthless degree which everyone in the working world knows is just a "jock degree" were they cannot get work in the future except from alumns who take pity/repay them (look at all the former Mutts who drive beer trucks around middle GA).. thats not cool. Worthless degrees don't harm the school, as for the most part degree programs stand on their own and the Institutes overall rep would go untarnished, but it does harm the kid. Its a damn shame that college athletics has become such a big money business, this isn't the intent.

I agree, exceptions should be made for kids, I think it should be made for kids across the board though, not just in athletics. Let in a few kids every year who think they can do it, whether athlete, unchallenged smart kid, or town dumbass trying to prove everyone wrong and do momma proud. Obviously everyone can't be an exception though, cause then they aren't exceptions anymore. Maybe Gailey needs to man up and start requesting more exceptions, didn't they say he was never... or at least very seldom, turned down?

And for the record, I respect anyone who made it through GT while representing us/me in athletic competition, takes a lot more willpower, time management, and talent than I have/had.
 

gtyellowjackets

Dodd-Like
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
2,548
Let me just say that being a student athlete is harder but not that much harder than being an average Tech student. The Tech SA is working with 4 less hours per day. It would be like a student having a part time job.

My schelule, when I played my sport, was something like this. Class until 2:30 PM. Go change into my uniform. Go to the sports facility. Practice from 3PM to 6:30 PM. Shower. Eat dinner. Study from 8PM to 10PM. On weekends you might practice Saturday but not Sunday (for 3 hour or so) so you have 8-10 hours to study if you want to.

I never really felt pushed for lack of time. The AA makes sure you get first dibs at classes so that you can be free by 2PM most semesters. You get study hall and tutoring anytine you want it, for most classes in the Fresh and Soph years.

I think I studied about 20 hours per week (on average). Heck, I probably spent that much time at my fraternity house each week. There is no doubt that football players have it rough in the summer and fall. But after Thanksgiving they have it easy until July (or whenever summer football practice starts). My sport we played ALL year round. We practiced ever day the entire school year (and in the summer too).

This may sound odd to someone who never played a sport, but getting the physical exercise actually made me feel refreshed at supper time. I believe I actually studied better after a hard practice. Clears the head...
 

RamblinPeck

Jolly Good Fellow
Joined
Dec 7, 2003
Messages
1,928
I understand that its basically a 4 hour commit, but aren't some sports atheletes required to be at film sessions, mandatory study halls, etc, etc?

Don't get me wrong, I also respect the higher ups in Student Gov who did a lot for the school during their time. Anyone who gives back, whether on the field, in some SGA office, or heading up GT Beautification Day (new thing, involves trucking in girls from North Georgia College /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugher.gif), deserves, and got, a much more valuable degree than those who sat around playing Quake all day.

Agree about the clear head, I would head over to SAC and get a good workout in sometimes when I was beating my head against a problem, that and a good walk/jog back did wonders.
 

ncjacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Jun 17, 2002
Messages
14,639
All you are allowed to spend on your sport is 20 hours a week. That is supposed to include everything I believe including film study, etc.
 

gtyellowjackets

Dodd-Like
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
2,548
I didn't play football but the players that need to watch extra game film are the qb, linebackers and maybe the db's (is my guess). I'm sure they are not required to watch extra game film during the season but my guess is they choose to. If they watch an extra hour per day (during the week) and several hours on Sunday they should have spent an overly sufficient time on watching film...
 
Top