Transfers heating up...as needed

18in32 said:
A bad analogy is like a pelmet.

If you're going to analogize to academics, then the equivalent would be giving an academic scholarship to a kid, but the following year we found another kid we thought was even smarter, and so took it away from the first kid to give to the second kid, even though the first kid was doing everything we'd asked of him when we gave him the scholarship.
Click to expand...
we also asked him to be good at football...
 
Architorture23 said:
we also asked him to be good at football...
Click to expand...
"Sorry we asked you to be faster... than this guy we just found from a different school a year behind you."

And they are good at football – according to us, when we recruited them and gave them a scholarship. None of these are walk-on's. These are people we begged to come to this school, because we told them they would contribute here. Then we found somebody we liked better.

Per the hypothetical, that is. It is interesting how hard people are defending an unethical practice while also insisting we don't do it!
 
ibeeballin said:
Well, if you are going to force him to honor scholarships to players who can’t contribute on STs after being in the program 2-3yrs, don’t fit scheme, or without a position then you have to give him leniency.
Click to expand...
Why? Because he might have to carry a bottom 10 of the roster that he would otherwise not want? It's true that those guys aren't going to contribute, but the guys Geoff replaces them with aren't going to be difference makers anyway. Swapping out Paul's bottom 10 for Geoff's bottom 10 isn't going to make a difference in Geoff's record over the next three years.
 
Ed Sawyer said:
It's funny how y'all are okay with yanking a scholarship of a kid because he might not have shown promise during one spring practice but we're supposed to reserve judgment on Geoff for three or four years even though he's inheriting a team that had the fourth-best record in ACC play.
Click to expand...
Is that what I said?
 
18in32 said:
Cause if he was told to get off the team even though he was trying his hardest to contribute, that's a crappy way to treat S/A's. Tech told these kids that we wanted them here. If it turns out they aren't as good as we thought they were, or if we change schemes, or if we get some better recruits afterwards, that's on Tech, and it should be Tech that has to deal with the complications.

I don't think CGC did this, and I don't accept the Twitter complaints at face value. But if any coach withdrew a scholarship from a kid who was trying his hardest and not breaking any academic or disciplinary rules, that would be extremely unethical.
Click to expand...


Ok. Whew. Good to know you’re just trolling haha.

Because you can’t be serious. So if I get a Cyber Security degree and then get hired by Apple for their Cyber team because they wanted me. But I fail and I’m not as good as they thought I was. They just pat me on the back? Hahaha
 
TechPhi97 said:
She also didn't say that the scholarship would be revoked. And it's Twitter and we only hear one sentence of one side of the story.
Click to expand...
A caveat which has been mentioned by me and others several times
 
GSUGTATL said:
Ok. Whew. Good to know you’re just trolling haha.

Because you can’t be serious. So if I get a Cyber Security degree and then get hired by Apple for their Cyber team because they wanted me. But I fail and I’m not as good as they thought I was. They just pat me on the back? Hahaha
Click to expand...
I am serious, and don't call me because. S/A's ≠ employees
 
aeromech said:
Whoa, wait a minute. You are saying we gave scholarships to people we never expected to make the roster, just come to practice? Actually, I think you are right, that is what we've done. We could probably think of some players who stayed on scholarship for years who did not really contribute anything to the program. I guess a big question is do we still want to keep doing that.
Click to expand...
The roster? There are 85 scholarships and they're all on the roster. The two deep is 44. So we give out a lot of scholarship to kids that we don't exactly know how good they'll end up being. That's a feature not a bug.

I gotta say, I'm absolutely flabbergasted by everyone being OK with this. Just another example of how out of touch I am.
 
Last edited:
18in32 said:
The roster? There are 85 scholarships and they're all on the roster. The two deep is 44. So we give out a lot of scholarship to kids that we don't exactly how good they'll end up being. That's a feature not a bug.

I gotta say, I'm absolutely flabbergasted by everyone being OK with this. Just another example of how out of touch I am.
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating for it; but it is pretty much how it works on the academic side. You lure a kid to your school with an academic scholarship, then if that kid doesn't make the two deep (maintain a high GPA); you pull the scholarship. So the analogy wasn't wrong. The academic kid may be working their tail off; but bye-bye scholarship.
 
18in32 said:
The roster? There are 85 scholarships and they're all on the roster. The two deep is 44. So we give out a lot of scholarship to kids that we don't exactly how good they'll end up being. That's a feature not a bug.

I gotta say, I'm absolutely flabbergasted by everyone being OK with this. Just another example of how out of touch I am.
Click to expand...


For point of reference, were you OK with CPJ continuing on indefinitely or where you ready for a change here and now?

I get the feeling you were in the former camp.

So, I recommend that you and those of you that are like minded fund academic schollys that we can transition these guys over to if they want to stay at GT but not play football. Problem solved?
 
Ed Sawyer said:
Why? Because he might have to carry a bottom 10 of the roster that he would otherwise not want? It's true that those guys aren't going to contribute, but the guys Geoff replaces them with aren't going to be difference makers anyway. Swapping out Paul's bottom 10 for Geoff's bottom 10 isn't going to make a difference in Geoff's record over the next three years.
Click to expand...

Why would you presume the replacements wouldn't be difference makers? You arent swapping a bottom 10 for a new bottom 10. You are bringing in fresh recruits with unlimited potential or transfers like Ezzard and Clayton.
 
coit said:
For point of reference, were you OK with CPJ continuing on indefinitely or where you ready for a change here and now?

I get the feeling you were in the former camp.

So, I recommend that you and those of you that are like minded fund academic schollys that we can transition these guys over to if they want to stay at GT but not play football. Problem solved?
Click to expand...
Problem solved if the problem were a lack of academic scholarship funding. But that ain't the problem. The problem is that they don't qualify for academic scholarships, nor do we want them taking athletic scholarships.

The problem is that we found somebody faster so they're losing their "make a decision that lasts a lifetime" GT education.
 
coit said:
For point of reference, were you OK with CPJ continuing on indefinitely or where you ready for a change here and now?

I get the feeling you were in the former camp.

So, I recommend that you and those of you that are like minded fund academic schollys that we can transition these guys over to if they want to stay at GT but not play football. Problem solved?
Click to expand...

That would not really solve the problem unless you think the policy is only for players recruited by CPJ and will not continue with current recruits. The question really is should GT not honor the scholarships of players that don't pan out.
 
aeromech said:
I'm not advocating for it; but it is pretty much how it works on the academic side. You lure a kid to your school with an academic scholarship, then if that kid doesn't make the two deep (maintain a high GPA); you pull the scholarship. So the analogy wasn't wrong. The academic kid may be working their tail off; but bye-bye scholarship.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the analogy is wrong. But I've already explained why, and if you disagree, I don't think there's much more to be said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top