Are we better off?

MTrain said:
I would imagine it was even easier for athletes

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

It was, but it was still very difficult relative to the majors that football players get to take at other schools.

Well, to be fair I don't know how it was in the late 90s, but I do know how it was in the mid-2000s, having taken some MGT courses and been on a project with football players.
 
I buy the argument that tech is difficult to recruit at because of the limited choice of majors.

My point was more against how superior some people think tech is when compared to other great schools

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
MTrain said:
[FONT=&quot]Compare degree offerings, required classes, entry requirements, "stay-in" requirements (for lack of a better phrase), etc. and you'll see there's really no comparison between GT and the schools you list.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This is what kills me most about tech people. Do you really believe this? For instance, let’s take out west. Are kids in Southern California, Arizona, etc not as good in math/science as those in the GT region? Do high schools out there not teach those subjects as well? Because I would estimate that people out west go into science/math at approximately the same rate as those in the south. Also, for the sake of argument let’s say that their students are about the same caliber, I would think you agree with that, statistically speaking. So where do all their bright science / math minds go? Some might come across country to Tech, but here’s a news flash – many of them do choose Stanford, Cal, UCLA, UCI, UCSD, UCSB, and a ton of other schools you don’t know about. My point is that Tech gets rated as such a great engineering school often because that is all it is. That doesn’t mean that other engineering programs and students aren't just as capable. No one at tech likes to hear that, or admit that, but it’s the truth. To think otherwise is absurd. Yes, Tech is one of the better engineering schools in the country, but there are definitely many other solid, challenging programs with an equal quality of student and curriculum. I’m not even going to mention that there are better engineering schools out there than tech (MIT, Cal Tech, etc) - no need to get into that and get you really upset.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Tech does not have a monopoly on engineering. You should be proud that you went to a great school, but no need to diss other programs that are basically filled with kids that would fit in just fine at tech, who are basically just like you, only separated by geography and the name of the school they went to.[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Diss? My question was, in what way do the academics at ND compare to Tech? I have yet to see a comparison, just a bunch of emotional jibberish.
 
MTrain said:
I buy the argument that tech is difficult to recruit at because of the limited choice of majors.

My point was more against how superior some people think tech is when compared to other great schools

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

You definitely mis-read my post. I actually agree with what you wrote though.

As a MGT grad I know the m-train isn't the most difficult major. My point, as andrew pointed out, was moreso regarding the narrow cirriculum and how that makes GT a different place than those others.

Also, MGT during the mid-90's was fairly easy but you actually had to go to class/contribute to pass which is more than I can say for some of the classes folks at ND, Stan, etc are taking.
 
MTrain said:
it's a lot harder to get into ND than Tech. nuff said
Click to expand...

this post makes no sense until you explain what you mean. if you use the percentage of acceptances to applications, thats one thing and shows that the school is POPULAR. it reveals nothing about the achievement levels required to matriculate. I can guarantee you that the required test scores at Tech are higher than at Notre Dame. so, from an academic standpoint it is HARDER to get into Tech

accept it, its true. it doesnt mean anything bad about ND and its not "arrogant". I bet being a legacy at ND is about as important as having a high enough SAT
 
Scores are higher at tech than nd? Teally?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
BuzzCzar said:
this post makes no sense until you explain what you mean. if you use the percentage of acceptances to applications, thats one thing and shows that the school is POPULAR. it reveals nothing about the achievement levels required to matriculate. I can guarantee you that the required test scores at Tech are higher than at Notre Dame. so, from an academic standpoint it is HARDER to get into Tech

accept it, its true. it doesnt mean anything bad about ND and its not "arrogant". I bet being a legacy at ND is about as important as having a high enough SAT
Click to expand...

Theres no chance in hell id have gotten into nd

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
ramble_on92 said:
you say he wasnt a great recruiter, yet we had calvin, pj, tashard, dwyer, peek, thomas, wheeler, guyton, burnett, michael johnson... should i continue? he could recruit, he was just stubborn with the qb and didnt have great play calling.
Click to expand...

Dude, what are you talking about???

First, that's over a much longer period than CPJ.

Second, your assessment is completely off. PJ Daniels was a WALK ON. Please continue...

Guys like Wheeler were 2 stars (according to scout major offers were to a pre-Saban Alabama and Miss St). Guyton was a 2 star with offers from Duke, Vandy, Louisville and South Carolina (before they were good).

Tashard was not recruited by Gailey - he just wanted to come home. He would have played for GT no matter who the coach was, assuming that coach used a RB.

Dwyer we got lucky on. He was staying in state no matter what and uga chose Caleb King instead of Dwyer. Rest assured, if Caleb King went to Florida, Dwyer would have been a bull puppy.

Calvin, Burnett and Michael Johnson were good gets, but I don't attribute that solely to Gailey. Bey Bey and Peek were solid recruits, but nothing too special (and not much different coming out of HS than the quality of guys we've been pulling in).

Not to mention most of the real gets you mention came from the 2007 class. Admittedly, it was a great class. But it was also by far the exception.
 
BarrelORum said:
You dont make a good argument. Outside of Renfree the entire 2008 class which Chan mostly recruited, sucked ass.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that recruiting is more than just piling up the most stars. Gailey was terrible at roster management - that's why when he left we didn't have a decent OL. He recruited a few positions really well, but a good recruiter wouldn't be stuck with Reggie Ball for four years.

FWIW, I think CPJ is a much better roster planner. My only fault with him is on the DL and to a lesser extent WR (hard to foresee Stephen Hill leaving early). Overall though we have good competition at most positions, which we didn't really have under Gailey.
 
mack said:
Chan could get athletes to tech no doubt about that and for first year or so PJ did wonderful job of using them but Chan equated college players with Pros and this was his downfall.Reggie never should have been a four yr starter but he was.We played good defense under JT and folks forget we should have beat Ga twice .YeaH HE NEEDED TO GO and PJ was the choice but I think for getting high school players the pro style offense Chan used was best for us.Who in hell wants to get hit every play he takes the snap from center ,who wants to run the dive hole all day long and get clobbered and who wants to block all day long and maybe catch a pass.We need to ask ourselfs would Murray or the kid form Fla come to tech to run a option.........dont think so but who knows.............we just need to get better and quick.
Click to expand...

I think we really need to ask ourselves would Murray be coming to GT even if we had a pro style offense...
 
stingem103 said:
+ 1

We used to recruit NFL talent under Gailey despite all the issues that we have to deal with at GT. Do you see anyone on our team that is good enough for the next level? PJ's offense has essentially shut down our ability to get any of these kids that we used to land. Im sick of the academic arguments...you guys watched ND this year?
Click to expand...

Here is the difference between us and Notre Dame:

ONE: Notre Dame has FORTY non-science majors (including Africana Studies, American Studies, Art History, Education, Film/TV/Theatre, English, History, Medieval Studies, Philosophy, Psychology, Sociology).

GT has a handful of non-science/non-architecture (and they are still all BSs) - Applied language and intercultural studies, economics/international affairs/modern language (or some combination of the three), public policy, business administration. That's it. Unless you want to be an engineer, Notre Dame is much more likely to offer something you are interested in academically.

TWO: National TV all the time.

THREE: A football stadium that seats more than 80k (and draws more than 80k routinely).

FOUR: Tradition. Look, our tradition is great. But it's top 10-15 at best (given our struggles since the 1960s). Notre Dame has 11 titles and 7 Heisman winners. It is a top 5 historical football program.

FIVE: Women. Notre dame is 47% female. GT is about 30%.
 
Talked with someone on Sunday at daughters softball game.
The guy was on Dooley's staff back in the day. He was there to see
his granddaughter play.

He said if PJ ever got SEC-type talent, or anything close to what GT had back
around 1989-1990, that GT would...(his words) "...rule college football in the South."

Said he believed PJ's offense is so versatile and multi-dimensional, that with
the right horses, it would be near impossible to stop.
 
DressCheeseSideSeaboard said:
Diss? My question was, in what way do the academics at ND compare to Tech? I have yet to see a comparison, just a bunch of emotional jibberish.
Click to expand...

The comparison itself is irrelevant. Both schools are hard to get into and both schools won't take someone who can't figure out how to tie their shoelaces.

The main issue is both have some semblance of football standards, but to most recruits (especially on a national level) notre dame is going to have a lot more pull. Unless you want to live in the city of Atlanta / the southeast or want to be an engineer there just isn't much reason for an 18 year old to come to GT over ND.
 
3GT said:
Talked with someone on Sunday at daughters softball game.
The guy was on Dooley's staff back in the day. He was there to see
his granddaughter play.

He said if PJ ever got SEC-type talent, or anything close to what GT had back
around 1989-1990, that GT would...(his words) "...rule college football in the South."

Said he believed PJ's offense is so versatile and multi-dimensional, that with
the right horses, it would be near impossible to stop.
Click to expand...

I'm with this. CPJ didn't just forget how to coach offense. He's pretty much had a top 20 offense since he got here. We are definitely tops in the ACC over that period.

The problem is not the coaching people.

The problem, believe it or not, is us. If we drew 70k a game a lot of our perceived problems would disappear. It would be much easier to recruit. Negative comments wouldn't mean nearly as much. The atmosphere would be better and we'd get a lot more money in. The problem, imo, is the "fans" who don't go to every game.
 
BarrelORum said:
Dude, you're extremely naive. We cannot run a pro style offense and attract enough talent to play in it. Been there done that. We're at our best running some form of spread option. Name one year we beat UGA running a pro style offense. Point... Me. Stop being a dumbass.m you're one of the smarter posters here.
Click to expand...

Amen. This. Unless we are paying players we are not going to regularly win recruiting battles against the other factories in the southeast. We have to be good at doing something different and build off of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top