First, I would like to gloat. I called it Bulldog

GTCrew

GTCrew

Patrick Henry
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
49,807
style and there is no denying it. A bowl game equals an extension.

Second, I think I will up my donation today as a sign to the AA.
 
And one thing that hasn\'t been mentioned.

I know the anti-Chan crowd and I disagree on a lot, but I don't think anyone disagrees that the Hill's restrictions will make it very hard to be 'elite'. I'm convinced they don't agree with me or nearly every other football fan in the western hemisphere.

Chan will prove, like Welsh at UVA, whether it can be done or not without putting us through a total Lewis style meltdown. Then, when Chan retires in the not so distant future, we should be able to pull a UVA and fix this issue like they did.

JMHO.
 
Re: And one thing that hasn\'t been mentioned.

We haven't had a Lewis type meltdown in the four years we have had Gailey....just continued mediocrity and losses to Georgia....so why wait for him to retire before "we fix it" like UVa. Why not do it now?
 
Re: And one thing that hasn\'t been mentioned.

[ QUOTE ]
...we should be able to pull a UVA and fix this issue like they did.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly has UVa fixed? They look to be headed for a 3-5 finish in the league, 6-5 overall and a minor bowl. Is that "fixed"?
 
Because the Hill has to change. Not us.

One thing I wil guarantee is that the Hill will be reluctant to admit that the restrictions make it difficult for us to be highly competitive. Or maybe they don't care...

I don't know if I'm being clear. GT might be able to do slightly better than Chan with the greatest football coach ever. Whoever he is. For instance, how many games would Richt and friends win here in your opinion with our players? Would GT be able to score on a Tenuta led UGA defense? Would anyone?

Frankly, we couldn't achieve elite status with far less academic restrictions, a relative cakewalk of a schedule, some of the best QBs ever to play here, and a genius running the offense.

The schedule is what we wanted and frankly what we need. But raising the academic standards while the rest of the league lowered them is suicide.

If you think we can make a quantum leap with the academic standards simply with a different coach, we'll have to disagree. If you know how to fix the standards with or without Chan, I'm all ears. (I'd throw Chan under a bus to be able to get a team loaded with five stars like Carlos Thomas or Reggie Ball's little brother.)
 
The jury is out on Groh.

But they have TALENT according to rivals. (I tend to agree, actually). I believe they have 'outrecruited' VaTech every year Groh has been there.

I think we could do a better job landing kids who are five star and can communicate and are nice young men like you would like your daughter to date. But not if they have to have 3.0s and 950 SATs IMHO.
 
Re: Because the Hill has to change. Not us.

Serious question. Did UVa fix their version of the "Hill"?
You said "we should be able to" and then in your next post you ask how to do it. Sorry but I am a little confused as to what UVa's fix was and if it applies to us. I would say this....Virginia's broader curriculum is something we cannot achieve.
 
Re: Because the Hill has to change. Not us.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd throw Chan under a bus to be able to get a team loaded with five stars like Carlos Thomas or Reggie Ball's little brother.

[/ QUOTE ]

I got a good laugh out of that, thanks Crew.
 
Re: And one thing that hasn\'t been mentioned.

[ QUOTE ]
We haven't had a Lewis type meltdown in the four years we have had Gailey....just continued mediocrity and losses to Georgia....so why wait for him to retire before "we fix it" like UVa. Why not do it now?

[/ QUOTE ]

I plan on posting this in the future but just haven't gotten around to it, but there is an underlying factor here no one is considering.

Right now we have a coach with 4 winning seasons no matter how you slice it. He has one year on his contract left. As I have stated FOREVER you don't go into the last year of a contract. You either extend or cut bait at this season's end.

So we cut bait completely, or make an extension. As someone taught me yesterday, you don't make a 1-2 year extension. This does nothing on the recruiting trail. You have to show recruits that this staff is in place for a long time, hence the 5 years. I've seen the light with this.

(On a side note I'm sure this contract will have a low buy out and some stipulations regarding OC, ST's etc etc. )

Anyway, the real factor here is we also have a Athletic Director who is retiring after next year. We will be bringing in a new man for the job and probably giving him some experience overlapping while Braine is here. This will probbaly take place over the next year and a half. Regardless, we are going to have some upheavel in our athletics department and we don't know which way this will go. Will the new staff be football fan friendly, or will it tow the hardline reminiscent of Clough? Who knows.

The problem as I see it is Braine could have fired a coach and tried to bring in a new coach. That coach will be coming into a situation where the AD will be leaving and his support structure will be up in the air. As I see it, (and although I'm not exstatic about it, I support the decision and think it is probably the best choice at this juncture) Braine made the extension in order to give some continuity and some stability in the football program while there will be some great changes over the next 3 years.

At the sametime, it puts the burden of the football program on the hands of the new AD, which personally I would rather have as I would not want an AD on the last year of his job bringing in a candidate that he will essentially dump on the fans and walk away into the sunset.

So keeping this situation in mind, the extension to me makes sense. Am I 100% happy about it. Hell no. Do I understand the reasons for it and support those reasons, absolutely.


So for all you people who want Chan fired at seasons end, be careful what you wish for. Unfortunately, given the situation with a transitional Athletic Director, a potential fight over academics with the Hill and a new regime, and uncertainty amongst where we are headed... I don't know if now is the best time to be searching for a new coach.
 
Re: And one thing that hasn\'t been mentioned.

well said BOR. I said something similiar a couple weeks ago, we're really between a rock and a hard place here and had to do what we had to do. In the mean time, I'll be /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/drinking.gif and hoping.
 
They did fix their issue.

When George Welsh was at UVA, their admin had standards for SAs that exceeded the ACC standards. If you could look back, UVA's recruiting was not that great.

When Welsh 'retired', UVA went looking for coaches. They were told that their higher standards for SAs were a problem by candidates. The two options were lower the standards or get a coach unlikely to match Welsh's consistent seven to nine win standard.

It is OBVIOUS when you hear the post game interviews that the SAs on the football team can barely speak English as you and I know it.

We have two problems. The math requirement and the Hill's requirement. I think the Mgt degree is open enough, but a 'sports management' degree as an offshoot would be brilliant. I think we negotiate an 'intense' summer school math class to get the average jock up to standard and we start letting in the kids everyone else gets. If they fail, the new rules will kill us. And on the new rules, we need to set the curriculum up where 15 is the max hours per semester. If a program requres more than 15 hours it ain't a four year program and we shouldn't be penalized for that. ME used to require 17-18 hours in some quarters to graduate on time, and it wasn't the only one. A BME should be a 4 1/2 or 5 year program that intense students can wrap up in 4.
 
Re: And one thing that hasn\'t been mentioned.

That's all we can do...As well as of Course Support the Team...Especially the Players, as they are about to embark on quite a high point in our schedule against two exceptionally good teams.
 
Just for the record, BOR will love this...

The college of MGT requires 120 credit hours to graduate. 38 of those are free electives. Normal classes are '3 hours' (actually 3x50min or 2.5 hours/wk)

Duke requires 34 classes be taken. Classes there are normally 2x1.25 hours or 2.5 hours/wk. If AfroAm studies, 10 classes are required. 24 free electives? Outrageous.

As is the fact that our guys take five classes to their 4.25. That just ain't right.
 
Re: Just for the record, BOR will love this...

And you must add in the fact that Labs take 3 hours of your time and only give one hour of credit...or at least they did years ago! That is another issue not dealt with at Duke, etc. Duke's academic prowness that Dickie V. and his brethern slobber over is really a fraud.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Second, I think I will up my donation today as a sign to the AA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does that mean that you were holding back on some of your contributions until the AA extended Chan's contract?

How is that any different than someone that was giving more before Chan's contract was extended (as a sign) and now decides to give less (as a sign)?

I have not changed my contribution and do not intend to.

However, economically increasing a contribution in response to a favorable change is the exact same behavior as decreasing a contribution in response to an unfavorable change. The difference is the time frame described as the base situation.

I just want to make sure there is an understanding of the exact parallel similarity between some behavior that is criticized on the board and other behavior that is not.

For logical consistency, either both behaviors should be criticized or both behaviors considered positive. I am not picking one view or the other, but I suggest that people use a consistent analytical methodology of the behavior in either condemning both actions or lauding both actions.

Also, should people that are happy with the Hill increase their contributions to Roll Call as a sign?

I just want to make sure that I understand from where everyone is coming. It seems to be that some people believe we will only have a competitive football team if we lower or even totally remove some academic standards.

Should people concerned with academics (and Roll Call pulls in much more money through individual and corporate sponsorships that allows GT to exist, operate, and thrive) adjust their contributions to Roll Call based on how well the Hill protects the academic integrity and excellence of GT (possibly to the detriment of the athletic program)?

Whichever choices that people prefer, let's just be consistent.

I happen to want to win at football (as well as other sports), but I do not want to sacrifice my degree through which I earn compensation for my labor. Also, I happen to view the survival of GA Tech as a special place for academic development of students and young leaders to remain viable and continue to expand without jeopardizing that for anything that happens on Saturday.

If we are going to lower the academic standards, why should we keep up any integrity standards? We could keep Chan as football coach, but we could bring in a Bowden, Inc. disciple to hand out punishments when 8 to 10 or more GT players get arrested every off season.

Why should upstanding moral integrity be an asset (as is claimed for the program under Chan) for college football players, while academic integrity (as is pushed by Dr. Clough and the Hill) at an academic institution (as opposed to a professional football franchise) should be considered less important?

I do not expect perfection in moral issues, in legal issues, nor in academic issues for student athletes. However, I want our players to strive to pursue excellence both on and off the field, which is consistent with Homer Rice's Total Person Program.
 
Re: They did fix their issue.

[ QUOTE ]
They did fix their issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meaning they gave up and settled on the academic side.

[ QUOTE ]
When Welsh 'retired', UVA went looking for coaches. They were told that their higher standards for SAs were a problem by candidates. The two options were lower the standards or get a coach unlikely to match Welsh's consistent seven to nine win standard.

It is OBVIOUS when you hear the post game interviews that the SAs on the [UVA] football team can barely speak English as you and I know it.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is such a decision to the credit of UVA?

They ought to be ashamed if that is what they have done.

Is that the type of thing that GT should strive to copy?
 
UVA is still the #1 public University...

despite the players thay are letting in. Lets be realistic. 25 per year is ~1/200th of the incoming class, not all of the 25 are going to be borderline. And I think I was very clear that we can be more selective than UVA without 'zero-tolerance' type rules from the hill.

Duke is still top 10 and IIUC climbing despite the occasional Basketball player who sneaks in.

I could give many times what I give to the AT fund if I had to. I planned on upping my donation this year. Why not right now? I think you are not understanding the difference between positive and negative feedback. There is a difference between cheering, staying silent, and booing during the game. Some of us think that the first two are acceptable while the third is not. Why would the same not be true in general WRT the AA?

The ultimate vote is the season ticket sales. They continue to climb despite the discontent some here insist exists in the general GT fanbase. That is not consistent.
 
Re: UVA is still the #1 public University...

[ QUOTE ]
I could give many times what I give to the AT fund if I had to. I planned on upping my donation this year. Why not right now? I think you are not understanding the difference between positive and negative feedback. There is a difference between cheering, staying silent, and booing during the game. Some of us think that the first two are acceptable while the third is not. Why would the same not be true in general WRT the AA?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that is not correct. I will lay out the economic reasons and analysis at a later time. With everything going on with GT sports right now, there are plenty of other things to talk about.

The issue is that a fan adjusts his contribution up or down in response to a decision by the GTAA to take an action or not take an action. I have no problem with a fan doing this, but one fan that decreases his amount is acting no differently than another fan increasing his amount.

If one wants to criticize or praise a fan for the position they are financially supporting versus the position they are not supporting, that is OK. Thus, someone can be criticized for not supporting Gailey and his extension. However, he cannot be criticied for changing his financial contribution because that behavior is economically exactly the same as someone who increases his contribution. As I said, I will elaborate more fully on this in the future if anyone wants to know the full explanation.

[ QUOTE ]
The ultimate vote is the season ticket sales. They continue to climb despite the discontent some here insist exists in the general GT fanbase. That is not consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am glad they are going up. The issue is not whether I am pro or against Gailey, the issue is whether a fan should be criticized solely for changing his contribution (either up or down) in response to changes and actions by the GTAA without a consideration/judgment of the GTAA's action itself.

I am glad Gailey got the extension, but I will attack logic problems (and I hope other do the same to my posts). I am glad that you give a lot to GT, and it is fine with me if you increase your contribution.

By many I probably would be considered an academic snob because I want GT to excel in academics and athletics. I do not mind taking a chance on a few kids with some weaker high school backgrounds, but the GTAA should pay the money to offer these kids very high quality academic support including possibly paying a professor (instead of just students) that is a good educator (as opposed to just a researcher) to provide individualized help for the kids.

I want to compete and win in sports very much with consistent seasons of 7 - 5, 8 - 5, and 8 - 4 as well as every now and then having a shot at something more special.

However, in the bigger picture, it is more important to provide these athletes with a real education that they can use for the remaining 60 or so years of their lives beyond the 4 or 5 years of playing football for GT.

At GT I expect us to strive for excellence in both sports and academics, and I am not going to blame the Hill for setting academic standards that they want athletes to meet.

(In contrast, the carelessness of the acadedmic eligibilty calculations might be something that rightly should be placed at the feet of the Hill.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top