Good Clean Program or Great Dirty Program?

Clean program or Dirty Program + 2 wins

  • Clean Program averaging 7 wins / season

    Votes: 63 62.4%

  • Dirty Program averaging 9 wins / season

    Votes: 38 37.6%
  • Total voters
    101
Z

zippyGT

in the dumpster.
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
23,585
Sparked by this post:

http://www.stingtalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1747117&postcount=24

GT appears, more or less, to be a clean program devoid of the uGA or FSU-like constant arrests, fake classes, and over signing. And given one or the other, most people would prefer that our program is clean. But what if a dirty program led to more wins?

Would you rather have:
  • Clean program that averages 7 wins / season with the occasional 10 win season
  • Dirty program that averages 9 wins / season with the occasional National Championship run

Poll is anonymous so vote truthfully.

/off season
 
By clean do you mean non probation and loss of conference championships?
 
jts1207 said:
By clean do you mean non probation and loss of conference championships?
Click to expand...

The cause of that is now gone.

AR-140709451.jpg&maxw=800&q=90
 
Problem is we can't cheat for öööö. Even when trying to be clean we end up on probation. E.g. ACC Championship beig vacated for BS.
 
I want to win. All of the best programs are at least a little dirty. Need to match how they push limits.
 
If by dirty you mean Saban dirty when he first arrived at Bama then no. GT has a program with enough history to attract players. It has academics that aren't player friendly coupled with a system that isn't really player friendly (offensive minded coach with a system that doesn't translate perfectly to nfl). There has to be some balance between the academic folks and athletic ones where the athletes aren't dummies or the academic ppl aren't elitist snobs. Both represent GT no matter how much they like the other or get along.
 
Running people off and grayshirting aren't against the rules. Those things won't get you probation. Knowing that the signing system is rigged against players isn't dirty. It is knowing the rules of the game.

Without redshirting, we can give 25 schollys a year. We can sign 500 if we wanted, although I think the ACC may limit that. Once those kids sign, they are screwed. Even if you don't give the a scholly, you can force them to sit a year.

Even at 25 clean schollys a year, you launch past 85 total 'ships available. Not even Alabama puts that many underclassmen in the NFL. Everyone knows they are running off the dead wood. Granted, it is easier if you have the academic side in your pocket, you just flunk the dead wood if they don't leave voluntarily. Or you straight up don't renew that 'ship.

All of that is BS if you believe in the concept of a student athlete. Of course, if you believe in that concept, you don't admit illiterates like UGa did.

But, the above is needed for our recruiting to move up from where it is to Top 25. Franklin proved it at Vandy.

Me, I will take the fewer ups and potential downs like this year. But it is BS that the NCAA even makes it a choice.
 
BarrelORum said:
Who considers 1998 thru 2000 teams clean or dirty?
Click to expand...

Clean, but they weren't top 25 classes in 95-97.

Loosing the academic entry standards is fine with me. That is how a lot of us got into Tech. I am talking about knowingly roping guys in when you don't have the ship or running off guys who just can't get off the scout team.
 
WracerX said:
Running people off and grayshirting aren't against the rules. Those things won't get you probation. Knowing that the signing system is rigged against players isn't dirty. It is knowing the rules of the game.

Without redshirting, we can give 25 schollys a year. We can sign 500 if we wanted, although I think the ACC may limit that. Once those kids sign, they are screwed. Even if you don't give the a scholly, you can force them to sit a year.

Even at 25 clean schollys a year, you launch past 85 total 'ships available. Not even Alabama puts that many underclassmen in the NFL. Everyone knows they are running off the dead wood. Granted, it is easier if you have the academic side in your pocket, you just flunk the dead wood if they don't leave voluntarily. Or you straight up don't renew that 'ship.

All of that is BS if you believe in the concept of a student athlete. Of course, if you believe in that concept, you don't admit illiterates like UGa did.

But, the above is needed for our recruiting to move up from where it is to Top 25. Franklin proved it at Vandy.

Me, I will take the fewer ups and potential downs like this year. But it is BS that the NCAA even makes it a choice.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure players have been run off by most every recent coach. We know Oleary did, have had many leave under Johnson for no obvious reason.
 
gtphd said:
Sparked by this post:

http://www.stingtalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1747117&postcount=24

GT appears, more or less, to be a clean program devoid of the uGA or FSU-like constant arrests, fake classes, and over signing. And given one or the other, most people would prefer that our program is clean. But what if a dirty program led to more wins?

Would you rather have:
  • Clean program that averages 7 wins / season with the occasional 10 win season
  • Dirty program that averages 9 wins / season with the occasional National Championship run

Poll is anonymous so vote truthfully.

/off season
Click to expand...
I would rather have a third option: A clean program without the ridiculous and totally unnecessary recruiting restrictions like requiring calculus along with a some leeway in expanding the majors sensibly. Is it really too much to ask for a power five program to compete without one hand tied behind our backs?
 
artesian jacket said:
I would rather have a third option: A clean program without the ridiculous and totally unnecessary recruiting restrictions like requiring calculus along with a some leeway in expanding the majors sensibly. Is it really too much to ask for a power five program to compete without one hand tied behind our backs?
Click to expand...

The adding majors for football should never be the argument. I would feel GT should push for the added majors to benefit the school itself. That would also benefit sports.
 
You guys who think the 98-00 teams were clean, I got news for you.

Of all the people who voted for the clean program, which three year period would you find more enjoyable? 1998-2000 or 2003-2005???

Because if you voted clean, you better pick the 2003-2005 season. Doubt any of you would do that.
 
artesian jacket said:
I would rather have a third option: A clean program without the ridiculous and totally unnecessary recruiting restrictions like requiring calculus along with a some leeway in expanding the majors sensibly. Is it really too much to ask for a power five program to compete without one hand tied behind our backs?
Click to expand...

+1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top