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
It's fascinating to me how much people's answers to this question seem to correspond with how they view CPJ. It explains a lot, actually.
 
I wouldn't play dirty for only 9+ wins. Maybe 10.5+. But we'd still end up as 7+ win team, no matter how filthy we got.
 
dressedcheeseside said:
And we've had even more kids who stuck around contributing nothing other than taking up a scholly. Explain that.
Click to expand...

Well one reason could be there isn't ever enough depth to run all of them off. Have to have bodies to suit up in case of injuries even if they aren't really capable bodies.
 
These polls are crap but Tech clearly is so far removed from trying to compete that I actually voted for dirty simply because "dirty" at Tech means that someone may allow a Chemistry class for a Biology requirement.
 
So would Bio316 (industrial hygiene as it was known in the day) count as a "fake" class?

If so, I would vote "dirty". Oversigning has not necessarily proven to have made certain things happen; and fake classes appear not to have built kingdoms.

But it would be somewhat interesting to observe the reaction of people losing their self worth, taking pay decreases if not actually losing their jobs because their alma mater winning 9 football games a year has devalued their degree.
 
johncu said:
It's also not the Math 101 that football players at most schools take, where they learn how to draw graphs and solve basic algebraic equations.
Click to expand...

My point is that people believe there's a collective group of pale, pimply men with ponytails in Tech Tower secretly plotting to destroy the football program. In fact, the administration has gone in the opposite direction and has reduced the barriers for the program. Have they eliminated the barriers? No, but they have reduced them.

BuzzCzar said:
many schools need their sports to be exceptional to even be talked about in a national forum. some schools are good schools. Georgia Tech is in the latter, better category.
Click to expand...

The difference is that schools like Clemson, or Florida State, or Alabama don't care about the national stage. Those schools view their mission as serving their local community as best as possible. Creating a college where 95% of the local community can't attend or wouldn't pass if they attended is contradictory to that mission.


texstinger said:
...taking pay decreases if not actually losing their jobs because their alma mater winning 9 football games a year has devalued their degree.
Click to expand...

That's such an overused non-sequitur and not an argument that anyone actually uses on here.
 
gtphd said:
The difference is that schools like Clemson, or Florida State, or Alabama don't care about the national stage. Those schools view their mission as serving their local community as best as possible. Creating a college where 95% of the local community can't attend or wouldn't pass if they attended is contradictory to that mission.
Click to expand...

Actually, Clemson has made a huge push over the last 10 or so years to put themselves on a national stage. It has worked in terms of putting the school into the top 20 public universities, but there has definitely been a negative reaction from many locals because the school has become pretty tough for your average South Carolinian to get into.

IMO the bigger difference is diversity of degree offerings. Sure, it allows players who don't care about school to hide in joke classes, but it also allows room for those who are academically inclined but don't want a math or business degree. I've probably posted this 10 times on here, but I don't understand why Tech doesn't offer a STEM teaching degree. As shitty as our math and science teaching is at the high school level, we could use some help from the elite universities. As a side effect, I could definitely see this attracting some athletes that we might not otherwise get.
 
johncu said:
Actually, Clemson has made a huge push over the last 10 or so years to put themselves on a national stage. It has worked in terms of putting the school into the top 20 public universities, but there has definitely been a negative reaction from many locals because the school has become pretty tough for your average South Carolinian to get into.

IMO the bigger difference is diversity of degree offerings. Sure, it allows players who don't care about school to hide in joke classes, but it also allows room for those who are academically inclined but don't want a math or business degree. I've probably posted this 10 times on here, but I don't understand why Tech doesn't offer a STEM teaching degree. As shitty as our math and science teaching is at the high school level, we could use some help from the elite universities. As a side effect, I could definitely see this attracting some athletes that we might not otherwise get.
Click to expand...

There's a huge lack of supply of hs physics teachers in the us, especially in FL. It results in fewer and fewer highschoolers taking physics, I think in FL it's under 20%.

Part of the problem is salary competition. Anybody with a Physics degree can make a ton more money doing something else.

Also, the fact that Ga State has a huge Education department doesn't exactly force the hand of the BoR even though it's not specialized to STEM teaching. You'd have to create an entire department of education at GT because teaching is so much more than knowing the subject. I teach Middle School Science and only a small fraction of my education course load involved subject knowledge.
 
coit said:
Depends on how you define dirty I believe.
Click to expand...

This. Ugag fans had this argument for several years, but it was "Do you want to win 10 games per year under Richt's "clean" program or do things like Auburn and LSU and win a national title?" Was Georgia's program "clean"? Yeah, it was clean according to the standards they judged it by and who they compared themselves to. Would Richt's Georgia way be considered "clean" here? Not so much. Bama fans swear their program is clean. After all, Saban doesn't break the rules as they are written and he can afford to kick criminals off the team.

But, basically, I would rather Tech be a clean, but smart, aggressive, competitive program.

I would certainly not want to be dirty to win 9 games/year as opposed to 7. All that gets you most years is a marginally better bowl game.
However, if it guaranteed one national title, I wouldn't mind being dirty for a couple of years, provided we didn't get it vacated.
 
What a stupid nerdtastic notion. What would Coach Dodd have to say? End of argument. How stupid.
 
dressedcheeseside said:
There's a huge lack of supply of hs physics teachers in the us, especially in FL. It results in fewer and fewer highschoolers taking physics, I think in FL it's under 20%.

Part of the problem is salary competition. Anybody with a Physics degree can make a ton more money doing something else.

Also, the fact that Ga State has a huge Education department doesn't exactly force the hand of the BoR even though it's not specialized to STEM teaching. You'd have to create an entire department of education at GT because teaching is so much more than knowing the subject. I teach Middle School Science and only a small fraction of my education course load involved subject knowledge.
Click to expand...

I teach science and engineering as well, so I'm well aware of the salary competition issue,but that's another topic for another day.

I think at the very least you could add a certificate program at GT so that someone who was majoring in a science could add on an ed certification with some extra classes and a teaching internship.
 
gnats67 said:
What a stupid nerdtastic notion. What would Coach Dodd have to say? End of argument. How stupid.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are implying... I feel pretty confident that Coach Dodd would choose "Good Clean Program" as evidenced by his decision to leave the SEC.
 
I hate to tell all you folks but it isn't 1955 anymore. What Coach Dodd would or wouldn't do has little bearing.

I assure you, admission standards today are far tougher than they were when Dodd was coaching.
 
coit said:
I hate to tell all you folks but it isn't 1955 anymore. What Coach Dodd would or wouldn't do has little bearing.

I assure you, admission standards today are far tougher than they were when Dodd was coaching.
Click to expand...


You got that right!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top