GT Needs TO Make A Commitment

Originally posted by ylojk8:
let me jump in at this point and state unequivocally that O'Leary was great for Tech.

O'Leary was great for Tech and Tech was great for O'Leary. It was sad to see him leave. He did leave on a sour note after a mediocre season which had really high expectations.

The resume thing really came into picture because of ND. Had O'Leary not left Tech, he would not have been tarnished because of that.

O'Leary did accomplish great things at Tech, granted with the Fridge as his OC. they were a great team and it was sad to lose them both.

We have moved on now. Support who's here. If he fails .. Tech fails. If he succeeds .. Tech succeeds. If he does fail .. he will be replaced.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Ylojk8: Good post about George!
 
Originally posted by mustard:
If we could develop an articulation agreement with Georgia State on producing a sports management degree, where the sa takes most of their work from GT, but takes a significant amout from GSU, then we could do without a special curriculum from GT for athletes. However, even this degree would require approval from the board of regents, which IMO will never happen in our state which is bent on protecting Ugag.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Great idea - do you really think the board is that biased towards GAG? I really believe you brought something up that is viable - Clough would have to present to the board - would he?
 
Wrecked, competition is welcomed by me and I believe most everyone on this board...FAIR competition that is. What's happening now is far from it.

I will assure you that DOD grants have NOTHING whatsoever to do with what 85 athletes study at GT. Just as degree valuation has NOTHING to do with same.

The kneejerk "we can't dummy down or sell-out ugag style" reactions to suggestions for legitimate curricula changes really grow tiresome.

As for GT football being characterized as ONLY week-end entertainment...your are waay off the mark here. It's much more an integral part of the OVERALL GT experience, identity, and culture, than the academic snobs and those who never played a down of real football, wish to admit. THWG
 
GoldZ I agree if we can get curriculum changes through the Board of Regents, I am all for it. But that will be tough to do and not duplicate a degree program already offered at Georgia and Georgia State. Any type of degree that Tech can offer and fit within the mission of the school is a good thing.

Look I understand the value to the experience of college that football brings. God knows my GPA suffered enough due to it, but by definition college sports is not about a level playing field among the competitors. The SA's have to represent the school. That means they are stuck majoring in what the school offers. If we want a level playing field among all the schools, lets just drop the academic charade and pay the players and then we can have the NFL on Saturday.
 
Wrecked, name one single D-1 football program whose players are represntative of the student body (no service academies allowed). Just one now. THWG
 
GoldZ, to be fair what he said is they have to major in something the school offers. I don't know how you can argue with that. Now if you think the school needs to offer more majors that's a different discussion, and one that Pres. Clough and the Board of Regents have to address. Given our curriculum as it is today however, I don't know what else you can do in the short run but work to identify kids who can succeed and then give them all the support they need.
 
I am not sure what you are asking. By representative I meant they had to take the classes the school offered them and other students, in other words they are not there in a special major designed just for them. From a graduation rate standpoint (whose measurement I think is severly flawed) football players graduate on the national average at the same rate as their counterparts in the student body.

Just curious why you exempted the service academies? They play Division 1-A football.
 
Wrecked, I eliminated the service academies because with the rare exception of the Air Force Academy they don't play D-1 level football. Schedule it, yes, play it, no.

I understood your post about athletes having to take what is offered. My point is that on no campus in America are the football players representative of the regular student body, whether they take the same courses or not. So what's the difference if there were to be legit courses at GT (i.e. Sports Mgt. and any number of Mgt. major spin offs not offered at GSU),
that were taken by both SA's and regular students, but that were taken as a rule by more SA's than regular students? None! Actually we would still be on an unlevel playing field relative to the ugag's of the world because of the extreme to which they accomodate, but the current situation is much more unfair than what has traditionally been the case (which is pretty bad to begin with). We need a sense of urgency for proactive change just to have a fighting chance. The difference between myself and many people I know vs. unfortunately a lot of GT brethen, is 3/10 is UNacceptable. I respect their opinion, but vehemently disagree. I just haven't become refined enuf to respond to the unwashed in Athens after 51-7, to say "That's ok, we have a narrow curricula by gawd and our players scored higher than yours on their SATs"! Take that dawgs.

I'm really not sure how many of our posters/supporters realize just how big of a disadvantage we are facing. It goes far beyond the "college football isn't meant to be fair" theory. Kind of a dumb theory anyway isn't it, considering how far removed from the regular student body the football players are? THWG
 
Good post GoldZ. This is the most enlightnind thread that I have seen!! Every reply pertains to the topic, and all well thought out. I do agree wholeheartedly with Kennesawkid and GoldZ in that something drastic will have to happen for us to be only competitive! Again my hats off to the authors of this thread!!
 
GoldZ, we are saying the same thing. If Tech can add majors that are approved by the Board of Regents that are more "athlete friendly", I am all for that. Also, I am all for giving the athletes special attention and support to help them graduate. However, I am not for changing the standards for existing majors (eliminate calculus, etc.) so we can win on Saturday. That is what some posters have suggested doing.

As for the service academies, I am sure that those kids playing for Army and Navy know they are playing 1-A football regardless if you think so.
 
"Your assistants are your bread and butter - "

Thanks MsTA, you are sure on my train with this statement!!!!!!!!!


"A Yellow Jacket" day before yesterday, today and ALWAYS!"
 
Wrecked, let me be very clear about this. I in NO WAY am slamming the players for Army/Navy. They to me represent the last bastion of legit college football, but alas we live in the real/current world huh? I'm a hawk among hawks. I think u understood my point above about the level of competiveness at the academies vs. the vast majority of D-1 football. THWG
 
GoldZ I had a feeling you weren't but as an Army season ticket holder who has to endure Saturday's at the Point, I am kind of sensitive.

By the way, enjoyed the banter on this thread with you. Good stuff!!!
 
I don't see why we can't try to have a "jock friendly" major that would be easier for athletes to pass in. It could be a form of management or even introduce some engineering technology degrees. Don't forget we already have "History of Technology" program now. I don't buy the excuse that the Regents wouldn't approve a jock friendly degree, try it and lets see. I think it is more hill snobbery not to have an "easy" degree than outside conspiracy. If someone has evidence to the contrary then share it.

I am all in favor of preserving Techs academic status and have no desire to denigrate to FSU's level. However, I dare everyone here who is an alumni to quote his degree, his predominant career experience, and whether or not he has EVER used calculus.... just for fun.

I am an IE, have spent most of my career in Manufacturing Operations Management, and have NEVER used any of the 25 hours of calculus or 5 hours of differential equations that I took at Tech....
shocked.gif
 
Just my opinion, which may not count since I'm from "the other Georgia" as that g8tr suggests, but the key to Tech's revival during O'Leary's tenure was his ability to get a lot more Georgia athletes. Contrary to popular belief, there are student athletes in all parts of Georgia that have the SAT scores and dillegence to perform well at Tech academically. Tech should be lauded for its commitment to high standards; but, schools such as Tech are always going to find it hard to win big consistently. Yes, Tech may have to go after more athletes from Texas, CA, PA, etc to find the right fit, but Tech shouldn't overlook "the other Georgia." After all, there will never be a standing loyalty to a Georgia school in TX, CA, and certainly not those people south of us.
 
Originally posted by ramblinwise1:
However, I dare everyone here who is an alumni to quote his degree, his predominant career experience, and whether or not he has EVER used calculus.... just for fun.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">You will not apply everything you learn in college directly in working life. We are not Devry. The point of teaching calculus is that a student should be able to understand a problem, analyze it, and apply some sort of solution to it. Indirectly, if you ever used some sort of equation in your career, it probably has some calculus behind it. Sure, nowadays, you just plug a bunch of numbers into a computer program and it spits out an answer.

The whole point of school (at least I think) is to give you tools to solve problems. If Tech didn't do that, maybe we should bring that up with the Hill.
 
Diverse academic programs bring in a diverse group of people... Problem with Tech there is not enough intellectual diversity... Not enough diversity period... You learn from people who have different goals, thoughts, needs, backgroundds, etc... The academics at Tech are topnotch... The social experience is lower tier... There's more to life & job success than learning how to execute autocad...

The bookworms at Tech don't want to let go of their little powerbase.. their "claim to fame"... they don't want the pressures & challenges of dealing with people who are different than them... where they feel threatened... they want to feel all warm & cuddly in their little academic cocoon...
 
Contrary to popular belief, there are student athletes in all parts of Georgia that have the SAT scores and dillegence to perform well at Tech academically.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">
The bookworms at Tech don't want to let go of their little powerbase.. their "claim to fame"... they don't want the pressures & challenges of dealing with people who are different than them... where they feel threatened... they want to feel all warm & cuddly in their little academic cocoon...
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">SWGAboy...I've seen the enrollment by county figures. If you exclude Dougherty, Chatham, and Lowndes, the avg number of students from S.Ga. is 3. Presupposing that those are non-athletes. The percentages are not there to base athlete recruiting in South Georgia.

BeeBad...I assume you're thinking the bookworms who don't approve diversity are the same ones who are graduting the highest numbers of African and Hispanic American Engineers.
If you want to talk about lack of diversity take a trip to Tate Student Center and Broad Street and observe the 5.5% African-American enrollment which is falling.

Real Diversity

Regarding football our best hope is the cherry pick the best student-athletes from quality football states. We cannot follow the pattern which has worked so well in the SEC of picking the best physical specimen who needs to sit in remedial classes for half of his college career.

BTW remedial classes do not count towards your degree, but do count against number of hours attempted. Enrolling our athletes in such programs would tend to dissuade them from choosing our beloved Institute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top