Having our cake and eating it too...

71YellowJacket

71YellowJacket

Damn Good Rat
Joined
Jul 10, 2002
Messages
1,262
It's an old saying but boy it sure fits all of us. For 35 plus years Tech fans could see the divergent paths being followed by academics and athletics at the Division IA level.

More than a few of us have taken pride in our higher academics and loftier standards we set for "our boys". Sooner or later it had to come home to roost.

The problem isn’t Dave Braine and it's not Chan Gailey. Bobby Dodd warned us we were getting in deeper and deeper. He was ignored and he retired early, with some regret for not leaving sooner and taking the Texas job.

It's time we face the music and take our medicine, what's it going to be; a winning Div 1A program that consistently finishes in the top 20 with an occasional shots at the national championship or do we move closer to teams that have higher academic standards, like Duke, Wake Forest, North Carolina, Vanderbilt, Boston College, Pittsburg?

If it's to be the former, we need academic programs that athletes are interested in and can complete successfully.

If it's the latter, we need to re-evaluate what kind of conference we really belong in, and it doesn’t include Miami, FSU, Georgia, Alabama, and Tennessee; to name a few.

It will take a while before a direction for our program is determined but until it is, let’s at least stop demanding both high academic standards with a limited curriculum and conference championships.
 
I am afraid you are right. I, for one, am for an expanded curriculum but I do not know how that happens.

An expanded curriculum would allow a student that does not want to be an engineer or manager or who cannot handle the work of being an engineer or manager to remain in school. It would not take away from the degrees of those who are in the existing degree programs IMO.

Tech would still require students to go to class and try to make sure that the students excel as students, but give them some degree options.

I graduated as a EE from Tech and I thought about transferring several times while at Tech. To get a broad range of degree programs to choose from, I would have had to go elsewhere even though I loved Tech. I am glad I stayed but I did not have to deal with all the time pressures that these student-athletes do.
 
Yes, if a school wants to compete on a specific level, it can not tie one hand behind its back. I think most will agree on this point.

There are some schools who would do anything to win, including giving the students passing grades for attending the popular basket weaving classes.

I did not attend GT, so I have no vested interest in their academic behavior, but I hate to see any school or peoples try to hide wrong-doing by cheating and helping the athletes to stay in school without making the athletes responsible for their own education.

Regardless of the courses added, if any, I hope they are legitimate and the school inforces the grading to the point that the student athletes have to exert a lot of effort to pass.

I don't think it is fair to give them a degree just because they are football players. It does not make them a better person, and, in the long run, it is not good for the SA. They should have to earn their degree just like anyone else.

They should have the same requirements as other students to compete for classes and grades. Any class or degree set up to help the SA should also be available to the student body as a whole.

71, I feel you probably agree on this issue and most of this subpost.

I would like for GT to stay in Division I football if it can compete satisfactorily, but I would be just as happy to see them play and win in a division where the quality of their players is consistent with their goal of education.

I doubt if any Ivy League school is upset by their schools absence from the big boys. They are probably just as proud of their wins in their division as we are with wins in our division.

Because I am a long time Tech fan, and a leopard cannot change its spots, I would still pull for Tech and enjoy their games regardless of the division they played in.

drinking.gif
 
71: I agree the standards are high and demand a lot from any student but that's why I gravitated to Tech as a fan. Tech's academic standards were like my school BC.

I truly believe it's the recruiting process to search the country for the best players who fill the bill academically and athletically ... they are out there. The recruiting process has to change to be able to go every where and get info on these kinds of players.

This country is full of student/athletes who can compete at Tech and do the work too ... you need to find them and make recruiting a formula for success. This is too large a country with a lot of high school kids who can make it here and bring to Tech an athlete who can compete in Div. 1.

Maryland had a basketball player this year (freshmen - Nick Caner-Medly) from Maine that no one knew about because recruiters shy away from the small state of Maine, not Gary Williams - he found him and he got himself one excellent ballplayer.

My point - there are plenty of HS players to find and get to come here with academic and athletic credentials. Just maybe Tech needs to enhance their recruiting budget to make it happen and put a better process in place.
 
MsTechAnalysis,

I don't think Tech needs to become a Div II school to be competitive on the football field. But let’s define “compete”. If we both mean playing teams where we win a bit more than we lose, where our losses are close then I believe Tech can now compete with the likes of Boston College, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt; but not FSU, Miami, Georgia, Alabama and Auburn.

We have not beaten FSU sense they entered the ACC and I doubt if we played the teams in the latter list, we would win more than 2 of every 10 games. To me, that's not competing.

Take a look, and I suspect you have, at the broader liberal arts academic offerings at BC, Pittsburgh, Duke, Wake Forest, and Virginia Tech. Tech could match these programs without risking injury to our reputation for high academic standards.

If Tech did move in this direction, it would level the playing field academically and allow us to maximize the benefits of excellent coaching. With excellent coaching we would be winning more than our share and regularly vying for conference championships.

I'm not saying we need or should lower/revise our standards and become a football factory like Alabama, Georgia or FSU but if those are the teams we want to win our fair share with, it just isn't going to happen in our lifetime.

So where do we go? Someone has decided to spend a big chunk of $$ on an expanded Bobby Dodd stadium. How are we going to fill that without playing teams like FSU, Miami, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, and Georgia? I don’t think it is possible.

Those that are chasing higher revenue know playing these teams will bring in the dollars, even if the stadium is full of non-Tech fans.

Whichever direction we go, it will take years to sort this all out; meanwhile it won’t be pretty when the factory team’s come to town.
 
71: Your points are all valid. I think the FSU -no wins is just Tech's achilles heel, not that they were that much better then us over the last 5 years. FSU has a similar problem with Miami and that's been for a long time.

I'm willing to bet with the right administrative personnel in Tech's Athletic offices and the proper budget and direction, we can overcome some of the issues you bring up. We've come close in recent years in contending and being in the Top Tier of teams - it's do-able. My concern is the focus has been lost in all of this. I really do believe George O'Leary was much of the driving force from the past.

We need to get the driving force back and continue to get over the perverbial hump. Tech has too much going for it as a school, an alumni base, money and Atlanta to not happen. I'm forever positive about Georgia Tech and what they are capable of accomplishing.

This ACC expansion may force them to look at everything they have and what they need to do to keep ahead of the game. I can't believe they've gone through all of this stadium expansion, enhancing the schedule to not be progressive in their willingness to be competitive and successful.

I have always had faith in this great institution, even though the coach is not my cup of tea.
 
71B:

I think you are right on the mark concerning our competitiveness and ability to recruit/retain with limited academic choices. IMO, the expansion may even further this dilemma as we become more pigeon-holed into the 'Vanderbilt' category for the new division we would play in and the coaching position becomes more and more a difficult prospect to fill.

As Ms Tech has stated, it takes a very special coach to win at Tech and it keeps getting harder. I'm not defending Chan cause I don't like what is going on either, but I'm concerned the expansion will make the next job search even tougher. Let's say Syracuse enters the ACC and their coaching job opens up after this year-as a hot new coach, where do you think you would have a better chance for success- Syracuse or Ga Tech? This scenario could come up and I don't like our odds for competing for coaches with even other ACC schools much less the factory schools.

I may be guessing wrong, but I would think you would have a better chance of recruiting kids with varying interests and then retaining them by offering a wider set of academic choices. The standards don't need to be reduced, but the choices should be increased.

IMO, the misalignment of expectations of football success vs. higher academic standing will not be solved until the curriculum issue is factored in.
 
I think you are missing the point. The old horse (MaTech) has been running for a long time, but it definitely has a different jockey, trainer, and steward.
 
How so? Well for starters the HILL now prevents a very significant number of our past stars from even being considered. Check out this past class's SAT/ACT scores vs. those of GOL or Ross's classes for that matter. Imagine GT's heritage without the likes of S.Jones,W.Bell,C.Tiggle,J.Hamilton,K.Cambell, ETC.
THWG
 
My contention is that we can take some marginal students who are great athletes, but we can not overburden the support system. You can only take so many people through the mine field. Here recently, the people with the map were shown the door and took the map with them. The current generals thought they knew a better way, but we are losing soldiers left and right. We are not giving the soldiers enough time to become good officers.
 
General: With a face like that, you obviously speak with a lot of experience. Reading some of your other posts, you certainly know the inner workings far better than me. It does seem a shame that a support system that had been in place and apparently working to some degree of success has been dismantled or ignored. I'm still not sure, however, that people should blame all of this on Chan but he will certainly have to deal with the results this fall with less soldiers as you put it.

My earlier response to you had more to do with the overall competitive athletic environment Tech has now encountered. In my view, the track may not have changed, but where there once was a few favorite horses contending every year, now Tech is surrounded by thoroughbreds but yet has barely moved off of the narrow curriculum to improve it's attractiveness to new athletes.

Thirty years ago, I don't think I was worried about getting outrecruited by UVA, Clemson, NC State, etc and now adding the 3 potentials to the ACC only seems to make that worse to me. And that doesn't even factor in the SEC schools that we used to compete against. I can't beleive these other schools have stood still in time with what they offer academically as we seem to be...
 
General, I like your responses. They are unique. you tend to use military terms to form your responses. Pretty original.

 
The field of war will always be treacherous, but we need good leaders. General Rice was a good leader, and all of his subordinates have been replaced except for the General of Procurement (Jack Thompson). William Westmoreland looked good on paper, but look what he did to Vietnam. The Army had to clean house after that debacle. I draw the same parallel here. Rummy says we need a leaner meaner fighting machine, Tech needs a leaner and meaner machine. The AA has no passion at the top, and morale is low. Colonel Gailey escapes the current debacle based on lack of experience. General Braine and Moore need to be court marshalled
 
Our curriculum is based on our school's mission statement. Accreditation depends on our meeting our mission statement and being able to prove it.

What we need is a slight adjustment to our mission statement. We need to add a new degree in Sports Management or Sports Biology. However, to get this done, it would have to be proposed and justified to the State's Czar of education who would take it to the legislature for a vote. GT is not a private school which has the right to change its mission without state legislative support.

One of the old state tricks for vetoing changes by those in control who do not want a change in the balance of power is to say that the new degrees are already being offered at one of the other schools. They would say: "We don't have the money to pay for duplicating work in another school." Therefore, in order to get a new degree, we need something that is needed by Georgia, and that is unique. We sell on the need, the uniqueness, and the lottery. What? Wasn't the lottery supposed to solve all the education problems? OK, lets use it to solve this problem.

SACS, our accrediting agency also has to approve the change in mission statement and the addition of a degree. However, they would not be the biggest problem. I believe the biggest problem would be the stuffed shirts on the hill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top