Is Tech Going The Way of Vanderbilt?

Sorry guys, but this is mainly the same old crap going around and around. First what Vandy has done has nothing to do with Tech. I'm not ever sure we could legally do what they've done as the GTAA is primarily supported by private funds.

As for the academic questions, why is it we've always got this "football is important" vs "academic snobs" attitude around here? Here's how I see it.

1. Our kids should be able to graduate. In fact, with the new NCAA rules, if they don't we will suffer.

2. I don't care what a kid's SATs are, but we better have some idea that he wants to take what we offer and that he can do the work. If somebody with an 850 can show he can handle it, I'm all for it.

3. If we arbitrarily decide to take only kids over any number (950, 1000, 1050) we do a disservice to ourselves and the kids.

4. If we take anybody who qualifies just because he can play football, we do a disservice to ourselves and the kids.

5. We will NEVER have the pick of the athletic litter. Get over it.

I'm still trying to figure out what has suddenly changed to get people so uptight about all of this. Tech is still Tech. We've always competed with the limitations we have to deal with and we always will. The only way we won't or can't is if we give up.
 
nc, my take is that two very impactful changes have recently taken place. The NCAA progression mandate and the unofficial always denied 950 rule, which really should be just referenced as significantly increased SAT/ACT standards for GT recruits (denied or not, it's very real as is made obvious by the scores of the last 2 classes vs. the previous 4). These changes have made many of us "concerned" about our program's future. Yes, we have in spite of an unlevel playing field in the past, been able to once in a while field good to excellent teams, but when you tilt the field a few more degrees the concern is raised from one of just overcoming a handicap to one of becoming noncompetitive. I'm not offering this as an argument, but rather just an explanation from my perspective as to why people are so uptight. THWG
 
I can understand to a degree. But the concern over who we recruit is off base exactly because of the progression rules. If we take chances and they don't pan out it could cost us double; the kid we lose and potential loss of scholies in a future class. So I applaud the staff for trying to be careful that we can graduate every kid we recruit. Will we? No. But they should project to graduate IMO.

Now the arguments over whether we should add majors, etc., is a different topic. I can see some minor additions as actually helping round out our programs and perhaps help interest more kids. But this seemingly constant gnashing of teeth every time a kid decides he has no interest in Tech is silly. Tech, quite simply put, isn't for everyone, and it shouldn't be.
 
The concern over the progression rule is that our already diminished pool to draw from will now be even smaller. Since the rule is upon us, yes we will have to be careful. The so called 950 standard is a result of both the new progression rule and the Admins. embarrassment factor over the grad rate pub.

A lot of people's sensitivity is driven by the fact that so many of our recent stars would likely have a much harder time being admitted now. Also, there are many references on both boards by posters who are completely supportive of these past stars not being admitted. These same "supporters" swell with pride and joy when the likes of D.Smith/M.Logan/J.Hamilton/K.Campbell etc. etc. etc. excell on Saturday. Kinda hypocritical huh? THWG
 
I agree it's hypocritical, but I also have to tell you that I haven't seen any posts saying those guys shouldn't have gotten in. I've seen a lot saying we have to have standards, and the coaches have to be careful taking chances. I don't think that means what you seem to think it does.
 
Look at the scores and decide for yourself. Plus the now infamous Ms. Moore and one of our legal advisors on NCAA regulations, told me on separate occasions prior to this last class, that the scores will be noticeably higher. Are there a few exceptions? Sure. Is it still directionally true in a significant manner? You bet.

The posts I'm referencing are those supporting NO changes in our curricula and the higher standards. The old football is JUST entertainment and tailgate fodder crowd. I'm not talking about posts directed at individual players. THWG
 
If Tech were to broaden it’s majors it’s academic reputation would not be hurt…It’s recruiting would be helped.

If Tech were to merge with GSU- (GSU started as Techs Business School) it would not hurt Tech’s reputation.

I have never heard anyone seriously suggest merging the two schools.

a merger would hurt State more, because State would lose it's identity
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top