Joe Jones to VT

I'm definately not a naysayer when it comes to Tech sports but damn if this doesn't remind me of my entire fanhood of the ramblin wreck. Its always a high followed by several setbacks when we really need to catch a break/win. I have all the confidence in PJ and the staff but it sure would've been nice to win this guy over.
 
GTYellowJacket12 said:
So Joe most likely went with what Momma wanted, wished that logic had worked in our favor with Brandon Thompson (his dad wanted GT if I'm not mistaken).
Click to expand...

If Mom ain't happy nobody's happy. That is still so true it is frightening. Hopefully we can get some good news about Uzzi, we need a break this week it seems.:eek:
 
Hopefully Michael and Marcus will be there to mentor her boy.

Smart choice, lady. :biggthumpup:
 
Tech is one of the most respected Universities in the World. We have a rich football tradition. Why do we see so many good Student Athletes going to other good academic universities instead of Tech? There are reasons and I think the leaders and coaches need to identify them right away. Any ideas why? Maybe we need to start a new thread on this subject?

I can think of two areas: Lack of broad curriculum and lack of school spirit.
 
alan71 said:
Tech is one of the most respected Universities in the World. We have a rich football tradition. Why do we see so many good Student Athletes going to other good academic universities instead of Tech? There are reasons and I think the leaders and coaches need to identify them right away. Any ideas why? Maybe we need to start a new thread on this subject?

I can think of two areas: Lack of broad curriculum and lack of school spirit.
Click to expand...
Lack of ladies
 
I think lack of broad curriculum is not a reasonable valid argument, most these kids all end up Management anyways which isn't exactly easy at Tech. I think the real argument ultimately is a degree of difficulty which few meet and those that have it (Duke, UNC, BC) recruit around the same level if not worse. The thing we ultimately have going is tradition of success which few others can touch upon.
 
GTKyle said:
Lack of ladies
Click to expand...

I think you're trying to be funny but the reality is there might not be much selection on campus but you really don't have to go far to find the ladies. There are plenty of other campuses nearby.
 
GTatUSC said:
I think lack of broad curriculum is not a reasonable valid argument, most these kids all end up Management anyways which isn't exactly easy at Tech. I think the real argument ultimately is a degree of difficulty which few meet and those that have it (Duke, UNC, BC) recruit around the same level if not worse. The thing we ultimately have going is tradition of success which few others can touch upon.
Click to expand...


UNC? The world's most overrated school? Have you checked out the average SAT scores? When the ACC was an 8 team league, they were in the bottom half. They may still be.

Duke? The academics are not difficult once you are in the door. Difficult to get an A perhaps; almost impossible to flunk out.

GT has gotten easier over the years, but the academics are tougher than just about any other school that plays big time football, especially since we have no jock majors.

However, 2007 shows that top level recruiting is possible, and academics should not be an excuse.
 
jacketup said:
UNC? The world's most overrated school? Have you checked out the average SAT scores? When the ACC was an 8 team league, they were in the bottom half. They may still be.

Duke? The academics are not difficult once you are in the door. Difficult to get an A perhaps; almost impossible to flunk out.

GT has gotten easier over the years, but the academics are tougher than just about any other school that plays big time football, especially since we have no jock majors.

However, 2007 shows that top level recruiting is possible, and academics should not be an excuse.
Click to expand...

All of this academic talk ignores an obvious yet very significant fact - the schools themselves set the admission requirements to the extent that they are above the ncaa minimums (which almost every SEC and ACC schools are). It is GT that decides what the minimums are. It is us that decides not to put kids in prep school. Just like Duke and everyone else does. is there a fundamental reason Duke's standards are higher than UNC's? No, they are higher because they chose for them to be higher.

It is a somewhat arbitrary decision. it doesn't matter if we add 50 new majors or 0, what matters is the admission requirements.

We set our standards higher than most schools and higher than they were under Ross and O'Leary. Other than not taking partial qualifiers, I couldn't really tell where our admission standards were ANY HIGHER than the schools we looked down upon pre-Gailey.

Furthermore, I haven't seen any change in the graduation rates since increasing the requirements.

I get frustrated reading all of these convoluted solutions to a simple problem. if our admission standards are too high, the solution is not to merge with GSU or add sports mgt, the solution is to LOWER THEM.
 
goldmember said:
the solution is to LOWER THEM
Click to expand...

while this might be nice for the football fans to get players in, it is NOT fair to the players for letting them come without a realistic chance of being able to complete a degree

lowering admissions standards, without lowering the difficulty of the classwork is NOT A SOLUTION

think about it, respond when you are being logical and fair to the STUDENT athletes
 
BuzzCzar said:
while this might be nice for the football fans to get players in, it is NOT fair to the players for letting them come without a realistic chance of being able to complete a degree

lowering admissions standards, without lowering the difficulty of the classwork is NOT A SOLUTION

think about it, respond when you are being logical and fair to the STUDENT athletes
Click to expand...

Virtually all of the athletes are well below the student body. We're talking about taking a 920 SAT and denying an 870. I know it's more than just SAT but for arguments sake assume this represents all qualifications.

100 points on the mininum is about all that seperates us from the rest of the ACC and SEC. Our current 900+ guys aren't graduating at any higher rate than O'Leary and Ross's sub 900 guys.

My point is that we don't need new majors to start taking the 870 guys when we are already taking 920 guys. All we need is the will to do so.

The standards are what they are because the administration set them at this level. It's not some sort of free market where prices stabililze at a rational point based on all of the underlying fundamentals.

There are other, COMPLETELY arbitrary requirements that reduces our pool such as 2 years of foreign language - which I think we can all agree is absolutely no indicator of a persons chance of competing at GT.
 
BuzzCzar said:
while this might be nice for the football fans to get players in, it is NOT fair to the players for letting them come without a realistic chance of being able to complete a degree

lowering admissions standards, without lowering the difficulty of the classwork is NOT A SOLUTION

think about it, respond when you are being logical and fair to the STUDENT athletes
Click to expand...

I am all for adding additional majors for a variety of reasons but I don't see how it is going to help our athletic programs.

We've added majors recently (in the past 10 years), mostly in the coveted 'liberal arts' arena. Majors that, on the surface should be easier than most at GT. During this time we have significantly increased our admission standards for athletes.
 
goldmember said:
Virtually all of the athletes are well below the student body. We're talking about taking a 920 SAT and denying an 870. I know it's more than just SAT but for arguments sake assume this represents all qualifications.

100 points on the mininum is about all that seperates us from the rest of the ACC and SEC. Our current 900+ guys aren't graduating at any higher rate than O'Leary and Ross's sub 900 guys.

My point is that we don't need new majors to start taking the 870 guys when we are already taking 920 guys. All we need is the will to do so.

The standards are what they are because the administration set them at this level. It's not some sort of free market where prices stabililze at a rational point based on all of the underlying fundamentals.

There are other, COMPLETELY arbitrary requirements that reduces our pool such as 2 years of foreign language - which I think we can all agree is absolutely no indicator of a persons chance of competing at GT.
Click to expand...

From what I can tell, they have been lowered somewhat from a few years ago. GOL had wide leeway in accepting athletes and when the academic support broke down under Braine and Moore and flunkgate happened, they instituted very strict minimums for athletes. Later they started giving out more exceptions in Gailey's last couple of years.

The minimums will always be above UGA's though. Could Leonard Pope really get through Tech?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top