Many Hivers Slam Anybody That Demands....

Dartmouth, Princeton, William&Mary, Brown, etc. were all in the Top 20 regularly then as well.

We can be a great program...yet...but to say the college game is anything like it was in the 50's is simply not the case at all.
 
I have read people throw the term around without ever explaining what it is they think they are talking about. I think you are saying that because it can not be explained.

So Dodd won big without GT being a "football factory". How? And we are to assume that in all the history of college football that he is the only one to ever do it?

Every coach winning now is at a "football factory"? Then Cremins must have worked at "basketball factory."

I think the term "football factory" is thrown around by people who do not think very highly of their school, or S/As. Excuse makers, people with no vision or expectations.
 
Football factories are schools like ugag who have majors to hide their football players in. Who have a stadium up close to 100,000 and have a waiting list to get season tickets. The football team is just there as a minor league system to the NFL. Very few of their players are actual student athletes.

If you think GT is that then you are very wrong.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/dead_horse.gif
 
we should be so lucky to have a waiting list for our tickets. ...as for the issue on majors to hide behind, it is convenient that we use academics as a crutch while on the other hand, many GT fans, even on here, debate and support additional majors for football players at our school. Same thing as saying stars and rankings don't matter for recruits, then suddenly getting excited and promoting that ranking when/if a player with such commits to us.
 
I think you're confused. The "logic" you're trying to use actually proves the opposite point. Our academics limit us in who we can recruit. There is simply no debating that. Those who want us to add majors is to try to remdy that exact situation. To try to give our coaching staff the opportunity to recruit more of those kids we now immediately cross our list. I don't see the disconnect you seem to.
 
[ QUOTE ]
we should be so lucky to have a waiting list for our tickets. ...as for the issue on majors to hide behind, it is convenient that we use academics as a crutch while on the other hand, many GT fans, even on here, debate and support additional majors for football players at our school.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know some are to the point of disagreeing with you on everything you write now, but with this comment I generally agree.
Where I don't is where you think the fans want dumbed-down jock majors. That's not it at all. What is wanted by the majority is additional academic majors that would broaden the school's offering. I want the very smart kids that want something other than engineering and industrial management.

When you tried to tie this thought with your stance on recruiting rankings, you take on the role of Evil Knievel trying to jump across the Snake River Canyon.
Nice try though.
 
I don't know texstinger, maybe we were a football factory in the 50s. College football was much different back then and I can't speak to how things were done. I do know that my dad speaks of an AA player he went to Duke with in the early 50s and how stupid he was. Schools have changed, the NCAA has changed, rules have changed, etc. There is nothing to be gained by trying to compare the 50s to today, they might as well be different worlds.

In today's college football world, I would call those schools with majors like PE football factories. Sometimes it means they have manufactured majors for athletes or it may simply mean they are large schools with everything known to man to choose from. Beyond that they are normally large schools with huge alumni bases to draw upon, they are in the historically power conferences and for the most part are the "home" school for their state. There are exceptions of course, such as Miami. But for each of those exceptions it's possible to figure out how they have overcome or compensated. The other thing that is true of those schools is that they have excelled over a long period of time, at least the last 20 years for most.

Don't know if that helps any or if you care but since you're looking for definitions that's mine. Tech clearly doesn't fall into that category on a number of counts. That doesn't mean we can't compensate however, but it's something that takes time. You don't become a power team in a short period of time. Of course we didn't get where we are in a short period either, it started in the 60s. But on that note, I'd put Tech in that group of schools that might not be at the top tier of football schools, but isn't far behind. We have a national name and people do know a lot about Tech. We have a lot to work with, but to get where we want to be as a fanbase there's a lot of work to do.

That's my biggest frustration with many posters. To get where we want is a long term deal. How we do in any given year is important, but not as important as getting on the path to long term success and staying the course.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I have read people throw the term around without ever explaining what it is they think they are talking about. I think you are saying that because it can not be explained.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, it was explained in another thread. Perhaps you didn't read that one:

[ QUOTE ]
A football factory is a school like UGAy, where there are special majors like "Leisure Studies" and "Recreation and Sports" designed to make life easy for football players, where they take classes from instructors as challenging as Jim Harrick, Jr., where staying eligible requires little more than a pulse, where admission standards are the bare NCAA minimum, where Fork Onion Academy serves as a minor league training ground for the ones who can't even meet that bare minimum, and where 90,000 loons show up even for games against Louisiana-Monroe.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
So Dodd won big without GT being a "football factory". How? And we are to assume that in all the history of college football that he is the only one to ever do it?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Scruples and good coaching. No, where would you get such a silly idea?

Football Factory status is not based on success. South Carolina is a football factory in spite of their pitiful football history.

[ QUOTE ]
Every coach winning now is at a "football factory"? Then Cremins must have worked at "basketball factory."

[/ QUOTE ]

No and no. You miss the point entirely.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the term "football factory" is thrown around by people who do not think very highly of their school, or S/As. Excuse makers, people with no vision or expectations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your accusation and yourself are full of crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top