Our Scientific principals put to use...

[71YellowJacket]

We pride ourselves on our demanding academic standards, the fire our metal is forged under, our unforgiving professors whose role can often better be described as pressure cooker than teacher.

Why? The reason we give most often is it has better prepared us for success in the real world. Well, how well or we applying scientific methods of problem solving and decision making now? How many have avoided jumping to decisions before gathering all the evidence, testing hypothesis?

I’ll give credit to a few (damn few) of us that are still trying to figure out what went wrong before demanding Clough or Braine or Moore be fired, that GOL Mac be re-hired and/or that specific changes be made to the academic programs offered by Tech.

Rat caps off to ncjacket, 92buzz, hiveredtech, goldtimer.

I’m sure there are others (but not nearly as many as there should be), my apologies to those who I have not mentioned.

 

[bellyseries]

I'm at least a wannabe for that group, 71Bee. And you can certainly put RomeJacket on the list of those not rushing to judgement.

 

[3518techie]

Here are the facts:

1.) Braine removed the academic reporting structure from football.

2.) An academic advisor for football didn't come until October.

3.) O'Leary was like a drill sergeant making sure players went to class while Gailey took a more NFL attitude. (In fairness to Gailey, Braine removed him from the reporting structure)

The results: After a handful of flunkouts the last 5 years under O'Leary, we lose about 15% of scholarship football players and it's pretty accurate to believe that up one-third are in academic trouble.

Analysis: It's unfair to blame Carol Moore. She was here under O'Leary and some former players have spoken highly of her. It is fair to blame Braine and Gailey. Braine is the most responsible because he changed the structure. Gailey also deserves blame as well. He was removed from the structure but from talking to O'Brien and Spencer, he should have understood the need to be involved in the academic side the way O'Leary.

 

[ncjacket]

3518, so if Gailey understood the need but was removed by his boss, is that his problem? Should he have quit? Just trying to understand where you're coming from. Personally I have a problem with the coach not being in the process but don't know the conditions of his hire. If Braine laid it out that way and told him in effect that coaches were not to be involved then I don't know how we blame him. I am disturbed by Moore's comments and that Braine would make these changes unless there were problems we don't know about in the old process.

On another note, I would submit we don't really know what the academic progress of O'Leary's players was. As has been detailed by MasterB we lost about 11 players a year under O'Leary. Many left school with no reason given. I think it's fair to assume that some number of those were because they knew their grades weren't going to be good enough. So you are right when you say they didn't flunk out. But wrong if you assume they were in good standing IMO.

71Bee I would submit it's pretty easy to categorize things right now. The ones who are after Gailey have been after him since he was named. The ones who are supporting him (not many) have been supporters. What I've always tried to do with all coaches is step back and look at the whole picture. What was his/her fault or under his/her control and what wasn't. When I make up my mind (such as when I became convinced the best thing for Tech basketball was for Bobby C to resign) I say so. Until then I support all our coaches and players. I haven't noticed anyone who's opinion has changed yet, just more reasons for the anti Gailey crowd to cite.

 

[ahsoisee]

71 and NCJacket, good rational posts.