Question about The Hill and Previous Presidents and Administrations

byteback

byteback

Dodd-Like
Joined
Dec 2, 2001
Messages
12,008
Over the 40+ years of following GT sports, I have heard numerous stories about how The Hill simply don't care about athletics and so on.

Why and how did this become a reality.....or perception? What led up to it? How did it occur?

And while us sidewalk fans are pretty much powerless to get changes on that aspect, but what about the alumni? Does the alumni want these types of changes to get The Hill to show better support for athletics? Have the President give a speech about the history and traditions of GT football and embrace it? I don't think I never heard any GT president give a full-throated show of support over the years or from the school administration. In fact, a few years ago, some fools in the administration were giving "a show of support to the dwags when they played Alabama in 2017 for the natty on Twitter.

So...how did this all start and why does GT presidents and administration have such indifferent or hostile emotions for athletics at Georgia Tech? Whether its a perception or reality....it does exist....why does it?

GO JACKETS!!
byteback
 
I had a convo with President Petit back in the day (I was a student -this was in the mid 1980s). I was the pres of some damn club or another -I don’t recall but it was a cocktail party of student leaders and “The Hill”

So this was right around the time Curry was turning the corner maybe 84 or 85.

So its late and its just Petit and me so I ask him point blank (diplomacy isn’t my strong suit) “Does it matter to the administration how well the football team does?”

He was emphatic in his reply- its the only thing I remember from our conversation - “Back then (referring to Dodd’s successful years), Football paid for everything!”

I don’t recall my follow up question but you can probably guess what it was. So despite my hazy memory, I came away from that conversation with the impression that at least Petit (who some regard as hostile to the athletic program) was very enthusiastic and supportive of our athletic programs.

He really lit up when I asked him that and went on and on about Dodd. I gathered they had a good relationship.

I realize this is a bit anecdotal but I never understood the characterization of Petit as hostile to the athletic dept.

I think 2 things drove a wedge between The Hill and the GTAA: George O’Leary and the fact that the GTAA had its own fund raising campaign that was cannibalizing Roll Call.

Here is a link to Petit’s Wiki page - its worth a read.

Joseph M. Pettit - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
Last edited:
I went to a similar gathering with President Crecine in spring of 88. Crecine had invited GT swimming, which had been downgraded to a club sport, to have an informal discussion. He was less than a year into the job and wanting to assess all things GT. Talked about need for new facilities, coaches, travel funds. He was receptive and interested, but couldn’t promise much at the time. He had a significant role a year or so later in Atlanta’s Olympic bid. Took years to materialize but it’s hard to understate the importance of facilities for 96 swimming & diving events in reviving GT’s program. Crecine was a likable and approachable guy, well liked by students at the time, and wanted successful athletic programs. If anything, his support for athletic programs strained his relations with faculty.
 
byteback said:
Does the alumni want these types of changes to get The Hill to show better support for athletics?
Click to expand...

For the most part, no. Most alumni don't care about athletics and even many of those who do look around and see what other schools are doing (paying off players, literal fake majors, ridiculous sums of money spent on coaching staff, etc.) and say it's not worth it.
 
You have to go back to the early 60s and much earlier than that to find Tech presidents who actually fought for Tech athletics. and some of them fought really, really hard for us. Since the 60s though, it's been mostly hit or miss, and lately total miss. SOME of the recent ones (definitely not all) talk big, but do very little.....like Peterson.
 
Supersize that order mutt said:
You have to go back to the early 60s and much earlier than that to find Tech presidents who actually fought for Tech athletics. and some of them fought really, really hard for us. Since the 60s though, it's been mostly hit or miss, and lately total miss. SOME of the recent ones (definitely not all) talk big, but do very little.....like Peterson.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the heart of the problem. It was the elephant in the room during the end of the Dodd era. I am not going to go kick that horse regarding the SEC decision, but Dodd got tired of fighting a unwilling admin and an unbending BOR. And that was a time when alums and fanbase were waaay more invested in Tech football than they are now.

I have to laugh at the numerous posts that can’t understand why the 2 and 3 star guys can’t physically whip a defense loaded with 5 star future NFL millionaires. A number of things have to happen for Tech to compete head up with the football factories, and a lot of it is in Tech’s hands. It remains to be seen if that line of thinking will get any traction.
 
donsue said:
This is exactly the heart of the problem. It was the elephant in the room during the end of the Dodd era. I am not going to go kick that horse regarding the SEC decision, but Dodd got tired of fighting a unwilling admin and an unbending BOR. And that was a time when alums and fanbase were waaay more invested in Tech football than they are now.

I have to laugh at the numerous posts that can’t understand why the 2 and 3 star guys can’t physically whip a defense loaded with 5 star future NFL millionaires. A number of things have to happen for Tech to compete head up with the football factories, and a lot of it is in Tech’s hands. It remains to be seen if that line of thinking will get any traction.
Click to expand...
Actually, IIRC, Dodd still had a cooperative president in Harrison. But the BOR had ALWAYS been a problem.
 
Supersize that order mutt said:
You have to go back to the early 60s and much earlier than that to find Tech presidents who actually fought for Tech athletics. and some of them fought really, really hard for us. Since the 60s though, it's been mostly hit or miss, and lately total miss. SOME of the recent ones (definitely not all) talk big, but do very little.....like Peterson.
Click to expand...
In the recent AJC article, Peterson implied he kept us out of the Big 10 and he lobbied for the GOR. Yet he is still at Tech as a professor. He gets my vote for worst president in Tech history.
 
BrentwoodJacket said:
In the recent AJC article, Peterson implied he kept us out of the Big 10 and he lobbied for the GOR. Yet he is still at Tech as a professor. He gets my vote for worst president in Tech history.
Click to expand...

He even worse outside of sports. Couldn't follow proper procedure when investigating students, but turned a blind eye when his own employees stole hundreds of thousands from GT. Good riddance.
 
LagrangeJacket said:
He even worse outside of sports. Couldn't follow proper procedure when investigating students, but turned a blind eye when his own employees stole hundreds of thousands from GT. Good riddance.
Click to expand...
Yet he is still collecting a substantial paycheck from GT. I expect he is lobbying against the athletic program.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top