Reasons for the problems

N

ncjacket

Dodd-Like
Joined
Jun 17, 2002
Messages
14,639
Are the new academic standards in place? I mean the NCAA rules on progress towards a degree? Also #3 and #4 concern me. If the way GPAs are calculated was changed was that only for S-As? Did anyone know that was in the works? On #4 who's decision was that? Thanks for any info you can provide.
 
This years incoming class will have to adhere to 40/60/80. Anyone currently there is under 25/50/75. All students fall under this rule, but that is what got Joe Burns (this rule and DB). Nobody realized it until after it was too late, and there isn't anyone there now that is considered an advocate for the SA. #4 was the result of the power struggle between Jerry McTier and Carole Moore, with Moore winning and McTier (handpicked by DB) resigning. She has never realized how difficult it is to catch jello and thought you just tell the students to "do good" and they will. The Philosophy that flourished under Dr. Rice has almost been completely expelled from the building.
 
Good points Leonard.....Moore has got to be older than dirt. She was there when I was a student (had a thing for rugby players and Roman emperors if I recall, very odd).
.
.
BOO
 
She taught @ ND, and hated it when GOL got the job. She could be the grassy knoll. Your insight is clear like my whiskey. I think it is time for me to take back Cuba.
drinking.gif
 
You might find this interesting, a friend of mine emailed me this today.

"You remember what I commented last year about players not going to class... but if this is rumor proves true, the numbers speak for
themselves.
Say what you will about O'Leary, but in every class with players, they were IN CLASS. I'm tellin ya, Chan is digging himself a deep hole here and draggin us with him. With ACC expansion here, we had better get our asses in gear or we are headed for some bad times....."
 
Dave Braine has known of the problems with Carole Moore for a long time. She was demoted off the hill. She got total control of Football since the fall, and look what happens.
 
For those of us not in the know, what's the deal with Moore? Did she pull back on the academic counseling or oversight of the athletes? How does she have the power to chuck what we've been doing in the past? Is that a coaching controlled issue or AD?
 
Carole Moore reports to Dr. Bob McMath and Braine. Braine ran off the previous employees, and brought in his own guy, who left after six months. Moore thought she was an expert and look at the results. Braine and her are equally to blame. I think that Chan was duped in the process and is learning some painful lessons in the meantime. Nothing has gone right since he let "Father Mario" go. Coincidence?...I think not, it is a message from GOD.
 
General, you have my curiosity aroused. You appear to know someone with facts, which is sorely needed on the board, especially at this time.

Can Gailey do any thing about this problem? Does he appear to be at fault in this matter? If so, how much?

As some have suggested, which I don't see as a viable alternative time at present, if Gailey were to be given the heave-ho, would it solve anything to get a new coach? Would the new coach have the same problems with the academic problems?

What is your situation? Do you have personal access to inside information as indicated in this thread or are you forming opinions?

Awaiting your answers!

drinking.gif
 
Carol moore was in the news with Tech and its athletes several years ago. I don't remember exactly what it was, but I knew then that she was no friend of athletics! I promise you I do remeber her name being associated with athletics in a very negative way!!!!!
 
Gailey is the least to blame in this mess. In general (little g), he would have to "know" the course catalog and the NCAA manual. He was relying on people that DB and Clough had in place (Academic Support Staff). Clough and DB were warned about this happening and obviously did not read the signs. GOL at least knew the importance of eligibility, and that is why he had a hand-picked person of his choice in charge of football.
 
Originally posted by General Wood:
Gailey is the least to blame in this mess. In general (little g), he would have to "know" the course catalog and the NCAA manual. He was relying on people that DB and Clough had in place (Academic Support Staff). Clough and DB were warned about this happening and obviously did not read the signs. GOL at least knew the importance of eligibility, and that is why he had a hand-picked person of his choice in charge of football.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Caution to readers that have followed my postings after the UGA debacle and the pseudo-bowl, be seated before reading further.

Many of us have an axe to grind with Chan Gailey and are using this as an opportunity to settle old scores. What the General says makes a lot of sense to me. From what I have read and heard, Chan Gailey is not to blame for this one. Easily duped, maybe but this problem is too systemic to be considered just a football problem. It must lie with Dave Braine and his subordinate staff members responsible for academics.

What did Braine know and when did he know it?

Retired 2nd Lt, 71Bee
 
Why didn't the AA have an advisor for football until October of this past year?

Who was advising the SA's on which professors and courses to take? (Don't say, Just follow the course catalog)

Draw your own conclusions
 
General Wood,

You seem to have some information about the academic situation at Tech. Thanks for sharing.

Regarding the 40/60/80 rule: At a Lunch Bunch meeting a few months ago, Dr. Nemhauser spoke about this rule. He said that Dr. Clough and Georgia Tech were not in favor of this rule, for they understood that it would impact GT more than other organizations. However, the NCAA committee recommended this rule be implemented over our objections.

If that is the case, then why do you say that Clough implemented the rule?
 
Dr. Clough votes on the board of directors for division 1 that approved the new standards. I did not see the vote, but I have seen nothing from Dr. Clough to indicate he was against the legislation. I was told through the ACC office that only two coaches (Amato and Hewitt) were informed enough to protest.

Is Clough going to now make a statement almost seven months after the fact. If he was against it, show me the proof. I am going by the press release dated October 31,2002, and there is nothing to confirm Nemhousers statement.
 
Gen. Wood, your topic is the best and most important EVER posted, and your last statement will PROBABLY come true. This is a VERY SAD day Tech athletics indeed!!
 
Yes, Clough is on the board. And yes, the board did vote to implement the new standards. But you can't infer from those two facts that Clough voted for the standards himself.

I have been told directly by someone who should know that he opposed these standards, and I have no reason to believe that this person was lying.

The 40/60/80 rule disproportionally hurts GT. Our limited curriculum gives us few places to "hide" athletes. Even our easiest major requires 122 credit hours to graduate -- 20 more than Duke's easiest major. Therefore, it's harder for our student-athletes to meet the 40/60/80 standards.

Most of the wrath that many here levy towards the Hill should rightfully be directed at the NCAA instead. While their intentions are honorable, they are in effect encouraging schools to dumb down their curriculums and lower the bar for everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top