School needs to make up their mind

[lonestarjacket]

Why all the draconian posturing around the only alternative to contending for conference titles in an AQ conference is dropping to Division III?

The real likely alternative is to be like Vanderbilt or Duke in an AQ BCS conference. Even Rice and the academies still play Division I FBS schedules.

 

[TechSBP]

Why all the draconian posturing around the only alternative to contending for conference titles in an AQ conference is dropping to Division III?

The real likely alternative is to be like Vanderbilt or Duke in an AQ BCS conference. Even Rice and the academies still play Division I FBS schedules.

If you can explain why Duke and Vandy did that, let me know. They've both started taking a more aggressive approach to recruiting.

 

[GoldZ]

No it isn't "giving up" to drop to Division III. It is recognition that football is not going to bring very many benefits to the school in 20 years and preparing for that fact.

It isn't a narrow vision. You want to help people who otherwise don't have a chance? Let's do just that. Expand our pre-enrollment summer programs. Admit more close cases from poor rural and urban communities in Georgia. And educate those individuals. Sport doesn't have to be a part of that.

Advocating that we deemphasize sport isn't something that is a narrow view of the world. It is looking at trends in football, student attendance at games, costs of football, risks of damage to our academic reputaiton if there is a scandal, and whether sport is a cost efficient way to attract the best students, faculty, and researchers. If sport is about helping the poor and needy I'm pretty sure there are more efficient ways to do that.

Most of Tech's major donors don't donate to the athletic program or because of it.

I think we need to, very quietly, fully explore whether Division III is our best option for the future. At the same time, we need to explore whether we are willing to provide the support structure so that we can take more marginal academic cases in order to produce the same quality of graduate while also winning more. Do one or the other.

But mediocrity and MULTIPLE NCAA VIOLATIONS are not acceptable.

It is imo absolutely giving up SBP, but maybe that's just me and no other alumni feel the same.

Per today's trend of colleges who dropped football in the past now trying desperately to add it again, it IS a narrow view. According to society at large which highly values the contribution and importance of athletics, it is a narrow view. Tech's own rich football history suggests it's a narrow view. Per world history and the growing popularity of the Olympics, it is a narrow view.

As for football not being of any value to schools in the future, many college presidents beg to disagree with you.

 

[cuzjacket]

Why all the draconian posturing around the only alternative to contending for conference titles in an AQ conference is dropping to Division III?

The real likely alternative is to be like Vanderbilt or Duke in an AQ BCS conference. Even Rice and the academies still play Division I FBS schedules.

Because the way that college football is moving, separation between the contenders and pretenders is growing exponentially wider by the year. Its just the way things are changing. Simply fielding a team without the support of a school is not going to cut it in the near future and beyond. College football is being set up to be monopolized by the schools that want it most. No one is going to give you your fair share, you have to go and take it before someone else does. This isn't the NFL with salary caps and safeguards in place to ensure an equal playing field. Research can go on as planned even if we have a winning football program.

 

[cuzjacket]

Tech's own rich football history suggests it's a narrow view. QUOTE]


That rich history would never have happened if football had been viewed by the school back then like it is now.

 

[a5ehren]

Tech's own rich football history suggests it's a narrow view.

That rich history would never have happened if football had been viewed by the school back then like it is now.

Football back then was nothing like it is today, too.

Thinking that there are simple changes that can be done to restore Tech football to the "glory years" of the 1950s is insane.

The simple fact is that the UGA AA makes several times the revenue that we do - that's a far bigger issue than conspiracies on The Hill or the BOR for our future competitiveness, and it isn't something that has an easy fix.

 

[GoldZ]

Agree completely cuz. And yet, look what we have been able to achieve academically. Somehow, I don't think 5 or 6 kids in each recruiting class is gonna crimp our future progress.

I'm also amazed at attempts by some on here to equate the "old" Tech with the likes of Clemson and NC St. This has NEVER been true and I have been involved in hiring grads of each for several decades.

 

[gtzulu]

I think things are fine the way they are. We've had some bad outings against UGA since 2008, but I think our football team has a lot of potential to get better. Overreactive to want to turn Tech into some liberal arts college that admits total idiots. Academics are more important than football, after all.

 

[Bogey]

Agree completely cuz. And yet, look what we have been able to achieve academically. Somehow, I don't think 5 or 6 kids in each recruiting class is gonna crimp our future progress.

I'm also amazed at attempts by some on here to equate the "old" Tech with the likes of Clemson and NC St. This has NEVER been true and I have been involved in hiring grads of each for several decades.

I was a freshman at Tech in 1960 and had a roomate for 2 quarters whose father was a professor at MIT. His dad did not want his son to go to MIT,or Cal Tech for his undergraduate degree in chemistry (he was accepted to both schools) as he thought Tech was a better place to get his undergraduate degree. Clemson and NC State have never equaled us academically, even in the 50's. Only Clemson has eclipsed us in football lately due to the reasons so explicitly stated in this thread, imo.

 

[GATechAE07]

I'm also amazed at attempts by some on here to equate the "old" Tech with the likes of Clemson and NC St. This has NEVER been true and I have been involved in hiring grads of each for several decades.

Believe what you want Gold. I'm giving you the view of Tech from an academic's perspective. Being respected in industry is not equivalent to being respected in terms of academic contribution. You don't seem to be separating the two.

 

[GoldZ]

Football back then was nothing like it is today, too.

Thinking that there are simple changes that can be done to restore Tech football to the "glory years" of the 1950s is insane.

The simple fact is that the UGA AA makes several times the revenue that we do - that's a far bigger issue than conspiracies on The Hill or the BOR for our future competitiveness, and it isn't something that has an easy fix.

Of course it isn't the same. Who believes/claims we can return to the powerhouse days?

We CAN however help the budget issue you describe by winning 3 or 4 per decade vs ugag, winning the conference (ööööty as it is) say 3 times per decade, and going to a decent bowl and actually winning it every other time, say 8 times per decade. This will NOT happen with the prevailing powers to be and the lack of desire to succeed displayed by several posters here on several threads.

Oh, and don't underestimate The Hill and the BOR, regardless of budget woes.

 

[TechSBP]

It is imo absolutely giving up SBP, but maybe that's just me and no other alumni feel the same.

Per today's trend of colleges who dropped football in the past now trying desperately to add it again, it IS a narrow view. According to society at large which highly values the contribution and importance of athletics, it is a narrow view. Tech's own rich football history suggests it's a narrow view. Per world history and the growing popularity of the Olympics, it is a narrow view.

As for football not being of any value to schools in the future, many college presidents beg to disagree with you.

And let me be the first to say if I could short college football in 20 years, I would do so.

The concussion issues are substantial.

The long-term brain damage--distinct from concussions--is substantial.

The decline in student attendance is substantial.

The decline of participation in youth football by middle and upper class families is substantial.

Football is going to go the way of boxing.

The rise of e-learning is going to revolutionize higher education. It may already be doing so.

Yes. A lot of schools are adding football. Why? Because you can claim you did something without doing anything to actually improve your academic credentials, reputation, and research.

If you haven't noticed lately, our culture of leadership, in both the public and private sector, isn't exactly based on doing something substantive.

 

[a5ehren]

Of course it isn't the same. Who believes/claims we can return to the powerhouse days?

We CAN however help the budget issue you describe by winning 3 or 4 per decade vs ugag, winning the conference (ööööty as it is) say 3 times per decade, and going to a decent bowl and actually winning it every other time, say 8 times per decade. This will NOT happen with the prevailing powers to be and the lack of desire to succeed displayed by several posters here on several threads.

Oh, and don't underestimate The Hill and the BOR, regardless of budget woes.

It would help, but I don't think it'd close the whole gap. I think they get more in merchandising revenue alone than we do for our whole program.

 

[a5ehren]

And let me be the first to say if I could short college football in 20 years, I would do so.

The concussion issues are substantial.

The long-term brain damage--distinct from concussions--is substantial.

The decline in student attendance is substantial.

The decline of participation in youth football by middle and upper class families is substantial.

Football is going to go the way of boxing.

The rise of e-learning is going to revolutionize higher education. It may already be doing so.

Yes. A lot of schools are adding football. Why? Because you can claim you did something without doing anything to actually improve your academic credentials, reputation, and research.

If you haven't noticed lately, our culture of leadership, in both the public and private sector, isn't exactly based on doing something substantive.

20 years may be a bit quick, but I would generally agree that we're a bit past the halfway point of college football being a big thing.

One thing that wouldn't surprise me as the NCAA keeps tightening its academic requirements is the creation of a viable professional minor league for kids who have no interest in school (or can't meet the NCAA requirements) - the NFL doesn't care if you go to college; you just have to be 3 years out from HS and college is currently the only viable place to play ball in the interim.

Considering the amount of money the SEC makes off of sidewalk fans, why not create a league where you go to the top HS recruits and say "come play for us for 3-5 years - we'll pay you $60K/year and you'll be better prepared for the NFL since you get to practice 40 hours a week instead of 15 (or whatever the NCAA rule is)."

That's a pretty easy sell to a lot of kids that have no interest in school, and you would make a huge profit if you got a decent fanbase and a good TV deal.

 

[lonestarjacket]

If you can explain why Duke and Vandy did that, let me know. They've both started taking a more aggressive approach to recruiting.

Why they did what? Choose not to drop athletics?

I would guess because it generates revenue, even though they may rise above mediocrity only every few years and spend many years at the bottom of their respective conferences.

My point is the over-dramatic idea of not just dropping by one division or even two, but dropping all the way to the lowest division is just posturing and exaggeration for effect.

Even the Ivy League never dropped into Division II.

The choice of competing with the football giants or dropping to Division III is inherently a false choice.

 

[ND_jacket]

Even the Ivy League never dropped into Division II.

Not a good comparison, at least as far as football goes. The Ivy League prohibits the awarding of (athletic) scholarships in football and does not participate in the FCS playoffs. Their OOC games are almost exclusively against the non-scholarship Pioneer League or the minimal scholarship Patriot League. Ivy League football exists for Ivy League schools to establish bragging rights over one another and not much else.

 

[lonestarjacket]

Not a good comparison, at least as far as football goes. The Ivy League prohibits the awarding of (athletic) scholarships in football and does not participate in the FCS playoffs. Their OOC games are almost exclusively against the non-scholarship Pioneer League or the minimal scholarship Patriot League. Ivy League football exists for Ivy League schools to establish bragging rights over one another and not much else.

Meh, the point was they did not drop out of Division I competition officially and that fact stands, notwithstanding equivocations. If the point is they might as well be Division III in practice then I will concede that point.

P.S.
The service academies also do not award athletic scholarships, officially that is. But they do consider athletic accomplishment in consideration of other scholarships in the case of Ivy League and admission in the case of the academies. They don't just assemble a team from the freshman class. In short, both groups recruit for sports and take ability in sports into consideration of admission.

 

[GT1992]

Meh, the point was they did not drop out of Division I competition officially and that fact stands, notwithstanding equivocations. If the point is they might as well be Division III in practice then I will concede that point.

P.S.
The service academies also do not award athletic scholarships, officially that is. But they do consider athletic accomplishment in consideration of other scholarships in the case of Ivy League and admission in the case of the academies. They don't just assemble a team from the freshman class. In short, both groups recruit for sports and take ability in sports into consideration of admission.

I'm pretty sure that everyone at the service academies is on scholarship, so their isn't a reason to offer a separate athletic scholarship.

 

[lonestarjacket]

I'm pretty sure that everyone at the service academies is on scholarship, so their isn't a reason to offer a separate athletic scholarship.

They are.

The point is that some of them get that scholarship based on athletic ability as much as anything else. And since everyone is on scholarship the limits don't apply.

Obviously they need to make sure anyone admitted can do the work and graduate as well.

 

[andrew]

Don't really wanna answer it huh? I believe rw1 may have solved the riddle-----the enemy really is US! Sad

I did answer it. We are in D1 because we've been playing for one hundred years and it would take something very big to stop something that has been going on for one hundred years. Without those 100 years of history, there's not much reason for GT to be a D1 football program, and the same goes for a lot of other schools too. Why does Duke have a football team?

Plus there are a lot of people who like GT football, including me, and still enjoy going to games and following the team even if we can't consistently compete at the top level for reasons discussed ad nauseum.

Why not save yourself a few bucks and not fly in to see the substandard students that you are so sick of ? Substandard students who by the way are far far more talented in their focused area than many of our 1500 SATers. Even Harvard accepts students with somewhat lower than average academic credentials based on special and rare talents like music and even third world life experience. It's called diversity.

Harvard of the Ivy League, where they maintain the true ideals of actual amateur athletics and have the following on their website:

This successful competition in Division I national athletics is achieved by approaching athletics as a key part of the student's regular undergraduate experience: with rigorous academic standards, the nation's highest four-year graduation rates (the same as those for non-athletes), and without athletics scholarships.

That Harvard? Funny, I thought that's exactly what you were arguing against.