Discussion in 'Football' started by cuzjacket, Nov 24, 2012.
Oh and by the way FSU has had rhode Scholars too
If you guys really want to blame the Hill, why not start a letter writing campaign to Bud? Get a bunch of football-loving alumni and write a letter (or letters) to Bud promising to cut donations to Tech unless something changes. It might help, it might do nothing, but it's a better plan than bitching about it on a message board.
I have been trying to figure out a way to do this that reaches people I don't know that care. If you have ideas pm me. Believe me. It's been discussed.
10,000 alumni send individual letters to Bud. Something will happen as long as your demands are actionable, reasonable, and within his control.
You can use my name. Ramblinwise and midatltech and I all agree.
The best post in years.
Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk 2
This is what I said in the last thread!!...We need to get our ducks in a row....this needs to be done
Right but to initiate that and get them all to stop donations until change is what is needed.
That's not as hard as you'd imagine. Start a website, post the links on GT alumni websites and pages, and spread the links through local alumni chapters.
This....we need a class action moratorium on funding this school until they get there minds right...
Yes those with money may be listened to. If in fact the Big Ten thing is possible, then the Hill would once again be taking the easy way out, exactly like Maryland did.
I hate to say it but being embarrassed does wake people up sometimes.
Well lets hope so...but in the meantime people who don't really pay as much attention to what is going on in our program (my grand parents and other old alumni, my dead great grand father whose trust pays the school way too much money) are giving to this school solely because of the football program that they grew up loving is being torn down by short sighted administrators....we need a wake up call on the hill....I like coming on here and being an idiot, posting gifs....but Jacket33 just got me fired up....
to those that want us to lower the requirements:
what i dont understand is if we lower the requirements, then these SAs still have to take the existing classes that are offered. given the more strenuous "progress toward graduation" requirements, how do you suppose all of these people that are considered to be not prepared for the course-load to be able to do well in school while also spending their time on football?
to me, that is just as bad a recipe for disaster as what we have now - probably worse overall; this is where the scandal scenario similar to UNC starts...
so, we either start up a much less academically rigorous major or we help SAs cheat their way through, or we simply try to find guys that can actually pass the classes
letting guys in to fail out (or transfer) wont help
gosh no offense but the uniqueness of tech being an academic gem in the south while also participating in the fun of college football is ending and it is pretty obvious.
I posted this before. We have world class students fail out every year. The success of a person at a school is not to be purely judged based on sat and gpa. If it was we would never have a normal student fail out.
Same goes for an athlete.
This is why evaluating recruits better and allowing more leniency though exceptions once the evaluation pans out is the road. The road today is a very high sliding rule standard that I detailed in an earlier post. Relax that a tad and add good evaluations if the kid is interested in tech and then hold the coach accountable for apr. like he is anyway. It's really simple. Stop being communists and painting everyone a number and a color.
we get ~20 commits a year..we offer maybe in the 60 to 80 range....its really not that much work to evaluate another 20 borderline kids for exceptions and increase our pool. Our draw the line a little lower, look at the kids interested in tech, and evaluating....we don't do that. Sorry but this isn't that hard to see.
That goes to the point of my post. You can't demand something like decreased admission standards without a solution for dealing with SA academics. You can demand new majors, or more tutoring, etc. but you must think through all aspects of your ask with clear, actionable steps you want the President to take.
see my post above...every SA gets mandatory tutoring already. This isn't the issue.
its putting the sliding scale back to pre 2002 levels.
today its around a 3.0 and 1000 sat, give or take.
it used to be 2.5 and 950 (IIRC). Still well above NCAA.
There are plenty of folks that we have identified in the past that made it through. Plus you can recruit kids that are nfl bound and let them play as freshman. It is not Tech business to get inside a Tech freshman that chooses booze over academics any more than it is a Tech freshman football player that chooses his preference for football later instead of academics.
When I started looking at colleges, I was no where near GT material.....But it was my goal to get in....I went to KSU my undergrad....busted my ass, and got into Tech for my grad degree....as I left KSU....I met plenty of kids that went to Tech and failed out....too many newer Tech grads have this elitist point of view that would make pioneers of this school sick....
Yes, I believe arrogance to be the primary weakness at Tech these days. And that arrogance is why Tech is going to send more engineers out of state now that uga has engineering, and that arrogance is why Tech will be rated behind UGA in my lifetime.