School needs to make up their mind

KrazieJacket said:
"We are competitive now". I didn't see anything Saturday that would cause me to agree with this. This guys is saying throw money at the issue. That is not going to work when the fan base continues to shrink.
Click to expand...
What do you suggest that doesn't include stepping one step towards the "SEC model"?
 
Notre Dame, btw, has two things in it's advantage as does Stanford, that we don't. 1) It's private and 2) it's a liberal arts university. We could do a whole lot to admit better players without compromising academics with those two conditions. Guess what, that ain't happening, EVER.
 
I agree with the former student/athlete above in that: The GTAA is in the business of making young people ready for the world. A great many of our exceptions have benefitted in just that way. ELI is readily available for anyone to ask him if he benefitted from having attended Tech. Tech sure as hell benefitted from his contributions.

People really need to listen to both the Towson guy and the Michigan AD, during the last portion of the 60 Minutes segment I linked above.

Speaking only for myself, the people who are suggesting we give it all up or go to D-III (same thing as giving up), are people with a very narrow vision of the world in which we live. And, the suggestion that older posters here have no clue as to what being a research university entails, are simply ignert, as well as disrespectful.
 
GoldZ said:
And, the suggestion that older posters here have no clue as to what being a research university entails, are simply ignert, as well as disrespectful.
Click to expand...

A suggestion to reduce the role of research is patently stupid and a clear demonstration that the poster has no clue what role research plays. As far as "disrespectful," get over it; you weren't coddled at Tech, stop being such a baby now.
 
Thanks Goldz, but I've never shied away from poking people in the belly before and the response is often that I am an idiot or ignorant or some such. It just means that the other party violated the rules of civil debate and discourse rather than engage in thoughtful debate. It appears he is very young...
 
ramblinwise1 said:
Thanks Goldz, but I've never shied away from poking people in the belly before and the response is often that I am an idiot or ignorant or some such. It just means that the other party violated the rules of civil debate and discourse rather than engage in thoughtful debate. It appears he is very young...
Click to expand...

I responded to a very specific post, whereas neither of you have even attempted to address my comment regarding reduced research roles and its effect on the school. This "respect you elders" nonsense is a convenient way of attempting to claim the argumentative high road without ever addressing the actual issue. The Institute has changed; either educate yourself and come to terms with it, or get left behind.
 
rw1, yeah I figured as much (look at his avatar), so I'll back off the kid a bit, plus I regrettably admit to having violated said rules myself.
 
GoldZ said:
rw1, yeah I figured as much (look at his avatar), so I'll back off the kid a bit, plus I regrettably admit to having violated said rules myself.
Click to expand...
Don't worry rw1 is far from civil about names he calls minorities.
 
TechSBP said:
I've long argued that we should either move to Division III if we want to be consistent with CalTech, MIT, Hopkins. OR, if we want to be more in line with Michigan, Washington, Stanford, Cal, that we should take the steps necessary to win (loser standards, better programs to place athletes in good jobs after graduation, etc).

We need to make up our minds and do one or the other. Half-way gets us nowhere.

As I see it, we are a research university. Sport isn't really that important to our mission anymore, and hasn't been since the early 80's. I prefer going to Division III in football.

That said, I'll still support the program. But if we are going to stay in Division I we need to recognize that a) it isn't about education; b) adjust academic requirements to compete; c) pay players legally (through good jobs when they finish playing); d) commit to winning.
Click to expand...

If you want to be UM, UW, or UCB, you have to start by doubling our enrollment.

To support that, we'd need to expand campus significantly - adding all the land between Marietta and the Connector from Ivan Allen to 14th St would be a good start...then expanding further into Midtown; the other option is a Pitt-style "Cathedral of Learning" high-rise.

Then we'd also need to add a full Liberal Arts college.
 
GATechAE07 said:
I responded to a very specific post, whereas neither of you have even attempted to address my comment regarding reduced research roles and its effect on the school. This "respect you elders" nonsense is a convenient way of attempting to claim the argumentative high road without ever addressing the actual issue. The Institute has changed; either educate yourself and come to terms with it, or get left behind.
Click to expand...

kitty avatar, I never said research wasn't important. I just said it wasn't the most important thing to Ga Inst of Tech in my opinion. I would rather Ga Tech be a WELL ROUNDED institution of higher learning that tries to excel in all we do. Academics, research, and athletics. Academics is the most important mission of Ga Tech. If research is the most important we should just shut down the classrooms except for a feeder program to the research arms. Academics are more about teaching the diverse student population how to function in the world than about doing research for some gubmint agency.

I fully understand that the research enhances the academics side, but guess what so does the athletic. All these missions should be supportive of each other and athletics is a big part of that. The athletics make people want to come to Ga Tech, make us known and respected nationwide and bring in a ton of money to the academic side. The only reason this board exists is because of the athletics.

The more we allow Ga Tech to be pigeonholed into a narrowly focused institute, more and more elitist and exclusive, the more we are playing into the hands of our detractors with whom we are competiting with for state funds, academic programs, and eventually those very research contracts you hold so dear.
 
a5ehren said:
If you want to be UM, UW, or UCB, you have to start by doubling our enrollment.

To support that, we'd need to expand campus significantly - adding all the land between Marietta and the Connector from Ivan Allen to 14th St would be a good start...then expanding further into Midtown; the other option is a Pitt-style "Cathedral of Learning" high-rise.

Then we'd also need to add a full Liberal Arts college.
Click to expand...


I don't think we have to double our enrollment (though at the pace we are on, we will do so again before too long) to be similar to Cal and Michigan.

A good approach is similar to what Notre Dame, Stanford, and Duke are doing.

We do have majors that are "easier" than management. But they would cause a big fuss if too many football players enrolled in their program.

Part of the problem is that every degree is a Bachelor's of Science degree. That means the players must take labs and math. That's the big question for the Hill, and ultimately the board of regents---will Tech offer non-BS degrees. We could get there if we were allowed to offer a straight up business degree---but they won't let us do that.

For the reasons others have mentioned though, I do support going to Division III in football. We are a research institution. Sports are superfluous. I don't think D-I football is critical for recruiting students. It isn't like students use a large portion of the student tickets . . .

And the risk of a major scandal is relatively high. We've been in NCAA trouble twice now. We haven't had a Miami or UNC style scandal, but is that a risk we are willing to take? For six-seven wins a year I don't think it is.

The only way sports might benefit GT is if we are really good at a few of them that attract students---as some of our peers are: Stanford, Texas, Michigan, Notre Dame, Duke, Southern Cal. But some of our peers are just as mediocre in major sports as we are (and some are worse): UVA, UCLA, Colorado, Cal, Purdue, Washington, and Illinois.

GT, UVA, UCLA, Colorado, Cal, Purdue, Washington, and Illinois are all capable of winning a national title (maybe not Purdue or UVA). But they'd have to lower standards (as Illinois, UVA, Colorado, and Washington have) and have the right leadership (as GT and Washington have). In fact, since 1980, GT (1990) and Washington (1991) have won national titles. Colorado, Cal, Purdue, Illinois, and UVA have not.

I see no reason to continue investing in something that will probably decline in value. College football is not going to be a big money-maker in 25 years. But if we are going to do it, we should do it to the best of our ability---which means allowing 6-8 academic exceptions for football each year. No existential crisis. Just go back to the O'Leary era exception policy and, this time, do our job to support the students.
 
a5ehren said:
If you want to be UM, UW, or UCB, you have to start by doubling our enrollment.
Click to expand...

In case you haven't noticed, Ga Tech is doing just that (growing). We now claim to have over 20K students. We are growing very rapidly.

Compared with 20 years ago I think we produce a higher % of management (now business graduates). Don't have the data but I know the emphasis in growing east was to expand the business school.
 
a5ehren said:
If you want to be UM, UW, or UCB, you have to start by doubling our enrollment.

To support that, we'd need to expand campus significantly - adding all the land between Marietta and the Connector from Ivan Allen to 14th St would be a good start...then expanding further into Midtown; the other option is a Pitt-style "Cathedral of Learning" high-rise.

Then we'd also need to add a full Liberal Arts college.
Click to expand...

GT just needs to slowly take over Home Park. That would lower crime around campus massively and give us tons and tons of expansion room.
 
you guys get more creative after every loss

if only the hill read stingtalk...
 
ramblinwise1 said:
In case you haven't noticed, Ga Tech is doing just that. We now claim to have over 20K students. We are growing very rapidly.

Compared with 20 years ago I think we produce a higher % of management (now business graduates). Don't have the data but I know the emphasis in growing east was to expand the business school.
Click to expand...
Then why do you say we are "pigeonholed into a narrowly focused institute"?

It's not just business, we are expanding in many other non-engineering fields as well.

Tech's footprint is also expanding, we have probably 5 times the dorm space compared to 20 years ago, and probably double the space compared to 10 years ago. I definitely see Tech moving to be at least 25k if not 30k in size, but it will still remain 'elitist', because demand (for our degrees) is just too high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top