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.
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.