Serious question: If you think the new admisson

goldmember

goldmember

Damn Good Rat
Joined
Aug 20, 2002
Messages
1,423
policies will absolutely destoy any chance that we have to be competetive (and I understand some naive tech fans don't), is there anything that can be done?

I've written emails to Clough and I got a form reply. I really didn't expect anything but a form email but I felt the need to do something. Do the big money alumni have any influence on football admissions?

I am not sure that anything proactive can be done. I am afraid that we will have to ride this out to its horrible conclusion.
 
I really don't see any reason why we can't be competitive year in and year out even with our academic standards and the new ones being proposed by the NCAA. I think Tech is a unique university in that we are a major university buried in an international city. It has never upset me that Tech is not buried in a "quaint little college town". We should be sold as such. I think recruits should not only be shown Tech's history, cirriculum, facilities and coaching staff, they should also be shown that Atlanta is a world class city. Tech must be marketed properly to land recruits. We must show that we can make our recruits a success, not only on the field, but in the business world. This is where our "big money" (i.e. successful) alumni can help.
 
Originally posted by JJacket:
I really don't see any reason why we can't be competitive year in and year out even with our academic standards and the new ones being proposed by the NCAA. I think Tech is a unique university in that we are a major university buried in an international city. It has never upset me that Tech is not buried in a "quaint little college town". We should be sold as such. I think recruits should not only be shown Tech's history, cirriculum, facilities and coaching staff, they should also be shown that Atlanta is a world class city. Tech must be marketed properly to land recruits. We must show that we can make our recruits a success, not only on the field, but in the business world. This is where our "big money" (i.e. successful) alumni can help.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Wow, I haven't seen anyone "get it" in a while. Great post. Our problem is not the curriculum. We actually do have liberal arts degrees.

We need people who can MARKET GT. Gailey won some big time recruits in our freshman class. Perhaps him and his staff have an idea about GT and will only get better at selling it.

As a professional engineer... there is one rule that I live by:

You don't do something because it is easier, and you don't do something because it is too hard. You do something because it is the right way to do it.
 
...shhh..don't tell anyone we have liberal arts as that goes against our academia arguement!
smile.gif


Somehow, GT put together some great teams under OLeary and Ross...now we blame our academics???

Blame the coaching staff if you must point the finger somewhere.
 
GeeTee, the "academics" have changed very recently a great deal since Ross & GOL. Not to take the focus off of the coaching staff at all, but you'd be shocked at how many of Ross's & GOL's players would not be admitted today. This more than anything else has the anti-Hill crowd, including me concerned about the future. THWG
 
Tech has no chance to compete at top level of Div 1 with academic standards moving in the direction they are now on. Just my opinion. Hope I am wrong. Actually, going into a season with low expectations is not so bad. Any win will be a tremendous thrill.
 
Originally posted by rammsting:
Tech has no chance to compete at top level of Div 1 with academic standards moving in the direction they are now on. Just my opinion. Hope I am wrong. Actually, going into a season with low expectations is not so bad. Any win will be a tremendous thrill.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I agree but can anything be done?
 
The 40/60/80 rule, according to Paul Hewitt speaking at the Buckhead Rotary Club a few months back, will "hurt GT, and especially Football..." He said the best thing to do is to continue to voice our opinions to the Administration.

Well, first thing is first. Get a strong AD who will have the organizational skills to manage the Athletics and Academics. Someone like a Stansbury who understands GT and its "unique" way of cummunication between the AA and Academics. As well as True Marketing of the program- not the sham we have had going on that has alienated long time donors and Hall of Fame alumni. If you dont have this in place (which we OBVIOUSLY havent) then it doesnt matter anyways (see SPRING semester academic casualty list as an example). And dont give me any of the "they have changed everything since that happened" bull, it NEVER should have happened in the first place.

For all his personal faults, on a business level, Pres. Crecine (who even though was a Carnegie-Mellon guy) got it when it came to Athletics and Academics. He championed the broadening of the curriculum, which blacklisted him from then on with the Professors, to offer Intl Policy, etc. but that was just a beginning. When Ross left, Crecine's main goals for the search committee and Rice to consider were stated perfectly:
1) GT's educational programs in relation to our academic department and maintain our leadership in maintaining highest quality academic and athletic programs.
2) Conduct our programs with highest integrity...
3)Skill, imagination, and technical competence of the candidate as a head football coach at a major Division I institution. (taken from alumni newsletter 1991). Now, we all know they messed up but at least there was a game plan that made sense.
Unfortunately, he had to go and the mantra of continuing the broadening of the curriculum quite frankly was stalled and fell on deaf ears. And yes, things such as "the 2.55 GPA and 950+ SAT" were actually instituted a few years ago during O'Leary's tenure (he probably had 2-3 recruiting classes under this School rule) It meant that the Admissions Board would not let the coaches even talk to or recruit who wasnt already within these guidelines. I dont mind good standards one iota and quite frankly am not interested in "lowering" them one bit. But just compare our list of majors with Stanford- which has great athletics and a great reputable degree no matter what the major.

A broader curriculum doesnt necessarily mean easier or cheaper. What a broader curriculum does is attract better Student-Athletes in my opinion. Even though it looks like we have a Liberal Arts program, legitimate undergraduate degrees in sports management and medicine- where the sciences are still heavily required- were trying to be established under Homer Rice and O'Leary but the Academia would not do it.

From the look in Hewitt's eyes and his tone of voice ( which I frankly had not remembered until I read this post), I was practically deflated and mad at the same time. Because 1) Clough and DB may have been too late in voicing their strong objections. The rule sounds good just like certain laws made by the govt., etc. But reality is it may hurt more than they realize-but especially hurt a place like GT that is "Unique" as you guys put it. It is unique. It is hard to get through as a regular student.

I believe though, with a strong AD and organ. behind he/she, a strict disciplinarian coach and experienced staff, we can win going forward-but it seems from Hewitt's reaction and others close to the program, it is going to be even tougher to recruit at GT. Even more of a reason, as DaveTech would surely agree, we need to clean house and get people who know what in the world is going on or it could get really ugly. The broadening of the curriculum is easier said than done but a new campaign there wouldnt hurt either. What do you think?
 
We can talk about a broader curriculum (which I am for) until the cows come home, but there is not one damn thing the Hill, AA or alumni can do if the Board of Regents does not approve of it. I do think that having coaches that can market our current programs in non-engineering and management majors would be a plus.
 
Originally posted by Wrecked:
We can talk about a broader curriculum (which I am for) until the cows come home, but there is not one damn thing the Hill, AA or alumni can do if the Board of Regents does not approve of it. I do think that having coaches that can market our current programs in non-engineering and management majors would be a plus.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I totally agree Wrecked. But I would never give it up if I am Clough and he doesnt seem interested. Every year we should have a proposal in front of the Board of Regents if our President was steadfast in understanding the future of Tech Student-Athletes because things have changed to the detriment of our S/A's with the new NCAA quidelines. And I agree marketing is huge in recruiting a good talent base. The fact that the Fridge has done well at Maryland with his coaching staff proves you dont have to be good looking or Mr. Nice guy to recruit and coach well.
 
I thought that if you taught someone to fish they sat in a bass boat all day drinking beer and talking 'bout the Bulldawgs.
 
JJ, that may be true. Although I am not a fisherman, two of my friends are fishermen and UGA fans.

wink.gif
 
When the new NCAA rules were presented to the lunch bunch last year, there were several items brought up that GT felt could help not only GT, but also other NCAA schools and was pursuing them:
1. Allow FR to enter for summer school prior to their FR year on scholarship. Apparently most schools opposed this thing it would be additional expense. GT's position is that if you allow scholarships after they complete their eligibility, why not before - same dollars. This would certainly allow serious athletes to get a head start. It would definitely help GT student-athletes as GT requires so many more courses per year than Duke and others.
2. Transfer outs should not count against graduation rates if they transfer and graduate.
3. Increase the number of class offerings in summer school as currently GT does have many available.

Also, be aware that this 25, 50, 75 rates also apply to transfers in, ie a JR College transfer coming in must have 75 per cent completed by the end of his first year at the new school to maintain eliibility.

My desire is to have "student"-athletes eligible to play at all schools, but this rule may hurt everybody from accomplishing that. I do hope that schools who bring in FR that must take a bushel of remedial courses and will never graduate are impacted the most.
 
Originally posted by ahsoisee:
Gnome, since you asked, there is one point that is not significant at all.

You said we need a coach with discipline. That statement means nothing. All coaches have some form of discipline, but it varies to as many different coaches you can find in the occupation.

To say every coach at Tech must have the same identical discipline is unreasonable and foolish.

You Mentioned Ralph at Maryland as an example of a good coach. I heartily agree, but his forte is his understanding of the Xs and Os. He has his own brand of discipline, but his understanding of football offenses is his forte and the factor that makes him a winner.

You find a coach who can win and let him do his job. If he is already a winner, he already possesses the discipline to fit his style.

Just because a bunch of players played under one coach, who had his own brand of discipline, does not mean that particular player knows doodly squat about discipline.

All he knows is the brand he learned from his coach. He is really a dwarf when it comes to discipline if he only knows the one kind of discipline learned from one coach.

Any AD that goes out looking for a coach with a certain style of discipline is foolish. The AD should be looking for a coach who knows how to win and has good moral character traits to teach the kids.

The ability to teach the kids good moral character traits is the best form of discipline. Teach the kids to be disciplined, and you do not have to exert as much discipline on them.

The old Indian adage is true. Indian Dad says, "don't catch the fish for the kids, teach the kids to catch the fish. They can then feed themselves when you are unable to fish.

Father Time
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Ahso,
I didnt say there was one way of doing it. If youhave followed my posts, and I apologize for not having it again in this post, STRICT DISCIPLINE should be a core philosophy of ANY coach at Georgia Tech, especially because of the demands it puts on our S/A's. Also, Ralph Friedgen is just used as an example. Yes, you didnt have to remind me that Ralph Freidgen was an Offensive Guru. But thanks anyways. The Fridge, O'Leary, and others learned their disciplinarian methods they use primarily from Ross (as both have given credit to Ross numerous times on this issue)-who was a VERY STRICT NO NONSENSE Disciplinarian. Of course everyone knows there is more than one way to discipline. And there are different ways to be a Strict Disciplinarian as well, as is understood by us all. Bill Lewis taught great morals and is a good man. But the biggest complaint from the players was that he was distant, the communication was lacking, and he didnt get to know the kids from the first spring practice. Remember that. It may be prophetic. Also, I never said the AD should look out for a certain brand of discipline. I said I believe at Georgia Tech we need a Strict Disciplinarian. WE DONT HAVE THAT ONE IOTA NOW. YOU KNOW IT. I KNOW IT. Does that mean they will automatically win? No, but I believe, as I have written many times, it should be a core philosophy of a coach at GT. He has to understand that Academics come first, that is why they are at school, but he needs to understand how to help lead the Student/athlete. Usually, this is a learned trait amongst coaches. Does Div I experience matter? Yes, but not as much I believe as experience dealing with 18 and 19 year olds like the Fridge and O'Leary have done for 20+years. I would rather not deal with a coach (coordinator or head coach) at GT right now who has not had significant time working in a DIV I environment. If you want us to win consistently we cant be guinnea pigs. Your quote hit it right on the head, "you find a coach that can win and let him do his job. If he is already a winner, he already possesses the discpline to fit his style." That quote is exactly why in previous posts I said winning 3 ACC Championships before coming to Tech means a lot. There was a track record of winning at the Div I level, therefore there was a lot more patience from an AD who had support. Meant A lot more than winning a Div II Championship 20 years before and only being around those kids for 2 years. Well, Laid-back and plod along is not the style you or I want and that is what we have. It may work. I hope it does. And the moral stuff. That is a given. But making a kid go to school, study his ass off, go to practice, make him give everything he has on the field, make him go to study hall, make him brush his freakin teeth, and do it over and over teaches most of these kids more about life than anything. Structure, Discipline, how to strive towards Homer Rice's Total Person Concept. Rambled enough.
 
Gnome, you still don't get it. You do not have to have the same discipline as Ross, and O'Leary at Tech.

I would say Bill Curry provided as much discipline as both of those coaches, yet he only had a couple of good years.

I would say Dodd's discipline was not even close to the same as Ross or O'Leary. I know for a fact, all of Dodd's players adored him, and he was the most laid back coach ever at Tech.

You don't know if O'Leary's and Ross' record of discipline is better than Gailey's method. Gailey's method may be superior to the method of both Ross or Gailey.

You are only judging by the things that went wrong last year, and there could have been a number of factors other than discipline. It is possible the discipline of Ross and O'Leary is inferior to that of Gailey and many other coaching methods.

That is why I stated the discipline factor of Ross or Gailey did not mean doodly squat. It is not a factor.

Since some want to continue to focus on the discipline and other things that really have nothing to do with the problem, I have decided to post my thoughts on the real reasons.

Possibly all of the reasons posted for the demise of the team against UGA and Fresno State had nothing to do with discipline nor Gailey's ability to coach. Maybe these are smoke screens to mask the real problems.

From my view, the big problem last year was caused more by the things that happened in the previous year and the change-over to cause morale problems for 2002. I am convinced morale problems caused the big loss to UGA and the loss to Fresno State.

I don't believe discipline had one thing to do with last year's problems nor losses to UGA and Fresno State.

I believe some of the players were upset because Mac did not get the head coaching job; Roof was demoted; they knew O'Brien would get the axe at the end of the year; the long-time academic advisor was removed as soon as O'Leary left; and Father Mario, was removed as the long-time chaplain of the football team as soon as Gailey arrived.

All of the above people were the previous stand-in parents for those who were on the team last year. These actions made it very difficult for some of the players to readily accept all of Gailey's decisions without questioning them.

Not only was some of these aforementioned a problem between the relationship of Gailey and the players, but some of the fans turned against Gailey because of the above personnel releases and other issues.

Some of these fans did not want Gailey here and have stated so before he ever coached a down at Tech.

If Gailey had stepped into a situation where he cleaned house without having to demote Roof and keep O'Brien; Mac had not caused dissention with his little ploy to get the head coaching job with the bowl bribery; there was not a change in academic advisors; Father Mario had remained as the team chaplain; and the academic tutoring system had not been changed; the morale on the team would have been much better and the UGA and Fresno State games would not have happened.

If you don't think those factors had more to do with the team morale than the discipline factor, then I have a bridge to sell to you.

Of course, Gailey was blindsided by the academic failures which added to the problems for this year.

The real answer to the problem from my perspective, was to can O'Brien, which has been accomplished, change the academic system back so the coaches are in the chain, which has hopefully been corrected, and have four years of recruiting to weed out those that do not want to play for Gailey.

I think most of the disgruntled were Seniors and are gone. That should solve most of the morale problems. Any remaining disgruntled players will either have to adapt or move on.

There is a small segment of the fan base who do not want Gailey, but it has little to do with his ability to coach. If it had something to do with his coaching abilities, this segment would be more than glad to give him this year without a word of dissent.

There has never been another coach at Tech where a segment of the fan base wanted to get rid of the coach after his first year. Combine this first year of seven wins as tied for top spot for a first-year Tech coach, and it should become obvious, there are other reasons.

Father Time
 
Gnome, since you asked, there is one point that is not significant at all.

You said we need a coach with discipline. That statement means nothing. All coaches have some form of discipline, but it varies to as many different coaches you can find in the occupation.

To say every coach at Tech must have the same identical discipline is unreasonable and foolish.

You Mentioned Ralph at Maryland as an example of a good coach. I heartily agree, but his forte is his understanding of the Xs and Os. He has his own brand of discipline, but his understanding of football offenses is his forte and the factor that makes him a winner.

You find a coach who can win and let him do his job. If he is already a winner, he already possesses the discipline to fit his style.

Just because a bunch of players played under one coach, who had his own brand of discipline, does not mean that particular player knows doodly squat about discipline.

All he knows is the brand he learned from his coach. He is really a dwarf when it comes to discipline if he only knows the one kind of discipline learned from one coach.

Any AD that goes out looking for a coach with a certain style of discipline is foolish. The AD should be looking for a coach who knows how to win and has good moral character traits to teach the kids.

The ability to teach the kids good moral character traits is the best form of discipline. Teach the kids to be disciplined, and you do not have to exert as much discipline on them.

The old Indian adage is true. Indian Dad says, "don't catch the fish for the kids, teach the kids to catch the fish. They can then feed themselves when you are unable to fish.

Father Time
 
Originally posted by ahsoisee:
Gnome, you still don't get it. You do not have to have the same discipline as Ross, and O'Leary at Tech.

I would say Bill Curry provided as much discipline as both of those coaches, yet he only had a couple of good years.

I would say Dodd's discipline was not even close to the same as Ross or O'Leary. I know for a fact, all of Dodd's players adored him, and he was the most laid back coach ever at Tech.

You don't know if O'Leary's and Ross' record of discipline is better than Gailey's method. Gailey's method may be superior to the method of both Ross or Gailey.

You are only judging by the things that went wrong last year, and there could have been a number of factors other than discipline. It is possible the discipline of Ross and O'Leary is inferior to that of Gailey and many other coaching methods.

That is why I stated the discipline factor of Ross or Gailey did not mean doodly squat. It is not a factor.

Since some want to continue to focus on the discipline and other things that really have nothing to do with the problem, I have decided to post my thoughts on the real reasons.

Possibly all of the reasons posted for the demise of the team against UGA and Fresno State had nothing to do with discipline nor Gailey's ability to coach. Maybe these are smoke screens to mask the real problems.

From my view, the big problem last year was caused more by the things that happened in the previous year and the change-over to cause morale problems for 2002. I am convinced morale problems caused the big loss to UGA and the loss to Fresno State.

I don't believe discipline had one thing to do with last year's problems nor losses to UGA and Fresno State.

I believe some of the players were upset because Mac did not get the head coaching job; Roof was demoted; they knew O'Brien would get the axe at the end of the year; the long-time academic advisor was removed as soon as O'Leary left; and Father Mario, was removed as the long-time chaplain of the football team as soon as Gailey arrived.

All of the above people were the previous stand-in parents for those who were on the team last year. These actions made it very difficult for some of the players to readily accept all of Gailey's decisions without questioning them.

Not only was some of these aforementioned a problem between the relationship of Gailey and the players, but some of the fans turned against Gailey because of the above personnel releases and other issues.

Some of these fans did not want Gailey here and have stated so before he ever coached a down at Tech.

If Gailey had stepped into a situation where he cleaned house without having to demote Roof and keep O'Brien; Mac had not caused dissention with his little ploy to get the head coaching job with the bowl bribery; there was not a change in academic advisors; Father Mario had remained as the team chaplain; and the academic tutoring system had not been changed; the morale on the team would have been much better and the UGA and Fresno State games would not have happened.

If you don't think those factors had more to do with the team morale than the discipline factor, then I have a bridge to sell to you.

Of course, Gailey was blindsided by the academic failures which added to the problems for this year.

The real answer to the problem from my perspective, was to can O'Brien, which has been accomplished, change the academic system back so the coaches are in the chain, which has hopefully been corrected, and have four years of recruiting to weed out those that do not want to play for Gailey.

I think most of the disgruntled were Seniors and are gone. That should solve most of the morale problems. Any remaining disgruntled players will either have to adapt or move on.

There is a small segment of the fan base who do not want Gailey, but it has little to do with his ability to coach. If it had something to do with his coaching abilities, this segment would be more than glad to give him this year without a word of dissent.

There has never been another coach at Tech where a segment of the fan base wanted to get rid of the coach after his first year. Combine this first year of seven wins as tied for top spot for a first-year Tech coach, and it should become obvious, there are other reasons.

Father Time
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Ahso, you seem to be lacking in reading comprehension. I have CONTINUALLY said there is not a single way to be a strict disciplinarian, only that the coach be what most breathing human beings would consider a strict disciplinarian. Let me ask you a question. Do you think it is appropriate to allow members of the football team to live off campus with no supervision?...... Your answer I am sure is no I hope. Well, welcome to Chan Gailey's rules. And yes, that is a fact.
I believe, which means "in my opinion by the way," that what happens off the field undoubtedly affects what happens on the field over time. Give me a freakin break about "changing the academic sytem back so the coaches are in the chain." They should have never been changed in the first place. As Furman Bisher eloquently stated in Dec. of 1994, "he is the right man, not the right coach." I am absolutely crossing my fingers that Gailey will prove me wrong. Blame everything on everyone else- O'Brien, McWhorter, academic advisors, etc. The bottom line is Dave Braine has given us an uninspiring head coach who he chose to be head coach less than 30 minutes after meeting him. I hope I am wrong. And this hiding behind 7 wins crap is getting old. I would take our 7-win team in 1997 over hte one Gailey just coached any day.
 
Gnome, read my lips, I have no problem understanding your printed words. I do disagree with your printed words.

Yes, you have limited your description of the strict disciplinarian. You have stated the coach must be a strict disciplinarian in the mold of Ross or O'Leary.

I have stated that is not so, no coach has to have the same discipline as those two to succeed in the coaching arena.

I gave an exampled of Curry, who was a disciplinarian in the mold of Ross and O'Leary, but was not a greatly effective coach.

I gave an example of Dodd, who "was not" a strict disciplinarian, but his coaching record exceeds that of Ross or O'Leary.

Yes, absolutely, there would be occasions when a player could live off campus. Now, I doubt seriously, and would be willing to bet, there are conditions attached to living off campus. If there are conditions and rules, then there is supervision.

Supervision does not mean looking over one's shoulder all the time. The absolute best supervision is the assigning of responsibilities to a person according to the individual's personal traits.

If the individual performs well with the freedoms, you allow that individual additional freedoms. If the individual shows negligence with his freedom, you begin to restrict his freedom until he conforms to the rules assigned.

That is absolutely the best method of discipline to kids when they are growing up and adults in the workplace. It is probably the best method for a coach to use. Because all humans are different, each should be treated differently according to their understanding and abilities.

You can have tighter rules for some and more relaxed rules for others.

Personally, I would probably not let a freshman off campus, unless of extenuating circumstances. I would probably let a married player live off campus with his wife and family.

If a player was poor or had some extenuating circumstance, I would probably let them live off campus according to the circumstance. A poor player might have parents in the area and he would be better off there with certain rules.

A player might have an ailing parent in the area that needs his help. There could be numerous reasons for allowing players to live off campus. I would seriously doubt that Gailey lets any player live off the campus without supervision. Supervision merely means the person supervised adheres to the rules of the supervisor.

Supervision does not mean looking over one's shoulder. It means Gailey has laid out some rules. As long as the player/players abide by the rules and their effectiveness is not hindered on the football field, they can be allowed certain freedoms. If they abuse those freedoms, then the freedoms are curtailed.

That is not being a strict disciplinarian, but it is more effective than standing over a person all the time. It is the preferred method of supervision. If a person is taught self discipline, you do not have to expend wasted energy disciplining him continually.

You teach him to catch his own fish.

And you have just shown your true colors. You pretend you are only after Braine, when, in fact, most every post you display proves you have never liked Gailey, and you really don't want him to succeed.

As I said earlier, there are certain ones on the board who have another agenda, and it has nothing to do with the ability of Gailey to coach.

Since he won seven games in his first year, it is completely obvious the dislike is there for other reasons. If it was because of his coaching ability, we would not be having this discussion. You, plainly, do not like him.

Father Time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top