"The Hill"

[yellowjacket]

I realize that "The Hill" is simply a term for the academic community at the Institute. Who are the people who have the authority to deny or approve an academic exception for the football team? Is it the president or is it some committee of Deans. If CPJ and the AD were to march up to the tower to ask for exceptions who do they see? I would like to see the names of these people. Anybody know?

 

[beej67]

President would have ultimate authority over whether to sign off on a special admit. Board of Regents would have ultimate authority over adding majors.

 

[jacket67]

The problem is not simply getting kids accepted who have poor grades and/or low SAT scores. It is more the prevailing apathy among those kids to choose a school that looks academically challenging. If they are being recruited for football, I think most of them honestly believe they are headed for the NFL. They want to have as much fun and as little stress as possible on the way. The only way to interest them is to have dumbed-down majors and grades for attendance. At Tech, those classes would be exclusively populated with athletes, since the kids accepted to Tech for academic achievement would not take them.

 

[MidnightJacket]

lol, are you asking to figure out to harass??

 

[andrew]

At Tech, those classes would be exclusively populated with athletes, since the kids accepted to Tech for academic achievement would not take them.

Seriously doubt this.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk 2

 

[JackD]

The problem is not simply getting kids accepted who have poor grades and/or low SAT scores. It is more the prevailing apathy among those kids to choose a school that looks academically challenging. If they are being recruited for football, I think most of them honestly believe they are headed for the NFL. They want to have as much fun and as little stress as possible on the way. The only way to interest them is to have dumbed-down majors and grades for attendance. At Tech, those classes would be exclusively populated with athletes, since the kids accepted to Tech for academic achievement would not take them.

I think you'd be surprised. Tons of kids get into Tech having never been challenged>get bad grades>take easiest route to degree. Management is the largest now right? Yet I assume most freshman come in as engineering majors.

 

[Techbert]

Gah! I am sick and tired of this train of admission excuses. Oh, Bluto, our school is so haaaard!

We can recruit our share of smart athletes. We just need to know what we are doing. We have done it before and we will do it again.

We are getting a sports management degree, and we can sell that to athletes with half a brain.

Pepper Rodgers cleaned up in recruiting, particularly one year (76?) when he got state players of the year all throughout the south. Bobby Ross got enough athletes to beat everyone in '90. Chan Gailey, who many of you stupidly revile, cracked the recruiting code there near the end. We won an ACC championship with those kids.

Three different coaches. Three different eras. Three different tales of recruiting success. All in the post-integration era, which is all that matters.

Smart athletes are good athletes. Saw a study of NBA backgrounds. You would think from the hype the league is full of hard cases rising out of the ghettoes. Wrong. They are statistically significantly more likely to come from middle and upper middle class backgrounds.

In college football the worst of the hard cases are also weeded out and never achive, at least proportionally. With only 85 ships available, you hit more success stories on the solid citizens and good students.

One of CPJ's worst mistakes when he started here was listening to idiot fans, many of them are active here, who egged him into a high focus on Georgia athletes. So he gave up hard-earned pipelines to quality school leagues in Illinois and the northeast and elsewhere to sign a bunch of Plan C Georgians. At least he is figuring out this blunder and trying to reopen those doors now.

You can argue scheme and its affects on recruiting, but if you pretend it is manageable on offense and negligible on defense, you are fooling yourself. We are not getting top athletes here in any quantity if we run 80% of the time. This last game has to be a template for the future or we will continue to slide slowly backwards. NFL is a pitch and catch league. Big Boy college football is a pitch and catch league. Athletes want to play pitch and catch. So we better pitch a few and catch a few. I am sure CPJ promises this a lot when he goes into homes, but this last game is the first time he really converted theory to practice.

I think I know the pros and cons of our spread formation offense as well as most here, so I don't care what you think of the offense when it is on the field. We are only talking effects on recruiting right now, and those effects are all negative to us.

 

[B]

One of CPJ's worst mistakes when he started here was listening to idiot fans, many of them are active here, who egged him into a high focus on Georgia athletes. So he gave up hard-earned pipelines to quality school leagues in Illinois and the northeast and elsewhere to sign a bunch of Plan C Georgians. At least he is figuring out this blunder and trying to reopen those doors now.

you have made many good points. however, I am disinclined to think that any decision he makes is based on the opinions of fans.

it's a shame though 'cause we have some real geniuses posting here and on other internet sites.:cool:

 

[GT65_UGA89]

Techbert is spot on regarding the pipelines that Ross and O'Leary utilized --they had a good bit of success recruiting quality student athletes from areas other than in-state. Gailey did pretty good as well.

This is my biggest concern under CPJ --focusing primarily on the state as primary recruiting ground is a big mistake --for several reasons.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deke]

This is my biggest concern under CPJ --focusing primarily on the state as primary recruiting ground is a big mistake --for several reasons.

I'm not saying you were among them (I have no clue), but there was a chorus of people saying the opposite not too long ago.

 

[mmbt0ne]

I would expect variety of majors to be more important than admissions requirements.

 

[lonestarjacket]

Gah! I am sick and tired of this train of admission excuses. Oh, Bluto, our school is so haaaard!

We can recruit our share of smart athletes. We just need to know what we are doing. We have done it before and we will do it again.

We are getting a sports management degree, and we can sell that to athletes with half a brain.

Pepper Rodgers cleaned up in recruiting, particularly one year (76?) when he got state players of the year all throughout the south. Bobby Ross got enough athletes to beat everyone in '90. Chan Gailey, who many of you stupidly revile, cracked the recruiting code there near the end. We won an ACC championship with those kids.

Three different coaches. Three different eras. Three different tales of recruiting success. All in the post-integration era, which is all that matters.

Smart athletes are good athletes. Saw a study of NBA backgrounds. You would think from the hype the league is full of hard cases rising out of the ghettoes. Wrong. They are statistically significantly more likely to come from middle and upper middle class backgrounds.

In college football the worst of the hard cases are also weeded out and never achive, at least proportionally. With only 85 ships available, you hit more success stories on the solid citizens and good students.

One of CPJ's worst mistakes when he started here was listening to idiot fans, many of them are active here, who egged him into a high focus on Georgia athletes. So he gave up hard-earned pipelines to quality school leagues in Illinois and the northeast and elsewhere to sign a bunch of Plan C Georgians. At least he is figuring out this blunder and trying to reopen those doors now.

You can argue scheme and its affects on recruiting, but if you pretend it is manageable on offense and negligible on defense, you are fooling yourself. We are not getting top athletes here in any quantity if we run 80% of the time. This last game has to be a template for the future or we will continue to slide slowly backwards. NFL is a pitch and catch league. Big Boy college football is a pitch and catch league. Athletes want to play pitch and catch. So we better pitch a few and catch a few. I am sure CPJ promises this a lot when he goes into homes, but this last game is the first time he really converted theory to practice.

I think I know the pros and cons of our spread formation offense as well as most here, so I don't care what you think of the offense when it is on the field. We are only talking effects on recruiting right now, and those effects are all negative to us.

Agree with most of that but be careful in making sweeping generalizations based on "this last game." Our pass game was effective and used more precisely because Richt sold out to stop the run. If an opposing defense covered us like they would most teams then I doubt we have the same success passing and we would be abandoning some big running plays to boot.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Agree with most of that but be careful in making sweeping generalizations based on "this last game." Our pass game was effective and used more precisely because Richt sold out to stop the run. If an opposing defense covered us like they would most teams then I doubt we have the same success passing and we would be abandoning some big running plays to boot.

The fact that we absolutely suck at mesh read and the triple right now had nothing to do with it, either.:rolleyes:

 

[MidtownJacket]

I am always confused by this type of thread. I want to win in sports as much as the next guy, but not at the expense of the value of my degree. I would wager that there is a much higher percentage of folks who came to GT (myself included) for the academic rigor and quality opportunities the Institute prepares you for and introduces you too upon graduation.

If the only way to win is to sacrifice that return on the hard work required to get through Tech I am happy with 8 or 9 win seasons as the average and an occasional 10 or 11 win year.

 

[texstinger]

I am always confused by this type of thread. I want to win in sports as much as the next guy, but not at the expense of the value of my degree. I would wager that there is a much higher percentage of folks who came to GT (myself included) for the academic rigor and quality opportunities the Institute prepares you for and introduces you too upon graduation.

If the only way to win is to sacrifice that return on the hard work required to get through Tech I am happy with 8 or 9 win seasons as the average and an occasional 10 or 11 win year.

8 or 9 win average? When was that? Soon I hope.

But GT is an engineering school. There has, for decades, been a devaluing of the GT degree for whatever reason. Many here have been given the opportunity to get a GT degree in a non-engineering field at the expense of the "integrity" of a GT Engineering degree.

So if those with these non-engineering degrees are not willing to help the school by getting the Hill to change, while at the same time taking advantage of the opportunity to get a non-Engineering degree - they are being the worst kind of hypocrites. Especially while singing "I am a Ramblin Wrech from Georgia Tech and a Helluva Engineer."

The answer is to rid GT of any non Engineering degrees, and most likely rid the school of athletics as we know it.

Or enhance our vision for what the school can become, maintaining the value of an Engineering degree, help more students afford themselves of a GT experience, and at the same time build on our athletic heritage.

But any non-Engineering degree holder not willing to fight the Hill by virtue of "the value of my degree" crap is being a total hypocrite because at some point somebody said "hey, let us add these additional majors" that you took advantage of.

Not accusing Mid of this, just using the post as an example of an oft repeated theme.

 

[GTCrew]

Thats apples and oranges because AAU has elevated the play of the upper middle class kids past the schoolyard virtuosos. Baseball is the same way, football is not.

You are correct on the Georgia vs national comment. We need to get linemem from the midwest imho. There will be wide recievers out there perfect for our offense from the midwest. And smart and interested in us.

Georgia will be easier to recruit with the new math requirement, but we need to recruit nationally.

 

[ramblinwise1]

it's a shame though 'cause we have some real geniuses posting here:cool:

 

[JOJATK]

I am always confused by this type of thread. I want to win in sports as much as the next guy, but not at the expense of the value of my degree. I would wager that there is a much higher percentage of folks who came to GT (myself included) for the academic rigor and quality opportunities the Institute prepares you for and introduces you too upon graduation.

If the only way to win is to sacrifice that return on the hard work required to get through Tech I am happy with 8 or 9 win seasons as the average and an occasional 10 or 11 win year.

I value my GT degrees as much as the next alumnus but I've never, ever thought that anything that happened in the football program had any bearing at all on that value. Perhaps that's easy for me to say because next to zero football players are in either of the degree programs from which I received degrees. Some thoughts:

1) I am not now suggesting nor have I ever suggested that we lower the standards of what it takes to get a GT degree. It should not be easy to earn a GT degree nor should we make it artificially so just to benefit our sports programs.

2) On the other hand I'm not opposed to allowing some exceptions now and again to kids who display some of the characteristics you need to get through GT but may have struggled a bit with their studies in HS. For example, if a kid struggled in his first two years of HS very badly but has worked very hard the next couple of years but will still come up a bit short. He may be exhibiting some maturity and drive that will help him succeed at GT. Part of this is just my natural desire to see underdog kids get an opportunity (and that applies to kids NOT in the sports programs as well).

3) I'm all for adding degree programs under the conditions that they fit what GT is about and that they serve the larger constituency for whom GT was created and exists, NOT just to attract more athletes. But I'm not opposed to those majors being beneficial to our sports programs

4) I don't understand the magic of everyone having to take calculus at GT. For sure my first degree needed it so I had to take it. But if a degree program really doesn't use it then why require it other than a rite of passage and to me that's just unnecessary. If a kid in the management department didn't have to take calculus it wouldn't diminish my degree one tiny bit.

So those are just my opinions. I could be wrong.

 

[andrew]

4) I don't understand the magic of everyone having to take calculus at GT. For sure my first degree needed it so I had to take it. But if a degree program really doesn't use it then why require it other than a rite of passage and to me that's just unnecessary. If a kid in the management department didn't have to take calculus it wouldn't diminish my degree one tiny bit.

So those are just my opinions. I could be wrong.

You won't use a lot of the stuff taught in college in the real world, and when you do there's a good chance you'll have to relearn it anyway since you learned it so long ago and in an academic environment.

It's more about proving that you have the ability to learn it, and right now everyone who graduates Georgia Tech is smart enough to pass college level calculus, which is more than a lot of people can say.

A big part of what makes your degree strong is the professional performance of others who hold your degree. Having everyone who holds your degree have that level of intelligence is a good thing, in my opinion.

If you pick a random person with a degree from most schools (even Ivy League), there's a good chance you'll end up with an idiot. That chance is a lot lower with GT because we have mostly difficult degrees, and even the non-STEM focused students are required to have a certain level of STEM skills. </anecdotal evidence>

 

[GTCrew]

I am always confused by this type of thread. I want to win in sports as much as the next guy, but not at the expense of the value of my degree. I would wager that there is a much higher percentage of folks who came to GT (myself included) for the academic rigor and quality opportunities the Institute prepares you for and introduces you too upon graduation.

If the only way to win is to sacrifice that return on the hard work required to get through Tech I am happy with 8 or 9 win seasons as the average and an occasional 10 or 11 win year.

I agree to a point but i think your benefit analysis is off. The boon to admissions with highly successful sports programs is proven. We can pretend that we would still challenge MIT without bigtime sports, but the reality is we would head faster towards Carnegie Mellon. Fine school, but not what we aspire to.

We have great SAT scores with average teams. I can only imagine our scores if we were dominant in football. Sure, twenty five 700s every year would affect the average a few decimal points over...