Academic Standards

[JanKemp]

His offense is a bigger hurdle than Tech’s standards. He will never admit it but it’s the truth. When it comes down to it and Tech gets into a battle late in the year with a big time offensive player Tech doesn’t lose blue chips because of academics it’s because we run a triple option that hasn’t put many RBs and QBs in the NFL. The one exception has been WR and Tech still struggles to recruit that position. I’m pissed Tech missed on Marlon Williams last year. He has 8 catches for 164 yards as a true freshman, 4 cahtces over 20 yards. That would be 2nd highest on the team if he was at Tech.

THe 3option hurts recruiting even more, I agree

 

[Animal02]

I don't expect #1 all the time, but 1990 wasn't that long ago

27 years is a lifetime in college sports. 1979 was the same time difference from 1952.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

How in the world is adding majors, or changing SOME requirements in SOME of our existing areas of study lowering the standards? Honest to heaven!

If that is a real concern then do away with ALL non-engineering & non-arch. majors.

Because, by some folks definition, we compromised the hell out of the school when we added IM, HST (or whatever it is) and other areas of study we have now.

And, if the truth be told, there was a time (and I was alive to see / hear it) when some "elitists" said we were lowering our standards by admitting non-whites and non-males as well.

Adding to our curriculum, without cheapening what is already there, will not compromise our standing one iota.

You need to remember that doing the kinds of things you (and others, including myself) want to do is totally out of the hands of the Tech Athletics Department AND the Hill. The Georgia BOR makes those decisions FOR Tech, and there is not a damn thing Tech can do about it. I was stunned last week to read that even the calculus requirement for liberal arts majors is required, not by the Hill, but by the BOR.

 

[RonJohn]

What I have been reading from our base scholars is we shouldn’t expect to compete with factory schools ie Clemson ugag Miami FSU and pretty much any other school we play since they have “football” majors. That’s why I say if we aren’t gonna be competitive let’s step down a notch where we will be.

Three years ago GT finished in the top 10. Ahead of UGA. Ahead of Clemson. Ahead of all but 7 teams. I wouldn't call that non-competitive. There are two schools that were above GT that are private and don't disclose funding. Of the other 5, the team with the lowest revenue was Oregon at $111 million. GT's revenue is $76 million. Oregon has more that 150% of GT's revenue and was the lowest revenue ranked above GT. Ohio State's revenue is $170 million. That is well more than double GT's. Those teams don't have coaches analyzing all of the high school film. Those schools don't have coaches patrolling halls at curfew before a game. Those teams have large support staffs that allow their coaches to simply coach a sport. I am not trying to make excuses for GT. I am very glad that we are competitive against such odds. If you truly believe that GT is no better than an FCS team, then why do you even support them?

 

[Boss Ross]

His offense is a bigger hurdle than Tech’s standards. He will never admit it but it’s the truth. When it comes down to it and Tech gets into a battle late in the year with a big time offensive player Tech doesn’t lose blue chips because of academics it’s because we run a triple option that hasn’t put many RBs and QBs in the NFL. The one exception has been WR and Tech still struggles to recruit that position. I’m pissed Tech missed on Marlon Williams last year. He has 8 catches for 164 yards as a true freshman, 4 cahtces over 20 yards. That would be 2nd highest on the team if he was at Tech.

Steam Whistle don't say anything against CPJ or you're post will be removed

 

[JorgeJonas]

This thread is definitely going to include calm, well-reasoned posts. Excited to read them.

 

[awbuzz]

THe 3option hurts recruiting even more, I agree

So a play that is called less than 20% of the time in a spread option offense is the problem?

That excuse is driven by the media, especially those that don't do homework and rely on regurgitation of incomplete "facts".

 

[zhavenor]

I don't expect #1 all the time, but 1990 wasn't that long ago

We are further away from 1990 than 1990 was from Bobby Dodd coaching.

 

[RamblinWreck92]

The scheme definitely hurts recruiting, if only because almost no one in HS runs anything like this, which narrows down the pool of talent even further.

 

[AE 87]

We've had 3 QB's under CPJ who started more than 1 year, and two of them made NFL camps. We've had 4 BBacks who started at some RB position for more than 1 year, and 3 of them have made NFL teams.

Now, how many RBs and QBs have we put into NFL camps or teams in the previous 9 years?

 

[Sideways]

Will the standards ever be compromised? I think it would help tremendously if they just quit making all athletes take calculus and broaden the field of majors!!

No, because football just isn't that important to the Hill.

 

[Captain killem]

#1 ronjohn that is what has been said on this board genius by some alumni that we can’t compete with “factories”.
#2 I have read numerous times on this site about 1 in 6 grads are millionaires. Sick of the money excuse with this said.
#3 you better be glad I’m a sidewalk fan cause it’s pretty obvious we need all we can get

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

You need to remember that doing the kinds of things you (and others, including myself) want to do is totally out of the hands of the Tech Athletics Department AND the Hill. The Georgia BOR makes those decisions FOR Tech, and there is not a damn thing Tech can do about it. I was stunned last week to read that even the calculus requirement for liberal arts majors is required, not by the Hill, but by the BOR.

Disagree sir.

As I have posted before, I talked to my areas representative on the BoR about 2 - 3 years ago. I was told that major academic changes (adding majors, etc.) must be initiated by the individual schools, not the BoR.

I do not know of any such recently requested actions by our Administration. And I suspect elitist alums with a self serving, misguided sense of things along with government employed (publish or perish) HillNerds are responsible.

That is why supporters and alums caring for the entirety of GT must use their voices and wallets to convince important people otherwise.

Do we need a PE major? No. Can we add other things that will not only not hurt GT academically, but actually enhance the GT brand? Yes.

It is up to us.

 

[Techster]

#3 you better be glad I’m a sidewalk fan cause it’s pretty obvious we need all we can get

UGA and 'Bama ain't filling their stadium with alums..

 

[SteamWhistle]

We've had 3 QB's under CPJ who started more than 1 year, and two of them made NFL camps. We've had 4 BBacks who started at some RB position for more than 1 year, and 3 of them have made NFL teams.

Now, how many RBs and QBs have we put into NFL camps or teams in the previous 9 years?

How many QBs played QB? How many RBs made it into a 3 deep or even the 2 deep? When I say put talent into the NFL I don't mean practice squads, even though that's a good accomplishment I meant actually start and play in the NFL. Also you can't count players until after 2012, some of those weren't Johnson's recruits.

 

[Captain killem]

Exactly but the alums don’t care nor need for us sidewalk fans.

 

[herb]

Disagree sir.

As I have posted before, I talked to my areas representative on the BoR about 2 - 3 years ago. I was told that major academic changes (adding majors, etc.) must be initiated by the individual schools, not the BoR.

I do not know of any such recently requested actions by our Administration. And I suspect elitist alums with a self serving, misguided sense of things along with government employed (publish or perish) HillNerds are responsible.

That is why supporters and alums caring for the entirety of GT must use their voices and wallets to convince important people otherwise.

Do we need a PE major? No. Can we add other things that will not only not hurt GT academically, but actually enhance the GT brand? Yes.

It is up to us.

The BOR is totally in the pocket of Athens. We have a few friends on the board but not many. Look at the articles from when they added engineering how things broke down.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

This thread is definitely going to include calm, well-reasoned posts. Excited to read them.

I can't imagine why you'd think this thread wouldn't spiral steadily downward....

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

So a play that is called less than 20% of the time in a spread option offense is the problem?

That excuse is driven by the media, especially those that don't do homework and rely on regurgitation of incomplete "facts".

It is very much a problem when in the minds of the public IIWII. It reduces our already smaller than a lot of schools recruiting pool, even to the point of impacting D players who, during 1 on 1 scrimmages vs our starting O, do not want to see this crap.

Pretending it does not hurt does not make it so.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Exactly but the alums don’t care nor need for us sidewalk fans.

You seem convinced the answer is to bring in more sidewalk fans. I agree, we need more sidewalk fans, but that's not the reason for our struggles, it's a symptom of our struggles.