AD sabotage the football program

[Whiskey_Clear]

This is what is so frustrating to me: that Bud misses the point. The point should not be to cater to a few hundred athletes.

It should simply be this: WE EXCEL AT EVERYTHING WE DO AT GT.

What's wrong with having a kid being an All-ACC safety and a Rhodes scholar while playing in a high-tech, top-notch facility with a holistic approach to athletic performance based on nutrition, training, and education?

Steebu for president...he gets it. Bud never will.

 

[RonJohn]

There is a reason that Swinney continues to fight off any attempt by any sport to occupy part of the new football facility, and there have been several kind of half-*** efforts. What he tells the AD -- who is on board with him for obvious reasons -- and the chancell0r is that he will help any sport raise money for their facility which he contends is unmatched in bonding a team. They just can't move in with the football team. Every recruit swoons over it -- the slide is a big deal apparently -- and football is the leading element of campus growth and student enrollment toward a goal of 30,000. it's now about 18,000 and was 13,000 not that long ago. Multiply each of those students by $1,800 a credit hour and you get the idea of what football means to the school. And to that end, Swinney keeps his facilities for a reason. Can Tech raise that kind of money? Or does it even want to? I don't know and I am not suggesting they should ... but that is the competition out there.

In 2003 the enrollment at GT was 19,413. Currently(as of 2017) the enrollment at GT is 29,376. At Clemson the enrollment in 2008 was 18,317. Currently(as of 2017) the enrollment is 24,387. GT has had larger increases in the number of students in the time period that CPJ and Swinney have been the coaches. So, if you multiply those students by credit hours by price per credit hour, GT seems to have made out better.

GT has great campus growth and enrollment growth at the moment. I do enjoy sports and I do want all of the athletic teams at GT to do well. I do not buy an argument that athletics is the cause of growth of an academic institution. The Ivy league schools have crappy sports, but they have very low acceptance rates. MIT doesn't even have sports, yet they have a very low acceptance rate. GT has more applications now than at any time in the past. The acceptance rate is lower now than it was before.

 

[ibeattetris]

It should simply be this: WE EXCEL AT EVERYTHING WE DO AT GT.

I know nothing about Peterson or how he feels about our program. I would say if his internal view of GT is that we are contemporaries of MIT, CAL Tech, Carnegie Mellon, etc. then it would be easy to believe we already do excel at football (and other sports), so maybe he would need convinced that we maybe don't (by comparing against maybe UMich and USCal instead of MIT).

I am not saying this is the case, but I don't consider this line of thinking to be irrational.

 

[herb]

You realize that this is also exactly the case at ugag now?

It is, BUT the difference is that their alumni and sidewalk alumni will raise holy hell. And there are enough of them that at least threaten to vote that there are consequences real or perceived for not catering to the rest of the state.

 

[RonJohn]

What's wrong with having a kid being an All-ACC safety and a Rhodes scholar while playing in a high-tech, top-notch facility with a holistic approach to athletic performance based on nutrition, training, and education?

There is nothing wrong with that, but the school cannot pay for the top notch facility, the nutrition, the sports training, etc. The school cannot even pay for the tuition portion of the SA's education. The school is limited to 10% of the overall athletic budget. The school currently pays approximately 10%, most from student athletic fees. The GTAA is required to fund 90% from other sources.(Conference media deals, tickets, donations, etc.)

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

There is nothing wrong with that, but the school cannot pay for the top notch facility, the nutrition, the sports training, etc. The school cannot even pay for the tuition portion of the SA's education. The school is limited to 10% of the overall athletic budget. The school currently pays approximately 10%, most from student athletic fees. The GTAA is required to fund 90% from other sources.(Conference media deals, tickets, donations, etc.)

This is where leadership and fundraising come in. Simple really. Maybe Tstan has the autonomy to do it all on his own. I hope he at least has the autonomy. But it would be nice if the pres actually bought in and became part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

 

[RonJohn]

This is where leadership and fundraising come in. Simple really. Maybe Tstan has the autonomy to do it all on his own. I hope he at least has the autonomy. But it would be nice if the pres actually bought in and became part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

What specifically is he doing to impair TStan? What specifically is he doing to prevent fans from donating money?

He might be doing something, but I haven't seen anything specific only vague "the hill" keeps the athletic department down type comments. There was a comment a couple of years ago that profs would not offer any way for athletes to take exams early/late when they have late night games/trips before an early AM exam. That is an example of something that most of us could agree should be addressed by the President or the Deans. Are there other items?

 

[slugboy]

GTRI has a revenue of $370 million, mostly from DoD contracts and grants. That's over 50% of Clemson's ENTIRE endowment. Yeah football and tuition make money, but the people in charge know what the cash cow is. Will easier majors and dropping calc requirments hurt us academically and hurt our prestige? Unlikely. Is anyone in their right mind going to mess with a good thing when those kinds of numbers are on the line? Hell no.

In case anyone is wondering, you can’t dip into that research funding for anything else. It’s designated funding.

Peterson had to fire people for misuse (among other things) earlier this year.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LibertyTurns]

What specifically is he doing to impair TStan? What specifically is he doing to prevent fans from donating money?

He might be doing something, but I haven't seen anything specific only vague "the hill" keeps the athletic department down type comments. There was a comment a couple of years ago that profs would not offer any way for athletes to take exams early/late when they have late night games/trips before an early AM exam. That is an example of something that most of us could agree should be addressed by the President or the Deans. Are there other items?

Yeah, exceptions. I think we can all agree that minorities comprise a higher percentage of our athletic teams than the school as a whole. Many top athletes either were not afforded the educational opportunities, or had the importance stressed to them that the general pool of applicants had. They are disproportionately minority (I don’t have hard data to back it up but would bet my own money on it).

You can’t tell me that an individual that dedicated so much of his life to become an elite athlete cannot be tutored to learn whatever academic hurdle we could throw in front of him/her given extra assistance/tutoring. Give them help, not punish them for not being like the others. Screwing with them on class times, not allowing test/quiz reschedules is complete bull & those academic elites like Peterson know it.

That would help. We should applaud/admire our student athletes not have our leadership look down their noses at them like they’re some kind of second class citizens.

By the way, about a year or so after Peterson took over he met with about 20 of us in Los Angeles. He spoke about 30 minutes about all the great programs that were being launched. We followed up with about an hour of questions about how he was going to improve our football, basketball & baseball teams. He was not a happy camper that night. Finally he told us he had no more time & raced out of there like we had the plague. He may be slick, but he’s definitely not a GT Man.

 

[RonJohn]

Yeah, exceptions.

The AJC article is gone now, but there was a blog post about it on FTRS: https://www.fromtherumbleseat.com/2...o-allow-more-academic-exceptions-for-football

Unless things have changed since then the limitations on exceptions was removed in 2014. I didn't read the blog post, but in the original AJC story it said:

• Because of the high APR, the school was going to remove the limitations on exceptions.
• The football staff was responsible for ensuring that the football players keep up with classes and grades.
• If the academic success of the football players declined, the limitations could be revisited.

So I don't see that one as something Peterson or "the hill" is doing to limit the football team.

BTW: Race doesn't really have anything to do with intelligence or knowledge. A prima-donna attitude could keep a kid from trying hard in school and a good athlete could have enablers in school that let him slide through. Socioeconomic status can result in a student attending a sub-par school, which could cause their readiness for college to be lower than kids in a higher economic class.

 

[LibertyTurns]

The AJC article is gone now, but there was a blog post about it on FTRS: https://www.fromtherumbleseat.com/2...o-allow-more-academic-exceptions-for-football

Unless things have changed since then the limitations on exceptions was removed in 2014. I didn't read the blog post, but in the original AJC story it said:

• Because of the high APR, the school was going to remove the limitations on exceptions.
• The football staff was responsible for ensuring that the football players keep up with classes and grades.
• If the academic success of the football players declined, the limitations could be revisited.

So I don't see that one as something Peterson or "the hill" is doing to limit the football team.

BTW: Race doesn't really have anything to do with intelligence or knowledge. A prima-donna attitude could keep a kid from trying hard in school and a good athlete could have enablers in school that let him slide through. Socioeconomic status can result in a student attending a sub-par school, which could cause their readiness for college to be lower than kids in a higher economic class.

Yes, your last paragraph better stated what I was thinking. I may be a hard core conservative, but we need to invest properly in our youth’s educations. In the interim, GT needs to value non-academic achievements more & provide paths for those disadvantaged to have an opportunity. We don’t owe our athletes an outcome, but a fair chance. I’m on the outside looking in, but it doesn’t seem like we help athletes, we create more roadblocks to success.

 

[Sebastian GT]

This is 110% true by the way...had not thought of this in ages. haha

Reminds me of these guys. Lol.

 

[Lavoisier]

To the people that are on the side of adding easier majors:

Let's say we create a whatever your idea of said major without calc and science requirements is. How much do you think it will really improve recruiting? Do you think we will land 5stars or top 150 kids? Top 250? Will we be in the top 25 every year? Honest question.

I personally don't think it would change a whole lot. Maybe 2 more 4stars a year. We probably still won't land any top 150 guys, and I don't think we will ever get a 5star recruit here. Over a 4-5 year period I don't think the talent difference would change a whole lot in the W-L column. On the list of stuff I just feel it's way down on stuff we can do to win more games.

 

[tech_wreck47]

To the people that are on the side of adding easier majors:

Let's say we create a whatever your idea of said major without calc and science requirements is. How much do you think it will really improve recruiting? Do you think we will land 5stars or top 150 kids? Top 250? Will we be in the top 25 every year? Honest question.

I personally don't think it would change a whole lot. Maybe 2 more 4stars a year. We probably still won't land any top 150 guys, and I don't think we will ever get a 5star recruit here. Over a 4-5 year period I don't think the talent difference would change a whole lot in the W-L column. On the list of stuff I just feel it's way down on stuff we can do to win more games.

If it landed us 2 or 3 more 4 stars per year I think it would make a MAJOR difference in the team. I agree it wouldn’t make this big difference though from a stand point of getting the top 150 type player though.

 

[steebu]

To the people that are on the side of adding easier majors:

Let's say we create a whatever your idea of said major without calc and science requirements is. How much do you think it will really improve recruiting? Do you think we will land 5stars or top 150 kids? Top 250? Will we be in the top 25 every year? Honest question.

GT has never landed a 5* recruit, fwiw. When did we ever consistently land top 150 guys for that matter?

Adding majors by itself will help but it's only a piece of the puzzle; we have to recruit nationally. The reality is we are surrounded by football-first factories in the south where high school education isn't a priority. Consider where Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Louisiana rank on the list of high school education. Sure, we tap Florida, but it would be great to go after kids in Virginia, Texas, California, places where there is no inbred (pun intended) bias against GT where high school education is better than anywhere else in the south outside of metro Atlanta. Consider what CPJ said on the radio show before the Duke game: 9 of Duke's 11 starters on defense aren't from North Carolina. He also said that they were the best defense GT would see outside of Clemson, and they definitely proved it.

Smart kids who can play are out there. They just don't always want to major in engineering or the liberal arts majors we DO have (econ, management, etc.). But I bet they might take a stab at Sports Science, Telecommunication and Journalism, or Technology and Forensic Sciences.

 

[eetech]

CPJ did not think it was fair. He and the temporary AD tried to get the agreement switched back, as neither of them wanted it.

I never said Radakovich was a bad AD. I brought up the only possible thing that could be considered "sabotage"

But if CPJ thought that was a bad idea then it’s a good thing he isn’t an AD. That was an excellent decision for the long term health of the program.

 

[tech_wreck47]

But if CPJ thought that was a bad idea then it’s a good thing he isn’t an AD. That was an excellent decision for the long term health of the program.

Isn’t this talking about us playing Clemson away two years in a row? If so how was that an excellent decision?

 

[eetech]

DRad could have got us out of the Russell deal before he left but he re-upped us and then got our ACC title stripped before going to our cross division rival.

The Russell extension is a fair criticism.

He definitely half assed that.

That being said, it’s unlikely we would have gone with anyone but Russell anyways. This was close after the financial crisis, and Adidas hadn’t gotten into school sponsorships the way they are now. It was basically Nike or UA, and Nike wasn’t gonna give us Russell money, nor was UA.

The problem with Russell was they were supposed to get bigger into college sports and we were to be the Maryland to their Under Armour, but after making a half hearted attempt with some TV ads they seemed to completely back off. I’m not sure what happened there to be honest.

 

[eetech]

Isn’t this talking about us playing Clemson away two years in a row? If so how was that an excellent decision?

Because it didn’t affect the split between the number of home games or away games we played and instead of having both the UGAg and Clemson home game s in the same year, it alternated them, allowing us to raise significantly more money through ticket sales (both canvases buy a ton of 3 game packs which helps us make more money from the weaker games on our home schedule).

I mean, if our distribution of games is:
GT home
Clemson home
GT
Clemson
GT
Clemson

It’s absolutely no different in terms of the number of home/away games
GT
Clemson
Clemson
GT
Clemson
GT

The only way this would not work is if we decided to end the annual series after a Clemson away game so we had:
GT
Clemson
Clemson
GT
Clemson

but even then it’s a maximum of 1 game difference and since there is no hint of ending the series the point is moot (and if we ended it after a GT home game once again there would be no effect).

 

[eetech]

If Paul Johnson says that bye weeks matter, and that opponents have had 13 of them, people would just say he's making excuses. It's a no-win.

This is weak. CPJ has no problems saying other statements that could be construed as excuses when it involves blaming a player or a turnover, or the defense.

I don’t know why CPJ said that, but I doubt it’s because he was worried people would construe it as an excuse. One of the things both his supporters and detractors agree about him is that he usually says it like it is. I doubt Bye weeks are where he would draw the line.