AD sabotage the football program

[ibeattetris]

Bud could easily hire GOL, or another great,to do something similar. Has he? No.

I love your spirit man, but GOL brought us flunkgate. No way would Peterson brings him in to be an academic/athletic bridge when he was responsible for such a faux pas.

 

[RonJohn]

It's worth pointing out that 6500 of those grad students are for the online Master's in CS degree that was introduced a couple years ago. They still pay for their degree (about $7000 total, which is insane btw), but a lot of that growth is a bit misleading. Now I can tell you from experience that the on-campus grad students just care about their alma mater's program (if they had one). They came to GT entirely for the degree.

OK. I would also suspect that some of that is from the recent push(in many schools) of executive MBAs. For the post that I was originally responding to, those Master's CS degree students and executive MBA students are providing a lot of tuition money to the school. I suspect that football has very little to do with it. Also, I don't know where to find information on what percentage of Clemson's enrollment gains are from part time or remote students to make an apples to apples comparison.

That still does not prove that Clemson's recent football success has been the cause of an increase in enrollment and educational facilities. People who believe that football is the cause of such things like to point at schools such as Alabama and Clemson. They have had football success, so that must be the cause. It is easy to prove the lack or correlation. MANY schools that do not have national championship caliber football teams have expanded enrollment and facilities. GT, which was landlocked, now owns a very large part of very expensive Midtown Atlanta. In the last 20 years, GT has put many buildings on the East side of the connector and will be putting up more in the next few years. People who believe the "common knowledge" about football leading to great academic improvements at schools simply ignore the fact that University enrollment has been trending upward almost everywhere. Not solely at schools with championship level football programs.

 

[TampaGT]

Bud turbocharged development (fund raising) at all the schools within GT. He really pushed it, hiring D officers at each, with goals and objectives. The success of the engineering schools is evidence.

Has he attempted anything like this in athletics? No. Has he taken out the red tape between donor rolls like Roll Call, GT-F and GTAA. Has he worked to facilitate and appoint a board of “sports” people on the GTAA board? No.

Bev Davenport at UT did one smart thing. She brought back Phil Fulmer as a special advisor reporting directly to her to provide unfiltered opinion on the status of the athletics program at UT. Bud could easily hire GOL, or another great,to do something similar. Has he? No.

I like the idea of a former coach reporting to Bud. I think CBC would be the only coach that would make sense. Other option would be a former player.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

OK. I would also suspect that some of that is from the recent push(in many schools) of executive MBAs. For the post that I was originally responding to, those Master's CS degree students and executive MBA students are providing a lot of tuition money to the school. I suspect that football has very little to do with it. Also, I don't know where to find information on what percentage of Clemson's enrollment gains are from part time or remote students to make an apples to apples comparison.

That still does not prove that Clemson's recent football success has been the cause of an increase in enrollment and educational facilities. People who believe that football is the cause of such things like to point at schools such as Alabama and Clemson. They have had football success, so that must be the cause. It is easy to prove the lack or correlation. MANY schools that do not have national championship caliber football teams have expanded enrollment and facilities. GT, which was landlocked, now owns a very large part of very expensive Midtown Atlanta. In the last 20 years, GT has put many buildings on the East side of the connector and will be putting up more in the next few years. People who believe the "common knowledge" about football leading to great academic improvements at schools simply ignore the fact that University enrollment has been trending upward almost everywhere. Not solely at schools with championship level football programs.

A previous poster referenced an actual study on the topic. It doesn’t really matter much what we think unless we have some reason to refute that study.

 

[RonJohn]

Ron,
I would like the Prez OFFICE to admit that they made mistakes in hiring AT LEAST one of the ADs that floated through recently.Its like he doesn't give a crap who is the AD and what he does.The SAME thing with his buddies stealing pay, etc from Tech for doing nothing..
Bud has got to go.

Hiring MBob was a mistake. I haven't taken the time to find it, but I have seen the list of people on the search committee when MBob was hired. Peterson was not on the list. I seem to remember that John Brock was on the committee. I don't believe, and I think it would be hard to get me to believe, that John Brock doesn't care about the athletic department. I do think that MBob should have been forced out sooner.

If anything does force Peterson out it will probably be something related to the ethics scandals. With the way the University is doing overall, I don't see any performance of the school type issues. However, as basically a CEO of the University he is responsible for the overall system and management. I don't believe(at least not from what evidence I have seen) that he was complicit in those ethics violations. However, it is a president and CEO's responsibility to have systems in place to ensure such things do not happen.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I like the idea of a former coach reporting to Bud. I think CBC would be the only coach that would make sense. Other option would be a former player.

I bet Pat Swilling would be good at it, with his history of helping redevelop New Orleans after Katrina, his vested interest in the program right now, his insider knowledge of football at GT, and his high business acumen and integrity.

 

[LibertyTurns]

I bet Pat Swilling would be good at it, with his history of helping redevelop New Orleans after Katrina, his vested interest in the program right now, his insider knowledge of football at GT, and his high business acumen and integrity.

Calvin Freaking Johnson is my vote.

 

[Skeptic]

It's a BS excuse that has come up coincidentally only as the results on the field have declined and certain people don't want to blame the head coach for it.

Maybe some intense therapy would bring you out of that shell.

 

[iceeater1969]

Bud turbocharged development (fund raising) at all the schools within GT. He really pushed it, hiring D officers at each, with goals and objectives. The success of the engineering schools is evidence.

Has he attempted anything like this in athletics? No. Has he taken out the red tape between donor rolls like Roll Call, GT-F and GTAA. Has he worked to facilitate and appoint a board of “sports” people on the GTAA board? No.

Bev Davenport at UT did one smart thing. She brought back Phil Fulmer as a special advisor reporting directly to her to provide unfiltered opinion on the status of the athletics program at UT. Bud could easily hire GOL, or another great,to do something similar. Has he? No.

He's tall and smiles.

If he does something the B O R doesnt like (mgtfbga= make gt foot ball great again), they would......

Caretaker- not risk taker.

On to the next photo op.

 

[MWBATL]

2008:
GT -- UG approx 13,000 GR approx 6,500
Clemson -- UG approx 14,500 GR approx 3,000

2018
GT -- UG approx 15,500 GT approx 14,000
Clemson -- UG approx 19.500 GT approx 3,700

So Clemson had an UG increase of 5,000 compared to GT's increase of 2,500. However, my post was in response to a post that said Clemson made a lot of money because of the tuition of the gain in students. GT had a total increase of about 10,000 students. Clemson had a total increase of about 6,000 students. Graduate students pay tuition also. Graduate students also conduct research which helps the reputation of the school. GT has not fallen behind Clemson in academic funding, academic reputation, or perspective students applying. Clemson doing well in athletics, but it hasn't caused their enrollment to make gains against GT. It hasn't caused their number of applicants to make gains on GT. Doing well in football makes middle aged men think more highly of a school, but I haven't seen any evidence that it causes increases in academic applications or academic reputation. It seems to me that it is a "common knowledge" idea among football fans that has no evidence to support it. In fact, looking at multiple sample sets it appears that the evidence refutes it.

FYI, I have definitely seen studies which indicate applications to a university surge the year after their football team does something glorious. It is quite clear the GT Admin doesn't care about that aspect of things, but there have been studies.

How about Forbes
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbswor...ess-boosts-college-applications/#5b8faf916e96

Seriously, that wasn't hard to find. Before calling people out why not google a topic to see if they are telling the truth?

 

[RonJohn]

FYI, I have definitely seen studies which indicate applications to a university surge the year after their football team does something glorious. It is quite clear the GT Admin doesn't care about that aspect of things, but there have been studies.

How about Forbes
https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbswor...ess-boosts-college-applications/#5b8faf916e96

Seriously, that wasn't hard to find. Before calling people out why not google a topic to see if they are telling the truth?

I haven't taken the time to fully read the study paper. However, looking at the data at the end of the study, every single university that he has data for had an increase in applications from 2001 to 2009. He has a chart that shows from 2001 to 2009 that the number of high school graduates increased and that the number of college applications skyrocketed. At the beginning of his study he states:

Furthermore, the decay rate of athletics goodwill is significant only for students with lower SAT scores, suggesting that the goodwill created by intercollegiate athletics resides more extensively with low-ability students than with their high-ability counterparts.

I still don't buy that football success leads to a large increase in applications. However, the above quote tells me that even if there is an increase in applications based on sports that the additional applicants based on sports aren't going to be able to be accepted at GT, Alabama, Auburn, or even at the mutts school. The acceptance rate at GT is about 33%. At Alabama it is about 54%. At Auburn it is about 78%. At the mutts it is about 53%. Even if there is a 10 or 20% increase in applications, no more students are going to get in. Therefore it will not have an affect on the student population.(Auburn might be an exception since their acceptance rate is so high--It could be that they only reject people who do not qualify)

Most colleges and universities have experienced a very large boom in applications. Those good at football have. Those mediocre at football have. Those bad at football have. Those who don't even have a football program have. From what I saw in Chung's paper from a quick skimming he only compared applications based on winning or non-winning seasons at a particular school(ND for example). ND applications increased overall, but increased more two years after good seasons than two years after a bad season. I didn't see any comparison between schools with good football programs in general and schools with mediocre or bad programs. I know that the bad program schools have experienced similar gains in applications.

The Forbes article you linked to provided information from the summary of the paper without the reasoning and detail in the paper. From my initial skimming, I think the paper excludes some data and takes the data that it does include to be more meaningful than it should in the conclusions. I won't have time until next week to give it a thorough reading, but I till read it middle of next week.

I don't think I was "calling" anyone out. I was simply responding with actual data. As I stated, I haven't had an opportunity to review Chung's paper in detail, but I have very little faith in a Forbe's article that basically summarizes his conclusions without including any of the reasoning. If Chung's details can convince me, then fine. However, I don't put much faith in anything that I google without having a thorough understanding of it. You can't believe everything you read on the internet, even at sites such as Forbes.

 

[augustabuzz]

2008:
GT -- UG approx 13,000 GR approx 6,500
Clemson -- UG approx 14,500 GR approx 3,000

2018
GT -- UG approx 15,500 GT approx 14,000
Clemson -- UG approx 19.500 GT approx 3,700

So Clemson had an UG increase of 5,000 compared to GT's increase of 2,500. However, my post was in response to a post that said Clemson made a lot of money because of the tuition of the gain in students. GT had a total increase of about 10,000 students. Clemson had a total increase of about 6,000 students. Graduate students pay tuition also. Graduate students also conduct research which helps the reputation of the school. GT has not fallen behind Clemson in academic funding, academic reputation, or perspective students applying. Clemson doing well in athletics, but it hasn't caused their enrollment to make gains against GT. It hasn't caused their number of applicants to make gains on GT. Doing well in football makes middle aged men think more highly of a school, but I haven't seen any evidence that it causes increases in academic applications or academic reputation. It seems to me that it is a "common knowledge" idea among football fans that has no evidence to support it. In fact, looking at multiple sample sets it appears that the evidence refutes it.

Undergraduates tend to support athletics at a much higher rate than grad students.

 

[slugboy]

Looking solely at GT or Clemson may be too small a data set to conclude anything. I refer you to Harvard Business School Assistant Professor of Marketing, Doug Chung who has studied it and whose findings include:

• When a school rises from mediocre to great on the gridiron, applications increase by 18.7 percent.
• To attain similar effects, a school has to either lower tuition by 3.8 percent or increase the quality of its education by recruiting higher-quality faculty, who are paid 5 percent more than their average peers in the academic labor market.
• Students with lower-than-average SAT scores tended to have a stronger preference for schools known for athletic success, while students with higher SAT scores preferred institutions with greater academic quality. Also, students with lower academic prowess valued the success of intercollegiate athletics for longer periods of time than the high SAT achievers.
• Even students with high SAT scores are significantly affected by athletic success—one of the biggest surprises from the research, Chung says.
• Schools become more academically selective with athletic success.

Good news though: more football wins -> lower grades
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/...ks-winning-football-and-declining-grades.html




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[lv20gt]

Good news though: more football wins -> lower grades
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/...ks-winning-football-and-declining-grades.html

I'd say the take away for that is more alcohol consumption and skipping class -> lower grades.

 

[jacketup]

I love your spirit man, but GOL brought us flunkgate. No way would Peterson brings him in to be an academic/athletic bridge when he was responsible for such a faux pas.

Not true. Flunkgate happen under Gailey, and he took the blame for it.

 

[Animal02]

I'd say the take away for that is more alcohol consumption and skipping class -> lower grades.

Yeah....it did not matter to me what the football team was doing

 

[g0lftime]

Hiring MBob was a mistake. I haven't taken the time to find it, but I have seen the list of people on the search committee when MBob was hired. Peterson was not on the list. I seem to remember that John Brock was on the committee. I don't believe, and I think it would be hard to get me to believe, that John Brock doesn't care about the athletic department. I do think that MBob should have been forced out sooner.

If anything does force Peterson out it will probably be something related to the ethics scandals. With the way the University is doing overall, I don't see any performance of the school type issues. However, as basically a CEO of the University he is responsible for the overall system and management. I don't believe(at least not from what evidence I have seen) that he was complicit in those ethics violations. However, it is a president and CEO's responsibility to have systems in place to ensure such things do not happen.

If those things had happened in industry the CEO would likely be removed. GT relies heavily on contributions and grants. If those funds are squandered then management has failed.

 

[LongforDodd]

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

where does this come from? What type of cargo plane? 747's can be cargo planes.

 

[jwsavhGT]

where does this come from? What type of cargo plane? 747's can be cargo planes.

https://www.myajc.com/sports/colleg...nction-under-bobinski/MMtNNZBExQvrM6l6fyJ5XK/
https://gtswarm.com/threads/so-this-cargo-plane.9964/

 

[iceeater1969]

I haven't taken the time to fully read the study paper. However, looking at the data at the end of the study, every single university that he has data for had an increase in applications from 2001 to 2009. He has a chart that shows from 2001 to 2009 that the number of high school graduates increased and that the number of college applications skyrocketed. At the beginning of his study he states:
I still don't buy that football success leads to a large increase in applications. However, the above quote tells me that even if there is an increase in applications based on sports that the additional applicants based on sports aren't going to be able to be accepted at GT, Alabama, Auburn, or even at the mutts school. The acceptance rate at GT is about 33%. At Alabama it is about 54%. At Auburn it is about 78%. At the mutts it is about 53%. Even if there is a 10 or 20% increase in applications, no more students are going to get in. Therefore it will not have an affect on the student population.(Auburn might be an exception since their acceptance rate is so high--It could be that they only reject people who do not qualify)

Most colleges and universities have experienced a very large boom in applications. Those good at football have. Those mediocre at football have. Those bad at football have. Those who don't even have a football program have. From what I saw in Chung's paper from a quick skimming he only compared applications based on winning or non-winning seasons at a particular school(ND for example). ND applications increased overall, but increased more two years after good seasons than two years after a bad season. I didn't see any comparison between schools with good football programs in general and schools with mediocre or bad programs. I know that the bad program schools have experienced similar gains in applications.

The Forbes article you linked to provided information from the summary of the paper without the reasoning and detail in the paper. From my initial skimming, I think the paper excludes some data and takes the data that it does include to be more meaningful than it should in the conclusions. I won't have time until next week to give it a thorough reading, but I till read it middle of next week.

I don't think I was "calling" anyone out. I was simply responding with actual data. As I stated, I haven't had an opportunity to review Chung's paper in detail, but I have very little faith in a Forbe's article that basically summarizes his conclusions without including any of the reasoning. If Chung's details can convince me, then fine. However, I don't put much faith in anything that I google without having a thorough understanding of it. You can't believe everything you read on the internet, even at sites such as Forbes.

One stat that could impact your numbers.
Govt student loans that are disconnected from financial reality = tidal wave of demand.

An example of free money
AND and winning

Baylor has 3 new Dormitority towers.
When son was their in early 2000 they did not win a big 12 game. No one went to games. Now they are rebuilding ( after the giant sex abuse debacle) , in thier new stadium located across bueatful walking bridge over the Brazos river.
AT START OF GAME ALL THE FRESHMAN RUN ACROSS THE FIELD AND GET IN THIER FRONT (10) ROW SEATS. This old tradition returned when 2008 they hired a coach that had a scheme and insisted on restoring the tradition. They now have a coach who reaks integrity and love of player. I like this guy.
Example made not in support of sex abuse ( my giving to them stopped and i went all in to gtaa. )!

Sorry for interrupting the statitcal discussion.
Go jackets