Well I know we had good controls in the late 90s. I am not saying it was 90%, and APR doesn't ask for 90%...what I am saying is sure we still have electives, but the electives are part of the degree...and GOL was more on top of it than Chan was initially. That is for a fact. We had APR issues initially cuz of flunkgate etc...and from like 1991 to 1996 GT football was not in great position for graduating...it began to progress under george and I think had he stayed at tech for another 5 years it would not have been an issue
you have to analyze everything from where we come from. Like with a coach who takes over a zero win program vs 7 win. Well george also took over a zero win program in the W L column, but also poor academic performance and steadily improved it. That is far different than what Chan inherited or Paul both on the field and off.
As you know there are my many "fluff" electives offered at GT, this even if players weren't taking classes towards a degree, what would you "hide" them in?
My apologies for any misunderstanding. I was Not challenging you
I meant to say "aren't" many fluff electives offered instead of "are"
We had to take at least 12 hours. Some took more at times
I would say it was more common to be on track to graduate in 5 years not 4
Thanks. Again, I was just asking. My impression was that guys could have been taking more electives than their degree program could count toward the degree. I'm glad you're setting me straight.
Technically this can happen and still can and does in other schools. APR is a self policed metric. If your degree allows for electives to count then they count.
At tech i may take some of my core. And decide to load up on electives during football season, then back to my core and labs in summer. They all count. I may take 9 during the season then go 12 12 or 12 9. It all counts.
U have to remember players school in summer or at least some do. So it counts for that year. This really is why APR is a joke. Their are so many loopholes.
GOL would have had zero issues. Even with then admission standards
33, 54, and other former players,
Nice to have you guys posting on here and providing some perspective from that side of the fence.
The primary question I have yet to hear answered is this:
Since flunkgate was caused by a representative of the Hill's academic advisory staff (Frank Roper, to be exact), why the hell did they tighten entrance requirements? The whole thing of flunkgate wasn't that the students weren't able to do the work. It was that Roper, a crotchety old fart who was actually past retirement age, stopped going to the annually mandated compliance classes. So, he didn't know that they had changed the NCAA requirement such that, if your school's requirements were more stringent than NCAA minimums, you have to use those for compliance, rather than NCAA minimums. Therefore, we had ineligible athletes in multiple sports.
However, somehow this academic-side screw up was put off onto the athletic side of the house.
How the hell did that happen?
I'll be honest as I've said before, I've asked people about these much harder requirements..... There comments are
"You gotta know the system"
"There's always exceptions"
"We don't get the players but it ain't the hill's fault"
My impression is if we really want someone marginal and he will come to tech, we can get him. The problem is most don't want to come to tech. This isn't something I dreamed up, this is what I've been told but people that know.