Addressing the Vad Lee situation

[Matt E]

You to Nate!

MattE
Good to see you bro

 

[AE 87]

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.

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.

 

[56JacketDE]

AE87

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?

 

[AE 87]

AE87

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?

I don't know why you're challenging me. I'm not trying to argue. I don't know the requirements for various degrees. I know that when I was at Tech, we had to take 18+ hours several quarters to stay on track to graduate in 4 yrs. I doubt that's an NCAA requirement.

If I wanted to play football and didn't care about going to class, I would put off math requirements and take more literature and sociology courses even though maybe only 1 of each counts toward my degree, and I'd probably only take the minimum required hours/quarter or semester. And I wouldn't go to summer school. Again, I don't know the rules but if that could keep me eligible to play even if it didn't keep me on track to graduate in 4 years, that's what I'd do. My question was whether guys were doing this or whether everybody was pretty much on track to graduate in four years. 33 tells me they were, so I got no reason to doubt him.

I asked because that's the expectation that CPJ must operate under, and I was wondering if comparing the situations now to then was actually the same.

 

[56JacketDE]

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

 

[AE 87]

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

Cool. And I knew you meant aren't.

 

[33jacket]

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

 

[daBuzz]

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?

Link

 

[33jacket]

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?

First i was not a former player. I have said that in the past and on the radio show. I think my handle makes people assume that but the 33 was my high school number. I do not want to misrepresent. Tried to walkon in 1997 and i love GOL but he didnt care for walkkns and i could not make weight. So onto your point.

I chaired a young alumni board in the AA for a few years.

It was just the schools agenda. Clough took over around when george did and george ran the show. Clough never liked it.

 

[56JacketDE]

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.

 

[daBuzz]

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.

Thanks, Nate. Have many fond memories of watching you play at GT.

One other question just occurred to me. Does anyone else think that the reconfiguration of the stadium hurt the football program? When I was in school there (1984), those seats between the 35 yard lines were all student seats. We were right behind the other team and not only were loud, we constantly had fans giving the other teams' players hell.

Now the students are in the end zones, about as far away from the other team's bench as you can possibly get. Instead, the seats behind the opposition bench are now the chair-back seats. A good portion of them are usually empty and even when they aren't, those are the least likely to be loud and in-the-face of the other team.

I get that it probably helps with the bottom line...but it sure does seem to be less "intimidating".

 

[DvilleJacket]

Always hate being at a game seeing all those chair backs empty! Doesn't look good on tv neither.

 

[56JacketDE]

There were no seat backs when I was playing there. It's louder on the field than up in the stands so I don't know how much louder it is now. I do wish the seat backs would be full. It looks bad on tv and it isn't intimidating to the visitor bench. At Clemson, they're fans are right up on our bench.

 

[Rodney Kent]

George O’Leary took over from Lewis in the last three games of the 1994 season. He lost all three games to Clemson 10-20 (5-6); Wake Forest 13-20 (3-8); and UGA 10-48 (6-4-1). Tech scored 33 and the opposition 88.

George coached the next two years (1995-1996) without Ralph Friegden. The records without Ralph were:

1994 (George) 0-3 Tech-38 Opp-88 Lost UGA
1995 (George) 6-5 Tech-260 Opp-243 Lost UGA
1996 (George) 5-6 Tech-220 Opp-236 Lost UGA
1997 (George & Ralph) 7-5 Tech-314 Opp-296 Lost UGA
1998 (George & Ralph) 10-2 Tech-426 Opp-291 Beat UGA
1999 (George & Ralph) 8-4 Tech-461 Opp-361 Beat UGA
2000 (George & Ralph) 9-2 Tech-374 Opp-209 Beat UGA
2000 (George) 0-1 Tech-14 Opp-28 Lost LSU (Bowl)
2001 George) 7-5 Tech-381 Opp-267 Lost UGA
2001 (McWhorter) 1-0 Tech-24 Opp-14 Beat Stanford (Bowl)

George never beat UGA (0-4) without Ralph. With Ralph, Tech beat UGA 3 times (3-1). Tech was picked as the favorite to beat LSU in the bowl game, but Ralph did not coach because of taking the Maryland job. George lost 14-28 and the offense could not overcome the deficiencies of the defense.

George never won a bowl game without Ralph.

Without Friedgen, O'Leary was 18-20 overall. He was responsible for only one bowl game, but did not coach in it because he quit Tech. He coached one bowl game in which Ralph was responsible for the offensive edge during the season, but O'Leary lost it to an inferior LSU team without Ralph.

O'Leary's record against UGA without Friegden was 0-4. Ralph's record at Tech was 33-14 in four years, responsible for getting Tech to four bowls, and had a 3-1 record against UGA.

The downturn in winning came after Ralph left in 2000 with a 9-2 record. It started with the Peach Bowl game and GOL's last 13 games produced a 7-6 record.

When Ralph came on the scene at Tech, the defense never improved. Tech won only because of the high powered offense of Ralph outscoring the opponents. The defense under Roof and George’s tutelage never improved. Without Ralph, the ship sank and the offense could no longer overcome the defensive woes.

I am not sure that George’s defense is much better today at UCF as they just won the bowl game 52-42, hardly a defensive effort. However, UCF has the number 1 rated quarterback in the NCAA according to many of the pro scouts. Blake Bartle has been the catalyst, but I give George credit for his winning seasons at UCF. He may have found some good assistants, but that is to his credit, but he is not a good defensive coach.

It is obvious from the statistics above, Ralph’s offense had to overcome a lot of scoring by the opponents.

 

[56JacketDE]

So explain uga in 1998 or uga in 2000

Did the defense show up?

Ralph's wonderful offense did nothing against fsu in 1998. Game day was at GT for the first time. Score was 10-7 at end of third quarter.

How many GT teams have finished in the top 10 since Dodd left?

2 that I know of and gol was dc on 90 and HC in 98

He beat ucf in a bowl game without Ralph a couple years ago

And

You didn't change my mind

 

[56JacketDE]

Also when Ralph showed up gol had been recruiting for 3 years. I was there during that time were you? Do you know what kind of athletes we had when Lewis left?

 

[Sebastian GT]

George beat Richt with freaking UCF without Ralph in the Liberty Bowl in 2010. He just won a BCS bowl game without Ralph. They were also without their defensive coordinator for the Fiesta Bowl. Under your theory I guess the only reason UCF won that game was because of Charlie Taffe. If you are trying to sugarcoat our current situation by crapping on the last truly successful head coach at Tech and one that was also part of a National Championship as the defensive coordinator in 1990 then you have completely lost your mind. Just piss on us and tell us it's raining. Yes we had some shaky defenses in 1999 and 2000 however in 1999 we had lost quite a bit off the 98 team as well as having to replace Edsall (who was a very good coach) with Roof. 2000 was better and 2001 had its moments defensively. Why not give George credit for getting Ralph back here to fix the offense instead of trying to take away from what was accomplished while he was here. Also don't forget that he canned Dave Huxtable (who was horrible) on defense after 97 and brought in Edsall. Had Edsall not gotten the Uconn job and stayed for another year or two maybe the defense puts up better numbers than they did under Roof.

Don't underestimate the dumpster fire that O'leary inherited from Bill Lewis. The fact that we were competitive in 95 and 96 was a minor miracle given the turnover in players and the overall lack of talent that Lewis left. Throw in the fact that the team was totally divided and had terrible chemistry and it makes it more amazing. Hell we had ugag beat in 95 and should have won. If there is one thing that O'leary has proven it's that he can build from scratch or rebuild a program as well as anyone in coaching. He may be gruff and there are some who didn't like him when he was here because he didn't kiss their *** but the results were good both on and off the field. He has been more successful against ugag than any Tech coach since Bobby Dodd and he hated them more than maybe any Tech coach ever. He still hates them. Maybe that was part of the reason for his success against them. Nothing like a burning hatred inside to provide that extra motivation to beat someone. Gailey sure as hell could have used some of that.

 

[forensicbuzz]

GOL is 15 years more experienced that when he was here. Apples and Oranges. Roof wasn't too impressive his first time around here. I'm hoping his 15 years more experience helps him too. I always liked GOL, so I'm not being negative at all. I was really down when he left, and really, really pissed when they hired Chan Gailey.

 

[awbuzz]

Guys, enjoyed the last couple of pages, but this has strayed from the "vad lee situation"... maybe another thread needs to be started...

 

[John]

Guys, enjoyed the last couple of pages, but this has strayed from the "vad lee situation"... maybe another thread needs to be started...

Agreed. This thread has been locked for straying way off topic.

Best of luck to your Vad. Wish you nothing but the best.