For those who think The Hill can change the curriculum

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

More excuses.

We elected a former GT athlete as Lt. Gov.

We have a GT grad as 1 of 2 U.S. Senators.

Sam Nunn was a Senator who went to GT.

Numb Nutz Carter was the Freaking President.

Too many GT grads want to whine, make excuses, claim their degrees will be devaluated (instead of their God given ability being their main asset) want to for some unknown reason put individuals (no successful business or university embraces this crap for 11 years) above what is best for the school.

And not a single one of those elected officials from Tech did a damn thing for us, athletically or academically.

 

[gtphd]

Brian kemp will perpetuate this. He is a stereotypical dog. Would’ve been nice to get a governor who went to school in Atlanta and then Yale.

I’m sure everyone has their own opinions about everything else she would or would not have done, but I know she would have valued education more than uga football for a change.

The single best thing we can do for Tech is organize a PAC that promotes GT-friendly candidates to GT alumni. We could then get more GT candidates in the State House and ultimately hopefully get a governor. That governor then has a wide range of freedom to promote GT interets in the BOR.

That would only bear fruit, though, if we replaced Bud and put a new president in place.

 

[okiemon]

When you are “owned” by somebody else, how do you suddenly become not “owned”?

And if we did so, what guarantee is there that the HillNerds would not make things worse than now?

We need our own Boone Pickens. Not to endow the football program — though that would be great — but to offer the BOR a lot of money for allowing GT to go private. I get the feeling the BOR puts money first.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 2897]

More excuses.

We elected a former GT athlete as Lt. Gov.

We have a GT grad as 1 of 2 U.S. Senators.

Sam Nunn was a Senator who went to GT.

Numb Nutz Carter was the Freaking President.

Too many GT grads want to whine, make excuses, claim their degrees will be devaluated (instead of their God given ability being their main asset) want to for some unknown reason put individuals (no successful business or university embraces this crap for 11 years) above what is best for the school.

14 of the 19 members of the Board of Regents are elected by their congressional districts aren’t they? So if we’re not allowed to expand our curriculum or materially grow the size of the school, how exactly do we get a bunch of dwag fans to elect Tech grads? And how exactly does a Senator or Lt Governor (whose job and responsibilities are largely other things) overcome those laws of physics?

I’d love to hear your plan, as would others, because we need one we can galvanize behind.

 

[HurricaneJacket]

I have tweeted at Rep. Reeves to solve this problem. Could use some support on Twitter, he is truly our only ****ing chance

Why Rep. Reeves in particular? I don't know enough about the political structure of the state relative to education to knoe why he's the linchpin.

 

[jacketup]

Why is it lame, when that article proves it is true?

That article is about how the State of Georgia has penalized academics, not how academics impact athletics. It does not prove your point.

In any event. the history in that article generally happened before Dodd. So how does that explain our current mediocrity that you so emphatically endorse?

After O'Leary cleaned up the Lewis mess during his first two years, he was 40-19 vs FBS opponents.

After Gailey's recruits left the program since Johnson's first two years, his record vs. FBS opponents is 53-51.

21 more wins than losses by O'Leary in 5 years; 2 more wins than losses under Johnson in 9 years of trying.

So, did Tech have a lot more easy majors when O'Leary was here? Actually, Tech now has more liberal arts majors than ever.

A similar analysis comparing Gailey with with Johnson yields similar, although less startling, results. Johnson's record is the worst since Lewis.

You folks who support Johnson and his $3million salary to achieve mediocrity need to try another excuse. The academic one is lame.

 

[HurricaneJacket]

As a tangent to this topic, is there any truth to the rumors I've heard the Peterson is heading out the door because of the ethics scandals?

Also, whenever we move on from Peterson, how do we pressure for candidates who would holistically value GT (sports, academics, community outreach, research, etc) as opposed to someone who is purely research/academia focused?

I have a rant about Peterson's policies later, but I'll put them in place when I'm not on my phone.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

That article is about how the State of Georgia has penalized academics, not how academics impact athletics. It does not prove your point.

In any event. the history in that article generally happened before Dodd. So how does that explain our current mediocrity that you so emphatically endorse?

After O'Leary cleaned up the Lewis mess during his first two years, he was 40-19 vs FBS opponents.

After Gailey's recruits left the program since Johnson's first two years, his record vs. FBS opponents is 53-51.

21 more wins than losses by O'Leary in 5 years; 2 more wins than losses under Johnson in 9 years of trying.

So, did Tech have a lot more easy majors when O'Leary was here? Actually, Tech now has more liberal arts majors than ever.

A similar analysis comparing Gailey with with Johnson yields similar, although less startling, results. Johnson's record is the worst since Lewis.

You folks who support Johnson and his $3million salary to achieve mediocrity need to try another excuse. The academic one is lame.

The article clearly states how the BOR has used academics throughout the years to prevent Tech from taking measures that would help Tech athletics. It began with the stealing of the School of Commerce, and it continues with the BOR's continued oversight over the number and scope of Tech fields of studies. Yes, we have more liberal arts majors now, but we still do not have the kinds of majors that non-engineering schools have. They claim that it would affect our integrity, but it sure hasn't affected or harmed the integrity of schools like Stanford, which has tons of "easy" majors, in addition to their highly respected ones. It is the BOR, not the Hill, which prevents Tech from dropping the calculus requirement for ALL students, jocks or not. Although the lack of "easy" majors was a problem under Ross, O'Leary, and even Gailey, they did not have the APR restrictions which Tech has now. Obviously, the BOR has nothing to do with that requirement per se, but by not allowing "easy" majors, and by not allowing the removal of calculus as a required course, they have pretty much insured that Tech athletes have to do better than athletes at other schools do in an overall sense ... for example the University (sic) of Georgia. Johnson's record since Lewis may be "the worst," but none of the other coaches since Lewis have taken us to even one Orange Bowl, much less two, and Gailey with Calvin Johnson on the team couldn't even beat Georgia or win an ACC championship. And no Gailey team ever finished 8th in the country either, which Johnson's team did in 2014.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

As a tangent to this topic, is there any truth to the rumors I've heard the Peterson is heading out the door because of the ethics scandals?

Also, whenever we move on from Peterson, how do we pressure for candidates who would holistically value GT (sports, academics, community outreach, research, etc) as opposed to someone who is purely research/academia focused?

I have a rant about Peterson's policies later, but I'll put them in place when I'm not on my phone.

It wouldn't surprise me if he ultimately leaves because of the scandals, but I question his supposed non-support for athletics. He goes to every game with his wife and always speaks about Tech athletics at alumni gatherings. There is certainly nothing that he can do to make the BOR give us a fair shake. As loudly as he objected to them adding engineering studies in the cesspool, it all fell on deaf ears, and it was a done deal from the start, aside from the one Georgia alum in the state legislature who said he would never approve funding for the engineering school in Athens. As far as "pressuring" candidates to do what you said, I doubt there is any way to do that, but we MUST let them know that athletics is a VITAL part of Georgia Tech; it always has been, and it always should be.

 

[HurricaneJacket]

It wouldn't surprise me if he ultimately leaves because of the scandals, but I question his supposed non-support for athletics. He goes to every game with his wife and always speaks about Tech athletics at alumni gatherings. There is certainly nothing that he can do to make the BOR give us a fair shake. As loudly as he objected to them adding engineering studies in the cesspool, it all fell on deaf ears, and it was a done deal from the start, aside from the one Georgia alum in the state legislature who said he would never approve funding for the engineering school in Athens. As far as "pressuring" candidates to do what you said, I doubt there is any way to do that, but we MUST let them know that athletics is a VITAL part of Georgia Tech; it always has been, and it always should be.

Peterson and I came to campus the same academic year, and while he is very nice personally we've never seen eye to eye (which is not his problem as I was just a student), but I have a problem with the school's move to becoming a MIT of the south (huge focus on doctorates/research) as opposed to focusing on producing more excellent working engineers woth hands on experience.

I think this move directly led to UGA getting an engineering program (gut feeling, no true evidence) and I've never forgiven him for not getting some concession out of that move such as a teaching program or University status or something.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Peterson and I came to campus the same academic year, and while he is very nice personally we've never seen eye to eye (which is not his problem as I was just a student), but I have a problem with the school's move to becoming a MIT of the south (huge focus on doctorates/research) as opposed to focusing on producing more excellent working engineers woth hands on experience.

I think this move directly led to UGA getting an engineering program (gut feeling, no true evidence) and I've never forgiven him for not getting some concession out of that move such as a teaching program or University status or something.

I guess I somewhat agree with you on that.

 

[PBR549]

That article is about how the State of Georgia has penalized academics, not how academics impact athletics. It does not prove your point.

In any event. the history in that article generally happened before Dodd. So how does that explain our current mediocrity that you so emphatically endorse?

After O'Leary cleaned up the Lewis mess during his first two years, he was 40-19 vs FBS opponents.

After Gailey's recruits left the program since Johnson's first two years, his record vs. FBS opponents is 53-51.

21 more wins than losses by O'Leary in 5 years; 2 more wins than losses under Johnson in 9 years of trying.

So, did Tech have a lot more easy majors when O'Leary was here? Actually, Tech now has more liberal arts majors than ever.

A similar analysis comparing Gailey with with Johnson yields similar, although less startling, results. Johnson's record is the worst since Lewis.

You folks who support Johnson and his $3million salary to achieve mediocrity need to try another excuse. The academic one is lame.

Between Dodd and Johnson we had a lot of mediocre seasons. Ross had one great season surrounded by mediocre then bolted. O'Leary had a couple of good seasons then bolted. Curry had one good season and bolted. The others were mediocre at best. The problem is not the coaches. I've been watching since 1973. We need to address the recruiting issue or resign ourselves to a good season every now and then in the middle of mediocrity. Very frustrating for me and many other fans. Johnson has done as well as anyone has over a period of years.

 

[jacketup]

The article clearly states how the BOR has used academics throughout the years to prevent Tech from taking measures that would help Tech athletics. It began with the stealing of the School of Commerce, and it continues with the BOR's continued oversight over the number and scope of Tech fields of studies. Yes, we have more liberal arts majors now, but we still do not have the kinds of majors that non-engineering schools have. They claim that it would affect our integrity, but it sure hasn't affected or harmed the integrity of schools like Stanford, which has tons of "easy" majors, in addition to their highly respected ones. It is the BOR, not the Hill, which prevents Tech from dropping the calculus requirement for ALL students, jocks or not. Although the lack of "easy" majors was a problem under Ross, O'Leary, and even Gailey, they did not have the APR restrictions which Tech has now. Obviously, the BOR has nothing to do with that requirement per se, but by not allowing "easy" majors, and by not allowing the removal of calculus as a required course, they have pretty much insured that Tech athletes have to do better than athletes at other schools do in an overall sense ... for example the University (sic) of Georgia. Johnson's record since Lewis may be "the worst," but none of the other coaches since Lewis have taken us to even one Orange Bowl, much less two, and Gailey with Calvin Johnson on the team couldn't even beat Georgia or win an ACC championship. And no Gailey team ever finished 8th in the country either, which Johnson's team did in 2014.

You say:The article clearly states how the BOR has used academics throughout the years to prevent Tech from taking measures that would help Tech athletics.
My response: Then how did Dodd have success? Ross ? O'Leary? Why can't Johnson? Why does he get a pass?

You say: It is the BOR, not the Hill, which prevents Tech from dropping the calculus requirement for ALL students, jocks or not.
My response: The required "Survey of Calculus" course for non-engineering majors is like a HS pre-calculus course. My son, who is a Tech student, made that exact point while he was here for Thanksgiving. That doesn't explain why we can't get 15 or so high quality football players if we had a program that kids wanted to be a part of. The basketball team has 2 national top 100 recruits and a couple of other top 250 players. Why can't the football team even sign top 50 players from Georgia? Are you making the point that basketball players are smarter than football players? It makes as much sense as the rest of your argument.

You say: "schools like Stanford, which has tons of "easy" majors". Name one easy major at Stanford. Now name "tons." Your argument is that only calculus is hard--therefore if you don't have to take calculus then college is easy. That's just BS and arrogance. Stanford has higher academic entry requirements for athletes than Tech--the Young kid that played DB for us a few years ago wanted to go to Stanford and didn't get in. There was another kid a few years ago whose name escapes me in the same boat. Again,you offer a lame and unsubstantiated excuse by insecure people like you who embrace excuses to justify the current mediocrity instead of demanding better. A loser mentality.

You say: "Gailey, they did not have the APR restrictions which Tech has now."
My response: The NCAA established APR in 2004. In any event, you have provided no evidence that Ross, O'Leary or Gailey would not have achieved satisfactory APR results.

You say:"none of the other coaches since Lewis have taken us to even one Orange Bowl, much less two"
My response: None of the other coaches since Lewis (after O'Leary cleaned up the Lewis mess) had one losing season, much less two. And that's with Johnson playing far more FCS teams than Gailey or O'Leary (we didn't play any FCS/1-AA from 1996-2000 (O'Leary) or 2002, 2003 or 2005 (Gailey)).

You say: "no Gailey team ever finished 8th in the country either, which Johnson's team did in 2014"
My response: No Gailey team ever finished with fewer than 7 wins either like Johnson has multiple times. But Gailey was a mediocre coach because he wouldn't hire a good OC, and he should have been fired. It's amazing to me that people want to compare him with Gailey, a fired coach, in an effort to show that Johnson isn't quite so bad. In other words, which mediocre coach is less mediocre? The one (Johnson) who was hired at double Gailey's salary? Oh yeah, let's keep him....he's not quite as mediocre (which is debatable).

O'Leary had 5 consecutive AP Top 25 finishes. How many total has Johnson had in 11 tries? And he can thank Gailey's excellent recruiting for his early success--success he hasn't been able to match with his own recruits. How do you explain Gailey's improved recruiting in view of APR and Tech's calculus requirement? I can explain it: he was an ex-NFL coach, an attractive quality, and he had a better recruiting staff. What he lacked was a good offense coordinator (due to his arrogance), which cost him his job.

You present noting but opinions. Even if any of what you said was objectively accurate, it doesn't explain how O'Leary can have a 40-19 record vs FBS in five years, while Johnson is one (1!) game over .500 vs FBS over the last 9 years (104 games). That's a BIG difference not explained by the lame academic excuse.

Johnson has averaged less than 6 FBS wins a year over the last 9 years while averaging almost 12 FBS games. The very definition of mediocrity, and unacceptable except to those who embrace mediocrity. The academic excuse doesn't justify that record, nor does it explain losing to Duke on an annual basis.

To paraphrase Kim King, we probably can't be a top 10 team very often due to academics, but we can be a top 25 team. Things are so bad that people are happy that we just had a 7-5 Gailey like season while playing in a very weak Coastal division--coming on the heels of a losing season, something that Gailey never had. Sad, just sad, that people are happy with the state of this program under Johnson.

I'll express one opinion: You people who support Johnson and his mediocre program are Paul Johnson fans, not Tech fans.

 

[Animal02]

You say:The article clearly states how the BOR has used academics throughout the years to prevent Tech from taking measures that would help Tech athletics.
My response: Then how did Dodd have success? Ross ? O'Leary? Why can't Johnson? Why does he get a pass?

You say: It is the BOR, not the Hill, which prevents Tech from dropping the calculus requirement for ALL students, jocks or not.
My response: The required "Survey of Calculus" course for non-engineering majors is like a HS pre-calculus course. My son, who is a Tech student, made that exact point while he was here for Thanksgiving. That doesn't explain why we can't get 15 or so high quality football players if we had a program that kids wanted to be a part of. The basketball team has 2 national top 100 recruits and a couple of other top 250 players. Why can't the football team even sign top 50 players from Georgia? Are you making the point that basketball players are smarter than football players? It makes as much sense as the rest of your argument.

You say: "schools like Stanford, which has tons of "easy" majors". Name one easy major at Stanford. Now name "tons." Your argument is that only calculus is hard--therefore if you don't have to take calculus then college is easy. That's just BS and arrogance. Stanford has higher academic entry requirements for athletes than Tech--the Young kid that played DB for us a few years ago wanted to go to Stanford and didn't get in. There was another kid a few years ago whose name escapes me in the same boat. Again,you offer a lame and unsubstantiated excuse by insecure people like you who embrace excuses to justify the current mediocrity instead of demanding better. A loser mentality.

You say: "Gailey, they did not have the APR restrictions which Tech has now."
My response: The NCAA established APR in 2004. In any event, you have provided no evidence that Ross, O'Leary or Gailey would not have achieved satisfactory APR results.

You say:"none of the other coaches since Lewis have taken us to even one Orange Bowl, much less two"
My response: None of the other coaches since Lewis (after O'Leary cleaned up the Lewis mess) had one losing season, much less two. And that's with Johnson playing far more FCS teams than Gailey or O'Leary (we didn't play any FCS/1-AA from 1996-2000 (O'Leary) or 2002, 2003 or 2005 (Gailey)).

You say: "no Gailey team ever finished 8th in the country either, which Johnson's team did in 2014"
My response: No Gailey team ever finished with fewer than 7 wins either like Johnson has multiple times. But Gailey was a mediocre coach because he wouldn't hire a good OC, and he should have been fired. It's amazing to me that people want to compare him with Gailey, a fired coach, in an effort to show that Johnson isn't quite so bad. In other words, which mediocre coach is less mediocre? The one (Johnson) who was hired at double Gailey's salary? Oh yeah, let's keep him....he's not quite as mediocre (which is debatable).

O'Leary had 5 consecutive AP Top 25 finishes. How many total has Johnson had in 11 tries? And he can thank Gailey's excellent recruiting for his early success--success he hasn't been able to match with his own recruits. How do you explain Gailey's improved recruiting in view of APR and Tech's calculus requirement? I can explain it: he was an ex-NFL coach, an attractive quality, and he had a better recruiting staff. What he lacked was a good offense coordinator (due to his arrogance), which cost him his job.

You present noting but opinions. Even if any of what you said was objectively accurate, it doesn't explain how O'Leary can have a 40-19 record vs FBS in five years, while Johnson is one (1!) game over .500 vs FBS over the last 9 years (104 games). That's a BIG difference not explained by the lame academic excuse.

Johnson has averaged less than 6 FBS wins a year over the last 9 years while averaging almost 12 FBS games. The very definition of mediocrity, and unacceptable except to those who embrace mediocrity. The academic excuse doesn't justify that record, nor does it explain losing to Duke on an annual basis.

To paraphrase Kim King, we probably can't be a top 10 team very often due to academics, but we can be a top 25 team. Things are so bad that people are happy that we just had a 7-5 Gailey like season while playing in a very weak Coastal division--coming on the heels of a losing season, something that Gailey never had. Sad, just sad, that people are happy with the state of this program under Johnson.

I'll express one opinion: You people who support Johnson and his mediocre program are Paul Johnson fans, not Tech fans.

Lots of had waving away of facts and ignoring others....
Survey of calculus / pre calculus is still far more advanced math than most kids with NFL dreams in their eyes will ever consider.
As for easy Stanford degrees.....sociology, history, English, theater, communications etc. etc.
Nice of you to ignore the stiffening of the APR requirements in 2011.
What is sad are posters like you that ignore the reality in order to spin you narrative.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

You say:The article clearly states how the BOR has used academics throughout the years to prevent Tech from taking measures that would help Tech athletics.
My response: Then how did Dodd have success? Ross ? O'Leary? Why can't Johnson? Why does he get a pass?

You say: It is the BOR, not the Hill, which prevents Tech from dropping the calculus requirement for ALL students, jocks or not.
My response: The required "Survey of Calculus" course for non-engineering majors is like a HS pre-calculus course. My son, who is a Tech student, made that exact point while he was here for Thanksgiving. That doesn't explain why we can't get 15 or so high quality football players if we had a program that kids wanted to be a part of. The basketball team has 2 national top 100 recruits and a couple of other top 250 players. Why can't the football team even sign top 50 players from Georgia? Are you making the point that basketball players are smarter than football players? It makes as much sense as the rest of your argument.

You say: "schools like Stanford, which has tons of "easy" majors". Name one easy major at Stanford. Now name "tons." Your argument is that only calculus is hard--therefore if you don't have to take calculus then college is easy. That's just BS and arrogance. Stanford has higher academic entry requirements for athletes than Tech--the Young kid that played DB for us a few years ago wanted to go to Stanford and didn't get in. There was another kid a few years ago whose name escapes me in the same boat. Again,you offer a lame and unsubstantiated excuse by insecure people like you who embrace excuses to justify the current mediocrity instead of demanding better. A loser mentality.

You say: "Gailey, they did not have the APR restrictions which Tech has now."
My response: The NCAA established APR in 2004. In any event, you have provided no evidence that Ross, O'Leary or Gailey would not have achieved satisfactory APR results.

You say:"none of the other coaches since Lewis have taken us to even one Orange Bowl, much less two"
My response: None of the other coaches since Lewis (after O'Leary cleaned up the Lewis mess) had one losing season, much less two. And that's with Johnson playing far more FCS teams than Gailey or O'Leary (we didn't play any FCS/1-AA from 1996-2000 (O'Leary) or 2002, 2003 or 2005 (Gailey)).

You say: "no Gailey team ever finished 8th in the country either, which Johnson's team did in 2014"
My response: No Gailey team ever finished with fewer than 7 wins either like Johnson has multiple times. But Gailey was a mediocre coach because he wouldn't hire a good OC, and he should have been fired. It's amazing to me that people want to compare him with Gailey, a fired coach, in an effort to show that Johnson isn't quite so bad. In other words, which mediocre coach is less mediocre? The one (Johnson) who was hired at double Gailey's salary? Oh yeah, let's keep him....he's not quite as mediocre (which is debatable).

O'Leary had 5 consecutive AP Top 25 finishes. How many total has Johnson had in 11 tries? And he can thank Gailey's excellent recruiting for his early success--success he hasn't been able to match with his own recruits. How do you explain Gailey's improved recruiting in view of APR and Tech's calculus requirement? I can explain it: he was an ex-NFL coach, an attractive quality, and he had a better recruiting staff. What he lacked was a good offense coordinator (due to his arrogance), which cost him his job.

You present noting but opinions. Even if any of what you said was objectively accurate, it doesn't explain how O'Leary can have a 40-19 record vs FBS in five years, while Johnson is one (1!) game over .500 vs FBS over the last 9 years (104 games). That's a BIG difference not explained by the lame academic excuse.

Johnson has averaged less than 6 FBS wins a year over the last 9 years while averaging almost 12 FBS games. The very definition of mediocrity, and unacceptable except to those who embrace mediocrity. The academic excuse doesn't justify that record, nor does it explain losing to Duke on an annual basis.

To paraphrase Kim King, we probably can't be a top 10 team very often due to academics, but we can be a top 25 team. Things are so bad that people are happy that we just had a 7-5 Gailey like season while playing in a very weak Coastal division--coming on the heels of a losing season, something that Gailey never had. Sad, just sad, that people are happy with the state of this program under Johnson.

I'll express one opinion: You people who support Johnson and his mediocre program are Paul Johnson fans, not Tech fans.

Too late to go through all your points, although I believe I could present valid points of my own to counter yours. I will just reply to you last comment. None of what I originally posted about the BOR has any relation to Johnson, or any other Tech coach at all; it's just factual history. I support Johnson, but my support is not blind. You non-support borders on blind hatred, so nothing I could post would change your mind. The world of college football has changed enormously since the days of Ross, and most of those changes have not been for the good of college football as a whole. And those changes are going to continue, and are going to get worse, so that if a school has not sacrificed all its integrity on the altar of winning at all costs, then it will be left behind. And Tech is not the only school facing that future. So no matter who coaches at Tech in the near or distant future, if those changes are allowed to continue to destroy the game (and who's going to stop them), Tech will remain "mediocre". So I will now express one opinion to counter your one opinion: You people who hate Johnson are naive and unwilling to face the facts that Tech will never again CONSISTENTLY do any better than it has been doing under Johnson.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Lots of had waving away of facts and ignoring others....
Survey of calculus / pre calculus is still far more advanced math than most kids with NFL dreams in their eyes will ever consider.
As for easy Stanford degrees.....sociology, history, English, theater, communications etc. etc.
Nice of you to ignore the stiffening of the APR requirements in 2011.
What is sad are posters like you that ignore the reality in order to spin you narrative.

Thank you, Animal. You summed up in a few words what it would probably have taken me a couple hundred to say. LOL

 

[Animal02]

Thank you, Animal. You summed up in a few words what it would probably have taken me a couple hundred to say. LOL

And I forgot to mention how Tech has gone from middle of the road wrt to football spending to near bottom in the last decade.

Oh, and comparing basketball to football is laughable.....the number of kids ready to start as a true freshman in B-ball vs football is huge. Kids will come to Tech to play immediately.....they won’t to ride the bench.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Too late to go through all your points, although I believe I could present valid points of my own to counter yours. I will just reply to you last comment. None of what I originally posted about the BOR has any relation to Johnson, or any other Tech coach at all; it's just factual history. I support Johnson, but my support is not blind. You non-support borders on blind hatred, so nothing I could post would change your mind. The world of college football has changed enormously since the days of Ross, and most of those changes have not been for the good of college football as a whole. And those changes are going to continue, and are going to get worse, so that if a school has not sacrificed all its integrity on the altar of winning at all costs, then it will be left behind. And Tech is not the only school facing that future. So no matter who coaches at Tech in the near or distant future, if those changes are allowed to continue to destroy the game (and who's going to stop them), Tech will remain "mediocre". So I will now express one opinion to counter your one opinion: You people who hate Johnson are naive and unwilling to face the facts that Tech will never again CONSISTENTLY do any better than it has been doing under Johnson.

By the way, you could have added quite a few other bogus majors at high and mighty Stanford, such as African and African-American studies, Chicano/a and Latino/a studies, Art practice (huh???), Comparative studies in race and ethnicity, etc, etc.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I doubt that we can go private; I'm sure the BOR would find a way to block that too. But we DO get some measure of funding from the state that would be hard, if not impossible, to replace. It certainly would solve all our problems though, wouldn't it?

Tuition would have to skyrocket to cover the loss of funds.....And the politics would be ugly at best....

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

You say:The article clearly states how the BOR has used academics throughout the years to prevent Tech from taking measures that would help Tech athletics.
My response: Then how did Dodd have success? Ross ? O'Leary? Why can't Johnson? Why does he get a pass?

You say: It is the BOR, not the Hill, which prevents Tech from dropping the calculus requirement for ALL students, jocks or not.
My response: The required "Survey of Calculus" course for non-engineering majors is like a HS pre-calculus course. My son, who is a Tech student, made that exact point while he was here for Thanksgiving. That doesn't explain why we can't get 15 or so high quality football players if we had a program that kids wanted to be a part of. The basketball team has 2 national top 100 recruits and a couple of other top 250 players. Why can't the football team even sign top 50 players from Georgia? Are you making the point that basketball players are smarter than football players? It makes as much sense as the rest of your argument.

You say: "schools like Stanford, which has tons of "easy" majors". Name one easy major at Stanford. Now name "tons." Your argument is that only calculus is hard--therefore if you don't have to take calculus then college is easy. That's just BS and arrogance. Stanford has higher academic entry requirements for athletes than Tech--the Young kid that played DB for us a few years ago wanted to go to Stanford and didn't get in. There was another kid a few years ago whose name escapes me in the same boat. Again,you offer a lame and unsubstantiated excuse by insecure people like you who embrace excuses to justify the current mediocrity instead of demanding better. A loser mentality.

You say: "Gailey, they did not have the APR restrictions which Tech has now."
My response: The NCAA established APR in 2004. In any event, you have provided no evidence that Ross, O'Leary or Gailey would not have achieved satisfactory APR results.

You say:"none of the other coaches since Lewis have taken us to even one Orange Bowl, much less two"
My response: None of the other coaches since Lewis (after O'Leary cleaned up the Lewis mess) had one losing season, much less two. And that's with Johnson playing far more FCS teams than Gailey or O'Leary (we didn't play any FCS/1-AA from 1996-2000 (O'Leary) or 2002, 2003 or 2005 (Gailey)).

You say: "no Gailey team ever finished 8th in the country either, which Johnson's team did in 2014"
My response: No Gailey team ever finished with fewer than 7 wins either like Johnson has multiple times. But Gailey was a mediocre coach because he wouldn't hire a good OC, and he should have been fired. It's amazing to me that people want to compare him with Gailey, a fired coach, in an effort to show that Johnson isn't quite so bad. In other words, which mediocre coach is less mediocre? The one (Johnson) who was hired at double Gailey's salary? Oh yeah, let's keep him....he's not quite as mediocre (which is debatable).

O'Leary had 5 consecutive AP Top 25 finishes. How many total has Johnson had in 11 tries? And he can thank Gailey's excellent recruiting for his early success--success he hasn't been able to match with his own recruits. How do you explain Gailey's improved recruiting in view of APR and Tech's calculus requirement? I can explain it: he was an ex-NFL coach, an attractive quality, and he had a better recruiting staff. What he lacked was a good offense coordinator (due to his arrogance), which cost him his job.

You present noting but opinions. Even if any of what you said was objectively accurate, it doesn't explain how O'Leary can have a 40-19 record vs FBS in five years, while Johnson is one (1!) game over .500 vs FBS over the last 9 years (104 games). That's a BIG difference not explained by the lame academic excuse.

Johnson has averaged less than 6 FBS wins a year over the last 9 years while averaging almost 12 FBS games. The very definition of mediocrity, and unacceptable except to those who embrace mediocrity. The academic excuse doesn't justify that record, nor does it explain losing to Duke on an annual basis.

To paraphrase Kim King, we probably can't be a top 10 team very often due to academics, but we can be a top 25 team. Things are so bad that people are happy that we just had a 7-5 Gailey like season while playing in a very weak Coastal division--coming on the heels of a losing season, something that Gailey never had. Sad, just sad, that people are happy with the state of this program under Johnson.

I'll express one opinion: You people who support Johnson and his mediocre program are Paul Johnson fans, not Tech fans.

You are a CPJ hater not a Tech fan.

See how that works? And Gailey had zero influence on the 2014 team.