For those who think The Hill can change the curriculum

[Scubapro]

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.

A large hindrance has been the lack of an education certification and yes...the BOR has stopped Tech from getting this. And yes it is important since many kids plan on becoming coaches.

 

[Animal02]

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.

GT alum going into politics likely heans a big pay cut, for a mutt it means tripling their income.

 

[HurricaneJacket]

Unfortunately the BOR sees us as a cash cow and there is no feasible way break away even for a year to show them ourvalue short of increasing our endowment at least 4x and really much much higher.

We pretty much need a multi-billionare to gift our endowment all of his/her money upon their death.

 

[gtphd]

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.

Not to go point by point, but first GT academics pre-1990 were very different than post-1990.

Second, Stanford has plenty of “easy majors” to house athletes. Communications; Science, Technology, and Society (where you choose your own classes to make a major); African American Studies; and Media Studies come to mind. What classes do you take as an African American Studies Major? African American Vernacular, African American Cinema, and Hip Hop Culture. Know what classes you don’t take? Calculus, Computer Science, and Lab Sciences. If you want to “major in football” that sounds like a sweet deal. And I don’t hear Stanford graduates complaining about devaluation of their degrees.

 

[Coloradojacket]

Question on APR, it requires a certain percentage of athlete's to graduate or there is a loss of scholarships. Is this based across the entire Athletic program or is it sport specific. And if it is, how does Geogie, graduating only 40% of their players not lose scholarships?

 

[gtphd]

Question on APR, it requires a certain percentage of athlete's to graduate or there is a loss of scholarships. Is this based across the entire Athletic program or is it sport specific. And if it is, how does Geogie, graduating only 40% of their players not lose scholarships?

Graduation doesn’t factor into APR. It’s based on the number of students academically eligible at the end of the fall season.

Let’s say you have 85 scholarship players, a perfect score is 85*2 = 170. If 70 remain eligible at the end of the season, you get 70 * 2 = 140 points. If 5 players are academically ineligible but you keep them on scholarship, you get 5 * 1 = 5 points for those players. If 5 transfer out while academically eligible, you get 5 * 1 = 5 points for those players. If 5 players transfer out (or lose scholarships) while academically ineligible, you get 0 points for those players. So in this scenario, you’d have 140 + 5 + 5 = 160 points. 160 / 170 = .941, which is a 941 APR.

So graduation doesn’t factor in, only eligibility. How you game this: push all the difficult classes to the end of the student’s degree and only have him take the minimum course load. He’d spend his football career taking the easier courses with a light course load and would stay eligible. Then after he’s done with football, he has to take a ton of tough courses, where he presumably struggles. Those struggles won’t impact APR because he’s no longer a football player but could keep him from graduating.

 

[Coloradojacket]

Graduation doesn’t factor into APR. It’s based on the number of students academically eligible at the end of the fall season.

Let’s say you have 85 scholarship players, a perfect score is 85*2 = 170. If 70 remain eligible at the end of the season, you get 70 * 2 = 140 points. If 5 players are academically ineligible but you keep them on scholarship, you get 5 * 1 = 5 points for those players. If 5 transfer out while academically eligible, you get 5 * 1 = 5 points for those players. If 5 players transfer out (or lose scholarships) while academically ineligible, you get 0 points for those players. So in this scenario, you’d have 140 + 5 + 5 = 160 points. 160 / 170 = .941, which is a 941 APR.

So graduation doesn’t factor in, only eligibility. How you game this: push all the difficult classes to the end of the student’s degree and only have him take the minimum course load. He’d spend his football career taking the easier courses with a light course load and would stay eligible. Then after he’s done with football, he has to take a ton of tough courses, where he presumably struggles. Those struggles won’t impact APR because he’s no longer a football player but could keep him from graduating.

So I guess at the end of the day for guys going to UGA, the promise is the NFL and that is about it. I don't think we really compete fro a lot of the same players but I would think that if a kid has any smarts he would choose to come to Tech instead. And for those that hate the offense.....unless he was an NFL style QB.

 

[gtphd]

So I guess at the end of the day for guys going to UGA, the promise is the NFL and that is about it. I don't think we really compete fro a lot of the same players but I would think that if a kid has any smarts he would choose to come to Tech instead. And for those that hate the offense.....unless he was an NFL style QB.

You negative recruit against GT by talking about how it’s 1) not an NFL offense, so learning the TO hurts NFL chances, 2) the head coach has no NFL ties, 3) it’s a lower performing team which will keep you off national TV and noon games = less eyes on you, 4) you’ll never win the Heisman playing at Tech - you have to be the best player on one of the best programs to win that.

Changing out the HC could help with 1 and 2, but you need to win games to help with 3 and 4.

 

[Coloradojacket]

You negative recruit against GT by talking about how it’s 1) not an NFL offense, so learning the TO hurts NFL chances, 2) the head coach has no NFL ties, 3) it’s a lower performing team which will keep you off national TV and noon games = less eyes on you, 4) you’ll never win the Heisman playing at Tech - you have to be the best player on one of the best programs to win that.

Changing out the HC could help with 1 and 2, but you need to win games to help with 3 and 4.

Well, I could disagree on some of the premise of the NFL as we do put lineman and WRs in the NFL. But what does all that have to do with defense. If you say, well, at Tech on D you practice against the TO, yea in Spring and early fall camp but it ends there.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

You negative recruit against GT by talking about how it’s 1) not an NFL offense, so learning the TO hurts NFL chances, 2) the head coach has no NFL ties, 3) it’s a lower performing team which will keep you off national TV and noon games = less eyes on you, 4) you’ll never win the Heisman playing at Tech - you have to be the best player on one of the best programs to win that.

Changing out the HC could help with 1 and 2, but you need to win games to help with 3 and 4.

And you can be sure, there is, and always has been, LOTS of negative recruiting against GT

 

[Coloradojacket]

And you can be sure, there is, and always has been, LOTS of negative recruiting against GT

As Bobby Dodd, would tell, he would walk into a recruits house and a Calculus book would be sitting on the table and he would say, "I see Georgie has been here."

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

As Bobby Dodd, would tell, he would walk into a recruits house and a Calculus book would be sitting on the table and he would say, "I see Georgie has been here."

Yep. Good ole Wally Butts. ARGGGHHHH

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

but I know she would have valued education more than uga football for a change.

Seriously?

 

[Animal02]

You negative recruit against GT by talking about how it’s 1) not an NFL offense, so learning the TO hurts NFL chances, 2) the head coach has no NFL ties, 3) it’s a lower performing team which will keep you off national TV and noon games = less eyes on you, 4) you’ll never win the Heisman playing at Tech - you have to be the best player on one of the best programs to win that.

Changing out the HC could help with 1 and 2, but you need to win games to help with 3 and 4.

If you are recruiting a 18 with his eyes set on the NFL....you are wasting time.

 

[bigtechfan67]

I think if we want a better football program the hill is the key. Its a reason we dont get alot of 4 star and 5 star players. They cant get in tech. Hence all the strike outs in recent recruiting. Imho the coaches are handicapped in getting players of high caliber.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

 

[LongforDodd]

...Would’ve been nice to get a governor who went to school in Atlanta and then Yale.

....

Yeah...right!

 

[RonJohn]

Graduation doesn’t factor into APR. It’s based on the number of students academically eligible at the end of the fall season.

Let’s say you have 85 scholarship players, a perfect score is 85*2 = 170. If 70 remain eligible at the end of the season, you get 70 * 2 = 140 points. If 5 players are academically ineligible but you keep them on scholarship, you get 5 * 1 = 5 points for those players. If 5 transfer out while academically eligible, you get 5 * 1 = 5 points for those players. If 5 players transfer out (or lose scholarships) while academically ineligible, you get 0 points for those players. So in this scenario, you’d have 140 + 5 + 5 = 160 points. 160 / 170 = .941, which is a 941 APR.

So graduation doesn’t factor in, only eligibility. How you game this: push all the difficult classes to the end of the student’s degree and only have him take the minimum course load. He’d spend his football career taking the easier courses with a light course load and would stay eligible. Then after he’s done with football, he has to take a ton of tough courses, where he presumably struggles. Those struggles won’t impact APR because he’s no longer a football player but could keep him from graduating.

Graduation does factor in indirectly. In order to remain academically eligible, an SA has to complete 20% of their course requirements for graduation per year. If one takes only electives that don't count for graduation, they become ineligible. If they leave after 5 years without a degree, then the team will lose two points. (Not in school and not eligible)

 

[crut]

This discussion began on the Potential Head Coach Hires thread but I thought it would be smart to move it to this related thread. @UgaBlows @takethepoints

The discussion was that one major reason GT struggles in recruiting is because of the limited majors - and that those majors are all STEM and are all relatively difficult to get athletes through. Georgia Tech does take athletic exceptions, but not to the level of other schools.

It was suggested that Georgia Tech add more majors, such as Kinesiology, Nursing, Nutrition, Forensics, Broadcasting, Journalism, Finance (new major instead of a business concentration). The rebuttal to this was that the BOR (Georgia Board of Regents) prevents GT from adding majors. Evidence of this being false has made its way onto GT boards this year. Here's a post from a different board from a big donor (who often sits next to CPJ at Tech basketball games):

"Also, this GT created myth regarding the Board of Regents should die away. I too have several contacts on the board and they have been wanting GT to add majors for years and begged GT to expand its engineering capabilities before they ever approved ga getting an engineering degree."

From another guy who seems to have a lot more contacts in GTAA than most of us:

"My understanding is that GT was told to expand its undergraduate engineering program to handle increased interest and qualifications of in-state students. GT faculty refused to do it instead wishing to drive even higher the academic qualifications of HS students coming in, and also pushed the requirements higher for out-of-state students (only accepted 19% last year compared to 37% in-state). In others words, the GT faculty wished to increase qualifications more over expansion....thus forcing the BOR to give the engineering expansion to UGA."

And from another donor:

"But at the end of the day, this is about Georgia Tech, the administration and Bud Peterson. They just don't care about football. Hell, I will take it a step further and say they don't give a **** about athletics in general. The buck(s) literally stop with Bud. This whole narrative about GT not having money is complete bull****. We raised over $1.6 BILLION dollars in the last capital campaign. Be have tons of money. THE ADMINISTRATION CHOOSES TO SPEND IT ON OTHER THINGS BECAUSE ATHLETICS ISN'T IMPORTANT TO THEM. That's the bottom line. Name one program other than women's tennis which has improved under Peterson's tenure? Certainly not any of our revenue generating programs. Some have remained at a high level like golf but what programs have improved?

Athletics in today's world, for many people, are the "front porch" of the university. We clearly don't want people on our front porch. Why has Duke improved? They committed to improving. They allotted money, time & effort to making football a priority. And, as much as I hate saying it, with Cutcliffe at the helm it's paying off. Athletic success and academic prowess aren't mutually exclusive. It is harder, no question about it. But it can be done.

So if you want change, it starts at the top. Changing coach might change our fortunes a little. But for any real change to take place we need to change the attitude about and commitment to athletics at Tech. For the record, I am NOT SUGGESTING WE COMPROMISE OUR ACADEMIC STANDARDS OR VALUES ONE BIT. We are not a farm team, we are an academic institution. But we can do better. We can commit to our fans, alums and athletes and give them the tools and resources they need to succeed. This starts with Bud. Until we get real change at the very top, it won't trickle down in any meaningful way."

 

[Deleted member 2897]

This discussion began on the Potential Head Coach Hires thread but I thought it would be smart to move it to this related thread. @UgaBlows @takethepoints

The discussion was that one major reason GT struggles in recruiting is because of the limited majors - and that those majors are all STEM and are all relatively difficult to get athletes through. Georgia Tech does take athletic exceptions, but not to the level of other schools.

It was suggested that Georgia Tech add more majors, such as Kinesiology, Nursing, Nutrition, Forensics, Broadcasting, Journalism, Finance (new major instead of a business concentration). The rebuttal to this was that the BOR (Georgia Board of Regents) prevents GT from adding majors. Evidence of this being false has made its way onto GT boards this year. Here's a post from a different board from a big donor (who often sits next to CPJ at Tech basketball games):

"Also, this GT created myth regarding the Board of Regents should die away. I too have several contacts on the board and they have been wanting GT to add majors for years and begged GT to expand its engineering capabilities before they ever approved ga getting an engineering degree."

From another guy who seems to have a lot more contacts in GTAA than most of us:

"My understanding is that GT was told to expand its undergraduate engineering program to handle increased interest and qualifications of in-state students. GT faculty refused to do it instead wishing to drive even higher the academic qualifications of HS students coming in, and also pushed the requirements higher for out-of-state students (only accepted 19% last year compared to 37% in-state). In others words, the GT faculty wished to increase qualifications more over expansion....thus forcing the BOR to give the engineering expansion to UGA."

And from another donor:

"But at the end of the day, this is about Georgia Tech, the administration and Bud Peterson. They just don't care about football. Hell, I will take it a step further and say they don't give a **** about athletics in general. The buck(s) literally stop with Bud. This whole narrative about GT not having money is complete bull****. We raised over $1.6 BILLION dollars in the last capital campaign. Be have tons of money. THE ADMINISTRATION CHOOSES TO SPEND IT ON OTHER THINGS BECAUSE ATHLETICS ISN'T IMPORTANT TO THEM. That's the bottom line. Name one program other than women's tennis which has improved under Peterson's tenure? Certainly not any of our revenue generating programs. Some have remained at a high level like golf but what programs have improved?

Athletics in today's world, for many people, are the "front porch" of the university. We clearly don't want people on our front porch. Why has Duke improved? They committed to improving. They allotted money, time & effort to making football a priority. And, as much as I hate saying it, with Cutcliffe at the helm it's paying off. Athletic success and academic prowess aren't mutually exclusive. It is harder, no question about it. But it can be done.

So if you want change, it starts at the top. Changing coach might change our fortunes a little. But for any real change to take place we need to change the attitude about and commitment to athletics at Tech. For the record, I am NOT SUGGESTING WE COMPROMISE OUR ACADEMIC STANDARDS OR VALUES ONE BIT. We are not a farm team, we are an academic institution. But we can do better. We can commit to our fans, alums and athletes and give them the tools and resources they need to succeed. This starts with Bud. Until we get real change at the very top, it won't trickle down in any meaningful way."

All good points, but at the same time those are two different vantage points – The board of regents wanting us to expand our engineering majors and Georgia Tech wanting to expand majors beyond engineering.

I don’t doubt that both our administration and the board of regents, although I believe our arguing slightly different topics, have a common theme in that they don’t really care about our athletics much.

 

[UgaBlows]

I’m not seeing the evidence, what you have presented there is heresay from two anonymous sources. Duke, Stanford, ND are not comparable to us, they are private schools, they can create any major they want and hide athletes there. I do agree with you that athletics is unimportant to the hill, that will likely never change no matter how badly we want it to.