GT vs Pitt Postgame

[MWBATL]

We won a national title in 1990 with a bunch of guys who would not be in GT under today's conditions and rules, pure and simple. Progress towards degree requirements are almost totally new compared to then, and exceptions in admissions were looser then.

 

[GT_05]

Dude, NO ONE is suggesting we change the degree requirements for any specific engineering degree. We are talking about adding other degree options that might be considered more athletic friendly. Why would an AE degree be devalued because some athlete chooses to get his degree in Sports Management (I'm making this up)?

I never said that. All I said is if someone wants the same degree I have then they need to do the same work. You were the one that started talking about ruining the institution and all that other stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[YlJacket]

The issue isn't to change degree requirements. That doesn't get you much anyway.
What gets you a recruiting advantage versus current status is entrance requirements. Can I get some exemptions from the 4 math units requirement or some limited number of exemptions for SAT scores. Stuff like that helps as long as you make sure the kids who get the exemptions are tutored and have the drive to get through.

 

[stech81]

I pray to god you aren't in any conversations regarding the GTAA. Seriosuly STOP!!! You are part of the problem

Gold 1 I really like you as I do 99% of all people on here. But you need to understand If you get a degree in Civil Engineering ( or anything else ) everyone has the same requirements they all have to take the same classes other than electives. Everyone on here wants to see Tech do better but you still have to stay in the rules. And yes I know there are schools that bend the rules. And yes there are still some who also don't bend the rules but it helps they have a few easier degrees that their SA can major in at those schools.

 

[MWBATL]

I never said that. All I said is if someone wants the same degree I have then they need to do the same work. You were the one that started talking about ruining the institution and all that other stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, you were the one who said something about opposing any changes for the sake of the athletic program because you did not want to see it devalue your degree. Here is your quote:

No. Not willing to devalue my diploma for athletics.

I am still waiting to hear how the kind of change I described would devalue your degree and why you oppose it.

 

[GT_05]

No, you were the one who said something about opposing any changes for the sake of the athletic program because you did not want ot see it devalue your degree. I am still waiting to hear how the kind of change I described would devalue your degree and why you oppose it.

I’ve already given an example of what I was talking about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Animal02]

Yeah. Responses from the likes of GT05 are certainly signs of a major problem at GT. The fact that smart people can be so dumb to think their degree will be devalued in any way by doing things to enhance athletics when in reality it would bring more notoriety and money to the institution continues to shock me.

What is dumb is people that want to place sports achievement above academic integrity.

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

We gave up 24 today but our D scheme is 10x better than roofs and we swarm to ball as well as play with more effort.

I never thought the D players under Roof were not giving 100%. They loved Roof, and they gave him all they had. I agree that they are doing that for Woody also. With that said, both coaches have the same problem, a dearth of front 7 talent.

 

[MWBATL]

I’ve already given an example of what I was talking about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you mean the example of an athlete taking the same engineering program as you needing to take the same courses...then you are in la-la land because I don't believe any of us are suggesting differing degree requirements for athletes.

Ergo, changing academic requirements (such as different programs for athletes in different majors) has no effect on you. Or anyone else using that false straw man argument about devaluing degrees.

 

[MWBATL]

What is dumb is people that want to place sports achievement above academic integrity.

Kindly define "academic integrity'?

Would adding BA Majors that are an easier and perhaps more interesting path for potential athletes be violating "academic integrity"?

 

[GoldenBuzz]

We won a national title in 1990 with a bunch of guys who would not be in GT under today's conditions and rules, pure and simple. Progress towards degree requirements are almost totally new compared to then, and exceptions in admissions were looser then.

Well, help me to understand that. Are you saying the requirements today are tougher than in 1977 when I was a freshman?

 

[Animal02]

We shouldn't...and we don't need to.

There are a LOT of good recruits who can do the work at GT, and are not intimidated by the math and science requirements. I have a few friends who I played football with in HS who are now coaching at some good schools in GA that put out a good number of high level recruits every year. Every single one of them tell me all the time that if GT got the right guy in with the right system, GT should at minimum be a top 3 team in the ACC, and likely the team to beat in the Coastal every season. Every single one of them tell me all the time that GT doesn't even get the consideration they should because recruits want nothing to do with our offense...that's both offensive and defensive players. Offensive players don't want to play in it, and defensive players don't want to practice against it or get short changed by practicing against players who are not equipped to prep them for the next level.

CPJ is a GOOD coach, I'll tell anyone that listens that. But unfortunately, I think his time at GT has passed. It happens...just like Mark Richt/Frank Beamer/Bobby Bowden and many other good coaches surpassed their effectiveness at other schools. Unfortunately, it's something that happens in sports. Guys become "gods" at their schools, and the fans and school try to capture lightening in a bottle again but end up keeping coaches longer than they should. We don't have to look any further than our basketball program to see that (Cremins/Hewitt).

I've read a lot of posters say that they worry about getting a good young coach at GT because he might leave after 3-5 years if he has success. I say, so what?! If a coach leaves for a "better" job, it's because he's successful. Success at GT, no matter if a coach leaves for a better job is still success at GT. It's up to the administration to find another good coach. Look at our last 30 years. GT made 1 bad hire in the last thirty years. Ross/O'Leary/Gailey/CPJ were all fairly good to very good coaches. Every single one of them either won the ACC or played in the ACCCG.

IMO, more damage can be done to a program if you hold on to a coach too long than if you hire a good coach that leaves because he has success.

I call B.S. High academic students in H.S. are not going to look at college football as a step to playing "the next level". Personally, any player that looks at college as a stepping stone to the NFL should be avoided.

 

[Animal02]

Well, help me to understand that. Are you saying the requirements today are tougher than in 1977 when I was a freshman?

Graduation rates and academic progress is far stircter than in the last century. Talked for a while with a fellow alum that was a tutor for athletes back then....the entire focus was keeping them eligible...not academic progress

 

[Animal02]

Kindly define "academic integrity'?

Would adding BA Majors that are an easier and perhaps more interesting path for potential athletes be violating "academic integrity"?

Yes....Tech is an Institute of Technology, not a frickin liberal arts college.

 

[MWBATL]

Well, help me to understand that. Are you saying the requirements today are tougher than in 1977 when I was a freshman?

Yes.

Entrance requirements are MUCH tougher today than back in 1977 by any standards (certainly by SAT scores). But even more, back even in the 1990's an athlete was eligible as long as he was in school with passing grades, even if it took him 9 years to graduate (he could still only play 4 of those years, but he was still eligible ot play). Now, you MUST be on track for your degree year-by-year even as an athlete...or you become ineligible.

 

[knoxjacket]

I call B.S. High academic students in H.S. are not going to look at college football as a step to playing "the next level". Personally, any player that looks at college as a stepping stone to the NFL should be avoided.

Some of you guys are so out of touch. The guys we sign think they are going to the NFL too.

 

[MWBATL]

Yes....Tech is an Institute of Technology, not a frickin liberal arts college.

OK, be happy with 3-9 then in a stadium with 20,000 fans......

 

[MWBATL]

Some of you guys are so out of touch. The guys we sign think they are going to the NFL too.

This is quite correct. And they should......

 

[YlJacket]

I call B.S. High academic students in H.S. are not going to look at college football as a step to playing "the next level". Personally, any player that looks at college as a stepping stone to the NFL should be avoided.

Why? Kids are quite capable of having NFL aspirations and wanting to make sure they get a good education. Long as they are willing to do the work I have no idea in hadies why a team wouldn't want NFL level talent on their roster.

I had this strange idea that you "Play to win the game".

 

[GT_05]

If you mean the example of an athlete taking the same engineering program as you needing to take the same courses...then you are in la-la land because I don't believe any of us are suggesting differing degree requirements for athletes.

Ergo, changing academic requirements (such as different programs for athletes in different majors) has no effect on you. Or anyone else using that false straw man argument about devaluing degrees.

I think you were late to the party or missed this but this certainly appears that @Gold1 thinks athletes should get an academic pass. It appears I’m not in la-la land, huh?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk