GT vs Pitt Postgame

[AlabamaBuzz]

If I knew how to do a poll, I would. The poll would be about our ability to attract high school DL's and LB's to a STEM school, and what is actually realistic to believe.

I would want to see the poll done with ACTUAL alumni (or at least those that have attended whether they graduated or not), and then all other fans. I think the alumni understand these issues much better. It is really hard to understand the PAIN of GT and the difficulty of graduating, unless you have at least attended the school. I would say that my children have heard from me about the difficulty, but they never fully understood it, because they did not go through the gauntlet themselves.

I do agree that some more majors would help, but I also don't want to lose our academic reputation for football or any other sport. I think we can do better in football, which would require better recruiting. I wonder how hard we are actually trying outside of the SE US to recruit. I know we had the German kid, and then Harbaugh scooped him away, so maybe we are trying hard outside of the South, but it is hard to find front 7 talent that want the academic rigor of GT.

 

[OldJacketFan]

Georgia Tech is an “Institute” .... it is not and never has been a land grant university. Fundamentally changing the mission of the school is heretical only to win football games.

Having said that, there are dozens of land grant uni’s that have the athletes and still suck.

We must recruit 3/4’s and develop them. Just like 100 other schools. But we don’t.

Where did the f**k did I say a effing word about changing the mission of the Institute. Don't try putting words in my mouth because you're pi**ed off that someone contradicted you. It is an absolute true statement Stanford and Notre Dame have 3 to 4 times the numbers of majors than Tech. It is true that the number of major programs helps them recruit nationally. It is also a true statement Tech needs to recruit nationally but that is not the be all and end all to ending the recruiting issues at Tech. One thing you have to accept that not every qualified SAs LOVES Tech or even has an interest. I know you find that hard to believe but that is also a truthful statement.

 

[91Wreck]

Many of us on this board have expressed our displeasure with the way the season is going, and many of us have doubts as to whether the current coaching staff can fix it. I would love nothing more than for CPJ and this team to catch lighting in a bottle and win 7 of the last 9 and finish it off with a bowl win. I am a GT man and always will be. I never want to see my team lose.

So lets all keep in mind that while we are arguing about the future of the program, we are just debating what is BEST for GT. Some of us feel we need a change at the Hill level. Others feel a new coaching staff would fix our problems. And some feel that we just need to stay the course and trust CPJ. But all of those viewpoints are looking toward the same goal - that we begin to see improvement on Saturdays.

Personally, I have serious doubts that this roster and this coaching staff can do it. BUT I WANT TO BE PROVEN WRONG!

Let me give all of you a personally story to give us all some hope. In 1989 I was in school and my roommate was walk-on for the football team. We had just come off a 3-8 season, and we we lost the first three games in 1989. I remember that in the sidewalk near the stadium they had poured new concrete and someone had put "Ross must go" in the wet cement. That message stayed for several weeks.

We wound up beating a bad Maryland team 28-24 for our first win of the season. The next week we went on the road to play a very good Clemson squad (they were 10-2 that season). On Thursday before the Clemson game I remember telling my roommate, "yall are about to get killed" to which he replied "Yep, I know." But something funny happened - Shawn Jones and Bobby Rodriguez (sp?) went off on Clemson and we spanked them 30-14. We only lost one more game that season and that was to a bad Duke team.

And we all know what happened in 1990.

Now I don't think that is going to happen this season and next, but the point is we were just as hopeless in 1989 as we are now. Weirder things have happened before.

 

[Vespidae]

Where did the f**k did I say a effing word about changing the mission of the Institute. Don't try putting words in my mouth because you're pi**ed off that someone contradicted you. It is an absolute true statement Stanford and Notre Dame have 3 to 4 times the numbers of majors than Tech. It is true that the number of major programs helps them recruit nationally. It is also a true statement Tech needs to recruit nationally but that is not the be all and end all to ending the recruiting issues at Tech. One thing you have to accept that not every qualified SAs LOVES Tech or even has an interest. I know you find that hard to believe but that is also a truthful statement.

You need to have a drink and relax. I think you might be wound a little too tight.

 

[stech81]

You need to have a drink and relax.

I have been waiting 45 years for my wife to say this to me.

 

[OldJacketFan]

You need to have a drink and relax. I think you might be wound a little too tight.

Not at all, I see a bunch of nonsense spewed about a school I love and have been a fan of or better than 50 years. Some of you are acting like any suggestion to help is somehow affecting your degree or would shake Tech to it's very foundation. What I have done is recognize the inherent difficulties of recruiting to Tech because I love being a fan of a school that does it right. Degrees requirements are not going to get changed, I would be shocked if the BOR will ever allow new degree programs to be added, Tech will always have a limited focus curriculum and that makes recruiting at Tech unlike ANY other institution of higher education. The number of SA that have the physical skills to compete at a D1 level is finite, those that have the intelligence to do so at Tech is further limited and those who ever have any interest in playing at Tech is even more limited. The only potential to improve the overall talent level is to recruit nationally but don't think for one second that will raise the talent level to a Bama, Clemson or GA.

 

[Vespidae]

We are all proud of GT. But let’s remember a few things. First, winning football games is not the priority of the Hill and never has been. Second, u til a few years ago, the GTAA had no strategic plan. How do you recruit, staff, develop ... without one? Insanity. Third, we are a smaller school and must have an edge ... is that the TO? A Moneyball Edge? Something else? Nobody knows.

I think TStan is on the right path. But one thing is certain ... the current approach isn’t working. Is it the approach? Or the execution? Who knows?

 

[ATL1]

I saw a 6 month old throw his pacifier 10 yards at the store today, but I didn't get his name and I not sure that it wasn't a girl but it was a nice throw.

OK. You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, never mind.

 

[Vespidae]

Not at all, I see a bunch of nonsense spewed about a school I love and have been a fan of or better than 50 years. Some of you are acting like any suggestion to help is somehow affecting your degree or would shake Tech to it's very foundation. What I have done is recognize the inherent difficulties of recruiting to Tech because I love being a fan of a school that does it right. Degrees requirements are not going to get changed, I would be shocked if the BOR will ever allow new degree programs to be added, Tech will always have a limited focus curriculum and that makes recruiting at Tech unlike ANY other institution of higher education. The number of SA that have the physical skills to compete at a D1 level is finite, those that have the intelligence to do so at Tech is further limited and those who ever have any interest in playing at Tech is even more limited. The only potential to improve the overall talent level is to recruit nationally but don't think for one second that will raise the talent level to a Bama, Clemson or GA.

Yes. You are the only one who loves Tech.

My point is you could add 50 new majors ... and if we fumble, we still lose. I personally think CPJ is a good coach, but the team is not well coached.

 

[OldJacketFan]

Yes. You are the only one who loves Tech.

My point is you could add 50 new majors ... and if we fumble, we still lose. I personally think CPJ is a good coach, but the team is not well coached.

Man you are off in space somewhere, sounds like you're the one hitting the bottle. Have a nice day jeez

 

[slugboy]

Georgia Tech is an “Institute” .... it is not and never has been a land grant university. Fundamentally changing the mission of the school is heretical only to win football games...

“Institute” is just a name. The state knew we needed jobs after/during reconstruction, and we carbon copied Worcester Polytechnic Institute out of Massachusetts. If they’d been named “Worcester University” we would have a different name too.
Land grant doesn’t have anything to do with the mission of a school. MIT is a land grant university; that was just a 19th century fund raising option. It just means you sold federally granted land to endow pay for the school. Georgia Tech was just paid for differently.
GT has a mission to be a great technology school, but that’s not in total conflict with having a great football team. Our research dollars have to be used for research—there are strings attached—but the AT money can be used to build a great athletic program, and if that’s most important to you then it’s a great place to put your money. That’s why Peterson “doesn’t put more money into the athletic department”. The place they can and do is student athletic fees.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[COJacket]

And have 3 to 4 times the numbers of majors than Tech. Don't get me wrong, Tech should recruit nationally but it's not the panacea some would have you think it is

And until recently we have not had the recruiting staff and money to recruit nationally effectively. And not sure whether we have enough now

 

[Vespidae]

Man you are off in space somewhere, sounds like you're the one hitting the bottle. Have a nice day jeez

Not at all. We have a difference of opinion. Simple.

 

[stech81]

OK. You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about, never mind.

Your the one who can't take a joke I know who he is and he plays for Milton High and glad he has committed to us. Relax take it easy and enjoy life.

 

[first&ten]

The problem is that there are enough people with their head in the sand about PJ that it will still just be filled with people in denial.

Unfortunately you're correct. There are posters on this board and others that really believe that pj is an offensive genius and he is the best coach we can have !!! Now, get ready for "well who is a better coach that Tech can get?"

 

[Vespidae]

“Institute” is just a name. The state knew we needed jobs after/during reconstruction, and we carbon copied Worcester Polytechnic Institute out of Massachusetts. If they’d been named “Worcester University” we would have a different name too.
Land grant doesn’t have anything to do with the mission of a school. MIT is a land grant university; that was just a 19th century fund raising option. It just means you sold federally granted land to endow pay for the school. Georgia Tech was just paid for differently.
GT has a mission to be a great technology school, but that’s not in total conflict with having a great football team. Our research dollars have to be used for research—there are strings attached—but the AT money can be used to build a great athletic program, and if that’s most important to you then it’s a great place to put your money. That’s why Peterson “doesn’t put more money into the athletic department”. The place they can and do is student athletic fees.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You need to read the history of the school. A good starting point isthe biography of Major Hanson, the school’s founder.

 

[first&ten]

View attachment 4148

Might be seeing this on CPJs front yard real soon?

That would be great, hell fire T.S. and let PJ be our A.D. Move Woody to H.C.

 

[first&ten]

Tech sucks but I still love Tech. Am I stupid?

No, just a hopeless Tech fan that has no control over what the A.D. decides to do, just like the rest of us idiots.

 

[first&ten]

I don’t think he’s as much “about seniority” as he is about, once he’s made a decision, sticking with it no matter what rather than admitting he made a bad decision.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Just like sticking with the base TO and not tweaking it any?

 

[slugboy]

You need to read the history of the school. A good starting point isthe biography of Major Hanson, the school’s founder.

I learned it as part of my state history when I was here. I’d forgotten that we were the “Georgia School of Technology” for ages.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Georgia_Institute_of_Technology

Harris gets credit as the founder, even though Hanson was an original proponent. The rest of what I said stands up. Also, since we didn’t change our name to “Institute” until 1948, what does Hansen have to do with anything you said?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk