NFL Draft results

[smokey_wasp]

What's wrong with college football in a nutshell.

Tashard knows better. The pros take a minuscule proportion of all college football players. Good players are left undrafted all the time. Oth, a college education - you guys remember; that's why we have athletic scholarships - can last you a lifetime, if you are going to a school that takes it seriously. Tashard has just made that a harder sell for Tech. If I were a parent with a son considering Tech, the first thing I would do on campus would be to corner Tashard and ask him just exactly what he meant by that crack.

We can get excellent football players without this. If you read this, Tashard, stop it.

I am sure Coach Choice is aware of the percentages, but the fact is, as a coach, he wants his players to be the absolute best they can be. He wants to help as many of them reach the highest level as possible. I LOVE that.

He also said education is very important.

 

[knoxjacket]

We have out of touch posters on this board who’s outlook would have been out of touch in the 70s. What bizarre alternate reality do some of you inhabit?

 

[ncjacket79]

What's wrong with college football in a nutshell.

Tashard knows better. The pros take a minuscule proportion of all college football players. Good players are left undrafted all the time. Oth, a college education - you guys remember; that's why we have athletic scholarships - can last you a lifetime, if you are going to a school that takes it seriously. Tashard has just made that a harder sell for Tech. If I were a parent with a son considering Tech, the first thing I would do on campus would be to corner Tashard and ask him just exactly what he meant by that crack.

We can get excellent football players without this. If you read this, Tashard, stop it.

Why would any P5 team recruit a kid who doesn’t think he has a shot at the NFL? When did we start doing it at Texh? When I was on campus in the late 70s all the players I got to know thought they had at least a shot. It’s not something they expected but they certainly had it as a goal. Why would you expect it to be any different now? And if you had a kid good enough to play P5 football he would be thinking about it too.

 

[smokey_wasp]

Why would any P5 team recruit a kid who doesn’t think he has a shot at the NFL? When did we start doing it at Texh? When I was on campus in the late 70s all the players I got to know thought they had at least a shot. It’s not something they expected but they certainly had it as a goal. Why would you expect it to be any different now? And if you had a kid good enough to play P5 football he would be thinking about it too.

You have nailed it, perhaps unknowingly. There is a small contingent of fans who do not want to see us run this like a P5 program. Is this a new attitude?

 

[takethepoints]

Didn't he say "I want them, of course, to come in and get an education?"

It seems you're implying that Choice valuing good football players is a bad thing... Am I comprehending this correctly?

No, you aren't. There's nothing wrong with wanting good football players and telling them - except the fact that it has a very low probabililty and Tashard and everyone here knows it - that he wants them to get into the NFL. What's wrong is to make the education the recruit gets a secondary consideration. Because I can guarantee you that this is not a secondary consideration for the parents of most recruits. And make no mistake about it: when you are recruiting young men, you are recruiting their parents as well as the athlete. One of Paul's strengths was that parents said - over and over again - that they felt they had left their sons in the hands of someone who would see to their future and see that they were educated. That's because he never made any bones about saying that the education the players got at Tech came first. (Not, mind, that he had much choice; The Hill saw to that.)

This is not to say that Tashard and the rest of the coaches don't have exactly the same concerns; I'm sure they do and that they emphasize the education the players can get at Tech as their main selling point. Indeed, they've said as much. Problem = statements like this give the lie to those assertions. That's why it disturbed me so much. The education Tech offers is perhaps the main reason young men and their parents will decide in our favor; we aren't a factory and aren't (pace some here) likely to ever be one. If the choice is about who gets into the NFL, we've lost to Ugag and Bammer already. If it's about your education and getting drafted, in that order, then we have a fighting chance.

Here endeth the lesson.

 

[takethepoints]

You have nailed it, perhaps unknowingly. There is a small contingent of fans who do not want to see us run this like a P5 program. Is this a new attitude?

You're right. You have nailed it. There's a small contingent of fans here who think we can be a football factory - you appear to be one of them.

Let me be blunt and for about the tenth time: everyone who thinks this is living in a fool's paradise. Tech's admission standards and curriculum preclude the result you want and nobody with the power to change that - Tech's faculty, Tech's administration, the BoR, or the General Assembly - has any interest in doing so. Good thing too; Tech is an economic engine for the state and the Atlanta area precisely because of its admission standards and curriculum. There is a persistent fantasy around here that that will change because the fans or TStan or the "big donors" or some other Deus ex machina wants it to. It won't.

This doesn't mean that we can't have a good football program; shoot, we always have. What it does mean is that seeing Tech's standards and curriculum subordinated to the won/loss record of our football program is, shall we say, highly improbable. As I said here recently: Tech won't adapt itself to the football program, the program has to adapt itself to Tech. I'm sure Coach knows this and was upfront with TStan about what the program could do to improve within these constraints when he was hired; the reports of his interview indicate just that. And I have no doubt the program will improve as long as it keeps Tech strengths in mind. The main one of those is the education the place offers; everything else is icing on the cake.

Here endeth the lesson, part deux.

 

[knoxjacket]

No, you aren't. There's nothing wrong with wanting good football players and telling them - except the fact that it has a very low probabililty and Tashard and everyone here knows it - that he wants them to get into the NFL. What's wrong is to make the education the recruit gets a secondary consideration. Because I can guarantee you that this is not a secondary consideration for the parents of most recruits. And make no mistake about it: when you are recruiting young men, you are recruiting their parents as well as the athlete. One of Paul's strengths was that parents said - over and over again - that they felt they had left their sons in the hands of someone who would see to their future and see that they were educated. That's because he never made any bones about saying that the education the players got at Tech came first. (Not, mind, that he had much choice; The Hill saw to that.)

This is not to say that Tashard and the rest of the coaches don't have exactly the same concerns; I'm sure they do and that they emphasize the education the players can get at Tech as their main selling point. Indeed, they've said as much. Problem = statements like this give the lie to those assertions. That's why it disturbed me so much. The education Tech offers is perhaps the main reason young men and their parents will decide in our favor; we aren't a factory and aren't (pace some here) likely to ever be one. If the choice is about who gets into the NFL, we've lost to Ugag and Bammer already. If it's about your education and getting drafted, in that order, then we have a fighting chance.

Here endeth the lesson.

Almost none of this is true.

 

[iceeater1969]

We have out of touch posters on this board who’s outlook would have been out of touch in the 70s. What bizarre alternate reality do some of you inhabit?

On guy slurs 5* s as low class.

Numbers
All he has to look at the picture of the rival top 100 to see the 5* are African Americans.

 

[takethepoints]

Almost none of this is true.

A sterling refutation! Exactly which parts are true or false? Come on, if this is the best you can do, no wonder I don't listen to you.

 

[smokey_wasp]

You're right. You have nailed it. There's a small contingent of fans here who think we can be a football factory - you appear to be one of them.

Let me be blunt and for about the tenth time: everyone who thinks this is living in a fool's paradise. Tech's admission standards and curriculum preclude the result you want and nobody with the power to change that - Tech's faculty, Tech's administration, the BoR, or the General Assembly - has any interest in doing so. Good thing too; Tech is an economic engine for the state and the Atlanta area precisely because of its admission standards and curriculum. There is a persistent fantasy around here that that will change because the fans or TStan or the "big donors" or some other Deus ex machina wants it to. It won't.

This doesn't mean that we can't have a good football program; shoot, we always have. What it does mean is that seeing Tech's standards and curriculum subordinated to the won/loss record of our football program is, shall we say, highly improbable. As I said here recently: Tech won't adapt itself to the football program, the program has to adapt itself to Tech. I'm sure Coach knows this and was upfront with TStan about what the program could do to improve within these constraints when he was hired; the reports of his interview indicate just that. And I have no doubt the program will improve as long as it keeps Tech strengths in mind. The main one of those is the education the place offers; everything else is icing on the cake.

Here endeth the lesson, part deux.

Seems to me that our current staff doesn't view "the hill" as the bogeyman folks like yourself have been telling us it is. I am not gonna debate it with you. We will just have to see.

Don't believe for a moment that Coach Choice was going off script here, by the way. We will still sell elite football and elite academics in tandem, just maybe not in the order that you prefer.

 

[takethepoints]

Seems to me that our current staff doesn't view "the hill" as the bogeyman folks like yourself have been telling us it is. I am not gonna debate it with you. We will just have to see.

Well, I agree with that. I think Coach believes that he can recruit successfully around the constraints and get the players he needs. And, yes, we will just have to see.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

I am sure Coach Choice is aware of the percentages, but the fact is, as a coach, he wants his players to be the absolute best they can be. He wants to help as many of them reach the highest level as possible. I LOVE that.

He also said education is very important.

I am tired of losing to UGA and Clemson. I am damn tired of losing to Duke and UNC. TC is right. We want football players who want to be elite. We want football players who can do the school work and understand the value of a Tech degree. But we want football players who also understand that football here is serious business especially when it comes to UGA. Coaches Choice and Coleman definitely get that whole "What's the Good Word?" deal.

 

[iceeater1969]

You're right. You have nailed it. There's a small contingent of fans here who think we can be a football factory - you appear to be one of them.

Let me be blunt and for about the tenth time: everyone who thinks this is living in a fool's paradise. Tech's admission standards and curriculum preclude the result you want and nobody with the power to change that - Tech's faculty, Tech's administration, the BoR, or the General Assembly - has any interest in doing so. Good thing too; Tech is an economic engine for the state and the Atlanta area precisely because of its admission standards and curriculum. There is a persistent fantasy around here that that will change because the fans or TStan or the "big donors" or some other Deus ex machina wants it to. It won't.

This doesn't mean that we can't have a good football program; shoot, we always have. What it does mean is that seeing Tech's standards and curriculum subordinated to the won/loss record of our football program is, shall we say, highly improbable. As I said here recently: Tech won't adapt itself to the football program, the program has to adapt itself to Tech. I'm sure Coach knows this and was upfront with TStan about what the program could do to improve within these constraints when he was hired; the reports of his interview indicate just that. And I have no doubt the program will improve as long as it keeps Tech strengths in mind. The main one of those is the education the place offers; everything else is icing on the cake.

Here endeth the lesson, part deux.

Endowment gt greatly increased.

Gtaa massive debt to income.

The idea of saving money on small non p5 staff has lead us into where we are.

Near bottom of acc in athletic donations and ticket sales.
Gradually we have been overtaken.

I think u are lecturing with out regard of the debt hole that has been dug over the last 12 years.

Yea, we all agree that any one thinks that we are ever going to compete head to head w uga can't count the uga grads on the BOR.

Why u want u think u know what they define as power 5 leads to a waste of time.

Some could think the worst about Liberty s either or post about "5 stars are thugish and a better way is coach up good character guys" . A few overly racially sensitve gt fans could take this the wrong way. 99 % know that Liberty meant= a sustainablly good team must have good character players and coaches w no rotten apples be they 2* to 5*. Why he chose to say it w out demure is ok. He s a tech fan.

Wearing out a genius coach while starving him of staff has proven to be very ineffective.

What is the plan - be a factory? Win at all costs. Nobody thinks that
Clearly no. Being a ""404"" based institute that aspires to be mentioned in the same brezthe as Stanford or ND who wins a lot of games w class. Then w a new sense of pride hopefully the vast majority of gt grads will respond positively to for major additional donations so our debt income ratio is a sense of pride.
not an embarrassment.

The road forward will be bumpy. For example the 2 dl coaches has Zero expierence coaching DL. They could be great and the new scheme could hide that lack of experience.
At some pint we may need some more qualified staff( dabo said bye to steele and high to venables).
Lets try to look past the typing and all pull together.
.

 

[knoxjacket]

A sterling refutation! Exactly which parts are true or false? Come on, if this is the best you can do, no wonder I don't listen to you.

- Every recruit and many of their parents think they are going to the league.
- Education has not been the primary focus of any tech head coach since long ago (if ever).
- Tech academic standards are watered down and have been watered down for athletes for a long time
- Education is rarely the main reason we're chosen.

 

[Ibeeballin]

- Every recruit and many of their parents think they are going to the league.
- Education has not been the primary focus of any tech head coach since long ago (if ever).
- Tech academic standards are watered down and have been watered down for athletes for a long time
- Education is rarely the main reason we're chosen.

When will these guys learn? He’s definitely in Fool’s Paradise if he thinks education is the primary factor people to sign here. Guys are here to play P5 football in the heart of Atlanta, we just so happen to be an excellent school. I want every last of my recruits to be they are good enough for Sundays no matter what the percentage says. Y’all better wake up

 

[Lee]

No, you aren't. There's nothing wrong with wanting good football players and telling them - except the fact that it has a very low probabililty and Tashard and everyone here knows it - that he wants them to get into the NFL. What's wrong is to make the education the recruit gets a secondary consideration. Because I can guarantee you that this is not a secondary consideration for the parents of most recruits. And make no mistake about it: when you are recruiting young men, you are recruiting their parents as well as the athlete. One of Paul's strengths was that parents said - over and over again - that they felt they had left their sons in the hands of someone who would see to their future and see that they were educated. That's because he never made any bones about saying that the education the players got at Tech came first. (Not, mind, that he had much choice; The Hill saw to that.)

This is not to say that Tashard and the rest of the coaches don't have exactly the same concerns; I'm sure they do and that they emphasize the education the players can get at Tech as their main selling point. Indeed, they've said as much. Problem = statements like this give the lie to those assertions. That's why it disturbed me so much. The education Tech offers is perhaps the main reason young men and their parents will decide in our favor; we aren't a factory and aren't (pace some here) likely to ever be one. If the choice is about who gets into the NFL, we've lost to Ugag and Bammer already. If it's about your education and getting drafted, in that order, then we have a fighting chance.

Here endeth the lesson.

You speak as with authority on the subject. Yet, as we have discussed in previous thread a while back, you never competed as a SA at GT.

Go ask any 4 or 5 star athlete what their goal is after college. I will bet you almost anything that more than 99% will tell you to get to the NFL. These are the players we want at GT. This doesn’t mean we don’t want kids to take their education seriously, but it is by far number 2 at best on their list of desires when picking a school.

Now when we were pulling kids away from Wofford and the like, you might be right. They may have chosen us for academics. I would still argue that they chose us to play at an ACC school over our academic prestige.

We went back and forth on this a while back and I don’t really want to do it again, but I will say now what I said then. It’s not nearly as hard to “get out” of GT as an athlete as you like to insinuate that it is. It’s actually pretty easy if you put forth any effort. Which is why Collins says the “elite are excellent in everything they do” or STTE. Most of the top athletes know what it means to work hard. This will bode well when here. Athletes have first access to picking classes and know which professors are “player friendly” among many if the other benefits listed previously. I know this frustrates you and some others because you feel like it lessens your degree somehow, but it’s the truth.

 

[ncjacket79]

No, you aren't. There's nothing wrong with wanting good football players and telling them - except the fact that it has a very low probabililty and Tashard and everyone here knows it - that he wants them to get into the NFL. What's wrong is to make the education the recruit gets a secondary consideration. Because I can guarantee you that this is not a secondary consideration for the parents of most recruits. And make no mistake about it: when you are recruiting young men, you are recruiting their parents as well as the athlete. One of Paul's strengths was that parents said - over and over again - that they felt they had left their sons in the hands of someone who would see to their future and see that they were educated. That's because he never made any bones about saying that the education the players got at Tech came first. (Not, mind, that he had much choice; The Hill saw to that.)

This is not to say that Tashard and the rest of the coaches don't have exactly the same concerns; I'm sure they do and that they emphasize the education the players can get at Tech as their main selling point. Indeed, they've said as much. Problem = statements like this give the lie to those assertions. That's why it disturbed me so much. The education Tech offers is perhaps the main reason young men and their parents will decide in our favor; we aren't a factory and aren't (pace some here) likely to ever be one. If the choice is about who gets into the NFL, we've lost to Ugag and Bammer already. If it's about your education and getting drafted, in that order, then we have a fighting chance.

Here endeth the lesson.

One of the most condescending posts I’ve seen in quite a while. Lesson? Who the hell do you think you are to give lesson? You are also wrong. EVERY Tech player I knew in the 70s thought they had a shot. That doesn’t mean they didn’t pay attention to their education. I thought the whole point of Tech was that “you can do that”. We are selling both, a top flight education and an opportunity to develop and play pro ball if you’re good enough.

 

[takethepoints]

- Every recruit and many of their parents think they are going to the league.
- Education has not been the primary focus of any tech head coach since long ago (if ever).
- Tech academic standards are watered down and have been watered down for athletes for a long time
- Education is rarely the main reason we're chosen.

Thanks. Now we can get down to it. By the numbers:

1. You know this isn't true. I suspect that a majority of the recruits who consider Tech hope they will get into the league. Some may be right. I'm also sure that a lot of parents hope their sons will get into the league. But student athletes and, especially, their parents know very well what the chances are. That's why the coaches always push the education Tech offers.

2. I never said it was. There's a difference between telling parents that you will see that their sons get educated and keeping them on track (easy to do these days since the NCAA requires it) and an emphasis on winning football games. Our last few coaches - including Coach - have done both.

3. Tech's admission standards have been lowered for athletes for some time. If the academic standards had been lowered, why have the extensive tutoring system we now have? I know a number of Tech faculty and, while some wish all the athletes would concentrate more on their school work like some do, they most certainly don't lower their standards for them. Anecdotal evidence, but it's all dueling anecdotes here.

4. By who? If you mean the athletes, you may be right. Students come to schools for all kinds of crazy and irrelevant reasons. For the parents - who are always a main focus of recruiting - the education Tech offers is a major consideration. Why do you think Coach Key said, "… I have a better product to offer" when comparing us to the SEC schools? It wasn't the football program he was talking about.

 

[takethepoints]

One of the most condescending posts I’ve seen in quite a while. Lesson? Who the hell do you think you are to give lesson? You are also wrong. EVERY Tech player I knew in the 70s thought they had a shot. That doesn’t mean they didn’t pay attention to their education. I thought the whole point of Tech was that “you can do that”. We are selling both, a top flight education and an opportunity to develop and play pro ball if you’re good enough.

Ok, ok. It is just that I get tired of making the same points over and over again, points, btw, that I'm pretty sure everybody here would concede. I'll tone it down next time. Sorry I was offensive to you and probably to others.

 

[takethepoints]

You speak as with authority on the subject. Yet, as we have discussed in previous thread a while back, you never competed as a SA at GT.

Go ask any 4 or 5 star athlete what their goal is after college. I will bet you almost anything that more than 99% will tell you to get to the NFL. These are the players we want at GT. This doesn’t mean we don’t want kids to take their education seriously, but it is by far number 2 at best on their list of desires when picking a school.

Now when we were pulling kids away from Wofford and the like, you might be right. They may have chosen us for academics. I would still argue that they chose us to play at an ACC school over our academic prestige.

We went back and forth on this a while back and I don’t really want to do it again, but I will say now what I said then. It’s not nearly as hard to “get out” of GT as an athlete as you like to insinuate that it is. It’s actually pretty easy if you put forth any effort. Which is why Collins says the “elite are excellent in everything they do” or STTE. Most of the top athletes know what it means to work hard. This will bode well when here. Athletes have first access to picking classes and know which professors are “player friendly” among many if the other benefits listed previously. I know this frustrates you and some others because you feel like it lessens your degree somehow, but it’s the truth.

True, I never played football at Tech.

I'm also sure you're right about the 4 - 5 star athletes. But the majority of our players will always be the three star types and education is very important to them and their parents. The post is mostly about parental expectations and everybody - including you - is making out that it's about the athletes. Even the 4 and 5 star kids have parents who want a secure future for them. A Tech education can give them that.

I'm also sure you are right about getting out of Tech as an athlete. This is the way it is at most schools today for most students. But Tech also recruits athletes who are a cut above what the factories will take - shoot, even a lot of the non-factories as well. Those are the ones we can get into the place. It's hard to parse out who's right given that situation: are the athletes getting through because the school is easier on them or is it because they had to be better students to get in? Search me, but I'd go with the latter.

Btw, this has nothing to do with "lessening my degree"; I never went to Tech and I'd never gage my education by what any school does with its athletes anyhow. I've been a fan since the Dodd days, however, and this kind of stuff has been controversial since then.

Well, enough for me in this thread.