Northwestern South ??

[Jacket in Dairyland]

Thinking about our current frustration with our athletic programs, and looking back on the times since I attended (1968-1973) and really started paying closer attention to our athletic performance, several thoughts come to mind :
1) We have had some GREAT ADs - Rice quickly comes to mind.
2) We have had some terrible ADs- Bobinski for sure - Braine ??
3) We have had presidents who have seemed to be more "athletics friendly'.
4) Our athletic success, or not , seems to depend on whether we have a good/great AD AND a FULLY athletic supportive president. If either one is missing , we take a dip in our success.
IMO, the president can be like a " governor " on an engine. He ( or she ) tries to balance our image in the world.
Are we an Educational Institution or a Athletic Factory ? That's why my comparison to Northwestern comes in.
Although in my mind we have a much richer athletic tradition than NU, we risk pushing those memories so far into the history books that recruits can't remember when were even relevant athletically - like NU.
I have come to the realization that a MAJOR limitation on our athletic success is " the Hill ". I think it's why Radakovich left, Bobinski thought " what's the point ?" , and unfortunately why TStan may be hamstrung by what he can accomplish.
Given the limitations CPJ has had to endure during his tenure, it is sometimes amazing to me that he has even wanted to extend his contract.
Of course , I am not privy to what " the Hill " actually thinks. But my impression, albeit from afar, is that their actions , or lack thereof, say two things - A) That to greatly improve athletic performance puts our image as an "Educational " institution " at risk. B) They want to see more support - attendance, fundraising, etc. and sustained athletic success FIRST , to then put more emphasis on athletics with more majors, etc.
I am CAUTIOUSLY optimistic that TSTAN can thread the needle on this , but it will take him some time. But, and it's a big but, what are we as fans going to do in the meantime ?
What say you ?

 

[GTonTop88]

I just don’t understand why we can’t introduce a few programs that are more friendly to student athletes. No matter what your intelligence is anyone would struggle trying to balance being a division 1 athlete and an exceptional student at any college especially an academic institution.

I know at GSU there’s two paths of core curriculum. Non-engineering majors and engineering majors, why can’t we do something like this? Maybe it’s something with the state board or STEM but I just can’t see it hurting Georgia Tech’s imagine by having a few majors that doesn’t require such a hard core curriculum. The quality of the degree can still be there without having to take Calculus.

 

[GT_05]

Thinking about our current frustration with our athletic programs, and looking back on the times since I attended (1968-1973) and really started paying closer attention to our athletic performance, several thoughts come to mind :
1) We have had some GREAT ADs - Rice quickly comes to mind.
2) We have had some terrible ADs- Bobinski for sure - Braine ??
3) We have had presidents who have seemed to be more "athletics friendly'.
4) Our athletic success, or not , seems to depend on whether we have a good/great AD AND a FULLY athletic supportive president. If either one is missing , we take a dip in our success.
IMO, the president can be like a " governor " on an engine. He ( or she ) tries to balance our image in the world.
Are we an Educational Institution or a Athletic Factory ? That's why my comparison to Northwestern comes in.
Although in my mind we have a much richer athletic tradition than NU, we risk pushing those memories so far into the history books that recruits can't remember when were even relevant athletically - like NU.
I have come to the realization that a MAJOR limitation on our athletic success is " the Hill ". I think it's why Radakovich left, Bobinski thought " what's the point ?" , and unfortunately why TStan may be hamstrung by what he can accomplish.
Given the limitations CPJ has had to endure during his tenure, it is sometimes amazing to me that he has even wanted to extend his contract.
Of course , I am not privy to what " the Hill " actually thinks. But my impression, albeit from afar, is that their actions , or lack thereof, say two things - A) That to greatly improve athletic performance puts our image as an "Educational " institution " at risk. B) They want to see more support - attendance, fundraising, etc. and sustained athletic success FIRST , to then put more emphasis on athletics with more majors, etc.
I am CAUTIOUSLY optimistic that TSTAN can thread the needle on this , but it will take him some time. But, and it's a big but, what are we as fans going to do in the meantime ?
What say you ?

As to point A, it is plausible that “The Hill” feels like they don’t want athletics to overshadow or taint the academics in some way. I hope they aren’t thinking this way because the fans will be hoping for things that will never happen. That would be awful!!!Realistically though, why can’t we be good at academics and sports?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GTJoeBrew]

I can't take losing, it takes too much out of me. If it takes adding majors to turn our program around, so be it. I want a team that doesn't feel like it is on the verge of collapse all the time. I don't know what the answer is, but I sure hope we have someone in place that can figure it out. From looking at Northwestern's website, they offer many degrees that seem to fall under the Liberal Arts category.

 

[TooTall]

With TSTAN being a Georgia Tech Guy, I believe that he will have more pull with the Hill and over time it will happen. I don't see it happening before the early 2020s just because they are watching the AI2020. The success above and beyond that goal will be a major influence. As well as the financial responsibility of the GTAA, which means don't pay a coach, or 2, for years and years after they are fired unless you have the funds readily available.

 

[Jacket in Dairyland]

I just don’t understand why we can’t introduce a few programs that are more friendly to student athletes. No matter what your intelligence is anyone would struggle trying to balance being a division 1 athlete and an exceptional student at any college especially an academic institution.

I know at GSU there’s two paths of core curriculum. Non-engineering majors and engineering majors, why can’t we do something like this? Maybe it’s something with the state board or STEM but I just can’t see it hurting Georgia Tech’s imagine by having a few majors that doesn’t require such a hard core curriculum. The quality of the degree can still be there without having to take Calculus.

Agree !!

 

[Jacket in Dairyland]

As to point A, it is plausible that “The Hill” feels like they don’t want athletics to overshadow or taint the academics in some way. I hope they aren’t thinking this way because the fans will be hoping for things that will never happen. That would be awful!!!Realistically though, why can’t we be good at academics and sports?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Stanford , and even Duke , come to mind.

 

[Jacket in Dairyland]

I just don’t understand why we can’t introduce a few programs that are more friendly to student athletes. No matter what your intelligence is anyone would struggle trying to balance being a division 1 athlete and an exceptional student at any college especially an academic institution.

I know at GSU there’s two paths of core curriculum. Non-engineering majors and engineering majors, why can’t we do something like this? Maybe it’s something with the state board or STEM but I just can’t see it hurting Georgia Tech’s imagine by having a few majors that doesn’t require such a hard core curriculum. The quality of the degree can still be there without having to take Calculus.

I agree . It doesn't have to be either/or. There are literally hundreds of variations you could make in curriculum between say Aerospace Engineering and " Basketweaving ".

 

[bobongo]

Ramp up our puny recruiting budget and you don't have to compromise anything. Find good athletes nationwide who want to play for the only top-25 STEM-centric school in a power-5 conference. Just get out there and do it. Recruiting our back yard is only going to get us the leftovers from all the football factories surrounding us.

I can't guarantee it will work, but in light of the fact that it offers the best, and possibly the only shot at getting out of our predicament - isn't it worth a try?

Adding courses might help in the far future, but this is something we can start doing RIGHT THIS MINUTE NOW.

 

[Jacket in Dairyland]

Ramp up our puny recruiting budget and you don't have to compromise anything. Find good athletes nationwide who want to play for the only top-25 STEM-centric school in a power-5 conference. Just get out there and do it. Recruiting our back yard is only going to get us the leftovers from all the football factories surrounding us.

I can't guarantee it will work, but in light of the fact that it offers the best, and possibly the only shot at getting out of our predicament - isn't it worth a try?

Yes, I don't think we have ever been able ( $$$ ) to do exactly that.

 

[Jacket in Dairyland]

Have we EVER had a Georgia Tech grad as President of our school ?? Anyone ?? Maybe that would help .....

 

[bobongo]

Yes, I don't think we have ever been able ( $$$ ) to do exactly that.

But we have about a hundred million dollars we are raising for facilities, while just a tiny fraction of that will be FAR more cost effective and it is money we have NOW.

 

[GT_05]

Have we EVER had a Georgia Tech grad as President of our school ?? Anyone ?? Maybe that would help .....

Clough was a GT civil engineering grad. He was the only GT president that was also an alum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[4shotB]

I have come to the realization that a MAJOR limitation on our athletic success is " the Hill ". I think it's why Radakovich left, Bobinski thought " what's the point ?" , and unfortunately why TStan may be hamstrung by what he can accomplish.
Given the limitations CPJ has had to endure during his tenure, it is sometimes amazing to me that he has even wanted to extend his contract.

I am CAUTIOUSLY optimistic that TSTAN can thread the needle on this , but it will take him some time. But, and it's a big but, what are we as fans going to do in the meantime ?
What say you ?

My assumption would be that TStan has experience as an AD AND knows the GT culture. I would have to believe that he assessed how well he aligned with his superiors philosophically just as any experienced person would do when interviewing for any new job regardless of the field - business, athletics, engineering, medical, etc. I don't believe he would have accepted the job if he didn't think he had the necessary support to be successful. OTOH, I have walked into a situation before that the reality did not match the picture that was painted during the interview process. It does happen, and maybe why we have had turnover at the AD position.

 

[Jacket in Dairyland]

Clough was a GT civil engineering grad. He was the only GT president that was also an alum.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks . I remember that. President from 2008-2014. AD for much of that time was D Rad. Hired CPJ , inherited PH, hired BG. D Rad was great on facility upgrades and fundraising IIRC.

 

[1939hotmagic]

I just don’t understand why we can’t introduce a few programs that are more friendly to student athletes. No matter what your intelligence is anyone would struggle trying to balance being a division 1 athlete and an exceptional student at any college especially an academic institution.

I know at GSU there’s two paths of core curriculum. Non-engineering majors and engineering majors, why can’t we do something like this? Maybe it’s something with the state board or STEM but I just can’t see it hurting Georgia Tech’s imagine by having a few majors that doesn’t require such a hard core curriculum. The quality of the degree can still be there without having to take Calculus.

As a sidewalk fan, albeit one with some Tech family connections from way back in the day, I too wonder why certain non-STEM majors need a calculus requirement. Frankly, a required course in probability and stats, or "introduction to reasoning and logic" (e.g., exposure to something akin to the Toulmin model of reasoning, and some exposure to basics of Aristotelian logic) probably would be far more practical and useful than calc for plenty of Tech students in business, literature/media/communications, and history/technology/society undergrad majors. Perhaps some benefit at the margin for recruiting, particularly football? Well then, that would be a nice bonus.

 

[heyhellowhatsup]

Some Tech grads/posters here act as if going to Tech because it ONLY has STEM degrees is some kind of badge of honor. I don't really understand that attitude.

If I was a prospective student-athlete wanting to major in STEM, why wouldn't I think about going to Cal, Texas, UIUC, etc. (Just to name a few publics in addition to Tech), when their STEM programs are similar in quality to GT.

 

[Jacket in Dairyland]

My assumption would be that TStan has experience as an AD AND knows the GT culture. I would have to believe that he assessed how well he aligned with his superiors philosophically just as any experienced person would do when interviewing for any new job regardless of the field - business, athletics, engineering, medical, etc. I don't believe he would have accepted the job if he didn't think he had the necessary support to be successful. OTOH, I have walked into a situation before that the reality did not match the picture that was painted during the interview process. It does happen, and maybe why we have had turnover at the AD position.

I have done the same as you describe. Sometimes it's like a "marriage", and you think you can change your partner .....

 

[Jacket in Dairyland]

As a sidewalk fan, albeit one with some Tech family connections from way back in the day, I too wonder why certain non-STEM majors need a calculus requirement. Frankly, a required course in probability and stats, or "introduction to reasoning and logic" (e.g., exposure to something akin to the Toulmin model of reasoning, and some exposure to basics of Aristotelian logic) probably would be far more practical and useful than calc for plenty of Tech students in business, literature/media/communications, and history/technology/society undergrad majors. Perhaps some benefit at the margin for recruiting, particularly football? Well then, that would be a nice bonus.

That's what we need ! Some thinking outside the box on the Hill !!

 

[bobongo]

Some Tech grads/posters here act as if going to Tech because it ONLY has STEM degrees is some kind of badge of honor. I don't really understand that attitude.

If I was a prospective student-athlete wanting to major in STEM, why wouldn't I think about going to Cal, Texas, UIUC, etc. (Just to name a few publics in addition to Tech), when their STEM programs are similar in quality to GT.

All this makes some sense, but I imagine that the chances of the Board of Regents adding courses or changing the curriculum for the sake of the football program are somewhere around zero. If changes come to the curriculum, they will come with complete disregard of the football program.

Why not instead concentrate on doing something now to recruit good players nationwide who want to matriculate from a top notch school offering what we have to offer RIGHT NOW?