Ok Brilliant Engineers....

Animal02

Banned
Messages
6,269
Location
Southeastern Michigan
Fine. Let them go to GSU and be a Panther.

I for one am proud of the fact that GT is one of the Top 50 STEM schools in the world and can still play FBS ball. I would never support adding Womens’s Studies just get a few more athletes who can’t spell “cat”.
I think you are reading me wrong......I am not in support of changing the nature of Tech academically to appease the football gods.
 

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,963
Good gracious! I was not aware there was that large a discrepancy. Tech has about what 35 or so majors? Most schools have 100 or more. No wonder we have recruiting issues.
If prez makes ripples about this he will find lords of b o r oversite starting in many areas. Got to have a deal maker instead of a care taker.
 

tech_wreck47

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,670
Once again in 2007 with less majors, less exemptions, and a worse Head Coach we achieved a #15 ranked recruiting class including three top 100 players.

Why can’t we do that now?
Teams have a lot more resources now compared to what we have. Facilities, staff size ect. That kind of stuff makes a huge difference.
 

WreckinGT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,992
Once again in 2007 with less majors, less exemptions, and a worse Head Coach we achieved a #15 ranked recruiting class including three top 100 players.

Why can’t we do that now?
Maybe we should ask Chan Gailey how that happened because his recruiting classes before that were mostly terrible. Either he figured something out one offseason or the stars aligned right for us that recruiting season. I could see CPJ randomly pulling in a good class too. If we are expecting a coach to do it every year then I think we are setting ourselves up for disappointment. It is worth noting also how much we go back to the 2007 class. Even if we pulled that in every year somehow, we still likely wouldn't be the yearly top 10 team the OP was talking about. That is how wide the gap is between the haves and have nots.
 

Dustman

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,226
Maybe we should ask Chan Gailey how that happened because his recruiting classes before that were mostly terrible. Either he figured something out one offseason or the stars aligned right for us that recruiting season. I could see CPJ randomly pulling in a good class too. If we are expecting a coach to do it every year then I think we are setting ourselves up for disappointment. It is worth noting also how much we go back to the 2007 class. Even if we pulled that in every year somehow, we still likely wouldn't be the yearly top 10 team the OP was talking about. That is how wide the gap is between the haves and have nots.
I read somewhere that Derrick Morgan became good friends with Tyler Melton on a recruiting visit. Sometimes the stars do align.
 

Madison Grant

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,276
I read somewhere that Derrick Morgan became good friends with Tyler Melton on a recruiting visit. Sometimes the stars do align.
I've also heard that Geoff Collins got the jump on social media as a recruiting tool. The Big Boys took notice, and he was soon gone. When a school like GT which never recruits worth a crap all of a sudden picks up a top 20 class, it gets noticed. The major corporations have the capital to soak up the innovative small businesses.
 

tech_wreck47

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,670
So would most want to add another 35 degree options and not have calculus as a requirement for every degree if it meant way better recruiting? I for sure would love that but I'm a sidewalk fan so I know some who actually went to GT might not like this. I'm not saying lower our academic standard. I want to stay classy and not get involved with all the junk you see from the big time schools but I think changing some things could help the sports at GT in a big way. Do you think that Todd would try to accomplish something like this? ( I know it's not his decision, but he could lobby for it right?)
 

MikeJackets1967

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,844
Location
Lovely Ducktown,Tennessee
So would most want to add another 35 degree options and not have calculus as a requirement for every degree if it meant way better recruiting? I for sure would love that but I'm a sidewalk fan so I know some who actually went to GT might not like this. I'm not saying lower our academic standard. I want to stay classy and not get involved with all the junk you see from the big time schools but I think changing some things could help the sports at GT in a big way. Do you think that Todd would try to accomplish something like this? ( I know it's not his decision, but he could lobby for it right?)
I wish GT would bring back Sports Management;)
 

augustabuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,404
As an outsider sidewalk fan looking in, I can't help but guess that the calc requirement for every major not only hurts recruiting, but -- really, does it really add value for all majors? Serious question. I can't help but believe that an "optional core" requirement, e.g., of an introductory probability and stats course and an "introduction to reasoning" course (e.g., Toulmin's model, and some Aristotelian logic) would be more useful than calculus for many of the majors not among the hard sciences. And hey, if such happened to make things a wee bit easier for recruiting in a society with a considerable degree of mathaphobia, that would be a nice bonus. Has calculus always been a core requirement at Tech?
No, calculus for all became the standard after eight -in -a row.
 

Towaliga

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,014
With all the technology being used in sports today, there is no reason for Tech not to have a degree in this space. It requires a foundation in math though ...

I agree. I posted this in another thread, but that was before I started reading this one, so it probably should have been put here instead.

Other than Dabo's "charisma", here's another example of why CU is able to recruit better athletes than GT. My daughter is interested in sports broadcasting, and CU has a degree in Sports Communications, so she became interested in going to CU. She went to a Sports Communication camp at CU this year, and someone from that degree program (I believe it was the head of the program) spoke to her class. She told him she was interested in coming into that program, and he advised her that it would probably not be a good fit. He stated the program is not geared toward broadcasting or journalism, but more toward social media. She laughed and said it is basically a 4 year degree on how to tweet. He then told her that you have to apply to get accepted into the program since it is limited to only 30 new students per year, and the vast majority (if not all) of the 30 are generally football and basketball players, and the remainder are usually other athletes. I'm sure this type of watered-down degree practice goes on at some of the other ACC schools (see UNCheat).

Someone else posted in the other thread that Dabo is a CEO, so using that analogy, it would be hard to recruit/hire someone for GT Engineering, Inc. by telling them they are going to have to spend long hours working on complex engineering projects when that same person can get hired by CU Entertainment, Inc. who is telling them they will pay them more and not assign any job duties other than to play whiffle ball and play video games.
 

WrexRacer

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
66
We would win 3 or 4 games without CPJ? Um no. With Gailey at least I never felt like we were sooo unmatched we couldn't compete. Next year is a make it or break it year for Paul Johnson as far as I'm concerned.

I believe Gailey holds the record for GT's worst loss to VT, UGa, Duke, and BC. There are probably a few others in there.

He could beat Miami though.
 

FredJacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,045
Location
Fredericksburg, Virginia
I have not read every word of this thread... but the run that calculus is getting is reaching the null set... or is it infinity? or are those the same thing?

While I'm at it... you "electrified engineers"... question for you. With an infinite number of numbers out there... why do we have to have imaginary ones too?
 

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,963
With all the technology being used in sports today, there is no reason for Tech not to have a degree in this space. It requires a foundation in math though ...
The uga runs the b o r.
Letting g t have a lot of hi academic majors that compete w uga would siphon the more serious uga students thugs giving prestige to gt. Stanford of the south in atlanta would be great for the state, but not good for uga football.

The solution is within the problem but it takes a much stronger and not care taker prez.


Even a care taker pre should be enough of deal maker pres to angle for getting some hi academic level classes at emory and ga state be transferable to gt . These would allow the hi academic players to get broader edu and could help with the sports management - I think one of our line man is doing internship in physical injury rehab.
Done the tech way - challenging and real - I am for this.


We only need a few in the sports area to make a big difference.
 

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
7,899
Location
Augusta, Georgia
I apologize ahead of time for the military analogy, but I really think it's the most apropos.

I think we as fans sometimes confuse strategy and tactics. In terms of program building, performance on the field falls mostly under tactics. The reality is that we need a change in strategy if we wish to ever actually compete yearly for championships. Schools build programs by investing heavily in the programs. If you look at all the recent championship contenders, you will see programs who have continuously reinvested in their programs. They constantly build/improve facilities, hire top end coaches, pay big time money to assistants, and maximize recruiting staffs. They stamp their logo on anything that sells, and don't really care if it's the wrong color, much less the wrong shade of the right color. As long as fans are buying it, they don't really care. They pour into the fan experience, and build lifetime fans through their efforts. They ensure their schools have majors for athletes, that athletes actually want to major in.

In CPJ, we have a tactician. Through his coaching and offensive scheme, we can win individual battles along the way, but we are still losing the overall war. Beating an FSU in 2015, winning the occasional uga game, downing Clemson here and there, will not change the course of either our program or theirs.

In order to change our program, we need to understand that several things, but not necessarily all of them listed below, need to happen, and it needs to happen soon, before the college landscape leaves us too far behind to ever make up real ground.

1. We need money injected into our program. Stanford built their program with the help of a $270,000,000.00 endowment solely denoted for athletics programs.
2. We need to hire the absolute best assistants and coordinators money can buy, and pay them so well that they don't get poached easily.
3. We need to hire at least 8 more recruiting staff, and preferably 12 more.
4. We need to add a few majors, and get rid of the calculus requirement for majors that really don't need it.
5. We need to pour into our facilities, and cater to the whims of 18 year olds, no matter how "silly" it seems to us old fogies...
6. We need to generate buzz for the program by building an identity for ourselves that is appealing to the masses. Oregon did it through uniforms, GT needs to find a new identity soon.
7. We need to commit to filling the stadium every game. I don't care if this means cutting the price of tickets in half. This needs to be a priority. You can't build a fan base with empty seats in the stadium.

I am sure there are other strategies we need to look at, but I think I have made my point. If we want to see change, we need to understand the true cost, and agree that there can be no sacred cows. Everything must be on the table. We also need to understand the difference between tactics and strategy. We can hire a new HC, or DC, but unless we commit the money for top end, as per point 2, we are just changing tactics, not strategy. We can build/renovate a new locker room, but unless we immediately say, what next, we are not changing our strategy.

Now, before I hear all the rebuttal, I understand the reticence to change certain aspects of our program/Institution. I am not necessarily in favor of massive change just to be competitive at that level on a yearly basis. I, like many of you here, love GT precisely because of who we are, not who I wish we were. I also know that all of these items might not be easily achievable. I just see the writing on the wall, and I think we are just being willfully ignorant if we expect to continue doing what we are doing and get different results.

In addition, there is one other thing that can help us, but is out of our direct control: The ACC needs to become as "relevant" as the SEC/B1G. (We can argue ad nauseum about W/L records and head to head results, but the recruits preferences paint a different picture) We need not only Clemson, but FSU, Miami, VT, and a couple of other schools to become consistent winners. We also really need ND to join the ACC. The TV exposure that would ensue would help tremendously. Players want to play in the spotlight, and adding NDs TV deal (I'd let them keep it, with the caveat that they play 4 of their 12 games on the ACC network, as they use the money generated solely for academic uses) to the current ACC deal only helps us.

Anyways, this may be TL DR for some, but given the state of malaise that a certain portion of our posters are in, I felt the need to give my $0.02 worth. I will be in my seats for the VT and uga games regardless, and I hope that you guys will be there too.
 
Top