Ok Brilliant Engineers....

a5ehren

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
484
FredJacket said:
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?
Click to expand...
Imaginary numbers are incredibly useful when it comes to defining signal parameters in equations without using trigonometry. See Euler's formula: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_formula

:bookworm:
 
Supersizethatorder-mutt

Supersizethatorder-mutt

Banned
Messages
13,443
Location
Augusta, GA
Augusta_Jacket said:
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.
Click to expand...
You should put that all in a letter and mail it to TStan. Since you are not an alum, it might not get past his secretary, but it is definitely good enough to be read.
 
Augusta_Jacket

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,125
Location
Augusta, Georgia
Supersizethatorder-mutt said:
You should put that all in a letter and mail it to TStan. Since you are not an alum, it might not get past his secretary, but it is definitely good enough to be read.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Though I am surprised you, as unofficial blog fashionista, endorsed it as I included this little nugget in there: "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."

:D
 
Supersizethatorder-mutt

Supersizethatorder-mutt

Banned
Messages
13,443
Location
Augusta, GA
Augusta_Jacket said:
Thanks. Though I am surprised you, as unofficial blog fashionista, endorsed it as I included this little nugget in there: "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."

:D
Click to expand...
That was the sole issue I had with what you posted. I not only don't agree with having that approach though, I'm not sure it is correct, since you sure don't see a plethora of colors in Clemson or Athens. I actually have no problem with multi-colored street wear; I just think that AT GAMES, the fans should wear the OFFICIAL PRIMARY school colors.
Other than that sole issue, however, it was an EXCELLENT post, worthy of being seen by TStan
 

Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau

Banned
Messages
2,077
Coloradojacket said:
1. It aint 1952 anymore. College football changed in the 70's.
2. Read O'Leary had us in great shape. Yes we were good in 1998 and 2000. He also went 5-6,6-5, 7-5.
3. Georgia Tech is never going to get the players that Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, etc get.
4. CPJ is the best thing I have seen for Tech in my 48 years of watching Tech games. We always come into the game with the chance to win.
5. Always read, that offense is the problem, well let's go back and get Chan and run his pro style.....17 points per game....or Bill Lewis and the wide open pass happy offense.....yea saw that.
6. Georgia looks good, but if you examine their schedule so far they have beaten only one team with a winning record.
7. Give it time the worm turns, Saban will retire and Dabo will go to Bama. Clemson will then come back to earth.
8. Fact is we should be 6-1 right now and frankly we are pretty good.

I did not expect giant things from us this year, just about 8-9 wins. It is next year that should be a 10-11 win year.
Click to expand...
I chuckle at the notion that Dabo is the source of Clemson's success. It is $$$$$! Look at his staff since he has been there. They spend the money on staff and facilities. They are a staff that recruits very well. They get very good players and put them in position to play well.
 

bravejason

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
307
I think money is the #1 need at this point. Need staff, facilities, and equipment that are on par with or better than with the teams getting all the 4* & 5* players. Yes, a number of those players won't fit academically, but of the ones that do, they need to see that GT offers the same or better football as everyone else.
 
iceeater1969

iceeater1969

Helluva Engineer
Messages
9,779
DCSS said:
I hesitated to open this thread because it said brilliant engineers. If there’s anything that Ma Tech taught me, it’s that I’m not as brilliant as I thought I was.
Click to expand...
Not any more.
Get in and u get out.
I think with a pretty good gpa.
Not like Harvard were everyone gets an A but trending.



Changes every where, but here on gtswarm ,the deal that football players must take calculus, that's immutable. Change that cheapens my degree.
 
GTJake

GTJake

Banned
Messages
2,066
Location
Fernandina Beach, Florida
Results from 2000 ... looks pretty even to me.
upload_2017-10-30_12-17-2.png
 
jacob

jacob

Banned
Messages
377
bravejason said:
I think money is the #1 need at this point. Need staff, facilities, and equipment that are on par with or better than with the teams getting all the 4* & 5* players. Yes, a number of those players won't fit academically, but of the ones that do, they need to see that GT offers the same or better football as everyone else.
Click to expand...
And stuff I've seen on Pay sites says that Stansbury is trying to do just that. I really think Stansbury is the answer to our problems. Looks like he feels the same as all of us.
 
Top