Ok Brilliant Engineers....

[Animal02]

Good points but....isn't the point of any sport (beyond maybe youth leagues) is to aim for the top? Clearly we are a decent to even good program. However, unlike the UT and Miami game where it was clear that we were fighting people in our own weight class, last night showed (what was to me) a very clear gap between tier 1 and tier 2 programs. We could play them 100 times and struggle to win 5 times. So, do we smile politely, thank them for the opportunity to play and slide on back to our own neighborhood? Our do we set goals (and plans) to play with the big boys? Yes, that is ambitious as clearly Clemson has taken a place at the table with the likes of OSU and Alabama. Of course, this is GT so I know the answer to my own question. We have decided that we CANNOT do that. So we will resume our regularly scheduled broadcast of competing with the others on our block - the UVA's, Miami's, Dukes andVT's of the world. And, when things break our way from time to time, we can have some really nice seasons.

You assume everything is in Tech's control. It is not.

 

[MikeJackets1967]

Good points but....isn't the point of any sport (beyond maybe youth leagues) is to aim for the top? Clearly we are a decent to even good program. However, unlike the UT and Miami game where it was clear that we were fighting people in our own weight class, last night showed (what was to me) a very clear gap between tier 1 and tier 2 programs. We could play them 100 times and struggle to win 5 times. So, do we smile politely, thank them for the opportunity to play and slide on back to our own neighborhood? Our do we set goals (and plans) to play with the big boys? Yes, that is ambitious as clearly Clemson has taken a place at the table with the likes of OSU and Alabama. Of course, this is GT so I know the answer to my own question. We have decided that we CANNOT do that. So we will resume our regularly scheduled broadcast of competing with the others on our block - the UVA's, Miami's, Dukes andVT's of the world. And, when things break our way from time to time, we can have some really nice seasons.

That's the way it's always going to be and i'm happy with 7-8 win seasons and Bowl games with a special 9-10 win season every 10 years or so.

 

[Animal02]

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.

Not even close to a make or break year.

 

[jeffgt14]

Good points but....isn't the point of any sport (beyond maybe youth leagues) is to aim for the top? Clearly we are a decent to even good program. However, unlike the UT and Miami game where it was clear that we were fighting people in our own weight class, last night showed (what was to me) a very clear gap between tier 1 and tier 2 programs. We could play them 100 times and struggle to win 5 times. So, do we smile politely, thank them for the opportunity to play and slide on back to our own neighborhood? Our do we set goals (and plans) to play with the big boys? Yes, that is ambitious as clearly Clemson has taken a place at the table with the likes of OSU and Alabama. Of course, this is GT so I know the answer to my own question. We have decided that we CANNOT do that. So we will resume our regularly scheduled broadcast of competing with the others on our block - the UVA's, Miami's, Dukes andVT's of the world. And, when things break our way from time to time, we can have some really nice seasons.

I agree we should always strive for better and we shouldn't walk into every game against Clemson expecting to lose but it doesn't mean we should get all hysterical, call for massive changes, and sell our tickets to UGA fans because we lose to Clemson.

 

[OldJacketFan]

I agree we should always strive for better and we shouldn't walk into every game against Clemson expecting to lose but it doesn't mean we should get all hysterical, call for massive changes, and sell our tickets to UGA fans because we lose to Clemson.

^ +1000

 

[SolicitorJacket]

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.

Go look at the results from 2002-2007. we were losing to unranked Clemson teams 39-3. Perspective, son....have a slice.

 

[Animal02]

The only thing else I have to say is....
7-5
4-6-1
1-9-1
1-10
6-5
and then after I left....
3-8
6-4-1

Yet five years later we won a NC

 

[1939hotmagic]

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?

 

[MikeJackets1967]

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 but think 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?

Too bad GT doesn't have Sports Management anymore

 

[stech81]

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.

2002 uga 51 us 7 , 2003 Clemson 39 us 3 , 2004 Miami 24 us 3 , 2005 VT 51 us 7 , 2006 Clemson 31 us 7 Which of these did you feel good about ?

 

[forensicbuzz]

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?

yes calculus has always been required. However, not all calculus courses are built the same.

 

[gthog61]

We should change nothing academically because it helps sports. The athletic department is merely a bolt on to the school. If something changes academically because the people running the school thinks it moves the school forward and that also coincidentally helps sports I am all for it.

If we added some cake majors and didn't require calculus we would get athletes on a par with places like South Carolina or Auburn or Mississippi State. We wouldn't suddenly be the Ohio State of the South. We would look like fools for selling our soul for nothing. Fortunately that will never happen.

We already have some suitable majors that do not require genius level IQs and our standards aren't THAT high now.

 

[laoh]

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?

Fair question but I'll make a rhetorical point. I (alums) also took e-mag, thermo, some were crazy enough to take organic chem. I also went through an electrical circuits class. Now ask me and others how many of those classes we're actually putting to use. You'd be surprised that it's almost zero (excluding the NASA genius alums out there... that ain't me unfortunately)... Some have started their own business. Some teachers. Stay-at-home mom/dads. Some are IT professionals. And most of us are probably just like everyone else and work in corporate America, in the rat race. I work for a software company. Why did I need to take thermo?

If we want to introduce basketweaving and cowtipping 101 into our curriculum to attract more athletes, sure, have at it, but do note that most of the alums will probably feel insulted that our brand and our education is being diluted, especially after having survived the torture called Tech. We are a proud bunch of folks with sometimes fragile egos. Plus, you take a walk around campus and while it's leaps and bounds over a campus that resembled a mental institution when I was there, you just can't compete with taking a recruit to a 100,000 seat on-campus stadium (power schools) or going to South Beach and taking a walk next to the blue waters.

 

[A Love Supreme]

I feel like this topic has been discussed before.

 

[MikeJackets1967]

I feel like this topic has been discussed before.

It was discussed a lot in 2013

 

[dressedcheeseside]

One thing a lot of you guys forget is the factories are good because of their formula: they are definitely NOT trying to be MIT M-F.

 

[GTHomer]

The only thing else I have to say is....
7-5
4-6-1
1-9-1
1-10
6-5
and then after I left....
3-8
6-4-1

Yet five years later we won a NC

Looks like you arrived in 1978 like me! Those were awful years for both football and basketball., aside for 1978

 

[Milwaukee]

The board is going to be fun today.

 

[JorgeJonas]

Step 1: Acceptance that the standard you’re applying is extremely unlikely.

Step 2: Happiness. Or at least less frustration.

 

[jacketup]

In my opinion, if CPJ wasn't at Tech, we would be lucky to win 3-4

George O'Leary had five consecutive years of finishing in the AP Top 25 poll. Johnson has had back to back AP final poll ranked teams only once--2008 -2009--his first two GT teams-- with Gailey's recruits.

The problem is recruiting. This offense gives an advantage of being unique, but that uniqueness is a disadvantage in recruiting. That, and the fact that the coaches who came with Johnson from Navy were not and are not good recruiters, and he won't replace them.

The talent delta between GT and Clemson--and going forward Georgie--cannot be overcome with better execution, despite Johnson's post game comments last night. The same was true for Miami, as we saw in the second half after they made adjustments.

And before we get the "O'Leary got unqualified kids into school" comment, flunkgate happened under Gailey due to Gailey's failure to monitor academics. George did not have any more problems keeping players in school than other coaches. Further, it is now easier to stay at GT than ever. GT brags about it's 97% retention rate--a far cry from the 50% when I was a freshman. We also have liberal arts majors that we didn't have 20 years ago

Your opinion has no basis in fact. The only coach to have a 3 win season --or anything close to it since the Lewis mess was cleaned up--is Johnson.