Paul Johnson time frame.

[bobongo]

I've pretty much quit posting on this board because almost everything on here is wrong. Just on this page Forensicbuzz and Vespidae are both wrong. So is Charles.
What is this?:

Applied Languages and Intercultural Studies (ALIS)
Computational Media (CM)
Economics (ECON)
Economics and International Affairs (EIA)
Global Economics and Modern Languages (GEML)
History, Technology, and Society (HTS)
International Affairs (INTA)
International Affairs and Modern Languages (IAML)
Literature, Media, and Communication (LMC)
Public Policy (PUBP)

It's a list of liberal arts majors at Tech.

Dreaded calculus? These majors and the business degree require a one semester course called Survey of Calculus. If you went to a school like Duke, you'd have to take 2 years of foreign language, which to most left brained people is worse than one semester of Survey of Calculus.

This "we can't compete because of academics" is complete garbage and an excuse for losers. We are not competing because we don't have leadership that cares about athletic success. That starts with Peterson. However, if the alumni demanded a change, we'd get a change. But judging from the comments on this board, they would rather make excuses.

That's all.

As I understand it, those "liberal arts" courses of study are all BS degrees, and the non Business-related ones have a heavy dose of technology involved. Which I think is great, really. Many of the non Business-related ones are relatively new additions, and I wish they had been available back in my college days. No BA degrees are offered. There's a whole long list of "liberal arts" degrees that aren't offered at Tech but are offered at every other power-5 school. So the curriculum has expanded some, but it's still quite limited compared to every other power-5 school. Not most power-5 schools - every one of them. I do agree that Tech can compete just as it is, but only if a commitment is made to recruiting nationwide.

 

[Lavoisier]

You have to have 2 credits of foreign language in highschool along with 4 Math and 4 Science and I think 4 English to get into any state school in Georgia. Duke doesn't have minimum requirements because they are private and set their own. They have "recommendations" according to their website that only recommend 3 Math and 3 Science. Duke isn't that hard for athletes to get in to, but the athletes that go there for football tend to have an academic focus.

Edit: Comp Media has at least two semesters of Java that I know of and probably more programming classes. Putting it in the list of "easy" majors should tell you how difficult the school is.

 

[MWBATL]

I've pretty much quit posting on this board because almost everything on here is wrong. Just on this page Forensicbuzz and Vespidae are both wrong. So is Charles.
What is this?:

Applied Languages and Intercultural Studies (ALIS)
Computational Media (CM)
Economics (ECON)
Economics and International Affairs (EIA)
Global Economics and Modern Languages (GEML)
History, Technology, and Society (HTS)
International Affairs (INTA)
International Affairs and Modern Languages (IAML)
Literature, Media, and Communication (LMC)
Public Policy (PUBP)

It's a list of liberal arts majors at Tech.

Dreaded calculus? These majors and the business degree require a one semester course called Survey of Calculus. If you went to a school like Duke, you'd have to take 2 years of foreign language, which to most left brained people is worse than one semester of Survey of Calculus.

This "we can't compete because of academics" is complete garbage and an excuse for losers. We are not competing because we don't have leadership that cares about athletic success. That starts with Peterson. However, if the alumni demanded a change, we'd get a change. But judging from the comments on this board, they would rather make excuses.

That's all.

While I don't agree that our academics represent no problem for us, we are in COMPLETE agreement that the problem starts at Peterson. And that most GT fans don't recognize this as the problem, hence nothing fundamental will change. Window dressing (aka, the coach) will change, but the fundamental reasons we are mired in football mediocrity will not change until and unless a new President comes in who wants it.

 

[Jmonty71]

I have valid question to ask folks. Would you rather have the current system, which includes vetting players and finding kids that are less likely to get into trouble... Or... Become a football factory like UGA and find whatever talent you can find, regardless of character and then turn a blind eye to things like theft, DUIs and domestic violence, among other things? UGA had an underage player, have what 3 DUIs over a summer, yet still played. If I recall.. Do we want to become that, just to have a better football team? Just curious.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I have valid question to ask folks. Would you rather have the current system, which includes vetting players and finding kids that are less likely to get into trouble... Or... Become a football factory like UGA and find whatever talent you can find, regardless of character and then turn a blind eye to things like theft, DUIs and domestic violence, among other things? UGA had an underage player, have what 3 DUIs over a summer, yet still played. If I recall.. Do we want to become that, just to have a better football team? Just curious.

I want to have my cake and eat it too.

 

[Lavoisier]

I actually wish we "vetted" kids some more. Not for the off the field stuff like you mentioned, but because we have so much attrition for kids transferring out or leaving the team. We aren't going to have top 25 classes so let's follow a model of other schools with "get old, stay old" and develop them in the weight room. You can't get old with the attrition we have every year. We really need to make sure the recruits know what they are getting into with Tech and have bought in to the academic and social side of things. I'd rather have a 2* 5th year senior than sign a high 3* that leaves after a year or when someone starts over them.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

I actually wish we "vetted" kids some more. Not for the off the field stuff like you mentioned, but because we have so much attrition for kids transferring out or leaving the team. We aren't going to have top 25 classes so let's follow a model of other schools with "get old, stay old" and develop them in the weight room. You can't get old with the attrition we have every year. We really need to make sure the recruits know what they are getting into with Tech and have bought in to the academic and social side of things. I'd rather have a 2* 5th year senior than sign a high 3* that leaves after a year or when someone starts over them.

More vetting most likely results in an even smaller recruiting pool.

 

[64jacket]

I want to have my cake and eat it too.

Football factory !! All programs are that now. Why in God's name is there 70 votes for giving PJ another year !!! This is what's wrong with tech fans. Does anyone see our program better next year ? HELL KNOW !! Worse. Make the move now.

 

[GT_05]

I have valid question to ask folks. Would you rather have the current system, which includes vetting players and finding kids that are less likely to get into trouble... Or... Become a football factory like UGA and find whatever talent you can find, regardless of character and then turn a blind eye to things like theft, DUIs and domestic violence, among other things? UGA had an underage player, have what 3 DUIs over a summer, yet still played. If I recall.. Do we want to become that, just to have a better football team? Just curious.

No


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GT_05]

Football factory !! All programs are that now. Why in God's name is there 70 votes for giving PJ another year !!! This is what's wrong with tech fans. Does anyone see our program better next year ? HELL KNOW !! Worse. Make the move now.

I think the survey was asking what people thought would happen, not what they wanted to happen. Relax.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Football factory !! All programs are that now. Why in God's name is there 70 votes for giving PJ another year !!! This is what's wrong with tech fans. Does anyone see our program better next year ? HELL KNOW !! Worse. Make the move now.

What?
What?
Because despite the frustration of last year and this year thus far, CPJ is a good coach who has lacked proper support from the onset.
You are an example of what’s wrong with Tech fans.
Hell....No? You don’t “KNOW”. There are plenty of reasons to think next year will see improvements. Particularly year 2 of a new D scheme that I think is a better scheme than prior.
Making the move now would likely place Woody as our head coach. But I think much of the fanbase has turned already and probably wouldn’t gripe if it happened today.

We still have a lot of football to play. Mostly against the teams we most hate. Duke, UNC, VaTech, duh U, duh mutts. If we can bring them some pain who knows. I’m not ready to give up on the season.

 

[Jacket in Dairyland]

I have valid question to ask folks. Would you rather have the current system, which includes vetting players and finding kids that are less likely to get into trouble... Or... Become a football factory like UGA and find whatever talent you can find, regardless of character and then turn a blind eye to things like theft, DUIs and domestic violence, among other things? UGA had an underage player, have what 3 DUIs over a summer, yet still played. If I recall.. Do we want to become that, just to have a better football team? Just curious.

Well, what I want is not exactly either of the two scenarios you presented. I don't think you have to go to an extreme like UGA, but I also don't think our current system is getting us the results we want on the field either. IMO, a larger recruiting budget to find the "right" guys, nationwide and even overseas can get us a more CONSISTENTLY competitive team. Get back to winning the ACC division title more often , bowling every year, and ranked in the top 25. That's my goal for the school. Visibility with consistency, so we don't drop off the radar as far as recruits go. Unfortunately , right now we are trending toward SAs getting a great education but playing on a mediocre football team. We are 3-8 in our last 11 games.

 

[joehamiltonfan14]

https://www.ajc.com/blog/mark-bradl...ter-than-paul-johnson/iWQmyrOzbws0Cv6gPCYzTL/

Discuss. Some good points but overall very condescending (classic Bradley). His point is basically we shouldn’t expect to do better than CPJ. I think our program’s ceiling is higher than he thinks it is.

 

[MikeJackets1967]

https://www.ajc.com/blog/mark-bradl...ter-than-paul-johnson/iWQmyrOzbws0Cv6gPCYzTL/

Discuss. Some good points but overall very condescending (classic Bradley). His point is basically we shouldn’t expect to do better than CPJ. I think our program’s ceiling is higher than he thinks it is.

Everything Mark Bradley says should be taken with a pound of salt. I wouldn't take his word for it that the grass was green.

 

[first&ten]

think he is pretty much on target. Tech can't afford to fire him,Stansbury afraid of making a mistake with a new coach, Most of the power brokers at Tech believe that 6&6 or 7&5 is OK, 30,000 to 35,000 is ok for attendance, keep the current entrance requirements in place ( don't downgrade my diploma .) what coach would want to come to Tech, We're Tech, don't expect anything extraordinary!

 

[Jacket in Dairyland]

I agree with Bradley with his history lesson and the current state of the program. We are 3-8 in our last 11 games. But I do not agree that we could not attract a better coach. . MCGarrity changed the program at UGA when he hired Smart and upped the budget. I believe TStan will make a comparable difference at Tech.

 

[Lavoisier]

I think Paul Johnson is one of the best coaches we have had, but I don't think he is our best since Dodd. I also think the strawman of Wisenhunt/Godsey/Key is ridiculous unless he actually has sources that know those names are in the mix for the next head coach. It makes us seem like we only have Paul Johnson or scraps because we are such losers. Terrible article. He also really is pumping up Miami like we weren't one deflected pass from beating them down there. Newsflash Bradley: just because your BFF Richt is the coach doesn't mean they are some unbeatable juggernaut. The ACC is Clemson and everyone else. We haven't done well in conference but it isn't like we are completely outmatched and blown out in non-Clemson games.

 

[MWBATL]

I have valid question to ask folks. Would you rather have the current system, which includes vetting players and finding kids that are less likely to get into trouble... Or... Become a football factory like UGA and find whatever talent you can find, regardless of character and then turn a blind eye to things like theft, DUIs and domestic violence, among other things? UGA had an underage player, have what 3 DUIs over a summer, yet still played. If I recall.. Do we want to become that, just to have a better football team? Just curious.

My vote is to do what is necessary to compete short of cheating.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I've pretty much quit posting on this board because almost everything on here is wrong. Just on this page Forensicbuzz and Vespidae are both wrong. So is Charles.
What is this?:

Applied Languages and Intercultural Studies (ALIS)
Computational Media (CM)
Economics (ECON)
Economics and International Affairs (EIA)
Global Economics and Modern Languages (GEML)
History, Technology, and Society (HTS)
International Affairs (INTA)
International Affairs and Modern Languages (IAML)
Literature, Media, and Communication (LMC)
Public Policy (PUBP)

It's a list of liberal arts majors at Tech.

Dreaded calculus? These majors and the business degree require a one semester course called Survey of Calculus. If you went to a school like Duke, you'd have to take 2 years of foreign language, which to most left brained people is worse than one semester of Survey of Calculus.

This "we can't compete because of academics" is complete garbage and an excuse for losers. We are not competing because we don't have leadership that cares about athletic success. That starts with Peterson. However, if the alumni demanded a change, we'd get a change. But judging from the comments on this board, they would rather make excuses.

That's all.

LOL, I'm not wrong. I was in school when Pat Crecine created the College of Management and Liberal Arts. I've seen it grow, and I've seen the BOR limit and prevent it from growing further. I also know that GT had a night school of Management way back when. The BOR didn't like that and broke it away from Georgia Tech. It later became Georgia State University. The BOR has a long history of getting in the way of GT growing their majors and expanding their curricula. Not sure why you think you're right and others are wrong, but understand the facts before you disparage someone else.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I have valid question to ask folks. Would you rather have the current system, which includes vetting players and finding kids that are less likely to get into trouble... Or... Become a football factory like UGA and find whatever talent you can find, regardless of character and then turn a blind eye to things like theft, DUIs and domestic violence, among other things? UGA had an underage player, have what 3 DUIs over a summer, yet still played. If I recall.. Do we want to become that, just to have a better football team? Just curious.

I'll start this by saying this is all hearsay and second hand information about Peterson. I have a friend who happens to be the AD for a B1G school. He holds Buzz Peterson in high regard and has stated that Buzz "gets it" when it comes to student-athletes. I know that flies in the face of what many feel about the Hill supporting athletics. I don't really know. But that opinion comes from someone who should have a much better feel than most of us.