Program has bigger problems

gtdrew

gtdrew

Banned
Messages
740
Location
Decatur
daBuzz said:
The problem isn't Bobinski. The problem is the school president. So far, he has caved to every argument on the side of academia over athletics since he has been with Tech.
And, for the record, Radakovich DID initially try to go that route and the president of the school not only shot him down, he did so in a way to publicly embarass him in front of many others in a meeting. It was at that point that Radakovich began listening to other offers.
Click to expand...
I had only ever heard part of that story. That sucks apples. What's the protocol for impeaching a school president?
 
LibertyTurns

LibertyTurns

Banned
Messages
6,216
ATL1 said:
[quote="LibertyTurns, post: 22229, member: 789"Stanford is a private school. They don't have the kind of BOR/self-imposed restrictions GT has to deal with. I'm sure Bobinski would love to have their situation at GT.
Click to expand...

Its harder to get into Stanford than Tech. The difference is the amount of money and the attitude they take towards recruiting. Its actually interesting read up on it.[/quote]I doubt there's anyone else on this board that has graduated from both schools and worked there as well. I may be mistaken though the only GT grads I ran into out there were nerdy Silicon Valley types and one gene splicer. I'd bet my house they never attended a football game.
 

KlausMikaelsonTheOriginal

Banned
Messages
154
PowderSpringsJacket88 said:
GTDrew has a point...They have so many other majors to offer than we do that are much easier and not as math/science based. However, yes Stanford is harder to get into. They do have wayy more support for things like exceptions and how hard it is to receive one.
Click to expand...


Is Business Admin really "math & science based"?

The one yr. of science that our FB players take is Earth & Atmospheric Science.

Finite math and Survey of Calc.?
 
OldJacketFan

OldJacketFan

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,348
Location
Nashville, TN
You know I posted this a while back but just for those who missed it or ignored it the first time around. When you compare Tech academics to ANY other Div 1 football program you're comparing apples to oranges. Tech is a STEM focused academic program despite the few non STEM focused majors.

Tech offers 36 undergraduate majors.

Notre Dame University offers 65 undergraduate programs
Vanderbilt University offers 68 undergraduate programs
Northwestern University offers 97 undergraduate programs

and the WINNER is STANFORD UNIVERSITY with 118 undergraduate programs!

All of these universities are known for their academics and I am not saying they are, in any way, easy schools to earn admittance to but the diversity of undergraduate programs is a huge plus when it comes to recruiting! Most of the SAs that commit to these schools would also be admitted at Tech. The difference is what these schools can offer a SA with not only athletic ability but a good academic ability as well. If you are a top SA with good academic skills who doesn't have a STEM education interest why not look at these schools before Tech?
 
LibertyTurns

LibertyTurns

Banned
Messages
6,216
Can someone explain to me why a lot of GT fans have a huge case of Stanford ***** Envy? Stanford's program is nearly identical to GT's, a mostly academic oriented school that plays in a major conference with a number of football factories. Stanford has Pop Warner, GT has John Heisman plus Bobby Dodd. I've seen both up close- Stanford twice. Outside of Stanford's recent success they haven't been a good team since before I was born, outside of a couple of years here and there and the 1990 Nat'l Champ season so has GT.

Frankly I think it's either the "everybody's a winner and gets a trophy" BS or the instant gratification/McDonalds culture at work here. Doesn't anyone want to work for anything any more? There's a disturbing trend amongst fans that thinks you can just wave some magic wand and GT will go 14-0 from that point on. Amazing.
 
OldJacketFan

OldJacketFan

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,348
Location
Nashville, TN
LibertyTurns said:
Can someone explain to me why a lot of GT fans have a huge case of Stanford ***** Envy? Stanford's program is nearly identical to GT's, a mostly academic oriented school that plays in a major conference with a number of football factories. Stanford has Pop Warner, GT has John Heisman plus Bobby Dodd. I've seen both up close- Stanford twice. Outside of Stanford's recent success they haven't been a good team since before I was born, outside of a couple of years here and there and the 1990 Nat'l Champ season so has GT.

Frankly I think it's either the "everybody's a winner and gets a trophy" BS or the instant gratification/McDonalds culture at work here. Doesn't anyone want to work for anything any more? There's a disturbing trend amongst fans that thinks you can just wave some magic wand and GT will go 14-0 from that point on. Amazing.
Click to expand...

Thank you! Stanford is a flash in the pan compared over time with Tech from a football standpoint. I get so tired of reading how "successful" Stanford is. Yes for the last 5-6 years they're having a good run but remember, USC has not been USC and UCLA has been way down. Neither of those situations are going to last forever. So let's see just how successful is when USC and UCLA get back to their normal standards.
 
OldJacketFan

OldJacketFan

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,348
Location
Nashville, TN
Oh and just for chits and grins. Here are the records of Tech versus it's most common comparison schools from 2000-2012 (haven't updated it for '13 yet).

Tech 102-67
Notre Dame 98-63
Northwestern 84-77
Stanford 82-74
Vanderbilt 51-104
 
ybeenormal

ybeenormal

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
426
With all due respect, I would love for tech to be"successful" for 5 or 6 years in a row regardless of who's team was struggling
 
OldJacketFan

OldJacketFan

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,348
Location
Nashville, TN
ybeenormal said:
With all due respect, I would love for tech to be"successful" for 5 or 6 years in a row regardless of who's team was struggling
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, I'm just tired of reading the be all and end all that is Stanford. The whole instant gratification thing is just so alien to me. I've worked hard all my life and didn't expect to be successful 4 years out of school. What's worth having is worth working for. Long term success is based on long term perseverance.
 

Rodney Kent

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
558
Location
McDonough, GA
I don't think you could find anyone who would try to discredit the fact that it is harder to recruit at Tech because of the entrance requirements. However, I still think a good coach will attract the better athletes that we miss out on presently. Am I to believe that we did not offer scholarships to any 4's and 5's that had the qualifications to attend Tech. I don't believe this. I think the 4's and 5's that we offered chose another school because they did not want to attend a school that is not a winner. Some of them (backs, receivers, and quarterbacks) did not want to play in the style of offense we use as it does not amplifiy their talents. Why would a good receiver want to come to Tech to be a blocker? Why would big, good, fast back want to come to a system where he has to only bang his head up the middle on every play. Why would a good, fast back want to play as an A-back who gets to run the ball only on occasion? Why would a good quarterback want to come to Tech if he is interested in playing in the pros when we don't pass much? There are more reasons we don't get the 4's and 5's than the limits on entrance.
 
OldJacketFan

OldJacketFan

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,348
Location
Nashville, TN
Hmmm why would a WR come to Tech? Let's see single coverage 90% of the time, knowing how block from the WR position is a prerequisite plus being highly valued by NFL coaches/GMs and did I mention single coverage/explosive plays? Why would a back come to Tech to play B Back? Could it be the every time you carry the ball you have a chance to take it to the house if you beat one player at the 2nd level? Or could it be the ability to gain huge yardage on fewer carries than a pro set style back? Why would a back come to Tech to be an A back? Could it be to get touches both as a ball carrier and a receiver or could it be to learn how to block from a back set as well as a down field receiver? Or perhaps to showcase your skills even if you don't have the "ideal" size? And one last note as the NFL evolves more to a spread option attacks a true dual threat QB will be sought after more and more so if you have the talent as a QB there is no reason not to consider Tech.
 

Mack

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,361
OldJacketFan said:
Hmmm why would a WR come to Tech? Let's see single coverage 90% of the time, knowing how block from the WR position is a prerequisite plus being highly valued by NFL coaches/GMs and did I mention single coverage/explosive plays? Why would a back come to Tech to play B Back? Could it be the every time you carry the ball you have a chance to take it to the house if you beat one player at the 2nd level? Or could it be the ability to gain huge yardage on fewer carries than a pro set style back? Why would a back come to Tech to be an A back? Could it be to get touches both as a ball carrier and a receiver or could it be to learn how to block from a back set as well as a down field receiver? Or perhaps to showcase your skills even if you don't have the "ideal" size? And one last note as the NFL evolves more to a spread option attacks a true dual threat QB will be sought after more and more so if you have the talent as a QB there is no reason not to consider Tech.
Click to expand...
 

Mack

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,361
WELL lets see...if you want to catch the ball who is going to throw it to you? If you are going to throw as a Qb how many times will you run the pitch and option and go head to head with Big Hubbard.yes you may convince them of the strengths od running etc but when you look at this offense and you have never ran this scheme you really will have to be sold on it when you compare it to other schemes. I think we don't have the folks to run this offense and until we do get ready of more of the same.
 
OldJacketFan

OldJacketFan

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,348
Location
Nashville, TN
Mack said:
WELL lets see...if you want to catch the ball who is going to throw it to you? If you are going to throw as a Qb how many times will you run the pitch and option and go head to head with Big Hubbard.yes you may convince them of the strengths od running etc but when you look at this offense and you have never ran this scheme you really will have to be sold on it when you compare it to other schemes. I think we don't have the folks to run this offense and until we do get ready of more of the same.
Click to expand...

Mack, I see what you're saying and it seems as if you're addressing the players on the team presently. We've seen what a top quality B back and WR can do in this offense and, with Godhigh's performance this year, the potential for what a top quality A back would be able to do. Even, at times, what a quality QB can do. I just don't feel it's too much of a stretch to think that 4* and, perhaps, 5* skill position players would not be interested in playing in this offense. Getting 4* and 5* players to commit goes beyond the offensive scheme, it's a combination of many factors and, sometimes, it's just a simple as a mother's wishes :)
 
Top