So who leaves? Attrition.

[bobongo]

Yeah, I read that wrong. So what was your point?

Sigh. Read up the board, please, and see what I was responding to.

 

[thebull35]

This entire thread is a microcosm of why Tech struggles to get the sidewalk fans here in metro Atlanta. Too many people have to show that they are the smartest person in the room and are the elitist of the elite. It’s just sad.

 

[bobongo]

This entire thread is a microcosm of why Tech struggles to get the sidewalk fans here in metro Atlanta. Too many people have to show that they are the smartest person in the room and are the elitist of the elite. It’s just sad.

Mmm, and I'll bet they're always people you disagree with. That's where my money is.

 

[MidtownJacket]

Oh boy, so this is an interesting discussion from a philosophical position, so let me try to respond in detail back to the posters referenced below. For one thing, I am NOT anti CGC or his new staff. I am a GT Fan, and want the Institute to act in a responsible fashion to maximize outcomes in everything we do. Academics, Athletics, Community Service, Research, Marketing the list goes on. I continue to dontate (as I have since Freshman year), wear GT stuff 80% of the time and am an ambassador for the program in both my personal and professional life. I buy the hype and am excited about the direction Geoff is charting for us.

I also think there is a larger mission in College Athletics than winning games. I don't think it is naive or sanctimonious or foolhardy to want to be more than just an athletic factory. I also believe fairly deeply in the responsibility we all have to better ourselves, our families and our communities. I happen to believe the mission of GT aligns well with that thought. As such I have responded briefly below to try to continue this conversation in a thoughtful and respectful way. There isn't a scoreboard here and I am truly interested in understanding your perspectives as well as sharing my own. I appreciate that we can have conversations that aren't about winning or being right but are instead about growth and understanding how the larger body of fans and alumni prioritize and value the different parts of Ga Tech.
----

So if a kid gets and academic or community scholarship and fails to make the grade or time commitment should the scholarships be picked up and honored, just cause they tried?

Again, pulling a scholarship is not depriving them the opportunity to get an education. They are still enrolled in school, and still have the chance to get a degree.

No. This is implicitly different. If we start with the base assumption that the kids who come to play athletics at Ga Tech come from a disproportionately lower income bracket than the traditional student at GT then we can't make the assumption made by lv20gt above. We sell hard on the message that coming to GT offers a chance to earn an education from an elite school. We often go into areas to recruit a student who requires financial and academic assistance to finish a degree here. There is real good in that, exploitative as it may be, and I believe in the idea of progress and service. Sport is a way for people to pull themselves up and reach beyond the means of their communities and families to improve themselves. This is an important mission of public schools and I can not say enough about the necessity of this process.

I am 100% onboard with saying the kids aren't guaranteed playing time, in fact I think it is morally incumbent upon the staff to be transparent with kids about where they project. However, I have made the argument before and continue to feel this way, that the players are not employees and should not view college athletics as a proxy for minor league teams. If I make that argument, then I believe the logic follows that we should be committed to giving them a 4 year ride with access to the tutoring and study hall promised when they sign on with us for as long as they remain in good standing with the team. In some ways the medicals other programs give are to me (in the most equitable sense) more appropriate than a choice to not renew a one year scholarship.

That isn't how you treat people, as expendable assets. Some people do manage and behave that way but I find it lacking in taste and foresight and do not want to associate with that approach.
----

When did any of these coaches sit in any of these players living rooms?

So you're talking future hypotheticals? Gat dang off season!!

The coaches didn't, but the representatives of the Institute did, which trumps coaching. This is the Georgia Institute of Technology and sports exist at the pleasure of and directly for the positive contribution to the school's mission.
----

Scholarships are earned. Once you earn it, you have to work to keep it. That’s across the board. Nothing is pulled.

Agreed, but I think most people would say that if a kid gets hurt while playing for us, we should give them a medical and allow them to continue their education here. To me it is no different. We had a dramatic scheme change on O and have literally played hot potato with D Schemes the last 6 years. If a kid was recruited to do something no longer valued by this staff that isn't on them. It is on us. I know we are limited to 85 slots, and I value the importance each kid can have on the program, but I believe we need to find a way to free that slot up while continuing to honor the commitment we made for them to get their education if we want that to be a part of our brand and definition. I think it is vitally important that it remain a part of who we are in our, as AD TStan says, DNA.
-------------------------------------------------

I know I don't speak as a representative for anyone other than myself, so appreciate you all taking the time to engage with me and share your perspectives, as well as help me check my own and see how I feel about these elements.

Mods, sorry if I clogged up the thread by injecting this conversation into the question of who is leaving, but I saw it as part and parcel to that topic.

 

[awbuzz]

Then what are they doing to earn the scholarship?

Do people really think just staying eligible and giving 100% at practice warrants a full ride?

Yes

 

[awbuzz]

So it's about the only thing where you get money for nothing.

Wrong.

Even if they are only being practice squad fodder, they are participating and honoring their side of the agreement.

Sometimes coaches offer scholarships to people they probably shouldn't have as a reach, hoping that somebody was going to become a diamond.

That's why I'm frustrated anytime people moan about us having an open scholarship or two. Giving the scholarship to anybody long as they're a warm body that breathes and takes a spot is not smart.

 

[bobongo]

Wrong.

Even if they are only being practice squad fodder, they are participating and honoring their side of the agreement.

Sometimes coaches offer scholarships to people they probably shouldn't have as a reach, hoping that somebody was going to become a diamond.

That's why I'm frustrated anytime people moan about us having an open scholarship or two. Giving the scholarship to anybody long as they're a warm body that breathes and takes a spot is not smart.

Folks talking about pulling scholarships conjures up the spectacle of a coach going into a living room thinking, "I'll take a chance on this project. If he turns to toast, I'll just yank his scholarship, anyway."

But of course keeping the latter part under his hat. A sad spectacle, indeed.

 

[ATL1]

There are academic standards for keeping any and all scholarships.

If a kid wants to stay in school they can. If they qualify they can apply for other scholarships. No one is getting forced to leave. If they want to stay on the team, they can be a walk on. Maybe they and try to earn back a scholarship.

 

[bobongo]

If a kid wants to stay in school they can. If they qualify they can apply for other scholarships. No one is getting forced to leave. If they want to stay on the team, they can be a walk on. Maybe they and try to earn back a scholarship.

I see your point, although I would add that scholarships large enough to make much of a dent are mostly reserved for academic achievers. Average students, which is what most players are, don't get the good scholarships - pretty small potatoes and nothing like a full ride. And ironically, loans are a lot easier to pay off for those who need them least. But I do see you point that for most it would not be the end of their education. For most. Still think it's wrong, though.

 

[MidtownJacket]

If a kid wants to stay in school they can. If they qualify they can apply for other scholarships. No one is getting forced to leave. If they want to stay on the team, they can be a walk on. Maybe they and try to earn back a scholarship.

That is an option, but I hope we don't handle things that way. The football program is a huge money maker at the D1 level, so I believe we should provide the opportunity to get a degree to kids who enroll and stay in good standing academically.

 

[bikeseat]

How I see this is that people either a) were oblivious to the fact that processing happened with Paul or B) have been using this idea that we are "better" than other programs as a way to feel better about subpar results.

This idea that we are somehow morally superior to UGA by not trimming our roster (which we did even when you did not notice) is hilarious. GT football is not a welfare system to give kids degrees when they don't do well on the field. No SA going into college thinks this way.

If you think that GT owes players a degree, the line for your free 'Obamaphone' is that way

 

[bos]

Probably another one to keep an eye on. Former 2* LB recruit with offers from Air Force, Elon, and Illinois State. He'll be a RS Jr and has only appeared in 2 games.

Correct, but he may only have a semester or so left anyway, so might stick around just for the degree.

 

[zyang31]

No. This is implicitly different. If we start with the base assumption that the kids who come to play athletics at Ga Tech come from a disproportionately lower income bracket than the traditional student at GT then we can't make the assumption made by lv20gt above. We sell hard on the message that coming to GT offers a chance to earn an education from an elite school. We often go into areas to recruit a student who requires financial and academic assistance to finish a degree here. There is real good in that, exploitative as it may be, and I believe in the idea of progress and service. Sport is a way for people to pull themselves up and reach beyond the means of their communities and families to improve themselves. This is an important mission of public schools and I can not say enough about the necessity of this process.

I am 100% onboard with saying the kids aren't guaranteed playing time, in fact I think it is morally incumbent upon the staff to be transparent with kids about where they project. However, I have made the argument before and continue to feel this way, that the players are not employees and should not view college athletics as a proxy for minor league teams. If I make that argument, then I believe the logic follows that we should be committed to giving them a 4 year ride with access to the tutoring and study hall promised when they sign on with us for as long as they remain in good standing with the team. In some ways the medicals other programs give are to me (in the most equitable sense) more appropriate than a choice to not renew a one year scholarship.

Why is it any different? If a kid from a lower income area goes to Tech on an academic scholarship, then performs poorly academically, should they keep it purely because of their origins? There are literally tens of thousands of kids across the country who are putting themselves into indentured servitude with student loans, but these kids are different because they happen to play a sport? What about kids from impoverished areas who can't play a sport?

If you're so interested in doing right by these kids, vote for a politician whose platform is tax funded universal education.... Oh right, that'd be expensive and would require actual sacrifice instead of moral grandstanding on an internet message board.

That isn't how you treat people, as expendable assets. Some people do manage and behave that way but I find it lacking in taste and foresight and do not want to associate with that approach.

Equality of opportunity, not outcome. They're still free to attend school, either through student loans or through getting a job, you know like how literally tens of thousands of students have to as well.

 

[GoGATech]

"You are academically gifted. We award you this scholarship based on your academics."
"Sorry, your academics were not as good as we'd hoped, we must revoke your scholarship."

"You are athletically gifted. We award you this scholarship based on your athletic ability."
"Sorry, your athletics were not as good as we'd hoped, but you get to keep your scholarship."


See the difference?

 

[Dustman]

Same with football. The coaches tell you where you need to be and when and if not you lose the scholarship.

Question for @Ibeeballin : was that clear to you when you signed your LOI? If so, then I don't see how anyone can have a problem with any of this.

For those making the analogy of keeping an academic scholarship with poor classroom performance, that's silly. I got that freshman orientation speech of look to your left and look to your right. We all knew what we signed up for.

 

[zyang31]

Question for @Ibeeballin : was that clear to you when you signed your LOI? If so, then I don't see how anyone can have a problem with any of this.

For those making the analogy of keeping an academic scholarship with poor classroom performance, that's silly. I got that freshman orientation speech of look to your left and look to your right. We all knew what we signed up for.

Why is it silly? The train of thought seems to be regular students who don't perform... well tough, but athletes need to be coddled.

As long as these athletes also realize what it is they're signing up for, like you mentioned, I don't see the issue. If they don't realize the risks, then that failing falls on their parents and academic counselors, which is unfortunate but that's life.

 

[Animal02]

"You are academically gifted. We award you this scholarship based on your academics."
"Sorry, your academics were not as good as we'd hoped, we must revoke your scholarship."

"You are athletically gifted. We award you this scholarship based on your athletic ability."
"Sorry, your athletics were not as good as we'd hoped, but you get to keep your scholarship."


See the difference?

Worthless analogy.....the P5 spefically prohibits pulling a scholly because of athletic performance.

 

[jojatk]

Interesting to me to see how doing things the "right way", once considered a proud part of being a Tech fan, is now considered by so many to be "childish and naïve".

I don't know how much was fact or fantasy in that ideal we once held, but I miss it just the same. I hope our actual practice is more in keeping with the ideal than not.
The actual pulling of scholarships is a practice that should be off the table.

I think what’s being said is that Tech hasn’t been doing things the “right way” but it just hasn’t been as noticeable and it’s naive to believe GT was doing things the “right way.” I am not speaking for myself and not giving an opinion on the whole subject. Just suggesting that this is what I think is meant with respect to naïveté. I could be wrong. And I have no information about how the program has operated. Though I tend to believe the guys who have lived it when they say “this is how things occurred when we were in the program.”

 

[GoGATech]

Worthless analogy.....the P5 spefically prohibits pulling a scholly because of athletic performance.

Ok so the P5 prohibits that but why is it right for one to be different than the other? You get preferential treatment because you are an athlete and not a whiz kid?

 

[B Lifsey]

Question for @Ibeeballin : was that clear to you when you signed your LOI? If so, then I don't see how anyone can have a problem with any of this.

For those making the analogy of keeping an academic scholarship with poor classroom performance, that's silly. I got that freshman orientation speech of look to your left and look to your right. We all knew what we signed up for.

I was just having the same thought...Are SAs presented before signing LOI that renewal of their athletic scholarship depends on certain level of athletic performance as well as academic performance, conduct, etc.? Seems like a fairly easy Yes/No question that the past athletes here should be able to answer.