The FBS and the big problem in the future

[MWBATL]

If we hadn't been asked to join the ACC, we most likely would have gone Ivy League level in athletics. The facilities in the 70's were beyond non-competitive. The outdoor weight room under the north stands being the most egregious. When you see a Duke fan today give them a beer and say thank you for taking us in Without them and UNC making an investment in GT athletics we would have been trying to join the Ivys.

One interesting dynamic that goes to Vespid's comment is that every Ivy school plus MIT and even Cal Tech have bigger endowments than GT. That is at least one level of alumni involvement. I won't claim that doing away with D1 athletics would increase the endowment but it does show that in some situations they are not linked. Certainly the older culture of GT was linked to Bobby Dodd's FB team. It came and went over the years with the success or not success of the team. And I sure enjoy having the FB team. But a legit question would be whether the students coming in over the last 10 years through today really care. Are they more like Cal Tech and MIT than they are Alabama? I don't know and won't claim to know the answer. But I do think as the SAT and academic focus of the students goes way up - and more students come from outside GA and leave GA - it becomes a relevant question.

In the interim I just want us to beat Duke today

As someone with a GT degree and an Ivy League degree, as well as being involved in the Admissions process (as an interviewer) for an Ivy League school, I can attest to the fact that YlJacket is correct. In fact we are directed by the Admissions Office on how to handle student athletes who wish to apply to the college (and it involves having them contact the coaches directly, not going through us). To be fair, we ar not talking about SEC admissions standards, but we are also definitely talking about exceptions to the "normal" admissions process. At a school that accepts only 7% of those applying, and where SAT score averages are close to perfect, most athletes would have trouble getting admitted without some help. Tommy Amaker (formerly of Duke) isn't coaching at Harvard because he can't get decent players in...he can and he succeeds at that level. (And no one argues that it "cheapens" their degrees, btw.)

 

[Vespidae]

Btw, have any of you worked with or known any grads from MIT or Caltech? I

In my entire 34 year career, I met one MIT grad. He joined the Navy and worked for me as a project manager.

 

[Old South Stands]

In my entire 34 year career, I met one MIT grad. He joined the Navy and worked for me as a project manager.

Met only one MIT grad that I'm aware of, and he was a Tech student who went on to get his Masters at MIT. Did his undergraduate in mechanical engineering at Tech in just three years, then returned to Tech after MIT to get his Ph.D. Amazingly smart guy.

 

[YlJacket]

As someone with a GT degree and an Ivy League degree, as well as being involved in the Admissions process (as an interviewer) for an Ivy League school, I can attest to the fact that YlJacket is correct. In fact we are directed by the Admissions Office on how to handle student athletes who wish to apply to the college (and it involves having them contact the coaches directly, not going through us). To be fair, we ar not talking about SEC admissions standards, but we are also definitely talking about exceptions to the "normal" admissions process. At a school that accepts only 7% of those applying, and where SAT score averages are close to perfect, most athletes would have trouble getting admitted without some help. Tommy Amaker (formerly of Duke) isn't coaching at Harvard because he can't get decent players in...he can and he succeeds at that level. (And no one argues that it "cheapens" their degrees, btw.)

We were at Cornell and the admissions lady starts out her spiel saying they routinely turn down applications with 1600 SATs and then asked us why we thought my daughter could get into Cornell. When I said my 6'3" daughter was referred to her by the VB coach the whole discussion changed and she said hey you're in. No problem. What can I tell you about Cornell now.

 

[4shotB]

We were at Cornell and the admissions lady starts out her spiel saying they routinely turn down applications with 1600 SATs and then asked us why we thought my daughter could get into Cornell. When I said my 6'3" daughter was referred to her by the VB coach the whole discussion changed and she said hey you're in. No problem. What can I tell you about Cornell now.

Not saying that your daughter wouldn't have gotten in otherwise, but this is one reason I don't like the whole "our school cheats less than your school" debates that pop up. Every school accepts athletes that would not otherwise got admitted. So imo Bama, USC, Idaho and Cornell really aren't that much different at the end of the day. The "degrees of virginity" or "degrees of pregnancy" discussions are worthless imo. (Not that I am opposed to making exceptions. It opens doors for athletes that would otherwise be closed AND can be a wise investment on the part of the school as discussed earlier in this thread.)

 

[RLR]

On this, see:

http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/18/13320664/bill-belichick-patriots-microsoft-surface-tablet-nfl

Belichick's - shall we say - forceful rejection of using the MS Surface platform should make us all a bit apprehensive about some of this part of your post. I don't think computer tech is at all up to the challenges of an event as complex as a college football game. Oth, I'd love to see a match-up between Coach and Big Blue (it can coach Ugag).

I've heard firsthand stories from people on the NFL's rule committee re: Mike Tomlin's relationship with tablets. Word to the wise: don't make Mike Tomlin angry or you will be broken. Long story short, the NFL rules committee no longer requires its members to use tablets.

On the other hand, I'm not talking about about tablets. I'm 99% sure the technology exists to implement AI play-calling. I'm 90% sure that after enough development and tuning, AI would be a more successful play caller than any NFL coach.

I guess it comes down to motivation. There's almost no market for this technology to be developed. It would have to be a strategic marketing decision between IBM and GT. Lastly, I'm not sure what the cost savings would be. Maybe 1-2 million a year? Is that even a significant number for our AA budget? . . . but, in a dream world where fiscal practicality didn't matter, how awesome would it be if GT was coached by a supercomputer that was far superior to every other coach? it's one thing to fear chop blocks. but proprietary algorithms are scarier than trying to steal Shamire's lunch money on pizza day.

 

[Old South Stands]

I've heard firsthand stories from people on the NFL's rule committee re: Mike Tomlin's relationship with tablets. Word to the wise: don't make Mike Tomlin angry or you will be broken. Long story short, the NFL rules committee no longer requires its members to use tablets.

On the other hand, I'm not talking about about tablets. I'm 99% sure the technology exists to implement AI play-calling. I'm 90% sure that after enough development and tuning, AI would be a more successful play caller than any NFL coach.

I guess it comes down to motivation. There's almost no market for this technology to be developed. It would have to be a strategic marketing decision between IBM and GT. Lastly, I'm not sure what the cost savings would be. Maybe 1-2 million a year? Is that even a significant number for our AA budget? . . . but, in a dream world where fiscal practicality didn't matter, how awesome would it be if GT was coached by a supercomputer that was far superior to every other coach? it's one thing to fear chop blocks. but proprietary algorithms are scarier than trying to steal Shamire's lunch money on pizza day.

Re: being coached by a supercomputer... Wouldn't be awesome at all... I wouldn't want to watch two teams coached by computers playing each other any more than two computers playing each other at chess. Part of what makes the game exciting (and infuriating at times) is the human element. Witness today's game as case in point in infuriating! But even if the computer makes the 'right' call, if the play doesn't work out, the fans will still say it is the wrong play and the computer messed up... Unless we've grown so trusting of technology that we no longer question it anymore, as may be the case given the growing acceptance of a future with driverless cars! Technology is okay as a tool, but when it controls us to the point we've become its servant and can't think or create without it, then what good is it? Of all the technological advances humanity has made over the years, AI has the potential of being the most dangerous and insidious. Ultimately, it will destroy our ability to think, making us easier to manipulate.

Many question the veracity of the moon landings precisely for that very reason. Most of the original technicians at Mission Control had nothing beyond a bachelor's degree, but were very intelligent combined with a lot of common sense (critical thinking skills). The guy most credited with saving the Apollo 13 mission was planning to be a cattle rancher before sending in his resume to NASA. It's difficult for many of today's youth to imagine technological breakthroughs occurring without the use of smart technology.

 

[RLR]

Re: being coached by a supercomputer... Wouldn't be awesome at all... I wouldn't want to watch two teams coached by computers playing each other any more than two computers playing each other at chess. Part of what makes the game exciting (and infuriating at times) is the human element. Witness today's game as case in point in infuriating! But even if the computer makes the 'right' call, if the play doesn't work out, the fans will still say it is the wrong play and the computer messed up... Unless we've grown so trusting of technology that we no longer question it anymore, as may be the case given the growing acceptance of a future with driverless cars! Technology is okay as a tool, but when it controls us to the point we've become its servant and can't think or create without it, then what good is it? Of all the technological advances humanity has made over the years, AI has the potential of being the most dangerous and insidious. Ultimately, it will destroy our ability to think, making us easier to manipulate.

Many question the veracity of the moon landings precisely for that very reason. Most of the original technicians at Mission Control had nothing beyond a bachelor's degree, but were very intelligent combined with a lot of common sense (critical thinking skills). The guy most credited with saving the Apollo 13 mission was planning to be a cattle rancher before sending in his resume to NASA. It's difficult for many of today's youth to imagine technological breakthroughs occurring without the use of smart technology.

Don't mean to derail this thread. @Mods I'll try to limit my tangent convo but please remove if in the best interest of the board.

I think this is an interesting topic though & surely people on the board have valuable insight. I'm not saying AI should replace coaching. I'm just saying, if play calling is a function of choosing the play with the highest probability of success (in 10 - 15 seconds) in a highly emotional environment, a computer is probably superior to a human - or at least has certain advantages that could make it better than human play calling. there's obviously still the need for positional coaching to get players to execute correctly. And you'd need very bright people working between the players/coaches and programmers to ensure the algorithm is considering the correct factors, making adjustments, etc.

I don't think it's being submissive to technology or blindly following the bots into oblivion. . . it's just big data, gaining otherwise unobservable insights into systemic efficiencies, right? Going back to the Chess game analogy, if you were playing a really good chess player coached by the Saban of chess, wouldn't you want a computer showing you the optimal move (or at least win probabilities on each move)? You could still form your own strategy within the insight. Now assume you could obtain that computer system cheaper than you could obtain a guru capable of "out-chessing" Saban. . .that's what I'm getting at.

If (big if) AI was better than a coach at play-calling, we'd still should look at the salary of the offensive coordinator & defensive coordinator relative to entire support staff. If coordinators are paid disproportionately for their play calling ability, but AI could perform that function better / more efficiently, why not reallocate that money to subsidize getting out of the russel contract,hiring better positional coaches, hiring better recruiters, upgrading facilities, increasing recruiting spend, etc?

Also, this entire crazy, unrealistic idea posted in a GT message board was conceived with GT's academics in mind. If some IEs and CS guys/gals tell me I'm wrong b/c of this or that, I'm happy to drop it. But, in theory, if play calling is a strategic pursuit, GT's IE and CS community should be able to pwn the likes of Dabo Sweeney and Mark Richt & his staff of holy crusaders. i mean, if we're going to be the nerd school & play games, mine as well hack them, right?