Are we better off?

I think some of you don't understand the role that a down ACC has in recruiting. We are in the middle of SEC territory and in an inferior conference. That alone eliminates the vast majority of top recruits even if they are academically inclined. They see the NFL and the path is easier through Bama or Georgia whose highlights are on Sports Center every half hour. The only ACC game that they even mentioned was FSU/Duke. Our conference sucks and half of a dozen SEC teams recruit Georgia heavilly, therefore, we're scraping for what's left over with the likes of Ole Miss, Kentucky, and Vandy. That's why we need to open up our sights. Could we have gotten a Ben Roethlesberger?
 
BarrelORum said:
I must have missed that. Let's be clear. There's nothing legit about that question. What can our coach do in the offseason to fix our problems and improve our team.... Legit question. Should we keep Charles Kelly as our DC.... Legit question.

Digging up the past that has no ----ing relevance whatsoever to a pertinent discussion..... NOT a legit question. In fact it's retarded.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I thought we could discuss different topics because... Oh yea, this is a message board. Or just topics you want to discuss? Sorry you got offended by this. Fact of the matter is we are 3-5 this year and Chan never had a team that was as bad as this year and the 2010 team. But you're right, how are we going to fix this is a legit question. Our offense hasn't been able to move the ball against a good defense in 3 years, we suck on the o line and have running backs that are average. Our defense is the worst it has been in his 5 years at the helm. Our special teams is an absolute joke. Our recruiting is average at best. We are in year 5 and everything is trending downward. So yes, that is a legit question and PJ has a lot of work to do.
 
ESPN recruiting rankings...

class of 2013 3 ACC teams in top 15
class of 2012 3 ACC teams in top 15 (FSU at #2)
class of 2011 2 ACC teams in top 15 (FSU at #1)
class of 2010 2 ACC teams in top 15
class of 2009 3 ACC teams in top 15
class of 2008 4 ACC teams in top 15 (Miami #1, Clemson #2)
class of 2007 4 ACC teams in top 15 (Georgia Tech #14)

typically Miami, FSU and Clemson will be ranked. sometimes UNC or VT
 
JacketForLife said:
Which was who?
Click to expand...

How about every linebacker in that entire class. Missed on all of them. Every running back and we too.

We got serviceable years out of Rashad Reid. One year out of Cooper Taylor. Uzzi was the only real stud. The rest aren't or weren't good players.Phil Smith left early. He was solid.
 
BuzzCzar said:
ESPN recruiting rankings...

class of 2013 3 ACC teams in top 15
class of 2012 3 ACC teams in top 15 (FSU at #2)
class of 2011 2 ACC teams in top 15 (FSU at #1)
class of 2010 2 ACC teams in top 15
class of 2009 3 ACC teams in top 15
class of 2008 4 ACC teams in top 15 (Miami #1, Clemson #2)
class of 2007 4 ACC teams in top 15 (Georgia Tech #14)

typically Miami, FSU and Clemson will be ranked. sometimes UNC or VT
Click to expand...

How many SEC teams were in the top 15 those years? I'll bet Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, and LSU were in there most years and 4 of those teams recruit Georgia.
 
GT1992 said:
How many SEC teams were in the top 15 those years? I'll bet Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, and LSU were in there most years and 4 of those teams recruit Georgia.
Click to expand...

2013 7 SEC teams (UF #2) bama, aub, uga, lsu, txam, socar (also recruits georgia)
2012 4 SEC teams (bama #1) uf, uga, lsu
2011 7 teams (bama #2) aub, uga, lsu, uf, tenn (also recruits georgia), socar
2010 6 SEC teams (UF #1) bama, aub, lsu, tenn, uga
2009 6 SEC teams (LSU #1, Bama #2) uf, uga, socar, tenn

etc etc
 
stingem103 said:
but nd has comparable academics and recruiting the great players does nothing to "hurt" the value of their degrees. I know a few tech grads who think lowering academic standards for our sa's will hurt their degrees and water down our academics. I dont get it. I am a tech grad, but i dont believe letting in better players will hurt the value of my degree. You either want to play big boy football or you dont.
Click to expand...

This! This! This! This! This!
 
100% agree with "but nd has comparable academics and recruiting the great players does nothing to "hurt" the value of their degrees."

Notre Dame is ranked #17 and we are #36. Yes, our engineering programs are harder, but come on, our academics are comparable to ND. I had many friends at Tech who did not get admitted to ND.

And ND is not the only quality academic school that does this. Look at all the schools ranked higher than us:

Stanford #6
Duke #8 (basketball admits)
Notre Dame #17
Georgetown #21 (allen iverson)
UC Berkeley #21
USC #24
UCLA #24
Michigan #29
UNC #31

and close behind:
Wisconsin #41
Miami #44
Texas #46

I'd argue that Miami athletics is the only program that comes close to lessening their degrees.
 
SGA_Jacket said:
I've already explained why it's a legit question. No reason to explain again. You're as stubborn as our coach.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a legit question at all. Gailey is not here. I think you gain nothing from even asking this question.
 
Geori said:
100% agree with "but nd has comparable academics and recruiting the great players does nothing to "hurt" the value of their degrees."

Notre Dame is ranked #17 and we are #36. Yes, our engineering programs are harder, but come on, our academics are comparable to ND. I had many friends at Tech who did not get admitted to ND.

And ND is not the only quality academic school that does this. Look at all the schools ranked higher than us:

Stanford #6
Duke #8 (basketball admits)
Notre Dame #17
Georgetown #21 (allen iverson)
UC Berkeley #21
USC #24
UCLA #24
Michigan #29
UNC #31

and close behind:
Wisconsin #41
Miami #44
Texas #46

I'd argue that Miami athletics is the only program that comes close to lessening their degrees.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of schools that rank well academically as compared to us.

Compare degree offerings, required classes, entry requirements, "stay-in" requirements (for lack of a better phrase), etc. and you'll see there's really no comparison between GT and the schools you list.
 
[FONT=&quot]Compare degree offerings, required classes, entry requirements, "stay-in" requirements (for lack of a better phrase), etc. and you'll see there's really no comparison between GT and the schools you list.

This is what kills me most about tech people. Do you really believe this? For instance, let’s take out west. Are kids in Southern California, Arizona, etc not as good in math/science as those in the GT region? Do high schools out there not teach those subjects as well? Because I would estimate that people out west go into science/math at approximately the same rate as those in the south. Also, for the sake of argument let’s say that their students are about the same caliber, I would think you agree with that, statistically speaking. So where do all their bright science / math minds go? Some might come across country to Tech, but here’s a news flash – many of them do choose Stanford, Cal, UCLA, UCI, UCSD, UCSB, and a ton of other schools you don’t know about. My point is that Tech gets rated as such a great engineering school often because that is all it is. That doesn’t mean that other engineering programs and students aren't just as capable. No one at tech likes to hear that, or admit that, but it’s the truth. To think otherwise is absurd. Yes, Tech is one of the better engineering schools in the country, but there are definitely many other solid, challenging programs with an equal quality of student and curriculum. I’m not even going to mention that there are better engineering schools out there than tech (MIT, Cal Tech, etc) - no need to get into that and get you really upset.[/FONT]


 [FONT=&quot]Tech does not have a monopoly on engineering. You should be proud that you went to a great school, but no need to diss other programs that are basically filled with kids that would fit in just fine at tech, who are basically just like you, only separated by geography and the name of the school they went to.
[/FONT]
 
It has nothing to do with quality as a whole of our school vs. Stanford or ND or USC. It's about having a wider base of degree offerings for athletes. Very few football players at Stanford are majoring in engineering.
 
You need to make your font a little larger, I cannot read it...

MTrain said:
[FONT=&quot]Compare degree offerings, required classes, entry requirements, "stay-in" requirements (for lack of a better phrase), etc. and you'll see there's really no comparison between GT and the schools you list.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This is what kills me most about tech people. Do you really believe this? For instance, let’s take out west. Are kids in Southern California, Arizona, etc not as good in math/science as those in the GT region? Do high schools out there not teach those subjects as well? Because I would estimate that people out west go into science/math at approximately the same rate as those in the south. Also, for the sake of argument let’s say that their students are about the same caliber, I would think you agree with that, statistically speaking. So where do all their bright science / math minds go? Some might come across country to Tech, but here’s a news flash – many of them do choose Stanford, Cal, UCLA, UCI, UCSD, UCSB, and a ton of other schools you don’t know about. My point is that Tech gets rated as such a great engineering school often because that is all it is. That doesn’t mean that other engineering programs and students aren't just as capable. No one at tech likes to hear that, or admit that, but it’s the truth. To think otherwise is absurd. Yes, Tech is one of the better engineering schools in the country, but there are definitely many other solid, challenging programs with an equal quality of student and curriculum. I’m not even going to mention that there are better engineering schools out there than tech (MIT, Cal Tech, etc) - no need to get into that and get you really upset.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]Tech does not have a monopoly on engineering. You should be proud that you went to a great school, but no need to diss other programs that are basically filled with kids that would fit in just fine at tech, who are basically just like you, only separated by geography and the name of the school they went to.[/FONT]
Click to expand...
 
MTrain said:
[FONT=&quot]Tech does not have a monopoly on engineering. You should be proud that you went to a great school, but no need to diss other programs that are basically filled with kids that would fit in just fine at tech, who are basically just like you, only separated by geography and the name of the school they went to.
[/FONT]
Click to expand...

I think you misinterpreted that post. The point isn't that there aren't engineering programs out there comparable to or better than Tech; obviously there are. The point is that at Tech that's pretty much all there is. All we have are top notch, difficult majors, which makes it difficult to get and keep football players enrolled.

That also plays into the reputation of the school. When you hire someone from Tech, you know you're getting someone who went through a very difficult program, no matter what they majored in. That's not true of most other schools, which have many non-STEM majors as well as varying admissions standards among the school's different programs.
 
andrew said:
I think you misinterpreted that post. The point isn't that there aren't engineering programs out there comparable to or better than Tech; obviously there are. The point is that at Tech that's pretty much all there is. All we have are top notch, difficult majors, which makes it difficult to get and keep football players enrolled.

That also plays into the reputation of the school. When you hire someone from Tech, you know you're getting someone who went through a very difficult program, no matter what they majored in. That's not true of most other schools, which have many non-STEM majors as well as varying admissions standards among the school's different programs.
Click to expand...


management at tech late 90s was not difficult at all
 
MTrain said:
management at tech late 90s was not difficult at all
Click to expand...

Relative to the majors that football players get to take at other schools it's very difficult, in that it's an actual major. Perhaps an easy major, especially relative to our STEM programs, but an actual major.
 
andrew said:
Relative to the majors that football players get to take at other schools it's very difficult, in that it's an actual major. Perhaps an easy major, especially relative to our STEM programs, but an actual major.
Click to expand...

I would imagine it was even easier for athletes

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top