Can the NCAA really crack down on LOW

[Buzz Bomb]

So you're suggesting losing 35 years in a row to ugag is okay?

OK, that's where I draw the line NC. Losing to UGA is never acceptable. :laugher:

Look with all the discussion on this topic, my point really boils down to this. I really do want to see our SAs succeed and graduate in the end. The reason is really simple, i.e., 99% of them will never make it to the pros and they will have to settle-in to the real life mode, just like you and I have. Statistically, they would appear to me to have a higher probability of graduating with a meaningful degree if they have the academic horsepower and credentials going into Tech to begin with. It does not make me feel good to see an SA fail academically at any point in his/her tenure at Tech.

I won't quibble with your assessment on SAT cutoff standards. My personal opinion still remains that we (in our own right) are as good as any Duke or Stanford from an academic perspective. I personally had this discussion last semester with a Stanford undergrad that came to Tech for a grad degree. He basically told me that he saw zero differences between the two schools with respect to the Mechanical Engineering program that he was in.

Having said that, and with all that Tech has to offer an SA, I just cannot understand why we cannot recruit some of these bright SAs right out from under Duke, Stanford, Vandy, etc. to populate our sports rosters.

And Florida, I remember well the look to the left - look to the right scenario. The annual Freshman attrition rate when I was in grad school (back in the days of the Crecine reign) vascilated in the 42-44% range.

 

[gth816f]

Having said that, and with all that Tech has to offer an SA, I just cannot understand why we cannot recruit some of these bright SAs right out from under Duke, Stanford, Vandy, etc. to populate our sports rosters.

Duke, Stanford, and Vandy all have awful football teams. Stanford and Vandy have basketball teams comparable to ours, except with worse high school recruits. Duke gets better basketball players than us because they got one of the best coaches in basketball and SAs have a reason to go there other than the academics.

Point is, we more than likely *could* get those bright SAs...and we would lose horribly every year. We don't get them because we don't want them. Sure we might be able to do what Navy did...but playing in a second-rate bowl against BC was a great season for them, and I personally want more than that(and I think a lot of other people do too).

 

[ncjacket]

Excellent response ght816f

Buzz Bomb, you evidently haven't been paying much attention to college football over the past 10 years. We don't want to recruit guys out from under Duke, Stanford and Vandy because then we would suck as well.

One thing I really don't get is that you seem to believe we recruit players who can't graduate from Tech. It's easy to say that we don't have a 100% graduation rate so we must be doing something wrong, but the fact is we don't graduate 100% of National Merit Scholars either. Every one of the kids we recruit for sports is assessed and is considered to have a good chance of doing well if he/she applies themselves. Some don't put the effort in, and some just can't do it. But we aren't recruiting kids with no chance.

 

[GT1992]

I think you should leave Stanford out of the Duke/Vandy category. They have had football success in the recent past. They are on their way back. Judging Stanford post Willingham would be very similiar to judging GT in 1995 or 1985. They haven't consistently been on the Duke/Vandy level.

 

[floridajacket]

I forget the exact numbers or players, but many Duke BB players have shockingly low SAT scores. Many major in sociology, which I heard only takes around 90 hours to graduate. To be blunt, people associate educational achievement with the Duke basketball team because of the disproportionate number of white players.

Academics does not make their football team suck. Their football team sucks generally because the yankees from Jersey don't give a crap about college football. They have crappy attendance in a crappy stadium with crappy records and train in crappy facilities. They depend on away attendance to meet DI-A standards, with VPI almost single-handedly putting them over the minimum last year.

At this point, education is the only reason for kids wanting to go there. Some big-time donors, such as the Atlanta real estate guys and GT in the early 80s, are going to have to pay big for facilities and coaching in order to get Duke to a respectable level.

 

[aeromech]

I think you should leave Stanford out of the Duke/Vandy category. They have had football success in the recent past. They are on their way back. Judging Stanford post Willingham would be very similiar to judging GT in 1995 or 1985. They haven't consistently been on the Duke/Vandy level.

True, Stanford football has definitely been better than Duke, and usually Vanderbilt (although Vandy has had some moderate success recently); but I don't think the level of football at Stanford is something GT aspires to, and I think that was the original point.

As a follow on question. What if we stopped giving SA's special attention, and made them qualify like any other student; and then flunked out 40+% of them like we do the other students? How long before GT wouldn't attract any players good or bad?

 

[Buzz Bomb]

and then flunked out 40+% of them like we do the other students?

Is it really true that the School of Management flunks out 40+% of our SAs? Expecially with all that tutoring help that the SAs are eligible to receive. I could certainly see that being a true statement in the Science or Engineering side of the house but not a lot of football players go through those curriculums.

 

[ncjacket]

No, 40% of SAs don't flunk out. Some don't finish school, but that's not the same thing. They transfer in most cases to other schools. Some of that is academics, but much of it is wanting more playing time, etc.

 

[aeromech]

Is it really true that the School of Management flunks out 40+% of our SAs? Expecially with all that tutoring help that the SAs are eligible to receive. I could certainly see that being a true statement in the Science or Engineering side of the house but not a lot of football players go through those curriculums.

So you want to recruit SA who have unquestionable academic credentials; but primarily only qualify for the Management School, and you also want to give them special help with tutors. I think I now understand your argument; but I still don't think it is very realistic. I think one primary thing we do agree on is that we want to see all/most student athletes graduate with a meaningful degree, we differ on the path to that degree.

 

[gtyellowjackets]

Here's my take on the SA thing. I played 3-4 hours of tennis per day after school through high school. Because of that I became one of the best junior tennis players in the country. Schools like U of Fla, Vandy, and GT recruited me. And I didn't consider numerous other ACC and SEC schools that I could have played at if I had shown interest.

There is no question that the time I put towards tennis took away from the time I put towards studying. I am guessing that it took a full point away from my gpa.

So I wouldn't have gotten in GT by today's standards as a student alone. But I am now a CPA and have an MBA from Emory so clearly I was qualified as an undergraduate student for GT.

It is not easy trying to hold high school SA's to the same academic qualifications as a non SA...