"Out of top 50 players in Ga, we can only recruit

Don't want kids with an 850 SAT or lower???? Well, I guess we'd have to give back the Final Four trip (Scott & Anderson), the 1990 NC (Shawn Jones & others), the 1998 ACC Co-title (Hamilton & Burns & others).

That's fine if the GTAA decides to go with some high academic standard on SATs, and I'd respect it, but then at least we should be honest with ourselves and join the Ivy League or some other conference, because we ain't gonna beat a whole lot of folks in the ACC or SEC.

Accepting a handful of 700 SATs is not devaluing anyone's degree and if I were a student-athlete at GT, I'd be offended that a fan/alum thought as much.
 
Go back and read my post. I didn't say don't take any, just those we have some reasons to believe can do the work. Several other posters have talked about lowering our standards for SAs, my point is you can't just do that. If you lower the standards for getting them in, then lower the standards for keeping them in, what about the rest of the student body? Once they are in they must do the work required. If there are a few lower SAT score kids who we think can do the work fine.

And as for Joe Ham, D Scott, K Anderson, J Burns,S Jones I have to beg off. Except for J Burns I don't think any flunked out. Are you telling me the other 4 couldn't do the work (not didn't but couldn't)? If so, then I'd say yeah, we never should have let them in school.

BDG, you must not know the same Tech grads I do. I don't know any who aren't embarrassed about our grad rates. Most think we can be like Stanford or ND, not Fresno State or Nevade Las Vegas. You obviously don't care about anything except winning football games no matter what it takes. Your many other posts now make sense to me. You don't care at all about academics or having real student athletes. All you want is the Ws and bowl games.
 
Last I checked 9/50 = 18%. That sounds about right for Tech's standards. Plus, Braine did not say 9 athletes TOTAL, just 9 of the Top 50. If we got just 3 of the top 50 players from 10 states interested in us...I'd say that's a pretty good class, wouldn't you?
 
The Tech grads I know love Tech AND love football. That's WINNING football. You are right about me. I want Tech to win. No cheating, mind you, but winning. I'm tired of some fans who accept excuses and second best efforts.
.
Given the choice of winning a National Championship with marginal SA's or going 6 and 5 every year (with only a slim chance for a UGA upset)...I'll take the NC!!!!
.
.
BOO
 
When mentioning Anderson, Scott, Jones, etc I was refering to their SAT scores. My understanding is that all were under 850, many barely over 700.

Graduation rates are nice, but extremely skewed. If we offered Sports Studies, Recreation Club Management, or Rock & Roll History degrees like some schools, we could greatly increase our grad rates. Sure, I'd prefer our grad rates to be near 100%, but just because some other southeastern schools are graduating 60% or 70%, it does not necessarily mean anything. Some schools practically give SAs degrees just to keep the grad rates high. It's kind of like the Enron "cooking the books" scandal. If grad rates are what the NCAA wants, then alot of schools just say, "well then grad rates is what you'll get". It says nothing of the "quality" of the degree.
 
Ramblin Buzz, that's my point. Tech is different so our SAs will be different. We will never be able to recruit all the players Ga and others can due to our limited curriculum and standards. If our coaches really believe a kid with lower SATs can do the work and is motivated to do it then I'm all for admitting him. I just don't want us taking chances on kids we know can't do it or won't put the effort in. You're going to be wrong on some anyway, no matter the SATs or HS grades. I just don't think we should ask for trouble. And I don't expect us to have grad rates like Duke but I do seem to remember rates in the 80% range when Ross was here.
 
Originally posted by ncjacket:
Ramblin Buzz, that's my point. Tech is different so our SAs will be different. We will never be able to recruit all the players Ga and others can due to our limited curriculum and standards. If our coaches really believe a kid with lower SATs can do the work and is motivated to do it then I'm all for admitting him. I just don't want us taking chances on kids we know can't do it or won't put the effort in. You're going to be wrong on some anyway, no matter the SATs or HS grades. I just don't think we should ask for trouble. And I don't expect us to have grad rates like Duke but I do seem to remember rates in the 80% range when Ross was here.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Why should we expect grad rates for football players in the 80% range when our overall student body's grad rates are around 65%?
 
I just used 80% as an example not as a minimum or anything. But we have done that well in the past. You could argue that SAs are under more scrutiny than the typical student and that we should be able to better assess their ability to do the work. I should mention also that I don't worry about those who go pro or those who transfer like the NCAA does. So what I'm saying I guess is that for those who stay 4+ years we ought to be able to shoot for a pretty high percentage.
 
Originally posted by bobby dodds ghost:
Braine is lying through his teeth to cover for Gailey. No one with ANY common sense would believe that statement.
.
Recruiting is the life blood of every program, and our AA is saying that we are going to attempt to recruit with one arm tied behind our back and not recruit talent-rich Georgia. BS!
.
If we continue down this road for very long, we will be keeping Duke and WF company in the cellar. Clemson,Virginia, UNC, NC State,and Maryland are out-recruiting us now, FSU will continue to own us.
.
.
BOO
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">BDG,
You hit the nail on the head.
 
BeeWare, no one with common sense could possibly believe we are not recruiting the best athletes in Georgia that have the qualifications to attend Tech.

wink.gif
 
ncjacket, if we can only recruit 9 of 50 in Georgia WE are fainling to service the people of this state PAYING FOR OUR SCHOOL. If that means adjusting for the whole student body so be it. We have an obligation to the taxpayers of Georgia, why is that so hard for people to understand. We whould be able to get ANY player in school that ugag can. Sounds as if DB is trying to prepare us for a bad year, I do not know, but it will NEVER be acceptable to me. If we do not want to service the people paying our bills we should become a private school, just like puke u or vandy.
 
Good sir 83jacket, me sound like BW - NOT. How can you argue, however, that our first obligation is not to the people who pay for our school?
 
texstinger I would submit that the number of football players we admit wouldn't be enough to affect the % of total freshmen if ALL were from out of state. Are we supposed to admit a certain percentage from GA in each major? in each school? merit scholars? I don't remember anybody complaining when Bobby C had his New York pipeline running that we didn't have enough GA players. Is it only football that counts?
 
Disagree that we should be able to get every player admitted that the flea bags can. Just because Tech is a state school doesn't mean that it shouldn't be the best that it can be and as selective as it can be. The taxpayers of this state support a whole system, not just GT, and that's for a reason. There are plenty of options for the system to take care of the taxpayers' kids. Can't get in to GT? Have a nice life in Athens. Grades/tests still a problem? Maybe Ga. Southern is for you. Still too much of a strain on the intellect? Try Valdosta State.
 
ncjacket, you like many other devoted and sincere GT supporters have put yourself out at the end of a very long hypocritical limb. The list of both football and basketball GT heroes, whose academic credentials were no different than many of the stars we face on Sat's, that we like to look down our collective noses at, is MUCH longer than those listed above. Without whom our cherished athletic legacy would be but a shell of it's current self.
These players are principal among those who have given you and the rest of us many of our most prized memories.

No, we shouldn't lower our std's or make the academic challenge at GT a cakewalk, but we damn sure need to expand our curricula to support both athletics and a larger base of technically minded kids from all states.

Football has a charter too...."WIN"! Why play otherwise? Football IS extremely important to GT...both financially and from a prestige standpoint. Degree devaluation is a mythical bunch of bunk. If you truly walked a mile in the shoes of a GT athlete, you would understand the extreme difficulties they face, no matter what their major. Also, they simply have a more rare and in demand talent than do the 1300 SAT kids. THWG
 
I agree completely GoldZ. Athletics are a very important part of GT and have been since the beginning. A serious decline in athletics could potentially lead to less interest from high school students and ultimately a fall in the cherished national academic ranking (due to the corresponding drop in AVG SAT scores, selectivity rankings, etc..) Michael Vick significantly increased the interest from prospective students in VT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top