JoeCakeEater
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2004
- Messages
- 14,504
Post Season Georgia Top 50
- Thread starter JoeCakeEater
- Start date
non-gineer
Jolly Good Fellow
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,915
A wild guess would be that if the coaches recruited them and they committed, 20 - 25 of them could get into Tech.
cyclejacket
Not A Fan of Biden BS
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Messages
- 7,628
I'm no recruitnik but a quick glance at the list shows at least 7-8 that we offered scholarships. C. Brown, Allen, Edwards, Richardson, Durham, Thomas, Thompson & Kelly. Who knows how many others were committed to UGa so fast our offer never even made the Rivals page. I am even more concerned about QB now if this list is accurate and our 1 QB recruit isn't even in the top 50 in the state.
RamblinPeck
Jolly Good Fellow
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2003
- Messages
- 1,928
I wonder how many unanswerable questions we can ask?
To answer the previous post though... 2 I guess would be what you're looking for.
To answer the previous post though... 2 I guess would be what you're looking for.
pocket_watch
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,953
What are you basing this number on? How many of these top 50 could get into uga if they didn't play football? Probably the two that can get into Tech.
Everything will always lead back to the question of whether we will publicly admit that revenue producing major sports athletes should or should not be treated differently.
Back when we had all american guards and centers weighing 190#, football was a much different game, played by different players with different goals.
It's very romantic and Walt Disney to imagine our star quarterback aceing his Sat. morning lab an hour early, just to get to Grant Field in time to lead the Brave and Bold to another victory in the battle between good and evil.
With every NFL player a millionaire, or soon to be one, kids don't play the game anymore just to win BMOC and add it to their resume.
Everything will always lead back to the question of whether we will publicly admit that revenue producing major sports athletes should or should not be treated differently.
Back when we had all american guards and centers weighing 190#, football was a much different game, played by different players with different goals.
It's very romantic and Walt Disney to imagine our star quarterback aceing his Sat. morning lab an hour early, just to get to Grant Field in time to lead the Brave and Bold to another victory in the battle between good and evil.
With every NFL player a millionaire, or soon to be one, kids don't play the game anymore just to win BMOC and add it to their resume.
RamblinPeck
Jolly Good Fellow
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2003
- Messages
- 1,928
[ QUOTE ]
Ah, an astute observation. Now your beginning to get an idea of the realities facing any coach at Tech to recruit top football players in the state.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just to be clear, my post earlier was meant to be more or less sarcastic. Theres restrictions involved, but we should recruit Georgia a lot stronger than we do given that its one of the few states with mandatory 4 year HS math. We might be going after diamonds in the rough elsewhere, and thats fine, we need to do that, but there are few places that produce more football talent than this little patch of red clay and with the Mutts starting to recruit nationally we should have some doors open to us around the state, but instead Clemson/TN/FSU/AU/Bama and now the school soon to be known as Spurrier U are moving in harder on our boys and we're not gaining any ground.
Ah, an astute observation. Now your beginning to get an idea of the realities facing any coach at Tech to recruit top football players in the state.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just to be clear, my post earlier was meant to be more or less sarcastic. Theres restrictions involved, but we should recruit Georgia a lot stronger than we do given that its one of the few states with mandatory 4 year HS math. We might be going after diamonds in the rough elsewhere, and thats fine, we need to do that, but there are few places that produce more football talent than this little patch of red clay and with the Mutts starting to recruit nationally we should have some doors open to us around the state, but instead Clemson/TN/FSU/AU/Bama and now the school soon to be known as Spurrier U are moving in harder on our boys and we're not gaining any ground.
[ QUOTE ]
Just to be clear, my post earlier was meant to be more or less sarcastic. Theres restrictions involved, but we should recruit Georgia a lot stronger than we do given that its one of the few states with mandatory 4 year HS math.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your sarcasm was so noted. How does the state of Georgia's requirement of mandatory 4 year HS math courses help Tech in its recruiting when the state of Georgia is still ranked 48th (or there abouts) in SAT scores. Georgia has one of the worst educational systems in the US. It continues to be ranked near the bottom in almost all statistics. Several years ago the AJC published an article on the number of freshmen entering state of Georgia colleges that have to go into remedial classes--including math. Off hand I can't remember the exact number, but it was quite high.
Once again, just because we are not getting these top recruits does not mean we are not trying hard to recruit those who are academically eligible. Can Tech do a better job in the state? We can always improve, but I'm not convinced the results will be much better. First of all, history is not on our side. In the past, Tech was never able to get a large number of the state's top recruits anyway, and it has become more difficult with the tougher standards imposed by the NCAA and Tech. Secondly, within a 250 mile or so radius of Atlanta you have the biggest hotbed of football factories to recruit against. Do you think a top recruit will have the same difficult time matriculating at Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Clemson, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, and Florida State as he would at Tech (assuming we have a curriculum that interests him). Because of the closeness of these factories, Tech will always have to be a national recruiter and needs to do a much better job in doing it.
Just to be clear, my post earlier was meant to be more or less sarcastic. Theres restrictions involved, but we should recruit Georgia a lot stronger than we do given that its one of the few states with mandatory 4 year HS math.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your sarcasm was so noted. How does the state of Georgia's requirement of mandatory 4 year HS math courses help Tech in its recruiting when the state of Georgia is still ranked 48th (or there abouts) in SAT scores. Georgia has one of the worst educational systems in the US. It continues to be ranked near the bottom in almost all statistics. Several years ago the AJC published an article on the number of freshmen entering state of Georgia colleges that have to go into remedial classes--including math. Off hand I can't remember the exact number, but it was quite high.
Once again, just because we are not getting these top recruits does not mean we are not trying hard to recruit those who are academically eligible. Can Tech do a better job in the state? We can always improve, but I'm not convinced the results will be much better. First of all, history is not on our side. In the past, Tech was never able to get a large number of the state's top recruits anyway, and it has become more difficult with the tougher standards imposed by the NCAA and Tech. Secondly, within a 250 mile or so radius of Atlanta you have the biggest hotbed of football factories to recruit against. Do you think a top recruit will have the same difficult time matriculating at Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Clemson, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, and Florida State as he would at Tech (assuming we have a curriculum that interests him). Because of the closeness of these factories, Tech will always have to be a national recruiter and needs to do a much better job in doing it.
C
CitySting
Guest
My bet is the fact that if he came to GT, he wouldn't graduate! See the report from todays AJC!
ACC SCHOOLS
School........Men..Women..All
Clemson........96....99....97
Duke ..........93 ..100....96
Wake Forest....92....99....94
Boston Coll. ..89....97....93
Virginia ......80....94....86
Virginia Tech..72....96....83
N. Carolina....73....90....80
Florida State..68....92....78
Miami..........70....89....77
Maryland ......69....86....76
N.C. State ....58....84....68
Ga. Tech ......59....84....67
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wtf.gif LAST PLACE in grad rates in the ACC!
ACC SCHOOLS
School........Men..Women..All
Clemson........96....99....97
Duke ..........93 ..100....96
Wake Forest....92....99....94
Boston Coll. ..89....97....93
Virginia ......80....94....86
Virginia Tech..72....96....83
N. Carolina....73....90....80
Florida State..68....92....78
Miami..........70....89....77
Maryland ......69....86....76
N.C. State ....58....84....68
Ga. Tech ......59....84....67
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wtf.gif LAST PLACE in grad rates in the ACC!
pocket_watch
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,953
1) Clemson is a JOKE
2) The difference between men's and women's grad rates at most schools except clemmons (JOKE) is horrendous.
2) The difference between men's and women's grad rates at most schools except clemmons (JOKE) is horrendous.
It's pretty simple. White kids do better than minorities an women do better than men. No value judgement, it's just a fact whether you're looking at athletics or the overall student body. In virtually every school, the % minority is much higher in the athletic dept than in the school as a whole. Then depending on what sports the school participates in the % of minorites gets higher still and the grad rates get worse. The more women's sports the school participates in the better for their grad rates as well.
If you look at the NCAA site, they also break down the statistics by sport. The sports with the highest % of white athletes, and those without significant pro leagues, have much higher percentages of graduates. Tech has a much higher % of men, plus our limited curriculum and the joy profs get from flunking people and viola, our grad rates for the student body are lower. Add the lower SATs, etc., and the mix of kids in the athletic dept and there's almost no way the % won't be lower still.
Like I've said before. If we want the grad rates to be higher we need to add women's soccer and lacrosse (increase the percentage of women) and men's lacrosse (big squad of kids who aren't in school for the pro contract). Our grad rate will improve overnight - or at least in 4 years.
If you look at the NCAA site, they also break down the statistics by sport. The sports with the highest % of white athletes, and those without significant pro leagues, have much higher percentages of graduates. Tech has a much higher % of men, plus our limited curriculum and the joy profs get from flunking people and viola, our grad rates for the student body are lower. Add the lower SATs, etc., and the mix of kids in the athletic dept and there's almost no way the % won't be lower still.
Like I've said before. If we want the grad rates to be higher we need to add women's soccer and lacrosse (increase the percentage of women) and men's lacrosse (big squad of kids who aren't in school for the pro contract). Our grad rate will improve overnight - or at least in 4 years.