recruiting and academics

[goldmember]

Does it frustrate anyone else that we can't seem to get a straight answer regarding our academic requirements for football players? Our AD and president have both said publicly that the academic standards have not changed. Our coach has said publicly that the hill has been flexible with regards to academics. Yet Dave Braine says that we can only recruit 9 players in GA. Every 'insider' that we have is telling us that the eggheads on the hill have raised standards. The latest chat with master b and GG indicated that we are having trouble getting several recruits past the hill who we would not of had trouble with in the past. It really bothers me that our AD and president apparantly lied to us.

Is it that hard to give us a straight answer? Does anyone else think that Clough's job may be in jeopardy if he runs the football and b-ball program into the ground with unrealistic academic requirements?

 

[rammsting]

Great post Goldmember. I have been really worried about the issues you bring up. Can we be MIT, and still play FSU, UGAG, Auburn? Could Indian Joe Guyon, Buck Flowers, and Big SIX Carpenter play at Tech with today's academics? I wish we could return to being the Golden Tornado, the most FEARED football POWER in the South! Or we could take the path of the U. of Chicago. It is time to decide. We are at a crossroad.

 

[GEETEELEE]

OK, the way I understand it: there is NO set SAT score or grades that is a minimum (other than NCAA of course), but for ANY S-A to be accepted they must have a reasonable chance to graduate. If the SAT is marginal, they need to have a higher GPA. If both are marginal, they need to have recommendations from teachers. The coaches need to get more into their heads and find out their aptitude for schoolwork and demonstrate that to the admissions people. There is no straight answer. It will be different for each student athlete.

Yet Dave Braine says that we can only recruit 9 players in GA.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">How many legit D-1 recruits in Ga have the grades to get into Tech? I dunno, but lets say 50 or so. Out of that many how many actually have a realistic chance of graduating? Again, I dunno, but call it 30. Out of those 30 how many have grown up around slobbering, barking dog fans and ARE dog fans? At least 25. Out of what's left how many want to study Science, Engineering, or Management? I just made up these numbers, but if you consider how many qualified recruits are just simply not interested in coming to Tech, the figure Braine gives at 9 seems right to me.

 

[bugboy]

What I've heard (admittedly third-hand) is that the hill is not going to be flexible at all with regard to academics for our recruits. Take it for what it's worth, but that's what I've heard. For all you Chan-haters, this might be a bigger death knell for the program than anything Chan can do.

The fact is that we are sitting right smack dab in the middle of one of the most talented states in the Union, and we can't recruit (or won't recruit) hardly any of these guys. Unreal.

 

[goldmember]

Originally posted by bugboy:
What I've heard (admittedly third-hand) is that the hill is not going to be flexible at all with regard to academics for our recruits. Take it for what it's worth, but that's what I've heard. For all you Chan-haters, this might be a bigger death knell for the program than anything Chan can do.

The fact is that we are sitting right smack dab in the middle of one of the most talented states in the Union, and we can't recruit (or won't recruit) hardly any of these guys. Unreal.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I agree that it would be bigger than anything Chan, Mac, O'Leary or anyone else can do. It also frustrates the hell out of me that they would do this and then lie to us about it.

 

[Gold Rush]

Bugboy

You are exactly correct.

One thing that has always miffed me at Tech fans - is this theory that Tech can be MIT academically and a top 10 team every year in FB. Sorry - its really not possible IMO...

I, for one, don't think we have to lose academic integrity (or whatever) by expanding the curriculum, giving at least 1-2 more options for degrees. ANd the new academic requirements are obsurd...

You're right - this (if true, as I sustect it is) is FAR FAR worse than anything CG could ever do

 

[cyclejacket]

I also heard it again on NYD from a former Tech FBer, who is also very frustrated by it. Apparently the grad rate issue has seemingly forced the hill into this stance. Seems contrary to letting Braine proceed with a stadium expansion while making sure our coaches can only get enough talent to put a product on the field that will draw fewer fans than Valdosta HS. Georgia Southern would immediately be the #2 program in the state if they went 1-A today.

 

[mustard]

Disagree. We could be continually in the top 10 because of academics. All we have to do is increase our graduation rate to near 100% via tutoring.

Then we would be the best option available in the world for the student-athletes who have anything between their ears. We should shape our recruiting around the fact that a degree from the top ranked academic school (among the top 3 depending on major) is all but guaranteed to the student who is willing to drink when led to water.

The decision for the student-athlete becomes a no-lose decision. If he makes the pros, great, but if he doesn't, then he is still a winner because he will have graduated from the best school in the land.

Only MIT and Stanford are our competitors in academics. MIT has no football. Thus GT and Standford should be able to divide the cream of the crop every year.

If GT does not have pretend academics just so that we can sign the athletes whose great life accomplishments will be that they can change a flat on their broken down pickup without using a jack, then our integrity and reputation will remain impervious.

 

[goldmember]

Originally posted by Gold Rush:
Bugboy

You are exactly correct.

One thing that has always miffed me at Tech fans - is this theory that Tech can be MIT academically and a top 10 team every year in FB. Sorry - its really not possible IMO...

I, for one, don't think we have to lose academic integrity (or whatever) by expanding the curriculum, giving at least 1-2 more options for degrees. ANd the new academic requirements are obsurd...

You're right - this (if true, as I sustect it is) is FAR FAR worse than anything CG could ever do

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Do you think the heavy hitters could get mad enough about this such that Clough's job would be in jeopardy? I know that we aren't football U but I would be mad if I were asked to give big $$$ to a stadium expansion only to have the administration run the program in the ground (and then lie about it).

 

[Gold Rush]

Mustard

You don't get what I'm saying...I never said we should become a UGA academically. I'm saying that we can still be Tech, yet expand the curriculum
AND not make it more difficult than it allready is for SAs to get into Tech....If you think that would somehow lower the perception of Tech's academics, then you would have to be thinking that we were in bad shape academically over the last 20 years or whatever - and it would be a stretch to find ANYONE who believes that.

One more question - in ALL HONESTY - after getting pasted by the likes of UGA (pick a team) - do you REALLY feel better leaving the stadium with the thoughts ("well, at least we're better academically")...If you do - then you have my respect =- seriously....But I, for one, don't get any warm fuzzies from that idea

 

[goldmember]

Originally posted by Gold Rush:
Mustard

You don't get what I'm saying...I never said we should become a UGA academically. I'm saying that we can still be Tech, yet expand the curriculum
AND not make it more difficult than it allready is for SAs to get into Tech....If you think that would somehow lower the perception of Tech's academics, then you would have to be thinking that we were in bad shape academically over the last 20 years or whatever - and it would be a stretch to find ANYONE who believes that.

One more question - in ALL HONESTY - after getting pasted by the likes of UGA (pick a team) - do you REALLY feel better leaving the stadium with the thoughts ("well, at least we're better academically")...If you do - then you have my respect =- seriously....But I, for one, don't get any warm fuzzies from that idea

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">We would still be better academically if that is what floats your boat at sporting events. I don't see how having an average football team SAT score of 950 vs. 850 really affects anything other than our ability to be competitive. I don't even see it significantly affecting the football grad rate.

 

[goldmember]

Originally posted by Gold Rush:
Mustard

You don't get what I'm saying...I never said we should become a UGA academically. I'm saying that we can still be Tech, yet expand the curriculum
AND not make it more difficult than it allready is for SAs to get into Tech....If you think that would somehow lower the perception of Tech's academics, then you would have to be thinking that we were in bad shape academically over the last 20 years or whatever - and it would be a stretch to find ANYONE who believes that.

One more question - in ALL HONESTY - after getting pasted by the likes of UGA (pick a team) - do you REALLY feel better leaving the stadium with the thoughts ("well, at least we're better academically")...If you do - then you have my respect =- seriously....But I, for one, don't get any warm fuzzies from that idea

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">We would still be better academically if that is what floats your boat at sporting events. I don't see how having an average football team SAT score of 950 vs. 850 really affects anything other than our ability to be competitive. I don't even see it significantly affecting the football grad rate.

 

[mustard]

No, great academics while losing does not float my boat. I want both great academics and winning athletics. I do not think that they are mutually exclusive.

What I am trying to say is that great academics can help us to win. If our graduation rate (the key to my plan) goes up, then we can have the choice of student-athletes who want to major in engineering or management. In other words, it is not add a new easy major for athletes, but make it where thru tutoring, any athlete coming to GT will graduate if they are willing. Think of the selling point this would make on the athletes parents.

 

[GT98]

Originally posted by mustard:
No, great academics while losing does not float my boat. I want both great academics and winning athletics. I do not think that they are mutually exclusive.

What I am trying to say is that great academics can help us to win. If our graduation rate (the key to my plan) goes up, then we can have the choice of student-athletes who want to major in engineering or management. In other words, it is not add a new easy major for athletes, but make it where thru tutoring, any athlete coming to GT will graduate if they are willing. Think of the selling point this would make on the athletes parents.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">GT (like just about every Div. 1a school) offers VERY EXTENSIVE tutoring to all athletes. The reality is that some athletes are still unable to make the grade even w/the vast amount of resources at their disposal. Can GT win (consistently) w/out any of these players??? I dunno...

I do not think that GT should lower its standards nor have players only eligible for a few years, but rather adopt a more broad curriculum. GT could add schools that can be top notch similar to the engineering, science, mgt., computing discplines. GT does not need to lower its standards to be competitive in Div. 1a athletics, but by adding choices to what one can get a degree in would go a long way.

 

[mustard]

I hear you, GT98. I dunno either. However, qualifying to get in means that the student can cut it if there is a great tutoring system. If the student cannot cut it, it should be because of lack of motivation r/t inability. Because there will be failures even with all the great advantages that we can offer, our grad rate will never be 100%. But, the question still remains: do we have to have a major in which the above failures would not fail. To do so, indicates a dumbing down to me??? Am I thinking wrong on this?

 

[GT98]

Originally posted by mustard:
I hear you, GT98. I dunno either. However, qualifying to get in means that the student can cut it if there is a great tutoring system. If the student cannot cut it, it should be because of lack of motivation r/t inability. Because there will be failures even with all the great advantages that we can offer, our grad rate will never be 100%. But, the question still remains: do we have to have a major in which the above failures would not fail. To do so, indicates a dumbing down to me??? Am I thinking wrong on this?

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I think that by just adding a "football major" then, yes, it is dumbing down the standards. I think that an appropiate alternative would be to add different majors, but to do so within schools that are considered as top notch as the ones offered at GT. Therefore, good students who happen to be very good athletes will have more to choose from at GT.

The other question is what is an acceptable grad. rate? In line w/the rest of the student population would seem reasonable (general stud. pop. is about 60% or so). Further down the line is the question regarding the NCAA potentially "punishing" those schools (by limiting post season appearances) that do not meet certain grad. rates and the potential impact on GT athletics. Never mind that this will actually have the opposite effect in that it will encourage more "football majors" in order for the numbers to be good even if the education is of little value from other schools; but this is getting off the topic a bit...

 

[goldmember]

Originally posted by GT98:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Originally posted by mustard:
I hear you, GT98. I dunno either. However, qualifying to get in means that the student can cut it if there is a great tutoring system. If the student cannot cut it, it should be because of lack of motivation r/t inability. Because there will be failures even with all the great advantages that we can offer, our grad rate will never be 100%. But, the question still remains: do we have to have a major in which the above failures would not fail. To do so, indicates a dumbing down to me??? Am I thinking wrong on this?

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I think that by just adding a "football major" then, yes, it is dumbing down the standards. I think that an appropiate alternative would be to add different majors, but to do so within schools that are considered as top notch as the ones offered at GT. Therefore, good students who happen to be very good athletes will have more to choose from at GT.

The other question is what is an acceptable grad. rate? In line w/the rest of the student population would seem reasonable (general stud. pop. is about 60% or so). Further down the line is the question regarding the NCAA potentially "punishing" those schools (by limiting post season appearances) that do not meet certain grad. rates and the potential impact on GT athletics. Never mind that this will actually have the opposite effect in that it will encourage more "football majors" in order for the numbers to be good even if the education is of little value from other schools; but this is getting off the topic a bit...

</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I just wish that, short of cheating, we would give ourselves every opportunity to be competetive and not place barriers on the program. If this isn't in line with eggheads goals, then lets drop down to a division where there are no scholarships and we can have a team made up of 'true student atheletes' and still be competetive. At the very least they could be honest about it. Maybe it is just too absurd to say 'Despite the fact that we are spending $1M per year on our football coach and $80M on a stadium expansion, we have decided to destroy the football program with unrealistic academic standards because some of the eggheads on the hill are embarased by the grad rates'.

I just hate the half assed way some academic schools like Duke approach football. Does the faculty, students, alumni, or players have any pride in that program? I don't think so and I would rather us give it up than to let the program deteriorate to that level.

 

[gnats67]

Adding choices such as?

I like Goldtimer's idea of adding a school of sports technology. That seems like a credible idea. The notion of having one or two "easy" curriculums would seem to invite participation.
You can't have the whole team (ok, let's say the significant pct. that this would attract) in "the school of majors designed to make it easier for athletes." Can you?

Sorry, I think Mustard's on the right track.

 

[GT98]

Originally posted by gnats 67:
Adding choices such as?

I like Goldtimer's idea of adding a school of sports technology. That seems like a credible idea. The notion of having one or two "easy" curriculums would seem to invite participation.
You can't have the whole team (ok, let's say the significant pct. that this would attract) in "the school of majors designed to make it easier for athletes." Can you?

Sorry, I think Mustard's on the right track.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I am not sure of which majors. I would think that it would perhaps by something similar to Stanford--a good choice of majors and a respected degree.

I am agreeing w/Mustard in the tutoring idea--I was trying to point out that this is already happening in earnest. Again, GT offers EXTENSIVE tutoring to its athletes.

Further, I responded to this thread because I find it interesting to consider that GT as a whole has a number of things to consider if the NCAA grad. rate mandate goes through. GT will have to take action one way or another--either by compensating and competing at the Div. 1a level or dropping to another level.

 

[GT98]

Originally posted by goldmember: [/qb]

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I just hate the half assed way some academic schools like Duke approach football. Does the faculty, students, alumni, or players have any pride in that program? I don't think so and I would rather us give it up than to let the program deteriorate to that level.[/QB][/QUOTE]

I agree. I would hope that GT would simply quit playing football at the Div. 1a level rather than sink to those depths. Of course, this would also be the death knell for the basketball program since it would probably have to drop down or try to be an independent...but I digress.

The quandry is how GT can not cheapen the image of the school from an academic perspective while maintaining a program (or building, depending upon your view) that can compete at higher levels within Div. 1a. It does seem to be really shortsighted if GT (the admin.) has not thought this through before the athletic dept. went ahead w/an $80 mil. expansion project; as well as paying a coach close to $1 mil. per season. I think that the answer can be in adding a larger choice of majors that are considered good schools (similar to what Stanford does), thereby adding to the pool good student athletes that do not come to GT because of the limited curriculum available.