Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
AD sabotage the football program
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RonJohn" data-source="post: 475876" data-attributes="member: 2426"><p>2008:</p><p>GT -- UG approx 13,000 GR approx 6,500</p><p>Clemson -- UG approx 14,500 GR approx 3,000</p><p></p><p>2018</p><p>GT -- UG approx 15,500 GT approx 14,000</p><p>Clemson -- UG approx 19.500 GT approx 3,700</p><p></p><p>So Clemson had an UG increase of 5,000 compared to GT's increase of 2,500. However, my post was in response to a post that said Clemson made a lot of money because of the tuition of the gain in students. GT had a total increase of about 10,000 students. Clemson had a total increase of about 6,000 students. Graduate students pay tuition also. Graduate students also conduct research which helps the reputation of the school. GT has not fallen behind Clemson in academic funding, academic reputation, or perspective students applying. Clemson doing well in athletics, but it hasn't caused their enrollment to make gains against GT. It hasn't caused their number of applicants to make gains on GT. Doing well in football makes middle aged men think more highly of a school, but I haven't seen any evidence that it causes increases in academic applications or academic reputation. It seems to me that it is a "common knowledge" idea among football fans that has no evidence to support it. In fact, looking at multiple sample sets it appears that the evidence refutes it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RonJohn, post: 475876, member: 2426"] 2008: GT -- UG approx 13,000 GR approx 6,500 Clemson -- UG approx 14,500 GR approx 3,000 2018 GT -- UG approx 15,500 GT approx 14,000 Clemson -- UG approx 19.500 GT approx 3,700 So Clemson had an UG increase of 5,000 compared to GT's increase of 2,500. However, my post was in response to a post that said Clemson made a lot of money because of the tuition of the gain in students. GT had a total increase of about 10,000 students. Clemson had a total increase of about 6,000 students. Graduate students pay tuition also. Graduate students also conduct research which helps the reputation of the school. GT has not fallen behind Clemson in academic funding, academic reputation, or perspective students applying. Clemson doing well in athletics, but it hasn't caused their enrollment to make gains against GT. It hasn't caused their number of applicants to make gains on GT. Doing well in football makes middle aged men think more highly of a school, but I haven't seen any evidence that it causes increases in academic applications or academic reputation. It seems to me that it is a "common knowledge" idea among football fans that has no evidence to support it. In fact, looking at multiple sample sets it appears that the evidence refutes it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What's the good word?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
AD sabotage the football program
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top