Biggest need for 2016 (offense edition)

[AE 87]

Funny right about the time Stanford's talking about lowering entrance requirements for football players, they start having more successful teams. On top of that, Stanford's Dean of Admissions starting in 2005 has been Richard Shaw who held the same position at the University of Michigan from 1988 to 1993, when he found a way to admit Chris Webber.

As a private school, Stanford doesn't have to report its admission standards. So, there's no telling what's going on for sure, but I don't think it takes a rocket scientist (ahem) to figure out.

LOL...when someone can't bring up facts, they bring up "straw man" arguments. Right...those words above are YOUR words you yourself quoted from a post you made in some other thread.

I'll let the audience make the judgement on what you inferred with that...

Come on, man. You're better than this. Nothing there says arbitrary. It does say that they did begin to consider athletic excellence more in admissions than they had from 2000-2007. I cited claims being made by the coaches involved.

I really don't think that you are so stupid that you fail to understand the distinction I'm making. I'm not saying that they don't have to be good students on the whole. I'm saying that their subjective admissions standards allow them to admit some elite athletes who may not otherwise get in a way comparable to the our "exceptions." We have objective standards for which students need exception to get in. They have subjective standards, and so there are no exceptions. We don't fight to get an exception for everybody and even then we want to see some evidence of that they should be able to make it, and their standards probably work in a comparable way.

 

[Techster]

Come on, man. You're better than this. Nothing there says arbitrary. It does say that they did begin to consider athletic excellence more in admissions than they had from 2000-2007. I cited claims being made by the coaches involved.

I really don't think that you are so stupid that you fail to understand the distinction I'm making. I'm not saying that they don't have to be good students on the whole. I'm saying that their subjective admissions standards allow them to admit some elite athletes who may not otherwise get in a way comparable to the our "exceptions." We have objective standards for which students need exception to get in. They have subjective standards, and so there are no exceptions. We don't fight to get an exception for everybody and even then we want to see some evidence of that they should be able to make it, and their standards probably work in a comparable way.

LOL...dude's own words come back to bite him in the rear and what does he do? Resort to the "that's not what I meant" defense, personal attacks, and blowing more hot air.

Solid strategy.

 

[TechTravis]

I also think it's important to remember when comparing our recruiting to Stanford's that just because a kid is smart, doesn't mean he likes math. If I were a smart kid, I might be more inclined to get a first class challenging education in a field I relate to and enjoy, rather than struggle through calc and CS for a major I don't care that much about...

 

[dressedcheeseside]

ACC was a dumpster fire the last 5 years? It only produced the 2013 national Champion, 2014 playoff contender, and 2015 finalist.

Stanford doesn't recruit against USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, Oregon State, Utah, Arizona, Arizona State...and many other conferences in "their local area"?

Dude, don't ever recruit for GT. Seriously, you're a great GT fan, but a crappy GT recruiter...the way you put it, you'd have kids running to play for Brian Bohannon at Kennesaw State rather than come to GT.

Misquote then attack. Nice strategy.

 

[AE 87]

Misquote then attack. Nice strategy.

FWIW, it's apparently a moderator approved strategy. I have a feeling that it won't be if I start using it, but so it goes.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Socratic method is not being employed on this thread. The reason is simple. One side thinks that Stanford is doing things that Tech should be doing and the other side thinks that comparing Tech to Stanford is apples to oranges. Since neither side really had any hope of convincing the other all we have left is the ability to misconstrue each others arguments and try to score tactical points.

Here is a hypothetical argument. If you took Tech's athletic association, administration and coaches and put them in California and coupled them with a broad degree program how would they do? Now takes the equivalent people from Stanford and put them in Georgia with Tech's limited course offerings and ask how they would do under the circumstances. Who do you think comes out better in the swap?

I know what I believe to the bottom of my heart.

 

[collegeballfan]

Socratic method is not being employed on this thread. The reason is simple. One side thinks that Stanford is doing things that Tech should be doing and the other side thinks that comparing Tech to Stanford is apples to oranges. Since neither side really had any hope of convincing the other all we have left is the ability to misconstrue each others arguments and try to score tactical points.

Here is a hypothetical argument. If you took Tech's athletic association, administration and coaches and put them in California and coupled them with a broad degree program how would they do? Now takes the equivalent people from Stanford and put them in Georgia with Tech's limited course offerings and ask how they would do under the circumstances. Who do you think comes out better in the swap?

I know what I believe to the bottom of my heart.

Amen, brother, amen.

 

[augustabuzz]

Socratic method is not being employed on this thread. The reason is simple. One side thinks that Stanford is doing things that Tech should be doing and the other side thinks that comparing Tech to Stanford is apples to oranges. Since neither side really had any hope of convincing the other all we have left is the ability to misconstrue each others arguments and try to score tactical points.

Here is a hypothetical argument. If you took Tech's athletic association, administration and coaches and put them in California and coupled them with a broad degree program how would they do? Now takes the equivalent people from Stanford and put them in Georgia with Tech's limited course offerings and ask how they would do under the circumstances. Who do you think comes out better in the swap?

I know what I believe to the bottom of my heart.

There is a very good reason why Georgia Tech. is the only "Institute of Technology" playing FBS football.

 

[iceeater1969]

There is a very good reason why Georgia Tech. is the only "Institute of Technology" playing FBS football.

Lea


Stanford recruits nationally. 3/4 of their team comes from more than 250 miles away. We recruit a small area 60-70 percent from ga. .

As a thought experiment, let's keep our coaches and academics. Lets mandate that gt get 60 percent nationally and Stanford get 60 percent from ga.

 

[augustabuzz]

Lea


Stanford recruits nationally. 3/4 of their team comes from more than 250 miles away. We recruit a small area 60-70 percent from ga. .

As a thought experiment, let's keep our coaches and academics. Lets mandate that gt get 60 percent nationally and Stanford get 60 percent from ga.

I get what you're saying, but do you realize that most years, Georgia is the number one supplier of student-athletes to the SEC?

 

[iceeater1969]

I get what you're saying, but do you realize that most years, Georgia is the number one supplier of student-athletes to the SEC?

For that to be a valid comparison, then all those sec bound ga kids would have to be able to get into Stanford.

Remember Stanford average SAT 40 points higher than gt.

 

[augustabuzz]

For that to be a valid comparison, then all those sec bound ga kids would have to be able to get into Stanford.

"All" is a lot. Are you sure of that caveat?

 

[iceeater1969]

"All" is a lot. Are you sure of that caveat?

Whoops "all" is not a correct qualifier.

Should have stuck w questions.
Of the georgia" scholars " going to sec what percent of them can get in and graduate from Stanford? Gt?

 

[Skeptic]

I get what you're saying, but do you realize that most years, Georgia is the number one supplier of student-athletes to the SEC?

Well, football players are football players and not "student athletes," an NCAA PR triumph. We don't have student musicians or student historians or student engineers. Not picking on you, but I do loathe that capitulation to common sense.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

So someone help me qualify this statement. "Tech's problem is that it sits in an SEC market and therefore many national athletes who are looking for an academic environment do not think of Tech in those terms, while at the same time athletes in the southeast have a high preference for football factories."

 

[Skeptic]

So someone help me qualify this statement. "Tech's problem is that it sits in an SEC market and therefore many national athletes who are looking for an academic environment do not think of Tech in those terms, while at the same time athletes in the southeast have a high preference for football factories."

A fellow could drive himself nuts trying to parse that sentence. I await that from people smarter than me, because it just doesn't make any sense. Stinger, have a go at it. Might want to hit the liquor store first.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

A fellow could drive himself nuts trying to parse that sentence. I await that from people smarter than me, because it just doesn't make any sense. Stinger, have a go at it. Might want to hit the liquor store first.

Just break down the parts of the sentence.

Tech sits in the middle of an SEC market.

Athletes on a national level who are interested in academics do not usually think of the Southeast as an academic hotbed.
Rightly or wrongly.

So it makes recruiting nationally very expensive as we have to work overtime to change the perception while paying for long trips to recruit.

Athletes who grow up in the Southeast tend to see the only place worth playing as the SEC. So this too requires bigger recruiting budgets and staff to overcome the challenges.

No one should hear this as defeatism. Nor does it mean I do not want to compete better in the recruiting wars. I want to Tech to have a better national brand while also not letting so many blue chip athletes right under our noses escape to cow schools. But I just think when comparing ourselves to other schools it is important to see who we really are in comparison.

 

[Skeptic]

Just break down the parts of the sentence.

Tech sits in the middle of an SEC market.

Athletes on a national level who are interested in academics do not usually think of the Southeast as an academic hotbed.
Rightly or wrongly.

So it makes recruiting nationally very expensive as we have to work overtime to change the perception while paying for long trips to recruit.

Athletes who grow up in the Southeast tend to see the only place worth playing as the SEC. So this too requires bigger recruiting budgets and staff to overcome the challenges.

No one should hear this as defeatism. Nor does it mean I do not want to compete better in the recruiting wars. I want to Tech to have a better national brand while also not letting so many blue chip athletes right under our noses escape to cow schools. But I just think when comparing ourselves to other schools it is important to see who we really are in comparison.

If you say it says what you say it says, I'll take your word for it. But my head still hurts at the construction, and parsing the parts didn't help me at all. Just like diagramming a sentence in the 8th grade never helped. (On the other hand, it is easy to parse a coach's comments. Basically they are that my team played lousy but I coached real good. That holds true for every sport.