College admissions and rankings

[Northeast Stinger]

Yeah, but there is no way to limit that because the NCAA pretends to be about “school” so you can’t tell someone where they can’t go to school. There are always going to be teams with “more” in a system not built around the sport but rather using school as a guise. Pro teams can do it because it’s just sport. Expansion, however, gives more avenues for athletes to get on the big stage without having to go to 1 of 6 schools. I’m still just thrilled that we are even talking playoffs because I still remember that feeling when Colorado was awarded the National Title. And many other fans know that same feeling for 80 years when we allowed the media to pick it. Just think what we were fed for 80 years compared to now. It’s almost as if someone asked the question- what would be the worse system to use to pick a National Champ and let’s use it. And I understand the history that there was never an intent to pick a National Champ which is why we had multiple schools claiming titles that didn’t exist. What we have today is so much better than what we’ve ever had before that’s I’m still thrilled that the BCS was created. We all knew once they created the 1 vs. 2 that the growth of it was inevitable. I’m super excited to see my team have a shot on those years where we catch magic. As much as I loved the Orange Bowl win after the game I wanted more.

We tell people all the time where they can or cannot go to school. Athletes are among a special class, along with legacy and offspring of major donors, who claim a special privilege to go to the school of their choice.

By way of analogy, the uga student body is only about 8% African-American whereas if the student body reflected state demographics it would be about 30% African American. But if you are an athlete….

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

That has nothing to do with what was being discussed. The discussion was around the NCAA making a rule that schools could only amass so many high end players and when they hit that quota they couldn’t take anymore by rule. What you are talking about is applying and not getting accepted. Anyone can apply to any school, that doesn’t mean they have the qualifications to get in or will get in. That’s far different than a person who plays RB being told by the NCAA he can’t play for Bama because they already have 3 RB’s at a certain level. That RB could still apply to and try to get admitted to Bama as a regular student if he really wanted to attend that school.

 

[orientalnc]

That has nothing to do with what was being discussed. The discussion was around the NCAA making a rule that schools could only amass so many high end players and when they hit that quota they couldn’t take anymore by rule. What you are talking about is applying and not getting accepted. Anyone can apply to any school, that doesn’t mean they have the qualifications to get in or will get in. That’s far different than a person who plays RB being told by the NCAA he can’t play for Bama because they already have 3 RB’s at a certain level. That RB could still apply to and try to get admitted to Bama as a regular student if he really wanted to attend that school.

The notion that the NCAA is going to say to a high graduate that he can play for Auburn but not Alabama is preposturous. That discussion is going nowhere.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

The notion that the NCAA is going to say to a high graduate that he can play for Auburn but not Alabama is preposturous. That discussion is going nowhere.

Both of you totally missed the point. If corruption is even half as bad as some on here have posted, then athletes are getting acceptance rates far exceeding average students. I was just suggesting, in a reply to the lament about corruption, that the NCAA could stop that dead in its tracks if it wanted to. I was not suggesting that they had any real interest in that or any financial incentive to do so. But currently, being a star football player with average grades allows you to jump the line ahead of many more qualified students. This works well for uga and Alabama but not for Tech.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

Both of you totally missed the point. If corruption is even half as bad as some on here have posted, then athletes are getting acceptance rates far exceeding average students. I was just suggesting, in a reply to the lament about corruption, that the NCAA could stop that dead in its tracks if it wanted to. I was not suggesting that they had any real interest in that or any financial incentive to do so. But currently, being a star football player with average grades allows you to jump the line ahead of many more qualified students. This works well for uga and Alabama but not for Tech.

Say what? GT absolutely benefits from this system. Have you seen our student body? We wouldn’t come within 90 points of any opponent if we fielded a team of students getting in thru the regular admission process. GT has salutatorians getting rejected for admissions.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Say what? GT absolutely benefits from this system. Have you seen our student body? We wouldn’t come within 90 points of any opponent if we fielded a team of students getting in thru the regular admission process. GT has salutatorians getting rejected for admissions.

There is a metric for admission that considers the whole person. That makes sense to me.

But, once again, I’m not sure why everyone ignores the heart of this topic while nibbling around the edges. If you are trying to balance the student body to enhance a well-rounded learning environment then it makes sense that not everyone will get accepted. I am still arguing a simple point. Having four five star football players in one class probably means a school has bent their metrics beyond reason and are perilously close to compromising their academic status as a school.

If you think Tech is in the same boat with Alabama and uga in this regard then we have nothing left to discuss

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

Dude, you really believe that 85 football players has any bearing on a schools academic reputation? Come on. Those are big universities. Bama had an enrollment of 38,000 in 2020. UGA had around 39,0000. Football players comprise about .002 percent. And if you really believe that GT football players aren‘t jumping the line then you don’t live in reality. Don’t get mad at Bama or UGA for actually getting the high end players to sign. They are playing the game and they play it better than GT does. Just because you think they push the line further than GT does doesn’t mean that GT doesn’t push the line. We just do it while getting 3 stars, now 4 stars. I took classes with several members of Lethal Weapon 3 and let’s just say they weren’t here for school. And I have a relative working at a high school where Collins is getting some players and he she was shocked that GT admitted these guys. I for one am thrilled that we finally have a school President, AD, and Coach all pulling in the same direction for once!!

 

[Technut1990]

“Don’t get mad at Bama or UGA”

ok now you ve crossed the line ! Anyone can get mad at UGA for any reason, to hell with Georgie

 

[Root4GT]

Both of you totally missed the point. If corruption is even half as bad as some on here have posted, then athletes are getting acceptance rates far exceeding average students. I was just suggesting, in a reply to the lament about corruption, that the NCAA could stop that dead in its tracks if it wanted to. I was not suggesting that they had any real interest in that or any financial incentive to do so. But currently, being a star football player with average grades allows you to jump the line ahead of many more qualified students. This works well for uga and Alabama but not for Tech.

About 6-7 years ago GT football players had the highest average SAT score of public schools. At the same time they had the 3rd highest gap between their SAT scores and the student bodies SAT scores. So yes GT athletes get very preferential admissions treatment. In fact more than nearly any other school relative to the rest of the student body.

 

[jacketup]

There is a metric for admission that considers the whole person. That makes sense to me.

But, once again, I’m not sure why everyone ignores the heart of this topic while nibbling around the edges. If you are trying to balance the student body to enhance a well-rounded learning environment then it makes sense that not everyone will get accepted. I am still arguing a simple point. Having four five star football players in one class probably means a school has bent their metrics beyond reason and are perilously close to compromising their academic status as a school.

If you think Tech is in the same boat with Alabama and uga in this regard then we have nothing left to discuss

The so called metric for admission that "considers the whole person" is code for being subjective and arbitrary. I've been through the admission process with 2 kids in the last 4 years, and I know of what I speak. Many of those "metrics" are politically driven and compromise student body quality more than 20-25 football scholarships a year.

And if you think that Tech's academics overall are like they were 30-50 years ago, you haven't kept up. The average undergrad GPA is something like 3.3, and Tech has liberal arts majors. It's still a tough place for engineering and science majors--but not as tough as it used to be, and that's not what jocks major in anyway. The 6 year graduation rate is like 87%, which Tech deems to be important. That's a change in attitude from days gone by. The flunk out culture that used to exist is gone--which is a good thing. (I wasn't a Clough fan, but I give him credit for changing that culture). If you've been keeping track, we have far fewer players with academic issues than we used to have--in fact, it's relatively rare. The rising tide lifted all boats--or in this case--students.

Bottom line--20 or so football recruits who wouldn't get in as regular students isn't going to compromise a student body of around 40, 000 (17,000 undergrads). We may look harder at academics for recruits than SEC schools, but it's not as different as you suggest. We'd love to have 4-5 star players per class, but admissions is not the reason we haven't been getting them. We do require players to go to class, unlike, for example, Clemson, that is in our own conference (I read an interview a few years ago with 2 Clemson players about their typical day--neither mentioned class or school work. At least UNC made a pretense of it.)

 

[Northeast Stinger]

The so called metric for admission that "considers the whole person" is code for being subjective and arbitrary. I've been through the admission process with 2 kids in the last 4 years, and I know of what I speak. Many of those "metrics" are politically driven and compromise student body quality more than 20-25 football scholarships a year.

And if you think that Tech's academics overall are like they were 30-50 years ago, you haven't kept up. The average undergrad GPA is something like 3.3, and Tech has liberal arts majors. It's still a tough place for engineering and science majors--but not as tough as it used to be, and that's not what jocks major in anyway. The 6 year graduation rate is like 87%, which Tech deems to be important. That's a change in attitude from days gone by. The flunk out culture that used to exist is gone--which is a good thing. (I wasn't a Clough fan, but I give him credit for changing that culture). If you've been keeping track, we have far fewer players with academic issues than we used to have--in fact, it's relatively rare. The rising tide lifted all boats--or in this case--students.

Bottom line--20 or so football recruits who wouldn't get in as regular students isn't going to compromise a student body of around 40, 000 (17,000 undergrads). We may look harder at academics for recruits than SEC schools, but it's not as different as you suggest. We'd love to have 4-5 star players per class, but admissions is not the reason we haven't been getting them. We do require players to go to class, unlike, for example, Clemson, that is in our own conference (I read an interview a few years ago with 2 Clemson players about their typical day--neither mentioned class or school work. At least UNC made a pretense of it.)

Having spent time both teaching and in administration I feel the broader definitions for admission have been positive overall.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Dude, you really believe that 85 football players has any bearing on a schools academic reputation? Come on. Those are big universities. Bama had an enrollment of 38,000 in 2020. UGA had around 39,0000. Football players comprise about .002 percent. And if you really believe that GT football players aren‘t jumping the line then you don’t live in reality. Don’t get mad at Bama or UGA for actually getting the high end players to sign. They are playing the game and they play it better than GT does. Just because you think they push the line further than GT does doesn’t mean that GT doesn’t push the line. We just do it while getting 3 stars, now 4 stars. I took classes with several members of Lethal Weapon 3 and let’s just say they weren’t here for school. And I have a relative working at a high school where Collins is getting some players and he she was shocked that GT admitted these guys. I for one am thrilled that we finally have a school President, AD, and Coach all pulling in the same direction for once!!

Sorry, I just prefer student athletes who can read.

 

[orientalnc]

That has nothing to do with what was being discussed. The discussion was around the NCAA making a rule that schools could only amass so many high end players and when they hit that quota they couldn’t take anymore by rule. What you are talking about is applying and not getting accepted. Anyone can apply to any school, that doesn’t mean they have the qualifications to get in or will get in. That’s far different than a person who plays RB being told by the NCAA he can’t play for Bama because they already have 3 RB’s at a certain level. That RB could still apply to and try to get admitted to Bama as a regular student if he really wanted to attend that school.

This is the post I was replying to.

The notion that the NCAA is going to say to a high [school] graduate that he can play for Auburn but not Alabama is preposterous. That discussion is going nowhere.

My typo made this post very vague. What I was saying is that the NCAA is not going to tell a recruit that he cannot play for Bama because they already have three 5* players at his position. The idea that we will, or might, have a draft in college ball is way off the charts.

 

[g0lftime]

What may happen is some of the schools or conferences break away and form their own version of the NCAA. The trend toward paying players may drive the more academic schools to form their own association. It will be driven by tv money going to what is now semi-pro for the most part. Academic schools like Duke Cal Stanford Tulane Vandy GT not to the level of the Ivy League but even those schools make concessions for entry to athletes. The gap is getting wider. I don't want to see it happen but all about tv money and big coach contracts. Some of these guys are making more than CEO's of major corporations. They will do whatever it takes to keep the money flowing.

 

[Root4GT]

What may happen is some of the schools or conferences break away and form their own version of the NCAA. The trend toward paying players may drive the more academic schools to form their own association. It will be driven by tv money going to what is now semi-pro for the most part. Academic schools like Duke Cal Stanford Tulane Vandy GT not to the level of the Ivy League but even those schools make concessions for entry to athletes. The gap is getting wider. I don't want to see it happen but all about tv money and big coach contracts. Some of these guys are making more than CEO's of major corporations. They will do whatever it takes to keep the money flowing.

The "more academic" schools can't afford to move away as the monetary loss would be too great.

 

[g0lftime]

The "more academic" schools can't afford to move away as the monetary loss would be too great.

It's all about the money isn't it.

 

[TooTall]

It's all about the money isn't it.

Ask the Zion Williamson family...

 

[Northeast Stinger]

This is the post I was replying to.

My typo made this post very vague. What I was saying is that the NCAA is not going to tell a recruit that he cannot play for Bama because they already have three 5* players at his position. The idea that we will, or might, have a draft in college ball is way off the charts.

I’m simply offering an intellectual exercise.

There are two competing philosophies in higher education. One is that college is earned by exceptional students who excel in some way -high SATs, strong leadership history, athletic prowess, top grades, exceptional extracurricular activities etc. This sounds good in theory but it often leads to seeing students as commodities that enhance the reputation of the school. Thus, having a parent who can pay for a building on campus even qualifies the student as an asset. If the purpose of the student is to benefit the school, this becomes a slippery slope.

The second philosophy involves finding students with potential and teaching them —giving them life time experiences and skills. This approach seeks a more well rounded student body and tries to avoid patterns that either exploit the student or which perpetuate privilege.

A football program that fit into the second philosophy would be interested in “coaching players up,” teaching new skills, and finding players who are diamonds in the rough.

Admittedly there is not as sharpe of a distinction between the two philosophies of education but I needed to simplify to keep from writing several pages.

The thought exercise is to consider that rather than a student having a right to attend a particular school because they are a five star athlete (and thus also a commodity that a school “buys” for the enhancement of the school) simply consider that there are only so many slots available at a given school, just as there are caps on how many scholarships per class and caps on total numbers per program.

 

[RonJohn]

I’m simply offering an intellectual exercise.

There are two competing philosophies in higher education. One is that college is earned by exceptional students who excel in some way -high SATs, strong leadership history, athletic prowess, top grades, exceptional extracurricular activities etc. This sounds good in theory but it often leads to seeing students as commodities that enhance the reputation of the school. Thus, having a parent who can pay for a building on campus even qualifies the student as an asset. If the purpose of the student is to benefit the school, this becomes a slippery slope.

The second philosophy involves finding students with potential and teaching them —giving them life time experiences and skills. This approach seeks a more well rounded student body and tries to avoid patterns that either exploit the student or which perpetuate privilege.

A football program that fit into the second philosophy would be interested in “coaching players up,” teaching new skills, and finding players who are diamonds in the rough.

Admittedly there is not as sharpe of a distinction between the two philosophies of education but I needed to simplify to keep from writing several pages.

The thought exercise is to consider that rather than a student having a right to attend a particular school because they are a five star athlete (and thus also a commodity that a school “buys” for the enhancement of the school) simply consider that there are only so many slots available at a given school, just as there are caps on how many scholarships per class and caps on total numbers per program.

That is exactly how it works now. There are only 85 football scholarships. Only 25 players can be signed per year. What you are proposing is the exact methodology that you are complaining about.

As to working as your "second philosophy", why do you think that you must concentrate on "diamonds in the rough"? There is no documented inverse correlation between a person's athletic ability and their academic ability. Calvin Johnson, who could be arguably considered the best athlete to ever play football at GT, scored a 41 on the Wonderlic test. Ezekiel Elliot was a four star recruit and he scored a 32 on the Wonderlic test. If there were an inverse correlation then those guys could not be well above average in intelligence and well above average in athletic ability.

 

[cthenrys]

The so called metric for admission that "considers the whole person" is code for being subjective and arbitrary. I've been through the admission process with 2 kids in the last 4 years, and I know of what I speak. Many of those "metrics" are politically driven and compromise student body quality more than 20-25 football scholarships a year.

And if you think that Tech's academics overall are like they were 30-50 years ago, you haven't kept up. The average undergrad GPA is something like 3.3, and Tech has liberal arts majors. It's still a tough place for engineering and science majors--but not as tough as it used to be, and that's not what jocks major in anyway. The 6 year graduation rate is like 87%, which Tech deems to be important. That's a change in attitude from days gone by. The flunk out culture that used to exist is gone--which is a good thing. (I wasn't a Clough fan, but I give him credit for changing that culture). If you've been keeping track, we have far fewer players with academic issues than we used to have--in fact, it's relatively rare. The rising tide lifted all boats--or in this case--students.

Bottom line--20 or so football recruits who wouldn't get in as regular students isn't going to compromise a student body of around 40, 000 (17,000 undergrads). We may look harder at academics for recruits than SEC schools, but it's not as different as you suggest. We'd love to have 4-5 star players per class, but admissions is not the reason we haven't been getting them. We do require players to go to class, unlike, for example, Clemson, that is in our own conference (I read an interview a few years ago with 2 Clemson players about their typical day--neither mentioned class or school work. At least UNC made a pretense of it.)

Class of 92. Agreed with all of his points about how tech and the college admissions process has changed.