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
GT ranks #33 in football program monetary value
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="dressedcheeseside" data-source="post: 61171" data-attributes="member: 77"><p>If you reread my post, you'll see I said "my definition" of STEM school is one that grants at least 75% of it's degrees in STEM fields. I couldn't find any actual definition anywhere so a drew the line somewhere that made sense to me. Just because a school offers engineering, you wouldn't call them a STEM school would you? Would you call UGA a STEM school?</p><p></p><p>Even if you drew the line at 50% for argument's sake, there would be only one other school in the US other than GT that meets that criteria and fields an FBS football team (Stanford).</p><p></p><p>My point is that we have a small pool of eligible targets. That goes to extremely small if you then want to talk about <em>likely</em> targets.</p><p></p><p>The fact that most of our football players do not major in STEM fields helps a little, but not as much as you think and certainly doesn't undo all the negative impact of GT being a STEM school.</p><p></p><p><u>Negative recruiting impacts of GT being a STEM school regardless of how many players actually major in STEM fields:</u></p><p>1. negative elitist perception</p><p>2. demanding course load no matter what you study</p><p>3. few girls and even fewer pretty girls. And I dismiss the whole "well we're in Atlanta" argument. The guys spend the vast majority of their time on campus. The female scenery in class and around campus is no comparison to most every school in the SE.</p><p>4. negative "nerd" perception. Some of us might revel in this, but trust me, most high school football players do not.</p><p>5. small fanbase</p><p>6. small stadium</p><p>7. football is not king with our students or alumni like it is on almost every other campus in the SE. If you took a poll on campus on which is more important school or football, you have a vast majority laughing in your face and saying school, duh. If you took another poll as to what is your favorite sport, football would not be #1. Most likely it'd be soccer or even badminton with our high asian student population.</p><p>8. small prestige factor. I'm not talking about academic prestige, either, that's pretty high. I'm talking the kind of prestige the modern social media crazed SA hungers for: the spot light created by ESPN and bigtime tv sports media. Even Stanford has that. That's why most kids would rather ride the pine at Bama than start for GT.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="dressedcheeseside, post: 61171, member: 77"] If you reread my post, you'll see I said "my definition" of STEM school is one that grants at least 75% of it's degrees in STEM fields. I couldn't find any actual definition anywhere so a drew the line somewhere that made sense to me. Just because a school offers engineering, you wouldn't call them a STEM school would you? Would you call UGA a STEM school? Even if you drew the line at 50% for argument's sake, there would be only one other school in the US other than GT that meets that criteria and fields an FBS football team (Stanford). My point is that we have a small pool of eligible targets. That goes to extremely small if you then want to talk about [I]likely[/I] targets. The fact that most of our football players do not major in STEM fields helps a little, but not as much as you think and certainly doesn't undo all the negative impact of GT being a STEM school. [U]Negative recruiting impacts of GT being a STEM school regardless of how many players actually major in STEM fields:[/U] 1. negative elitist perception 2. demanding course load no matter what you study 3. few girls and even fewer pretty girls. And I dismiss the whole "well we're in Atlanta" argument. The guys spend the vast majority of their time on campus. The female scenery in class and around campus is no comparison to most every school in the SE. 4. negative "nerd" perception. Some of us might revel in this, but trust me, most high school football players do not. 5. small fanbase 6. small stadium 7. football is not king with our students or alumni like it is on almost every other campus in the SE. If you took a poll on campus on which is more important school or football, you have a vast majority laughing in your face and saying school, duh. If you took another poll as to what is your favorite sport, football would not be #1. Most likely it'd be soccer or even badminton with our high asian student population. 8. small prestige factor. I'm not talking about academic prestige, either, that's pretty high. I'm talking the kind of prestige the modern social media crazed SA hungers for: the spot light created by ESPN and bigtime tv sports media. Even Stanford has that. That's why most kids would rather ride the pine at Bama than start for GT. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
How many points did Georgia Tech score against Cumberland in 1916?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
GT ranks #33 in football program monetary value
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