It's officially the offseason - GT vs Stanford - Round 12

[B Lifsey]

I'm waiting on the Wisconsin vs Stanford comparisons

 

[dressedcheeseside]

There is no school trying to do what we are trying to do with academics and athletics. Zero. None. Nada. Not Stanford, not Notre Dame, and certainly not Wisconsin.

 

[Techster]

There is no school trying to do what we are trying to do with academics and athletics. Zero. None. Nada. Not Stanford, not Notre Dame, and certainly not Wisconsin.

Not to get into another Stanford debate, but I think they're exactly in the same boat as us. The only difference is Stanford bites their nose off on the front end (entry requirements), and GT bites our nose off in the back end (hard academic choices once in school). GT's pool of acceptable SAs is larger than Stanfords, but Stanford will have a better selection of academic offerings to help keep SAs eligible.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Not to get into another Stanford debate, but I think they're exactly in the same boat as us. The only difference is Stanford bites their nose off on the front end (entry requirements), and GT bites our nose off in the back end (hard academic choices once in school). GT's pool of acceptable SAs is larger than Stanfords, but Stanford will have a better selection of academic offerings to help keep SAs eligible.

That’s news to me. I thought they made exceptions for anybody they wanted.

Even if what you said is true, they beat us on an academic prestige factor tenfold. Any and all true Renaissance men, studs on the field and studs in the classroom, well prefer them over us and it’s not even close. They even have a more prestigious and higher ranked engineering department. How about them apples?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Nm

 

[RonJohn]

The only difference is Stanford bites their nose off on the front end (entry requirements), and GT bites our nose off in the back end (hard academic choices once in school).

What evidence do you have of that other than their low acceptance rate? My understanding is that they don't actually have any hard coded entry requirements. They say something like -- They analyze each applicant individually and don't grade them against any objective standards.

 

[Techster]

That’s news to me. I thought they made exceptions for anybody they wanted.

Nooo. I mean, if you mean "exceptions" compared to the rest of the student body than I would say that's accurate, but then again, most schools need exceptions for SAs compared to the rest of the student body.

GT has WAY more relaxed admissions for SAs compared to Stanford. I've done a lot of digging on this, and I still haven't found anyone Stanford has accepted below a 3.4 GPA, or 1100 on their SAT. They also want their SAs to take AP courses in HS before applying.

Contrast that to GT. I've seen us accept a kid with a 2.8 GPA and barely 1000 SAT. We also don't require kids to take AP courses in HS.

GT's challenge is once a kid is in school. Stanford's challenge is getting that kid in school.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Nooo. I mean, if you mean "exceptions" compared to the rest of the student body than I would say that's accurate, but then again, most schools need exceptions for SAs compared to the rest of the student body.

GT has WAY more relaxed admissions for SAs compared to Stanford. I've done a lot of digging on this, and I still haven't found anyone Stanford has accepted below a 3.4 GPA, or 1100 on their SAT. They also want their SAs to take AP courses in HS before applying.

Contrast that to GT. I've seen us accept a kid with a 2.8 GPA and barely 1000 SAT. We also don't require kids to take AP courses in HS.

GT's challenge is once a kid is in school. Stanford's challenge is getting that kid in school.

I added to my post above.

 

[Techster]

What evidence do you have of that other than their low acceptance rate? My understanding is that they don't actually have any hard coded entry requirements. They say something like -- They analyze each applicant individually and don't grade them against any objective standards.

I"m not re-doing the search, but there are articles written about this where Harbaugh, and how their current head coach David Shaw explicitly talk about what their admissions board specifically want from SAs they submit to them before they can offer a scholarship. Further, you can google each recruit and see what their GPA and test scores are if you look hard enough. Like I said, and maybe you can find different, but I've yet to find a recruit of Stanford's since I've been researching it that had less than a 3.4 GPA and 1100 SAT score.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

What Stanford and GT have in common is we both are looking for SchA’s: Scholar Athletes. I don’t even know what an SA means anymore.

 

[RonJohn]

Not to get into another Stanford debate, but I think they're exactly in the same boat as us. The only difference is Stanford bites their nose off on the front end (entry requirements), and GT bites our nose off in the back end (hard academic choices once in school). GT's pool of acceptable SAs is larger than Stanfords, but Stanford will have a better selection of academic offerings to help keep SAs eligible.

I"m not re-doing the search, but there are articles written about this where Harbaugh, and how their current head coach David Shaw explicitly talk about what their admissions board specifically want from SAs they submit to them before they can offer a scholarship. Further, you can google each recruit and see what their GPA and test scores are if you look hard enough. Like I said, and maybe you can find different, but I've yet to find a recruit of Stanford's since I've been researching it that had less than a 3.4 GPA and 1100 SAT score.

From a 2015 StanforDaily article written by a Stanford student using 2009 data https://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/02/22/the-price-of-athletics-at-stanford/ :
"the median football player who reported scores got an 1800 out of 2400 on the SAT and 26 on the ACT. Based on university statistics, this puts the football median comfortably in the bottom quartile and likely somewhere in the bottom 10 percent in terms of test scores."

That means there are some players who don't report their scores, and since Stanford is a private school it would be more difficult to get them to report. If the median on a 2400 is 1800, then on a 1600 score, the median would probably be about 1200, which is higher than GT's in 2013 as reported by the AJC. However, earlier (about 2009-2010) GT's average was in the mid 1100s and was the highest of any public Division 1 program. Most private schools weren't included in that list because they don't have to report everything.

The conclusion in the article states: "It’s time for us to consider whether Stanford’s policies of heavy investment in athletic programs and recruitment are really in line with the university’s mission. Regardless of what we decide to do, we as a university should have a frank discussion about how much we are willing to sacrifice academics for athletic success."

 

[GT_05]

That’s news to me. I thought they made exceptions for anybody they wanted.

Even if what you said is true, they beat us on an academic prestige factor tenfold. Any and all true Renaissance men, studs on the field and studs in the classroom, well prefer them over us and it’s not even close. They even have a more prestigious and higher ranked engineering department. How about them apples?

I have an engineering degree from GT and I never considered Stanford. Why? Well, I can’t remember the ranking difference at the time but right now Stanford is #2 and GT is #4. Insignificant to me. Also, GT has a great reputation to employers in the southeast, which is where I planned on living and working. Anyway, we shouldn’t lose many recruits to Stanford from the southeast unless they just want to move out to California.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RonJohn]

BTW, I am not totally disagreeing with you. They have students who don't report scores. That could be because they are very low, or it could be because the kid wants privacy even with very high scores. I think one thing to keep in mind is that our coaches, based on what they say, try to recruit kids who can keep up with the school work. Even if they don't have a low SAT score, if the coaches don't think they can keep up with the course work, they don't recruit them.

 

[Techster]

That’s news to me. I thought they made exceptions for anybody they wanted.

Even if what you said is true, they beat us on an academic prestige factor tenfold. Any and all true Renaissance men, studs on the field and studs in the classroom, well prefer them over us and it’s not even close. They even have a more prestigious and higher ranked engineering department. How about them apples?

LOL. Seriously, Cheese. The Woe is GT act is getting old.

Up until recently, GT has been better at football than Stanford. Then all of a sudden, Stanford made a good hire at coach and turned the program around. Stanford can only recruit a certain number of kids a year, it's not like they're taking all the "smart" kids out of play for schools like GT. Plus, not every kid wants to travel to the otherside of the country to go to school.

 

[takethepoints]

Up until recently, GT has been better at football than Stanford. Then all of a sudden, Stanford made a good hire at coach and turned the program around. Stanford can only recruit a certain number of kids a year, it's not like they're taking all the "smart" kids out of play for schools like GT. Plus, not every kid wants to travel to the otherside of the country to go to school.

Yesssss. I'm old enough to remember when Stanford was good in the distant past, in John Elway's and Jim Plunckett's time. Then they were in the wilderness from 1980 to 2007 (with one break under Bill Walsh) until they took a chance on Jim Harbaugh and lucked out with Shaw, who has their highest winning %. In short, they spent most of those 21 straight years we went to bowl games sucking big time. There's nothing magic about the place.

Oth, they have hit on a formula - run heavy offense and playing D (!) in the Pac-12 (!!) - that works for them, much as we have a formula that works for us (except this year). What we need to do is what Harbaugh did when he took over: get the school to commit greater resources to its football program. Let's do what we can to make that happen.

 

[WreckinGT]

LOL. Seriously, Cheese. The Woe is GT act is getting old.

Up until recently, GT has been better at football than Stanford. Then all of a sudden, Stanford made a good hire at coach and turned the program around. Stanford can only recruit a certain number of kids a year, it's not like they're taking all the "smart" kids out of play for schools like GT. Plus, not every kid wants to travel to the otherside of the country to go to school.

Stanford also hired a new Dean of Admissions who is very supportive of all athletics at Stanford, goes to football games regularly, and had a great working relationship with Jim Harbaugh.

 

[whitegoldsphinx]

Whoever brought up Stanford, do you mind if I punch you in the face?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

LOL. Seriously, Cheese. The Woe is GT act is getting old.

Up until recently, GT has been better at football than Stanford. Then all of a sudden, Stanford made a good hire at coach and turned the program around. Stanford can only recruit a certain number of kids a year, it's not like they're taking all the "smart" kids out of play for schools like GT. Plus, not every kid wants to travel to the otherside of the country to go to school.

"Up until recently" we've let a bunch of knumbskulls in, too. Go look at the Ross and G'OL rosters, not a lot of Rhodes scholars among them. That's hyperbole, of course, but the point is clear, the academic standard for GT football SA's has risen dramatically in the last 10 years and the football success has, surprise, surprise, declined (on average). This is why I don't get all the guys who say "well Ross and GOL recruited better..." That was well before flunkgate and NCAA probation and APR hit the scene and before the ACC got a whole lot better.

As to your 'Stanford can't take all the smart kids' point, they recruit nationally a whole lot better than we do. Why is that? They also have TON more majors to offer those smart kids. Way more. All of which come with that coveted Stanford diploma.

 

[Techster]

"Up until recently" we've let a bunch of knumbskulls in, too. Go look at the Ross and G'OL rosters, not a lot of Rhodes scholars among them. That's hyperbole, of course, but the point is clear, the academic standard for GT football SA's has risen dramatically in the last 10 years and the football success has, surprise, surprise, declined (on average). This is why I don't get all the guys who say "well Ross and GOL recruited better..." That was well before flunkgate and NCAA probation and APR hit the scene and before the ACC got a whole lot better.

As to your 'Stanford can't take all the smart kids' point, they recruit nationally a whole lot better than we do. Why is that? They also have TON more majors to offer those smart kids. Way more. All of which come with that coveted Stanford diploma.

Man, do us all a favor: NEVER try to recruit for GT. The way you make GT sound it's as if no athletes will ever graduate because our academics are so hard, our athletic department is destitute and were getting used equipment donated from local high schools, our stadium is empty every weekend, and our team has no winning tradition.

I mean we're graduating SAs at record numbers, GT had one of the longest bowl streaks up until 2015, we've played in 3 conference championships in the last 8 years, and been to 2 BCS bowls. There's probably less than 10 programs in the nation that can make that claim. But go ahead with the "Woe is GT" narrative.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Man, do us all a favor: NEVER try to recruit for GT. The way you make GT sound it's as if no athletes will ever graduate because our academics are so hard, our athletic department is destitute and were getting used equipment donated from local high schools, our stadium is empty every weekend, and our team has no winning tradition.

I mean we're graduating SAs at record numbers, GT had one of the longest bowl streaks up until 2015, we've played in 3 conference championships in the last 8 years, and been to 2 BCS bowls. There's probably less than 10 programs in the nation that can make that claim. But go ahead with the "Woe is GT" narrative.

I never said "Woe is GT" and don't see how my post reflects that characterization. You haven't refuted a single of my statements. The things you stated are true, I don't deny that, but the things I stated are true too.