Johnson

[AE 87]

WHAT?!! Now you're moving the goal post and just trying to backtrack and throwing in extraneous other things that has NOTHING to do with our original discussion.

Why in the world would you even make it a point to say:

GT is the only STEM school that fields a FBS football team.

*I loosely define STEM school as one that has at least 60% of its degrees granted annually in STEM fields.

Nobody else that fits that profile plays big boy football. Why not? If this does not put our recruiting difficulties into nutshell perspective, nothing does.

It's not just getting in and getting out..... academics. It's the whole ball of wax that comes with being a STEM school. Everything.


Then turn around and say "That's what I'm talking about, not what each kid is majoring in."


So now you're contradicting your point? So at first you want to qualify GT as the "only STEM school" in the FBS (which is factualy false in the first place) because (in your very own words) "I loosely define STEM school as one that has at least 60% of its degrees granted annually in STEM fields.", but now you're saying (again, in your very own words) "what each kid is majoring in" doesn't matter?

OK, buddy...can't talk to a person if he can't even keep his point straight. I'm finished here.

FWIW, I think @dressedcheeseside clarified what his point had been all along, that being a STEM school was shorthand for all our recruiting difficulties. It seems to me that yall were just talking past each other. That the point he was trying to make was not the point that you were arguing against does not mean that he's contradicting himself. It means that there was an earlier misunderstanding.

 

[redmule]

Same old, same old. This discussion has been going on on Tech boards since the Hive started in the mid 90's. It was going on in the media before the internet in the 60's, 70's and 80's. I remember when Pepper was here that one year it was said out of the AJC's top 25 high school players, only one could have gotten into Tech, and that was when Tech was letting in people like me. We've changed coaches, offenses, defenses, facilities, administrations (both athletic and academic), quarters to semesters, conferences, uniforms, sponsors, seating, parking, hosted an Olympics (which was either a great help to recruiting or a distraction from recruiting depending on whom you asked), just about everything but the Wreck and the Whistle.

The thing that seems the most constant to me is that every three to four years, we somehow get a special group of players (and not from just one recruiting class) that has 'IT'. When we have them, it is one of the most wonderful things. Usually that means we can beat, sometimes badly, any team in the country that dares to set foot on Grant Field. However, sometime during that run, we will have a brain fart and lose a game that should be an automatic win. Then there is the negative image of that period where we could not win if we were allowed 13 players. Of course we will also beat (or almost beat) at least one top 10 team totally unexpectedly. The last 20 years, O'Leary, Gailey, and Johnson managed to will us thru a couple of those periods and keep 6 win seasons from becoming 3 win seasons, but that may have been more about weak schedules than anything they did. This year, schedule and injuries meant Johnson couldn't keep us out of the ditch. Many, with myself as chief protagonist, thought that what we had returning this year meant things had changed. They had not. We are still Georgia Tech, and I like that.

The is one more ugly constant. Close heartbreaking losses to the dwags. Maybe we can't break that streak. It might be up to uga to break it for us, and hopefully Smart is the guy to do it. Had we won the uga games in '95, '97, '06, '09, and '13 (all games that we gave away or had stolen by refs) we would be talking about how the last 20 years was a Golden Age for Tech football.

I think for those with eyes to see and a historical perspective, this year's team was the embryo for the next magical time.

 

[JorgeJonas]

Don't the kids get any say in what they want to major in?

 

[Skeptic]

This is old data, but from 2008:

http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/paper-trail/2008/12/30/athletes-show-huge-gaps-in-sat-scores

Stanford was not in the top 10 of SAT scores for football players.

If I recall, Harbaugh was very straightforward about admissions and majors, and got himself in trouble with his old school, whatsitsname, by saying it was no different there, whatever the academic reputation. They got football players in. I guess Michigan forgave him, though.

 

[Skeptic]

Same old, same old. This discussion has been going on on Tech boards since the Hive started in the mid 90's. It was going on in the media before the internet in the 60's, 70's and 80's. I remember when Pepper was here that one year it was said out of the AJC's top 25 high school players, only one could have gotten into Tech, and that was when Tech was letting in people like me. ... }You know, I really like this post. Even if it is false modesty.

 

[awbuzz]

Basically GTs "easier" majors are more difficult than most P5 schools harder majors.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

Basically GTs "easier" majors are more difficult than most P5 schools harder majors.

gross generalization but the underlying theme could be kind of true.

 

[iceeater1969]

Same old, same old. This discussion has been going on on Tech boards since the Hive started in the mid 90's. It was going on in the media before the internet in the 60's, 70's and 80's. I remember when Pepper was here that one year it was said out of the AJC's top 25 high school players, only one could have gotten into Tech, and that was when Tech was letting in people like me. We've changed coaches, offenses, defenses, facilities, administrations (both athletic and academic), quarters to semesters, conferences, uniforms, sponsors, seating, parking, hosted an Olympics (which was either a great help to recruiting or a distraction from recruiting depending on whom you asked), just about everything but the Wreck and the Whistle.

The thing that seems the most constant to me is that every three to four years, we somehow get a special group of players (and not from just one recruiting class) that has 'IT'. When we have them, it is one of the most wonderful things. Usually that means we can beat, sometimes badly, any team in the country that dares to set foot on Grant Field. However, sometime during that run, we will have a brain fart and lose a game that should be an automatic win. Then there is the negative image of that period where we could not win if we were allowed 13 players. Of course we will also beat (or almost beat) at least one top 10 team totally unexpectedly. The last 20 years, O'Leary, Gailey, and Johnson managed to will us thru a couple of those periods and keep 6 win seasons from becoming 3 win seasons, but that may have been more about weak schedules than anything they did. This year, schedule and injuries meant Johnson couldn't keep us out of the ditch. Many, with myself as chief protagonist, thought that what we had returning this year meant things had changed. They had not. We are still Georgia Tech, and I like that.

The is one more ugly constant. Close heartbreaking losses to the dwags. Maybe we can't break that streak. It might be up to uga to break it for us, and hopefully Smart is the guy to do it. Had we won the uga games in '95, '97, '06, '09, and '13 (all games that we gave away or had stolen by refs) we would be talking about how the last 20 years was a Golden Age for Tech football.

I think for those with eyes to see and a historical perspective, this year's team was the embryo for the next magical time.

We did not win 3 games this year.

Thats where we differ.

I enjoy seeing us plays lessor teams like elon, mercer, Alcorn. To me they are a warm-up to the real season with a chance for the backups to play.
This YEAR We one 1 out of 9 real football games.
Could have have easily won several more or could have lost them all.

The good recruiting class of 15 is yet to be degined, but prospects look very good. I think they came in p art because of nd, CLEMSON, fsu, uga vt miami on our schedule. If they got to choose A 10 yd gain verses one of the power schools verses 65 yd td Tulane playing 9 defenders .

Baptized with fire 1-9 we will comeback strong.

 

[forensicbuzz]

It's not just about having to take "calculus." In order to take calculus, you also have to have taken 2 years of algebra, geometry and trigonometry. Many students enter college today and the first math class they take is College Algebra. College Algebra is a remedial class at Tech. In order to stay eligible, I believe Calculus has to be completed by the end of the 2nd year (don't quote me on that). It amazes me that we're able to field a competitive D1 team with this requirement: not because these kids aren't smart (I believe they are), but because most of them are probably not prepared to start Calculus I when they step on campus. Kudos to these guys for getting it done and the program for having the support system necessary to accomplish this. I have a lot of respect for what they are able to accomplish.

 

[LongforDodd]

To be fair, the off season did start earlier than it has for 20 years.

18 is the number, isn't it? I get your point though.

 

[MWBATL]

This is old data, but from 2008:

http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/paper-trail/2008/12/30/athletes-show-huge-gaps-in-sat-scores

Stanford was not in the top 10 of SAT scores for football players.

Isn't Stanford a private university, like Duke? While I am well aware that Stanford does a lot of stuff to get their athletes in and through school, I am not sure that lost in an indictment of them....since it is only public universities.

Stanford has a list of easy classes they direct their athletes to, per this article:
http://www.stanforddaily.com/2011/03/09/1046687/

 

[ATL1]

Stanford is hard as hell to get into even for their athletes, now once in the May classes that are less a load than others but it's still a top 5 Institution with an engineering program ranked higher than GT's.

Check their roster and show me these easy majors from the Jr & Sr's.
Where are all these big dummies Stanford recruits?
http://www.gostanford.com/SportSelect.dbml?SPSID=749928&SPID=1270

National Honor Society up and down their freshman roster.
Engineering majors all over their OLine.
Science, Technology, & Society is their major which would be equivalent to business.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

Stanford is hard as hell to get into even for their athletes, now once in the May classes that are less a load than others but it's still a top 5 Institution with an engineering program ranked higher than GT's.

Check their roster and show me these easy majors from the Jr & Sr's.
Where are all these big dummies Stanford recruits?
http://www.gostanford.com/SportSelect.dbml?SPSID=749928&SPID=1270

National Honor Society up and down their freshman roster.
Engineering majors all over their OLine.
Science, Technology, & Society is their major which would be equivalent to business.

Actually their STS major is not the equivalent to Tech's business.

Rather it's equivalent to Tech's Science Technology and Culture track of their Literature Media and Communications major.

My wife has that degree along with some players like Synjyn Days.

 

[ATL1]

Actually their STS major is not the equivalent to Tech's business.

Rather it's equivalent to Tech's Science Technology and Culture track of their Literature Media and Communications major.

My wife has that degree along with some players like Synjyn Days.

Corrected Thx

 

[awbuzz]

gross generalization but the underlying theme could be kind of true.

Intended to be the generalization, I.E. not getting too deep in the weeds.

But would be Willing to bet it's at least 75 to 80 percent true for the degrees most football athletes get/attempts.

 

[iceeater1969]

Corrected Thx

Atlanta, u seem to get it = BOTH gt and Stanford are both very good schools with very high academics (a little lower for recruits). They have broader course offering. We have calculus requirement. They recruit nationally and we don't.

Gtaa and Stanford have about same overall budget.
They are in TOP 11 in 5 of last 6 years and we were once.

Do u have any idea why I cant get this board to agree we need to find $$ to broaden recruiting? It seems obvious?

 

[AE 87]

Well, it seems that some topics must be repeated. So, I'll repeat as well.

Stanford has no minimum requirements: no required HS classes, no required SAT or ACT, no required HS GPA. So, they don't need to offer exceptions.

Their admittance procedure is based on whole person. If you have special talents in one area, you can be less apt in another. So, it may be harder than GT to get in as a normal student or a 3* but easier as a 4* or 5*.

 

[ATL1]

Again go up and down that roster. Where are the questionable academic players?

Damn near every freshman has National Honor Society on their resume? Truthfully they not recruiting a ton of 5*'s either but lots of private or prep kids.

They do a very good job of target recruiting.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Actually their STS major is not the equivalent to Tech's business.

Rather it's equivalent to Tech's Science Technology and Culture track of their Literature Media and Communications major.

My wife has that degree along with some players like Synjyn Days.

What do you do with that degree, btw?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Well, it seems that some topics must be repeated. So, I'll repeat as well.

Stanford has no minimum requirements: no required HS classes, no required SAT or ACT, no required HS GPA. So, they don't need to offer exceptions.

Their admittance procedure is based on whole person. If you have special talents in one area, you can be less apt in another. So, it may be harder than GT to get in as a normal student or a 3* but easier as a 4* or 5*.

Translation: if a real good football player wants in, they get in.