- Messages
- 10,055
- Location
- Williamsburg Virginia
We have talked a lot about recruiting in the past and the reasons and the causes of our difficulties. We usually talk about academics and available majors. We have the most limited majors of any major D1 school. Stanford and ND have their crib majors but are still regarded as elite academic universities.
Now with Custis, we took a chance on a kid who otherwise wouldn’t have gotten into GT and it didn’t work out. I think it is good we gave him a chance for both him and us. I also think it is good that we kept our academic integrity and he didn’t get passed through just because he could be a football super star.
The recruiting problems associated with limited majors have been around for a while – at least 1936. From “Dodd’ Luck” page 79-80,
We had great teams around WW II since we had the military programs at GT even though the Regents had taken away the business degree. In the early 50’s, we had the best football program in the country.
But things change –here in 1957, these words echo today with Custis. From “Dodd’s Luck” (pages 206-7):
Then come forward to about 2012 when the Board of Regents gave UGAg an engineering degree program. That takes away a bit from our recruiting advantage for the few Georgia players who may want to go into engineering but don’t want the academic rigor at GT.
I expect little from the Georgia Board of Regents except protection of the alma mater for most of them, UGAg. Of course they will allow GT to bring in ½ B $ a year from research contracts (GTRI). (Page 21 of 61 at http://fin-services.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/ead-13-503-Georgia Institute of Technology Audit.pdf )
I don’t think the Hill has or will make a lot of waves since the GT President works for the Georgia Board of Regents. It’s not in their interest to do so. The future of GT is tied up in academic excellence, both undergraduate and graduate given the finances. We already get far more great undergraduate applicants than we can accept and for graduate applicants / research, football is not a priority. So football success would only help academics at the margin at best.
So I don't expect any positive changes, if anything, further advantages given to UGAg.
Now with Custis, we took a chance on a kid who otherwise wouldn’t have gotten into GT and it didn’t work out. I think it is good we gave him a chance for both him and us. I also think it is good that we kept our academic integrity and he didn’t get passed through just because he could be a football super star.
The recruiting problems associated with limited majors have been around for a while – at least 1936. From “Dodd’ Luck” page 79-80,
“…. Recruiting for Georgia Tech had become even tougher. In 1936 the University Board of Regents took away the commerce department – the business major – and ruled that it would be taught instead a t the University of Georgia in Athens. Many football players at Tech had majored in commerce. Not only did this business background qualify them for good jobs on graduation, but it also gave them a reasonable course of study in which they could make passing grades and remain eligible to play football.”
We had great teams around WW II since we had the military programs at GT even though the Regents had taken away the business degree. In the early 50’s, we had the best football program in the country.
But things change –here in 1957, these words echo today with Custis. From “Dodd’s Luck” (pages 206-7):
“But his primary handicap, as Dodd saw it, was still academic. He was at a terrible disadvantage where it counted most – in Tech’s home state."
“Our school system is poor in Georgia, as long as you can remember,” Dodd said. “And here we are sitting at Georgia Tech at what I call an Ivy League school. We were out of our class, really. If we’d had Georgia Tech sitting in the middle of Pennsylvania, where Penn State is, hell, I could have recruited players just like Penn State with no problem. There are lots of kids up there qualified to come to Tech. But we can’t find ‘em here. And I was getting out-recruited. They could go to Auburn and Georgia and Tennessee and play against me, but they couldn’t come to Tech.”
“Our school system is poor in Georgia, as long as you can remember,” Dodd said. “And here we are sitting at Georgia Tech at what I call an Ivy League school. We were out of our class, really. If we’d had Georgia Tech sitting in the middle of Pennsylvania, where Penn State is, hell, I could have recruited players just like Penn State with no problem. There are lots of kids up there qualified to come to Tech. But we can’t find ‘em here. And I was getting out-recruited. They could go to Auburn and Georgia and Tennessee and play against me, but they couldn’t come to Tech.”
Then come forward to about 2012 when the Board of Regents gave UGAg an engineering degree program. That takes away a bit from our recruiting advantage for the few Georgia players who may want to go into engineering but don’t want the academic rigor at GT.
I expect little from the Georgia Board of Regents except protection of the alma mater for most of them, UGAg. Of course they will allow GT to bring in ½ B $ a year from research contracts (GTRI). (Page 21 of 61 at http://fin-services.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/ead-13-503-Georgia Institute of Technology Audit.pdf )
I don’t think the Hill has or will make a lot of waves since the GT President works for the Georgia Board of Regents. It’s not in their interest to do so. The future of GT is tied up in academic excellence, both undergraduate and graduate given the finances. We already get far more great undergraduate applicants than we can accept and for graduate applicants / research, football is not a priority. So football success would only help academics at the margin at best.
So I don't expect any positive changes, if anything, further advantages given to UGAg.
