I have no idea the numbers on that, not sure where this is going.
My comment is that with the student-athlete we are recruiting them, trying to convince them that GT is the best place for them. Although there might be some "recruiting" with top-level academic achievers, it's a whole different environment. One of the selling points of GT is the value of the degree. So, my point was that comparing the recruitment of student-athletes versus students on academic scholarship really isn't valuable.
That being said, I was a student athlete in high school and played on two club-level teams while at GT, so I understand cuts. Not everyone makes the team. Not everyone is good enough to make the team. Total roster is capped at 105, which means there can only be a maximum of 20 non-scholarship football players. The rest get cut.
After much deliberation and reflection, I am okay with cutting players, which is a reversal of my previous position. However, that acceptance is good only if it's explicitly explained to the recruit that there is no guarantee that the scholarship is good for more than the following year, and than sub par performance could cost someone their spot on the team.
What I'm still working my way through is how you handle student-athletes that are cut after 2 years at the school. To graduate from a 4 year institution, the student has to be enrolled there for the final 4 semesters (2 years of classes). If someone is a RS-sophomore, junior, RS-junior, or senior, you're talking about adding time to their education by them transferring. I haven't resolved this yet, but am still digesting.
It's an interesting discussion, and definitely not as clear-cut as many are making it. To me, it's not an ethical question as long as there is honest dialogue from the very beginning.