Stanford is a better program than GT

[ATL1]

In every way.
Their players graduate at a higher rate.
Their players have higher gpa's.
Compete for titles.
In the NC championship mix.
Better recruits rankings.
Heisman candidates.

So the question isn't why but how can Tech get there?
I think one thing that separated Stanford from Tech is the plan that Harbough and his staff came with:

 

[Longestday]

Don't write the story before it is finished.

We had an exciting first 2 years. The next three we struggled. The issues have some part in recruiting, some part in scheme, and some part in program management.

Recruiting is changing. We have more help and a larger strategy.
Graduation rates are increasing and changing for the better.
The projection and writing our own story versus others dictating our story is changing.
The scheme is changing on all "four" sides of the ball: recruiting, offense, defense, and ST.
Spread options look, diamond formation look, and the shotgun look add to the sizzle.
Defense is being fit to our players and to the best athletic players we can sign.
Vad/JT and JT/Smelter/Gotsis/Sneezy/Golden/Butker will bring some excitement to to the team.
Hot QB runs, interceptions, sacks, run return TDs and long field goals are sexy!

I agree that the first two seasons projected success and after the last three seasons we had to regroup, reexamine, make changes, and execute. We are nearing the grading card and the bottom line starting in 15 days. I am not sure how it will play out, but I can say CPJ has put into motion plans to charge up this program.

I would prefer to start from here 5 years ago, but we are here today and want to let the season play out.

 

[gtdrew]

English. Sociology. Pre-law. Humanities.

All things they offer that we don't.

I don't understand why more people don't understand this basic truth; just because a kid is smart doesn't mean he likes math.

 

[ATL1]

I wonder what percentages of their team major in the humanities. Andrew Luck was a bio major.

 

[ATL1]

English. Sociology. Pre-law. Humanities.

All things they offer that we don't.

I don't understand why more people don't understand this basic truth; just because a kid is smart doesn't mean he likes math.

I don't buy using this crutch as an excuse. Tech historically has had greater success in football & hoops than Stanford. The challenge of having limited curriculum is just that a challenge.

 

[kg01]

I don't buy using this crutch as an excuse. Tech historically has had greater success in football & hoops than Stanford. The challenge of having limited curriculum is just that a challenge.

It is indeed a challenge, but it's not to be ignored or discounted either. Stanford is closer to being a football factory than most recognize.

Plus, the bolded portion basically disproves your original post doesn't it? Not meant as a shot, but whenever this discussion comes up on one of out boards all I ever think of is the fact that Stanford's success is a relatively recent thing.

 

[ATL1]

It is indeed a challenge, but it's not to be ignored or discounted either. Stanford is closer to being a football factory than most recognize.

Plus, the bolded portion basically disproves your original post doesn't it? Not meant as a shot, but whenever this discussion comes up on one of out boards all I ever think of is the fact that Stanford's success is a relatively recent thing.

Somewhat but if you consider the pipeline that has come out of Stanford whether it be John Elway, to Dennis Green, to the inventor of the West Coast Offense Bill Walsh, Stanford has had it's peaks and has definitely laid a greater stamp on the game of football than possibly GT.

I don't consider Stanford or Notre Dame any more a factory than Tech. I would even say Tech possibly has just as many NFL players in the league as Stanford and ND. History aside Stanford currently has a better program, and Tech is trying to get there.

 

[PowderSpringsJacket88]

They actually have better academics than GT has in many programs. Also, the girl to guy ration is like 3-1. Beautiful campus in California!

 

[kg01]

Somewhat but if you consider the pipeline that has come out of Stanford whether it be John Elway, to Dennis Green, to the inventor of the West Coast Offense Bill Walsh, Stanford has had it's peaks and has definitely laid a greater stamp on the game of football than possibly GT.

I don't consider Stanford or Notre Dame any more a factory than Tech. I would even say Tech possibly has just as many NFL players in the league as Stanford and ND. History aside Stanford currently has a better program, and Tech is trying to get there.

I don't dispute your facts. I look at it as a program making blips on the radar but not really an established juggernaut or anything. They've had extended stretches where they were a doormat IIRC.

I think right now they are certainly on a level we'd like to be at, but I don't expect them to sustain it. They haven't in the past.

When I say they're closer to being a factory I'm referring to their ability to hide kids in easy majors once they're in.

 

[cyptomcat]

I wonder what percentages of their team major in the humanities. Andrew Luck was a bio major.

No he wasn't. It was architectural design. Something that is not considered engineering or anything that rigorous at Tech. Tech business degree is a lot more useful. In many ways.

 

[IronJacket7]

Winning cures all concerns.

 

[ATL1]

What's an easy major at Stanford? What major are players hiding in at Stanford?

Excusing are monuments to nothingness ...

 

[kg01]

What's an easy major at Stanford? What major are players hiding in at Stanford?

Excusing are monuments to nothingness ...

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/uga/academic/programs/humanities_sciences.html

You're combining two separate discussions. There are reasons other than our limited course offerings that we aren't a perennial power. However, it's incorrect to assume it's a non-factor. It's also not excuse-making to acknowledge it.

 

[ATL1]

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/uga/academic/programs/humanities_sciences.html

You're combining two separate discussions. There are reasons other than our limited course offerings that we aren't a perennial power. However, it's incorrect to assume it's a non-factor. It's also not excuse-making to acknowledge it.

I understand that they have a broader curriculum nor do I dismiss that fact, but they are also a higher rated school in every program including engineering (damn near Ivy League), they sit in an area that isn't necessarily a recruiting paradise, they have challenges that are very similar to Tech's, and in some ways Tech has an advantages over them, yet they don't allow that to be a detriment to what they are attempting to accomplish.

If you like I can add Vanderbilt & Northwestern to compare as well. The point is Tech can't keep making the same tired excuses when schools who don't have the history or supposed recruiting advantages are out performing the Institute. Now what can Tech learn from them?

 

[GravyTrain]

It's very easy to simply dismiss the responses of others as excuses, while making no attempts to offer up insight and answer one's own question.

If a limited curriculum is considered a challenge, is it not part of what is holding Georgia Tech back as a football program? Why then discard it as a "crutch" and an "excuse"? It still ends up being part of the "why" and not the "how", but you need to first identify the main problems before you can begin to brainstorm the solutions.

I don't agree with using Stanford as the measuring stick. Its apples to oranges, and probably little to no people on this board understand and are deeply familiar with all things Stanford for this exercise to be useful.

So lets stop with the why can't we be more like Stanford or Alabama. We are neither. There is nothing wrong with asking why and how GT can improve as a football program. Every fan wants their program to be better. It's just that these nothing really comes out of these conversations except name-calling, ****-measuring, program bashing and other behaviors that Eric and the mods have tried to avoid happening on this board.

 

[ATL1]

It's a discussion board ..
This board (while good, thanks Eric) loves itself a little to much. i posted the same question on another board and received three good responses.
The only person that gave a great response so far is longestday.

 

[AE 87]

In 2007, the SF Chronicle published an article entitled, "HIGHER STANDARDS / Stanford teams finding it's hard to win if athletes can't get in." Let's look at Stanford's football records before and after that article came out:
2002 2-9 (1-7)
2003 4-7 (2-6)
2004 4-7 (2-6)
2005 5-6 (4-4)
2006 1-11 (1-8)
2007 4-8 (3-6)
2008 5-7 (4-5)
2009 8-5 (6-3)
2010 12-1 (8-1)
2011 11-2 (8-1)
2012 12-2 (8-1)

Funny right about the time Stanford's talking about lowering entrance requirements for football players, they start having more successful teams. On top of that, Stanford's Dean of Admissions starting in 2005 has been Richard Shaw who held the same position at the University of Michigan from 1988 to 1993, when he found a way to admit Chris Webber.

As a private school, Stanford doesn't have to report its admission standards. So, there's no telling what's going on for sure, but I don't think it takes a rocket scientist (ahem) to figure out.

In the past several months there's been all kinds of news about how many "legacy" admissions Stanford has brought in, that is for people who are admitted based on other benefit to the university regardless of entrance requirements.

Also, the suggestion that the difference between most liberal arts majors and one of GT's majors in terms of success rate is only an excuse seems to me to be ignorant. The liberal arts often rely on subjective assessments rather than objective assessments.

 

[GruffyMcGuiness]

Recruiting against the SEC surely makes a difference. They're (sort of) in the middle of a huge state where USC has fallen off and have become the number one football school in Cali. I haven't looked at theit recruiting classes but I'd expect top 35? Like I said, we're already at a disatvantage being right in the middle of SEC country.

 

[collegeballfan]

Interesting discussion. I will stay out of the discussion but I will throw both teams records on the table.

Tech's record from 1970 thru 2012 - 272 - 230 - 8 - 510 total games
Stanford record same period of time- 256 - 233 - 8 - 497 total games

 

[cyptomcat]

Something else that didn't get mentioned is that Stanford sold out its season tickets for this season. The program is really taking off. It is a big accomplishment to sell out season tickets in a metropolitan area with 2 other college programs, 2 NFL teams, 2 MLB teams, an NBA team, a MLS team and a NHL team.

Also, Stanford has probably the best non-revenue sports in the US. They are completely committed to sports. They are used to admitting a lot of athletes, not just in football.