Stanford is a better program than GT

[Ibeeballin]

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.

I think this is the answer

 

[cyptomcat]

I think this is the answer

Yup, you don't win that many non-revenue sports titles without holding sports involvement very high in the admissions process. It's not just football, also it's not anything new for Stanford. What's new is that they are now winning in football, but I think that's because Stanford has a new leadership that can win with the given opportunities and restrictions that previous leadership failed to win with.

The article below was shared across many Tech boards. For Stanford, it mentions how coaches give admissions a list of athletes 'by position'. You can read between the lines. There is no reason admissions needs a list 'by position', unless they are trying to help at least a little bit. For Northwestern, the article talks about considering a lot of criteria (family trouble, improving grades, etc.), so again, you can read between the lines that admissions is likely rationalizing, as in, they know who they would like to admit, and they are justifying it through making a story.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/co...5/nerds-stanford-northwestern-vanderbilt/#all

Also from the article:

Stanford faced questions on its own campus when a 2011 Stanford Daily investigation revealed the existence of an annual Courses of Interest list distributed to athletes. The classes were "always chock-full of athletes and very easy A's," said a women's soccer player. School officials contended the list was intended to help athletes find classes that fit their practice schedules.
...

In July, [Vandy's] Williams did not shy away from the fact that he'd convinced the school to relax its admissions standards for certain athletes, so long as the program maintained its high graduation rate. "You're not going to compete in Division I football with all of your team acing the SAT," Williams said. "It just doesn't happen, because the Alabamas, the Georgias, the Tennessees, they're going to have a wide range in there."

FWIW as far as recruiting, compared to previous years, this year I feel like we have fended off Stanford and Vandy better in recruiting. It's not like we are not doing something. The new Sports, Society and Technology program will start at Tech next year, and may make the GT HTS degree more relevant for athletes. It might help making the business degree and other degrees a better track for athletes wanting to work into athletics when they graduate or when they finish their careers. I remember reading that GTAA is funding part of this program.

 

[ATL1]

Yup, you don't win that many non-revenue sports titles without holding sports involvement very high in the admissions process. It's not just football, also it's not anything new for Stanford. What's new is that they are now winning in football, but I think that's because Stanford has a new leadership that can win with the given opportunities and restrictions that previous leadership failed to win with.

The article below was shared across many Tech boards. For Stanford, it mentions how coaches give admissions a list of athletes 'by position'. You can read between the lines. There is no reason admissions needs a list 'by position', unless they are trying to help at least a little bit. For Northwestern, the article talks about considering a lot of criteria (family trouble, improving grades, etc.), so again, you can read between the lines that admissions is likely rationalizing, as in, they know who they would like to admit, and they are justifying it through making a story.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/co...5/nerds-stanford-northwestern-vanderbilt/#all

Also from the article:


FWIW as far as recruiting, compared to previous years, this year I feel like we have fended off Stanford and Vandy better in recruiting. It's not like we are not doing something. The new Sports, Society and Technology program will start at Tech next year, and may make the GT HTS degree more relevant for athletes. It might help making the business degree and other degrees a better track for athletes wanting to work into athletics when they graduate or when they finish their careers. I remember reading that GTAA is funding part of this program.

This a start.

See in my opinion Tech doesn't necessarily need to change the principles of the institution. Tech is a unique institution and should remain so, that is actually a selling point for the institution and should be sold to recruits as such. I understand the challenges in academics & curriculum and that's fine but the Notre Dame, Northwestern, and Stanford's of the world prove that it can be done in this new era of college football.

1. Relentlessly recruit and recruit nationally (hell internationally) relentless. Everyone comes to GA to get players and we are in constant battles with football factories for recruits. I love the new strategy this year that Tech initiated to recruit the DC catholic league, Penn, Ohio, & Tenn. It has yielded results this year in Miles and Klock, and we on the table with some others in Ohio. I love how we recruited in the South in general by in large. Now it's time to push it out west. California and Texas. Tech will have to cast a broad net to get a few.

2. I agree with Longestday, Tech will have to open up the offense. They may do it some this year, but having a strong passing attack only to go along with this rushing attack makes this team virtually unstoppable. I can't think of any elite talented QB's that don't want to put the ball in the air, duel threat or not, QB's want to throw the ball. I wonder how much of Coach Cook's ideas will be implemented into the games, we know that the base will always be the flexbone, but more diamond, pistol, and spread formations, or even creating their own unique formation would make the program sexy.

3. I got this from another board. Having a star player at QB. A lot of weight will is on Vad's shoulders to lead the team, develop, and to become a superstar. Johnny Manzel, Tim Tebow, Cam Newton, are national figures thanks to their superstar status in the SEC. Tajd Boyd brings the hype to Clemson, Andrew Luck for Stanford, it's may be the biggest key to adding spice and bringing attention to your program.

 

[AE 87]

My problem with this thread is that it seems to conflate two issues: (1) GT's recruiting and (2) Stanford as a point of comparison.

On the first point, I agree that we shouldn't make excuses and be satisfied with poor recruiting at GT. We shouldn't stick our fingers in our ears and cover our eyes about the challenges we face with respect to curriculum choice, entrance requirements, and the type of intelligence needed to thrive academically at Tech, but we should take those as challenges not as excuses.

On the second point, I think the straight comparison to Stanford, Notre Dame, and Northwestern is simple-minded. Each one of those schools is private, so we don't have the same access to the academic qualifications of their incoming classes that we have with state universities. In the case of Stanford, we do have pretty solid information that they loosened entrance requirements to get football players in and then took other measures to keep them successful. Again, curriculum choice should not be used as an excuse, but it shouldn't be ignored when comparing programs. There are a lot of traditional students that graduate with great GPAs in the Liberal Arts from places like Stanford and Northwestern who would struggle with most programs at Tech.

 

[gtdrew]

I went to high school with a guy named JR Lemon. Some of you might remember him. Big time RB out of South Metro Atlanta. His final two;Stanford & GT. He chose Stanford, and when we asked him why, he just smiled. Don't underestimate the "Cali" factor. It's a gorgeous campus with great weather, and regardless of what you think, ATL1, the academics there may be as tough as Ma Tech, but every athlete that darkens the door at Stanford doesn't have to pass Calc 1 and a Lab Science the first year they're on campus. I can't stress this enough; just because a kid is smart doesn't mean he wants to deal with the academic limitations & challenges of a place like Tech.

 

[OldJacketFan]

A lot of very good points made by the posters on this specific subject. I won't rehash what's been said already but if you've the time take a look at the cumulative records of ND, Stanford, NW, Vandy and Michigan versus Tech. All of these schools are universally recognized as among the top academic institutions in the U.S. The record comparison might very well surprise you.

 

[stevo0718]

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:

So you are more or less saying Stanford is the best overall football program in the country. The only thing that could make them better would be winning NC's and heismans.

Loved the video, what a charismatic guy. We don't have that type of HC at Tech, not the smooth talker like Vandy's Franklin or Shaw. I also believe Stanford is more of a destination... People love Atlanta, but that's Palo Alto, California, women, Facebook, google. So they have a smooth talking coach and a sexy destination. We have a X's and O's old school coach in a business city that you can get yourself into some fun trouble in. Where would you want to go?

I think Stanford has a broader appeal, any of us who went to or are around people who went to Tech knows it takes a certain kind of person to succeed at our school. And many of us found tech to be hard as hell and often not fun. I don't know anyone who has gone to Stanford recently, but I don't get the same feeling of toughness from my father in law who went there as I get from most every Tech grad I know.

I am proud as hell of my school, I wouldn't trade it for any other. If what Tech has to offer isn't for these kids, that's fine by me. Go get your number one english literature or psycology degree in the country and get whatever kind of job you get with that. Do what you want to do. You can say its a top notch education, and I'm sure it is, but I'll take my marketable skills and my toughness and work ethic that my school taught me any day.

Not sure where I was going with that, but Stanford's smart and sexier, Tech is smart and tough. A charismatic HC really really helps I think. In tech's current state, HC + conference + offense + our competition = it's going really hard to make tech as appealing. I'm proud of our SA's for going to Tech and working their tails off for Tech and i am pumped to see them take the field in 2 weeks.

 

[GTrob21]

Honestly, I would go to Stanford over GT. I'm not an engineer, but even when you look at their engineering program it is extremely high in the rankings. Couple that with the fact that the campus is highly regarded by virtually everybody on planet earth and added that you have multiple opportunities in their curriculum vs ours, I don't see a logical reason to go to Tech vs Stanford.

Stanford is a great school that will afford you great opportunities in life, The same can be said for GT, but the narrow focus of Tech will always put it behind great liberal art schools, because the simple fact is that MOST people are not MATH minded.

 

[Ramblin Wrecker]

Great discussion, just to throw out something I don't think has been mentioned yet- most of the advantages Stanford might have over GT are debatable except for the fact that they offer a world class business school. The people who are shaping and changing the world are Stanford MBA's.

They have a level of exposure and brand recognition that we can't touch, and for every astronaut we generate, they pump out a congressman, a hedge fund manager, and 2 Fortune 500 executives. They also get their MBAs to buy into the sports programs to the point where they will choose Stanford football over their undergrad alma maters.

 

[ATL1]

A great post from another board:
"It's been well documented that it's harder to get an athlete into Stanford than it is to get them into GT (that's how we got Louis Young). Stanford also requires their athletes to go through regular admissions process (recommendations, essays, etc.) as well as take higher level courses in High School (AP courses). I may be wrong here, but I've yet to see them admit a kid with a sub 3.0 GPA. We know for a fact that GT has admitted several recruits with sub 3.0 GPAs just the last class, and we currently have a commit with that GPA. A few years ago, on the TOS, it was reported the average SAT and GPA for incoming Stanford recruits was 1176 SAT and 3.63 GPA...not that it's certain, it shows you what kind of kids they have to recruit. Not saying GT's recruits are anything to sneeze at because 90% of our commits right now have 3.5+ GPAs. Two points here: 1. Kids who choose to go to Stanford aren't looking to "hide" in easy majors. They're smart kids who can think for themselves...they're not going to go through the admissions process and work that hard in HS to get into one of the most prestigious schools just so they can skate by and play football. 2. Even if they did want to "hide" in an easy major, it's a lot harder for them to get into Stanford to "hide" than it would be somewhere else...like GT. I think it's fair to say that both GT and Stanford aren't signing kids who just want to skate by and play football. In my opinion, the whole limited curriculum at GT versus more variety at Stanford becomes a wash when you consider entrance requirements.

The point is, it's hard to get into both schools, but there are more than enough qualified kids who are great athletes that want to do the work and get a prestigious degree that we shouldn't really have this discussion. Since 1990 (Bill Lewis era not withstanding) GT was probably the model "smart school". Stanford and Vanderbilt have both recently found a more effective formula to get those smart football kids than what GT is doing. That's just the truth. The challenge for GT is to now step up our game. We're not recruiting an entire football team...there are more than enough kids just on the East Coast that GT can get 15-20 VERY good football players and students every class.

Look at this: why is it that it's always the same few coaches in on our staff that's pulling in the most talented kids on our roster? Recruiting is skill, and some coaches are better at it than others. That's something GT fans don't talk about enough. It's not just GT academics and entrance requirements that are hurdles. It's been my experience that people who put up hurdles usually don't get over them."

Building a great recruiting strategy is key. Tech is doing a better job of it this year, but there is a long way to go concerning consistency and establishing a message. This is not CPJ's strong suit so it is imperative that the strongest recruiters on the staff develop it and operate on an aggressive unified front. Stanford pulls a kid out of GA annually now, it's time to return the favor and get a kid from Cali & Texas.

 

[AE 87]

FWIW, I'm not sure we know the whole story with Lou Young's flip. Also, those reported GPA and SAT scores from Stanford were from before 2007. Please see my earlier post on Stanford's records before they publicly discussed admission standards for their football team.

You're free to believe whatever you want, but until these private schools start reporting their entrance data again, I would hesitate to accept as fact the claim that they are harder to get into than Tech.

 

[ATL1]

Why is it so hard to except that they just recruit and coach better than Tech? Is it hard for you to except it's a better academic school as well?
Why don't you check the roster of majors these football players are Stanford are hiding behind too..

 

[kg01]

Why is it so hard to except that they just recruit and coach better than Tech? Is it hard for you to except it's a better academic school as well?
Why don't you check the roster of majors these football players are Stanford are hiding behind too..

It's not that far-fetched to imagine that Stanford doesn't want to publicize lowered admission standards in exchange for better on-field results. The better coaching is a byproduct of the better recruiting which are impacted by access to a larger pool of potential candidates. It doesn't mean be can't be better than what we are, but it's incomplete analysis to ignore it.

I don't think the academics discussion is a "better or worse" one. The academics aren't really an apples-to-apples comparison at all.

 

[collegeballfan]

From Sports Illustrated: For what it is worth.

"Many major football programs are granted a certain number of "special admits" per recruiting class. Stanford is adamant that every player goes through the school's regular, stringent application process. (All of the schools profiled here are private institutions that do not disclose most admissions data.) In 2013, Stanford's general acceptance rate of 5.69 percent was lower than even Harvard's. In 2008, then-coach Jim Harbaugh told the Los Angeles Times that only about "100 to 150" of the approximately 3,500 annual FBS signees are realistically in play for Stanford.

But once Stanford coaches find a prospect they like, they take numerous steps to help navigate the admissions process. Anderson meets regularly with the school's admissions department so that both sides know what the other is seeking. If a player shows interest in Stanford, his recruiter serves as a de facto guidance counselor, advising the player on which courses he must take (most notably, at least two AP classes as a senior) and whether to re-take the SAT or ACT to best position himself for his eventual application."

Stanford has 8 players from Georgia on its roster. Do not know if scholarship or walk-ons.

 

[ATL1]

Here's another article describing the rigors and attitude towards recruiting at Stanford. It also illustrates how they are willing to groom kids while they are in high school in order for them to meet the requirements to gain a scholarship. How many programs make their kids take AP courses before even offering a scholarship. Again something that Tech can learn from them.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2012/12/30/stanford-rosebowl-academics

It doesn't hurt that Phil Knight is a major contributor: http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/headlines/knight_gift.shtml

 

[AE 87]

Why is it so hard to except that they just recruit and coach better than Tech? Is it hard for you to except it's a better academic school as well?
Why don't you check the roster of majors these football players are Stanford are hiding behind too..

While I expect that you meant to type "accept" rather than "except" both times in that first question, you're missing my point. It's not that I'm unwilling to accept something when presented with facts. My point is that I'm unwilling to ASSUME it when there are facts that undermine its likelihood. In 2007 and 2008 there were reports discussing the need for Stanford to find ways to expand their recruiting pool. Their Admissions Dean is the same guy that got Chris Webber into Michigan. The articles from SI and Breitbart and others like it report claims that Stanford isn't making exceptions to get football players in, but Stanford isn't reporting the actual GPAs and SAT scores of their incoming classes. As you noted earlier, they have reported that data in the past when they weren't being successful in football.

My only point is that WE DON'T KNOW that Stanford's admission standards are higher than Tech's. Here are some things that WE DO KNOW:
1) Stanford has NO MINIMUM GPA
2) Stanford has NO MINIMUM TEST SCORE
3) Stanford has NO SET OF REQUIRED HIGH SCHOOL COURSES
4) Stanford evaluates academic achievements WITHIN CONTEXT such as "family background, educational differences, employment and life experiences"
5) Stanford emphasizes ESSAYS in the admission process.

By comparison, GT uses, or used the last I heard, a formula based on test scores and gpa as part of its admissions process as well as curricular requirements, especially with respect to math/science.

So, given the flexibility of this set of standards, Stanford could admit students who would not be accepted at Tech, someone who writes well but doesn't have the required math/science expected by Tech, as well as rejecting students who would be accepted at Tech, a student with the math/science with lesser verbal skills. Moreover, a guy like Lou Young might be more academically qualified than some of the players admitted to Stanford, but disqualified because his gpa/scores relative to his "context," Good Counsel High School, were less than others who came from lesser High Schools.

With respect to the question of majors, I never said that students were hiding behind anything. I said that the subjectivity inherent in the grading of Liberal Arts courses allows for easier path toward passing grades than the objective grading in the Math/Science requirements at Tech. Based on a quick look at Stanford's undergraduate catalog, it appears that a student can get a BA in Communications, for example, without a math course.

Why is it so hard for you to accept that there is a difference between the admission standards and academic rigor at Tech and at Stanford?

https://admission.stanford.edu/basics/selection/index.html
https://admission.stanford.edu/basics/selection/prepare.html
http://facultysenate.stanford.edu/2006_2007/reports/SenD5876_cuafa_annual_rpt.pdf

 

[OldJacketFan]

Since 2000 through the 2012 season Stanford is 82-74 a winning percentage of 52.5%, Northwestern is 84-77 a winning percentage of 52.1%, Vanderbilt is 51-104 a winning percentage of 32.9%, Notre Dame is 98-63 a winning percentage of 60.8%, Michigan is 107-55 a winning percentage of 66% and Tech 102-67 a winning percentage of 60.3%.

Now there in argument to be made over the last 3 years the winning percentage of these schools indicate their programs are heading in a better direction than Tech but what period of time do you use for comparison? Total W-L record for the history of the program? 3 year? 5 year? 10 year? 20 year? Can Tech do a better job marketing itself and in recruiting? Of course it can but to think that the sky is falling is a bit much. Of the schools most often discussed as academic competitors of Tech it is undisputed that Tech's curriculum in narrower. Not complaining just stating a fact. Some of that has to do with the mission at Tech, some of has to do with the GA Board of Regents but bottom line is Tech has to work with what it as a Institution offers to its SAs and, I for one, am good with that.

 

[ATL1]

I've presented documented quotes from administrators, video presentation of the head coach, and I have presented with your personal assumption based on an article in 2007. A very simple search will find even more articles on how and what Stanford approach is to recruiting in sports and that most of majors of its current football roster. (more technical majors than liberal arts, not that it makes much of a difference) The fact that Stanford is a Top 5 academic institution ahead of most Ivy Leagues schools apparently means nothing since according to you they just admit kids all willy nilly.

 

[AE 87]

I've presented documented quotes from administrators, video presentation of the head coach, and I have presented with your personal assumption based on an article in 2007. A very simple search will find even more articles on how and what Stanford approach is to recruiting in sports and that most of majors of its current football roster. (more technical majors than liberal arts, not that it makes much of a difference) The fact that Stanford is a Top 5 academic institution ahead of most Ivy Leagues schools apparently means nothing since according to you they just admit kids all willy nilly.

First of all, there's a difference between "personal assumption" and reasoned inference. You have not addressed the data I presented at all regarding the coincidence of the discussion of admission standards and improved records in football. I've also accepted and addressed your statements from coaches and administrators and made explicit reference to Stanford's admission procedures from their own website. If I have erred in what I have written, please point out where.

It strikes me as extremely informative that you conclude this post by saying "since according to you they just admit kids all willy nilly." In my last post, I discussed reasons why students could be accepted at one school and not the other based on Stanford's and GT's differing stated admission procedures. In no way could that be construed as suggesting that they are doing it "all willy nilly." It seems pretty clear that you are more comfortable with arguing on the basis of feelings rather than facts.

 

[ATL1]

That fact is that you have no proof to back your claims.