Stanford is a better program than GT

[Longestday]

I think this is relatively easy....

California versus Georgia? Easy
Many different majors versus limited offerings? Easy
Set entrance minimums versus behind closed door pandering? Easy
Required calculous versus no math required? Easy
Many girls versus few girls? Easy

I do believe we can do better and we are getting better. But, we will never have the upper hand on what I proposed above.

Given a full ride, I might have gone to Stanford. Ask yourself the same question as a 18 year old male.

Paul won when he first arrived and felt like winning allowed him fight with the media about his system. Given the last three years, Paul has realized he cannot let others define him and the answer is not him saying it is not so. Paul is using youtube, Facebook, twitter, and constant use of other adjectives to describe his system to help change the label of his program.

So much has changed in the last 6 months to say Paul is just not working out, is to stubborn to change, and we are going to fail. We have new media campaigns, new staff, new d scheme, new offensive formations, new Smelter, new ticket schemes, new reaping grounds for players, new offering pattern to potential players, open scrimmages, and even new media speech patterns. Yes, Paul has done what I call the nuclear option. Sometimes you change one thing at a time so you know what solution fixed the issue. When you are hemorrhaging and about to die, you must do all that can be done all at once to insure you have the solution now.

 

[OldJacketFan]

Until the advent of Harbaugh and the continuation of Shaw when has Stanford been a relative "powerhouse" in the PAC 12 let alone nationally? Harbaugh was 29-21 in his tenure at Stanford with one of the best collegiate QBs of the last 15 years, Shaw has gone 23-4 in 2 years during the time when USC has not been USC, UCLA has been way down, AZ and ASU have been rebuilding with new coaches. As a whole the PAC 12 conference other than Stanford and Oregon have not been nationally relevant in several years. If the PAC 12 gets back to when USC, UCLA, ASU, AZ, Cal were all nationally ranked then lets see if Stanford can continue its new found success. Their history suggest they won't be able to do so.

 

[ATL1]

I think this is relatively easy....

California versus Georgia? Easy
Many different majors versus limited offerings? Easy
Set entrance minimums versus behind closed door pandering? Easy
Required calculous versus no math required? Easy
Many girls versus few girls? Easy

Check their roster, there appears to be a socioeconomic and racial breakdown difference in theirs as opposed to Tech's. Is there some significance to that, well possibly: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2012/12/30/stanford-rosebowl-academics

"Stanford’s coaches started identifying potential high school juniors who could meet Stanford’s rigid admissions standards and become “Stanford men.” They worked with potential recruits who had expressed an interest in playing for Stanford and provided them with a rigorous academic schedule."

Like I stated this is where Tech can learn from Stanford in helping getting players ahead of the game.
"An Oklahoma State football told the Tulsa World Oklahoma that they knew Stanford was higher on Sanders' list than Oklahoma State's because Sanders spent as much time studying in high school as he was honing his football skills:

"They knew because he kept taking the ACT and the SAT...He’s been taking AP (advance placement) classes this year — he took two the first semester and he’s taking two this semester — and I think that’s why. I mean, he qualified everywhere else and I think Stanford just wanted him to make a higher score, and he accomplished that. I think he’s done what he needs to do.”

After Sanders got the grades and test scores to get admitted to Stanford, he accepted the football program's offer."

This above and beyond hands on approach to recruiting could serve Tech well. Guide the kids through the math and science requirement. . Meet the kids with a great if not elitist message of Tech, producer of millionaires, great minds, and leaders. Picking the kids that value what Tech is and helping them through the process to get admitted, these kids probably love challenges.

Tech has a lot of advantages they I'm not sure is getting properly utilized.

 

[gtdrew]

ATL1, also, I'm sorry, but your never-ending crusade to "open up the offense" is more agenda-pushing than a comparison to Stanford. Stanford might be the only offense in Division 1 less compelling than ours. I've never seen another team with "Goal Line" as their base set, so don't tell me that's an advantage they have on us...

 

[ATL1]

ATL1, also, I'm sorry, but your never-ending crusade to "open up the offense" is more agenda-pushing than a comparison to Stanford. Stanford might be the only offense in Division 1 less compelling than ours. I've never seen another team with "Goal Line" as their base set, so don't tell me that's an advantage they have on us...

I don't think I've mentioned anything regarding Stanford's style of play.

 

[gtdrew]

You mentioned us opening up our offense as a way to level the field with Stanford. If Stanford's beating us out for recruits, offense has very little to do with it. I do like the idea you posted about doing like Stanford and getting involved with these guys earlier and helping them get on a high school path to end up here.

 

[OldJacketFan]

@ATL1 this part of your last post "This above and beyond hands on approach to recruiting could serve Tech well. Guide the kids through the math and science requirement. . Meet the kids with a great if not elitist message of Tech, producer of millionaires, great minds, and leaders. Picking the kids that value what Tech is and helping them through the process to get admitted, these kids probably love challenges.

Tech has a lot of advantages they I'm not sure is getting properly utilized." is very much spot on.

But over the last year the approach at Tech is markedly different than it has been. Improving the overall product is a work in progress and we're starting to see the fruits of that both in the marketing i.e. "The Process" video series, the change in media coverage, the visible increase in recruiting presence outside of the SE, the change in the coaching staff and so on. From what I understand there is also work being done by admissions/guidance at the HS level initiated by the Hill. My feeling is that the next few years are going to be rewarding to all Tech folks.

Again, though, it's going to be interesting to see if Stanford can maintain their recent run of success.

 

[gtdrew]

@ATL1 this part of your last post "This above and beyond hands on approach to recruiting could serve Tech well. Guide the kids through the math and science requirement. . Meet the kids with a great if not elitist message of Tech, producer of millionaires, great minds, and leaders. Picking the kids that value what Tech is and helping them through the process to get admitted, these kids probably love challenges.

Tech has a lot of advantages they I'm not sure is getting properly utilized." is very much spot on.

But over the last year the approach at Tech is markedly different than it has been. Improving the overall product is a work in progress and we're starting to see the fruits of that both in the marketing i.e. "The Process" video series, the change in media coverage, the visible increase in recruiting presence outside of the SE, the change in the coaching staff and so on. From what I understand there is also work being done by admissions/guidance at the HS level initiated by the Hill. My feeling is that the next few years are going to be rewarding to all Tech folks.

Again, though, it's going to be interesting to see if Stanford can maintain their recent run of success.

I've heard that too. What I hope also happens is that this coaching staff, with graduating an entire recruiting class last year and continuing to graduate kids on time/early, can earn some trust with the Hill to show that they are not like the previous regimes, and intend to hold athletes accountable in the classroom, if the Hill is willing to "meet them halfway" on some recruits. I believe there are kids who want to be here, got off to a slow academic start, and as a result end up other places. I'm much more optimistic about the future of Tech football than I was this time a year ago, and part of that is because of Vad Lee, but part of it is also because I can see both long and short-term solutions to the challenges faced in recruiting here being formed by both the Athletic Department and the Admissions Office.

 

[stevo0718]

Just wasted some of my time being a football roster creeper and went through Stanford's roster and looked at their players majors. Note, their full football roster like ours is huge with around 100 players on it.

I would say around 1/3 of players with a listed major (Jrs and Srs) had a degree called science, technology an society. There were a lot of psychology's and history's some film studies and only one communications. There were also a scattered number of biologies and engineering majors not a large chunk but maybe 6 or 7 of math and science degrees.

It's nothing to shake a stick at, but they're not majoring in rocket science by in large. What's tech's ratio of engineering vs business? I'm not sure. But we have far fewer stac major than they do, and oh yea...

What's our new football major going to be called? Sports, society and technology... Maybe we are following Stanford's plan...

If nothing else this proved to me, most football players don't like math. I looked at the requirements for that major 0 Math classes. Maybe our new Stanford major will have no math requirements!

Our school is not a crutch, it provides many opportunities for all its students. It just makes our coaches jobs harder.

Ps. Most O linemen, D linemen, RB's and LBs had that science, technology and society degree.

 

[cyptomcat]

It's nothing to shake a stick at, but they're not majoring in rocket science by in large. What's tech's ratio of engineering vs business? I'm not sure. But we have far fewer stac major than they do, and oh yea...

What's our new football major going to be called? Sports, society and technology... Maybe we are following Stanford's plan...

If nothing else this proved to me, most football players don't like math. I looked at the requirements for that major 0 Math classes. Maybe our new Stanford major will have no math requirements!

Our school is not a crutch, it provides many opportunities for all its students. It just makes our coaches jobs harder.

Ps. Most O linemen, D linemen, RB's and LBs had that science, technology and society degree.

Most of our players are business majors. Almost none are engineering or science.

SST is not going to be a major/degree. It will be a program. It might help athletes make their business degree more sports-focused.

 

[ATL1]

https://sts.stanford.edu/about-us

The Program in Science, Technology, and Society is a dynamic interdisciplinary major that provides students with a liberal arts education for the twenty-first century. The Program's affiliated faculty represent over a dozen departments, including Anthropology, Communication, Computer Science, Education, Electrical Engineering, History, Law, Management Science and Engineering, Political Science and Sociology. The only major at Stanford to offer both a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science degree,STS majors develop depth within two or three fields of study while fostering a broad understanding of the technical and social dimensions of science and technology. The current curriculum includes a focused core as well as five thematic concentration areas. Students also have the opportunity to pursue research in affiliated labs and through the honors program, to network with alumni and to take innovative project-based courses.

STS provides an arena for dialogue among students of engineering, humanities, the natural sciences and the social sciences: a common ground where ideas that transcend the divisions between fields are not merely envisioned, but practiced. Founded in 1971, the Program is among the oldest of such programs in the United States. Graduates of STS have entered distinguished graduate programs, such as Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, MIT's Technology and Policy Program, Stanford's Graduate School of Business, and top-ranked doctoral programs around the world. STS alumni have forged successful careers in a variety of fields, including business, engineering, law, public service, medicine and academia.

Core requirements BS: https://sts.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/STSBS_OLD_1314Update_web.pdf
BA: https://sts.stanford.edu/major-sts/core-requirements

It's more than 7 engineering, math, science majors
a number of economics & political science as well.

 

[stevo0718]

https://sts.stanford.edu/about-us

The Program in Science, Technology, and Society is a dynamic interdisciplinary major that provides students with a liberal arts education for the twenty-first century. The Program's affiliated faculty represent over a dozen departments, including Anthropology, Communication, Computer Science, Education, Electrical Engineering, History, Law, Management Science and Engineering, Political Science and Sociology. The only major at Stanford to offer both a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science degree,STS majors develop depth within two or three fields of study while fostering a broad understanding of the technical and social dimensions of science and technology. The current curriculum includes a focused core as well as five thematic concentration areas. Students also have the opportunity to pursue research in affiliated labs and through the honors program, to network with alumni and to take innovative project-based courses.

STS provides an arena for dialogue among students of engineering, humanities, the natural sciences and the social sciences: a common ground where ideas that transcend the divisions between fields are not merely envisioned, but practiced. Founded in 1971, the Program is among the oldest of such programs in the United States. Graduates of STS have entered distinguished graduate programs, such as Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, MIT's Technology and Policy Program, Stanford's Graduate School of Business, and top-ranked doctoral programs around the world. STS alumni have forged successful careers in a variety of fields, including business, engineering, law, public service, medicine and academia.

Core requirements BS: https://sts.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/STSBS_OLD_1314Update_web.pdf
BA: https://sts.stanford.edu/major-sts/core-requirements

It's more than 7 engineering, math, science majors
a number of economics & political science as well.

https://sts.stanford.edu/about-us

The Program in Science, Technology, and Society is a dynamic interdisciplinary major that provides students with a liberal arts education for the twenty-first century. The Program's affiliated faculty represent over a dozen departments, including Anthropology, Communication, Computer Science, Education, Electrical Engineering, History, Law, Management Science and Engineering, Political Science and Sociology. The only major at Stanford to offer both a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science degree,STS majors develop depth within two or three fields of study while fostering a broad understanding of the technical and social dimensions of science and technology. The current curriculum includes a focused core as well as five thematic concentration areas. Students also have the opportunity to pursue research in affiliated labs and through the honors program, to network with alumni and to take innovative project-based courses.

STS provides an arena for dialogue among students of engineering, humanities, the natural sciences and the social sciences: a common ground where ideas that transcend the divisions between fields are not merely envisioned, but practiced. Founded in 1971, the Program is among the oldest of such programs in the United States. Graduates of STS have entered distinguished graduate programs, such as Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, MIT's Technology and Policy Program, Stanford's Graduate School of Business, and top-ranked doctoral programs around the world. STS alumni have forged successful careers in a variety of fields, including business, engineering, law, public service, medicine and academia.

Core requirements BS: https://sts.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/STSBS_OLD_1314Update_web.pdf
BA: https://sts.stanford.edu/major-sts/core-requirements

It's more than 7 engineering, math, science majors
a number of economics & political science as well.

Wait what point are you trying to prove? That this major exists? Then yes! You win!

But is it a non subjective degree that REQUIRES real mathematics and actual science? Well no it isn't... It just sounds good enough to pass those criteria...

Look Stanford has a better thing going! Is it apples to apples? No. Should we be ashamed? No. A lot of fancy words can easily get in the way of real learning.

I honestly believe Stanford is an amazing school, but there are major differences btw Stanfiod and GT. #myactaulbelief

 

[GTonTop88]

You take Andrew Luck out the equation with the 2 great years he had, and this isn't even a topic. There defense played exceptional this year and keep them in every game. If Vad/JT breakout then we'll get exposure. Tevin had a high floor low ceiling, no high school kid was sayin " I wanna go to tech and be like tevin" Vad/JT have the goods to attract talented players

 

[daBuzz]

I've heard that too. What I hope also happens is that this coaching staff, with graduating an entire recruiting class last year and continuing to graduate kids on time/early, can earn some trust with the Hill to show that they are not like the previous regimes, and intend to hold athletes accountable in the classroom, if the Hill is willing to "meet them halfway" on some recruits. I believe there are kids who want to be here, got off to a slow academic start, and as a result end up other places. I'm much more optimistic about the future of Tech football than I was this time a year ago, and part of that is because of Vad Lee, but part of it is also because I can see both long and short-term solutions to the challenges faced in recruiting here being formed by both the Athletic Department and the Admissions Office.

I have a serious question. Why does the Hill care and why do they have a say in who we can and cannot recruit at GT?

For regular students, this isn't a question. But the APR standards of the NCAA is pretty much a self-policing standard. If CPJ recruits players who cannot make the grade at GT, the APR falls and the team HE coaches loses scholarships. If he does this, he will inevitably be fired. So my take is this....let him recruit kids who qualify according to NCAA standards. If he starts taking kids who can't make the grades at Tech, it WILL come back to bite him.

For a school that takes pride in failing out a high percentage of each freshman class, it sure seems duplicitous for those same people to be worried about how many football players would "theoretically" fail out.

 

[gtdrew]

Good question. I honestly think its because of what happened under Gailey's watch, and the embarrassment afterwards.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

You mentioned us opening up our offense as a way to level the field with Stanford. If Stanford's beating us out for recruits, offense has very little to do with it. I do like the idea you posted about doing like Stanford and getting involved with these guys earlier and helping them get on a high school path to end up here.

We already do this. Our coaches identify players early in their high school careers and let them know what course path to take to be admitted to GT.

 

[OldJacketFan]

Going back to the title of this threads that Stanford is a better program than Tech, despite the reams of information provided on here I still feel Tech is the better program. Tech has the better win/loss percentage, more total wins, more National Championships, more conference championships, more bowl appearances, more bowl wins and more NFL players in its history. So how do justify saying Stanford is the better program given all the metrics to the contrary?

 

[daBuzz]

Going back to the title of this threads that Stanford is a better program than Tech, despite the reams of information provided on here I still feel Tech is the better program. Tech has the better win/loss percentage, more total wins, more National Championships, more conference championships, more bowl appearances, more bowl wins and more NFL players in its history. So how do justify saying Stanford is the better program given all the metrics to the contrary?

Oh I don't think there's any question that Tech is the better program over all time. However, I think if you ask any fan who isn't affiliated with either school, they'd tell you that Stanford has been a better program over the past 5 or 6 years.

Can they sustain that? I think that's the question many of the posters on here are saying they're doubtful about.

 

[OldJacketFan]

So then then question is(and I posed it earlier), what time frame does one use to determine how good a program is? Is short success more indicative than sustained success? Every program is going to have down period so what is the defining standard(s) for a successful program?

 

[daBuzz]

So then then question is(and I posed it earlier), what time frame does one use to determine how good a program is? Is short success more indicative than sustained success? Every program is going to have down period so what is the defining standard(s) for a successful program?

When you're recruiting players, they could care less who won the NC in 1929, so the recent time frame is the most important. The last time GT was relevant in the national championship discussion in the last few weeks of a season was 1990 as far as I can remember. That was before these guys were even alive.