The following is my understanding. If I am wrong at any point, please correct me by highlighting which point is in error and why.
1. GT currently does very well in APR and supporting our scholarship athletes toward an increasing graduation rate.
2. When CPJ arrived the APR was not fully (including with penalties) implemented, and the graduation rate was less than 50%.
3. During our very good years under CGO, there was a grade point requirement that allowed some SAs to take easier classes that did not necessarily advance them toward a degree.
4. Under both CGO and early CCG, we failed to live up fully to requirements, for some reason.
5. CPJ and staff have recruited as well CCG apart from 2007 class.
6. In retrospect, we don't know how well CGO classes would have done under current APR, but we know that there was a problem even under the standard at that time.
7. So, any reference to recruiting under the pre-APR era need to explain why this difference doesn't matter.
8. And, we should be up front with the value we place on winning vs supporting each SA.
Well here goes the first response to your well reasoned post.
All after u and before this never addressed for request for specific comments on your numbered points of fact and conclusion as well as your request (point 8) that we be real in our value of winning verses academic compliance ( I changed to academic compliance (ncaa GR) verses supporting the SA) .
.boy these guys love to just fight.
1. We r doing well. At a recent press conf or interview Tstan said "Coach is graduating his players at 86% rate. I confirmed that rate in the NCAA graduation data base for gt football 2011.
If this NCAA data is not the right one let me know.
Agree we are doing very good compared to past and a number of others to be named after this point. We are way behind ND , Stanford, BC, Duke.
WE ARE WAY AHEAD OF uga WHO IS AT 58%.
Imo , to be at that level after the requirement for progress w penalties started in 05 is Disgraceful and Bordering Exploitive. See numbers after gt
Gt football and Gt bb below
School
year %
Gtfb
02-49%,04-55%,06-63%,08-78%,10-82%, 11-86%
Gtbb
02-38%,04-27%,06-40%,08-50%,10-80%, 11-78%
Looks like at gt both FB and BB started up dramatically at about 05.
I ask - if both fb and bb are both going up isnt that the AD laying down the law?
I ask - did Gailey have anything to do w the the fb numbers shown above or did this uptick all happen on Coaches watch..
Whoever or whatever it is, our numbers are way up!!.
I would like for us to get to 100 but there is that diminishing returns thing as u approach perfection. (8)
At my company we got engineering work because we never quit on any job (lost$$ on some ). Clients valued that certainty of completion ( we had good 4 star manager type running projects).
I THINK THE IMPROVEMENT IN GR has helped in recent recruiting and as word spreads nation wide it will pay hugh dividends in future.
The old "I got out" is still hard to do.
BUT Now it's more like a a football recruit thinks:
"If I get into gt, there is a 35% % better chance of getting a great degree there than getting a "so so" degree at uga!"
Uga
02-??,04-65%,06-82%,08-73%,10-53%,11-58%. THEY ARE GOING DOWN ! Pitiful.
I have no idea about Oleary and could careless about it.
What do we do now?
1. Recruit very conservatively and go for over 90% and hold there while we wait from impact of high GR to make us more like ND?
2. Recruit more liberally but stay near 80% while we get better athletes.
3 . Double the tutorial budget , go to 100% while getting better players now?
If tstan told GC
1. he was going to double tutorial budget,
2. but GC has to put hammer on players ( no more it is what it is),
3 he can have liberalization on commits.
GC , like a 40000 hp gas turbine, would need over speed control.
Thanks to Coach gailey , Coach, and the Past AD s for putting GC in a position to win
Looking forward to your comments..
Sorry for any grammar issues.
