Top 50 GA GT signees

[AE 87]

My brother-in-law taught him math in HS. He was shocked that GT let him in, and equally shocked that he chose GT. He was the reason I was willing to give CCG a couple more years. I was shocked that CCG won this recruiting battle and had convinced the hill to let him in.

So, it sounds like you know who the was. I don't care who it was, but do you know if he graduated? Stayed four years?

I'm pretty sure enforcement of APR didn't actually start until cpj years, but it would be interesting to know if such a large exception could survive the current environment.

 

[Madison Grant]

Ratledge main recruiter is Key......

Does that mean Key is coming?

 

[tech_wreck47]

Does that mean Key is coming?

No, just the rumor I’ve seen multiple places.

 

[SteamWhistle]

We missed a recruit THIS cycle because of academics. These two things are not the same. Try again friend.

It wasn’t GT’s individual academic requirements he signed with Troy for a reason.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

So, it sounds like you know who the was. I don't care who it was, but do you know if he graduated? Stayed four years?

I'm pretty sure enforcement of APR didn't actually start until cpj years, but it would be interesting to know if such a large exception could survive the current environment.

2 1/2 years and went straight to the NFL. He played during the APR timeframe and, to my knowledge, was academically eligible when he declared for the draft. My B-I-L said he thought he was borderline dyslexic and had trouble with written tests, but did well when administered orally or if he was asked to explain something in class.

And APR started in 2003 but the program was tightened pretty hard shortly before the CPJ years.

 

[AE 87]

2 1/2 years and went straight to the NFL. He played during the APR timeframe and, to my knowledge, was academically eligible when he declared for the draft. My B-I-L said he thought he was borderline dyslexic and had trouble with written tests, but did well when administered orally or if he was asked to explain something in class.

And APR started in 2003 but the program was tightened pretty hard shortly before the CPJ years.

They started measuring APR in 2003 and planned to start disciplining non conformity in 2007 but delayed that, iiuc.

 

[GoldZ]

@Madison Grant You’re right. It’s been a big fat GT lie all along. Merry Christmas!

Malcom Mitchell and James Graham beg to say it's not a lie. As for the SAT score report by the AJC, I doubt it's validity, especially considering the attitude of the Hill for many years. Yes, I know the Mitchell story doesn't rate directly to Tech's standards, but it does relate to far flung discrepancies. You don't go from documented (unlike the referenced AJC article), reporting of Tech's football team having the highest SAT scores in the nation among public D-1 programs, back to a few years earlier the Jan Kemp debacle, with this being a lie. If the 590 SAT is true, it's such a rare exception as to it make it near meaningless.
Unfortunately, Mitchell and Kemp are not rare exceptions.

Here is a list of what is no lie---Extra math requirements in HS for recruits, higher SAT/GPA requirements than most D-1 programs for recruits, tougher environment to meet APR rules via no place to hide (ALL degrees are BS vs BA), STEM is not cool with the vast majority of D-1 calibre football players, and the Southeast educational system is weaker than most.

Yes, football players receive, justifiably, guidance and advantages that regular students don't. So? Just imagine a 1500+ SAT regular student keeping a football players schedule and at the end of the day going to study several hours after getting the crap knocked out of em!?

Look, I'm all for "exceptions" (as defined by those that are short of the AA's standards, which are higher than most programs). Without them, Tech would have the football legacy of RICE, no MNC, and no TIAR, but this notion that Tech isn't very unique/challenged academically when it comes to major CFB is silly/incorrect/naive and it IS a lie.

Let's all hope TStan and CGC can mitigate this to a meaningful degree yet maintain Tech's wonderful uniqueness.

 

[COJacket]

As long time texas gt guy who now lives in new Fla, I will try to relate this to recruiting and success and coach.


After 10 coaching spots , Mack came to texas and UT and he fit like a glove. They both prospered, but when Baylor beat them 3 of 4 ( only texas win was by 5 in a shootout) it was time for him to go in 13. Before 13 he had top 5 recruiting classes for as far as the eye could see. After the baylor losses they dropped to 17 in recruiting. "THE" universtity had the talent and it was not being coached up.
They were getting beat by other teams they usually beat.
Also baylor had the air raid and they lined up like we do except qb was in shotgun and they passed over the talent.
Texas was embarrassed . (It was wonderful)


When Earl Campbell said it's time to move on; it didnt matter what would happen , he had to go .

So what happened

They brought in Strong to discipline up the players. He made changes but they weren't effective in w l and recruiting did not return to a high level. He cant coach well either.
In recruiting
2014 #17
2015 #10
2016 7
2017 25
SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION in recruiting
Under strong they were way down for texas but still in elite.

Texas BOUGHT the u of H staff in
2018 #3
2019 #9 (currently).
Herman has the lower ranked players playing at a high level and they will play uga on new years day.

The amount of $ at U of T and Texas A M is huge.

Hope this context and number content helps

 

[COJacket]

I meant to comment on iceeaters post that this analysis is absolutely right on the money. Spent 17 years in Texas and one of my best fishing buddies graduated from Texas w a BSME. I hired him in 1977. Over the years we have had this discussion on recruiting and on the field results many times on the rivers of the Rocky Mtns. Of course his position is that Texas has no excuse of not being in the top 10 every year and winning the Natty at least every 5-10 years. Great campus in Austin; huge alumni base that are rapid fans; loads of money and great infrastructure; loads of majors to hide academically (he never saw a football player in a STEM course); great recruiting grounds in Texas; and did I mention loads of beautiful women in Austin a really cool party town? To say the least he has not been happy in awhile. Though this year is giving him some hope Anyone that thinks we should consistently out recruit and out play the Texas (0r Texas A&M, UCLA, Southern Cals, Florida, Fla State, Ohio State, Michigan, and the list goes on and on) is not very logical and only being overly optimistic. I am hoping CGC will prove me wrong. And I will support him no matter what the results (unlike some CPJ haters). I just love GT too much not too

 

[laoh]

The point @flea77 is trying to make, which you continually miss, is that majors may similar in title but are quite different. You are saying LMC is "easy! It's just communications!"

Let's take a look:

Source: https://lmcdegree.lmc.gatech.edu/description-of-curriculum/
GT Core Required Courses (I'll skip the wellness, English, and History stuff):
MATHEMATICS(8 hours)
Students must complete a math core sequence, usually two courses in MATH 1711 and 1712 but students may also do an all-Calculus sequence resulting in 3 courses.

LAB SCIENCE(8 hours)
Students take two of the following eight courses: BIOL 1510, BIOL 1520, CHEM 1211K, CHEM 1212K, CHEM 1310, EAS 1600, EAS 1601, EAS 2600, PHYS 2211 or PHYS 2212.

INTRO TO COMPUTING(3 hours)
Students complete either CS 1315, CS 1301, or a computer programming course approved as satisfying the general education requirements in computer literacy.

SCIENCE OR COMPUTING ELECTIVES(6 hours)
LMC students are required to take an additional two courses in either science, computing, or a combination of the two.​

Let's compare that to Stanford's Communications major:
Source: https://comm.stanford.edu/major/

1. Five Core Courses
1. COMM 1 – Introduction to Communication
or COMM 1B – Media, Culture, and Society
2. COMM 106: Communication Research Methods (prerequisite – Statistics)
3. COMM 108: Media Processes and Effects
4. COMM WIM (writing in the major) Courses:

• 
  
  
  • COMM 104W, Reporting, Writing, and Understanding the News,
  • COMM 120W, Digital Media in Society,
  • COMM 137W, The Dialogue of Democracy,
  • COMM 142W Media Economics, or
  • COMM 143W Communication Policy & Regulation

5. Statistics 60 (does not count toward the 60 units in the major)

2. Students must take a minimum of four courses in the following two areas, including at least one course from each area, as specified below
Area I: Communication Processes and Effects

COMM 121: Behavior and Social Media
COMM 124: Lies, Trust, and Tech
COMM 135: Deliberative Democracy and its Critics
COMM 137W: The Dialogue of Democracy
COMM 145: Personality and Digital Media
COMM 162: Campaigns, Voting, Media and Elections
COMM 164: The Psychology of Communication About Politics in America
COMM 166: Virtual People
COMM 172: Media Psychology
COMM 326: Advanced Topics in Human Virtual Representation

Area II: Communication Systems & Institutions

COMM 104W: Reporting, Writing, and Understanding the News
COMM 116: Journalism Law
COMM 120W: Digital Media in Society
COMM 125: Perspectives on American Journalism
COMM 142W: Media Economics
COMM 143W: Communication Policy and Regulation
COMM 151: The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech and Press
COMM 152: Constitutional Law
COMM 153: Political Campaigning in the Internet Age
COMM 154: The Politics of Algorithms
COMM 157: Information Control in Authoritarian Regime
COMM 158: Censorship and Propaganda
COMM 177I: Becoming a Watchdog
COMM 177P: Programming in Journalism
COMM 177T: Building News Applications
COMM 177Y: Foreign Correspondence
3. Elective credit
The remainder of the 60 required units may be fulfilled with any elective communication courses, or a combination of communication courses and up to 10 units of pre-approved courses in other departments. ​

Do you see a single requirement of advanced math, lab science, computer science, or science/computing-related electives?

Even for non S/A's the curriculum is much more difficult for an LMC major than it would be at Stanford. There is nowhere to hide at GT.

​

Dang... BURN

 

[laoh]

Well, first off you're quoting a post that is not even arguing the same thing you are. You are quoting a post that is arguing the curriculum is harder once admitted, and you are arguing lax admission standards. You do realize that's two separate arguments.

You are arguing they 'work around admission standards'. Well, every school works around its admission standards for regular students in order to admit athletes, even Tech. So are you saying Stanford lets a large number of exceptions in? 5 out of their top 7 rated recruits with Ivy offers doesn't seem like a ton of exceptions to me. Doesn't Tech let a handful of exceptions in? How poor can the academics of the exceptions be? If the difference is school A lets 4 exceptions in that are better football talent than the 4 exceptions for school B, there is no unfair advantage in admissions for school A. They are just better recruiters.

Honestly, the 'Tech is harder because of the curriculum' is a better argument than admissions. Yes, you went to Stanford, and yes, you posted a very informative article. Thanks. But neither you nor your article get into specifics that prove Stanford is more lax on its admissions for even certain select SAs than Tech is. And arguing that Stanford does all these extra things or is quoted as saying they "treat their athletes as special needs students" doesn't prove that Tech isn't putting an equal effort into helping its athletes through school. In fact, I think you're selling short the job Paul Johnson and Todd Stansbury have done in order to have the academic support, emphasis and focus in place to raise graduation rates so high. Fact is, there is no evidence at all beyond people's stubborn excuse-making that Georgia Tech is harder to recruit to than Stanford based on admissions.

In terms of the curriculum, even others on here have argued that the problem is it is limiting, not necessarily harder. Tech's focus on math and science make it harder for a kid whose intellectual strength is verbal. It could also be that a kid who is strong in spatial and mathematical reasoning but not as adept verbally fits better at Tech than Stanford. And athletic males tend to be more math/science oriented than verbal.

Someone go find Patrick Skov and settle this once and for all.