Insert "GT Holier Than The Rival" Comment Here
by Winfield Featherston on Apr 18, 2011 2:55 PM EDT
in Georgia Tech Football
Email
Print
Earlier this morning, the names of three georgie recruits were released as suspects in the case of stolen ipods from georgie's locker room. Marquis Hawkins, Deion Bonner, and an unnamed player are all recruits for the 2012 or 2013 season.
If it all ends to be true, it's a sad day for college sports and yes, even Mark Richt and the dogs. While most of uga's problems involve "stereotypcial college kid problems", this incident has people stealing from their own (they are all recruits, so kind of).
The good news is that no current or former Georgia football players were involved in these shenanigans. The bad news is that three recruits were, which basically torpedoes any shot these young men had of ever wearing the red and black.
I am not naive enough to say that Tech is above all problems, I know what happened with Joe Hamilton and Reuben Houston. But do you think Georgia Tech will ever have to deal with situations like these? Even though we are in Atlanta, what keeps most Tech players out of the news? Is it actually the fact that we are in Atlanta?
When Georgia Tech was integrated peacefully in the 1960's, Tech students were described as "too busy to hate." Can this mentality be paralleled to our football program? student body in general?
Either way, when a program is placed under the microscope for any reason, things get messy.
42 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
we all recruit about 50% of the same kids, so we are all vulnerable to this.
'11: Minimum Goal: 9-3 Regular Season. Given FSU's non-con slate, don't care who the 9 are.
'10: 7th in offense, 41st in defense. Division Champions. 10-4. (6-3)
'09: 8th in offense, 88th in defense. 7-6 (4-4)
Tomahawk Nation: Nole-Holds-Barred Analysis of FSU Sports!
Follow Tomahawk Nation's Twitter feed!
The Bonner kid is a Clemson Recruit
Hope they lockdown Death Valley when he shows up on campus. We don’t need some body trying to pinch our rock..
Don't give up, don't ever give up ~ Jim Valvano
I think some of it comes from being in the city itself and general campus culture. I know when I was at Tech, if you left something valuable (or even worthless) unattended it walked away. One thing about going to graduate and professional school at other universities that caught me by surprise is how people will leave something like a computer completely unattended in public.
The locker room isn’t exactly leaving something in the library, but you have to imagine that the staff is just more attentive to stuff being left around and the potential that it could grow legs. So for issues like this there is probably just less opportunity somewhere like Tech.
Not sure I get it.
These guys were recruits on a visit and UGA players were victims of their theft. Certainly Tech has had its share of on-campus victims, its share of non-student criminals committing crimes on campus, and its share of problem players. These guys were guests of a program and yet stole from its players. I don’t see how that reflects poorly on UGA at all.
I mostly agree.
uga showed poor judgment in letting these young men enter the unsecured locker room without adequate supervision. The athletic department in athens courts these high school players as if they are gods, and you do not watch over gods like they are crooks. IMO, the incident reflected very badly on uga. But, yes, it can happen anywhere when you are careless.
I'm going to have to disagree here
I think at worst all this says about UGA is that their players need to be less trusting and put their stuff in more secure locations. These kids didn’t exactly have criminal records and had given the UGA staff no reason to think that they might be criminals, so they let them do what hundreds of recruits had done before them. I guarantee you CPJ does exactly the same thing, you guys just haven’t had kids like this( and UGA hadn’t before them either) come into your unsecured locker room yet. Unless of course you are implying that the fact that UGA was recruiting them gave them enough reason to be suspicious of criminal behavior, in which case I have no comment because that’s too dumb to reply too.
Not sure how UGA is getting a bad name for this
I, too, didn’t see anything wrong with their actions. These recruits were pretty stupid to think they could steal from their (potentially) future teammates and get away with it. On the other hand….
Unless of course you are implying that the fact that UGA was recruiting them gave them enough reason to be suspicious of criminal behavior…
Come on…that’s funny.
With UGA and UF's recent track record
That might not be that far off to begin with, haha! UF just had three basketball players arrested in St. Augustine not but a few weeks after playing in the NCAA tourney.
Realistically though, I’m not really seeing anything in the op that suggests this gives UGA a bad name specifically tied to this incident, only that it’s a sad day for the program because this is just yet another item in the list of things that seems to always happen in the offseason with UGA. Even as fans, you guys have to admit that at a certain point waking up to another AJC article linking UGA players or recruits to something criminal starts to get tiresome. I know if it were I, I would welcome one offseason without incident.
As to the questions posed, I’m not sure there is a clear answer. I don’t think it would be safe to assume that mere academic requirements is what thins the criminally inclined from the pack, but I’m sure it plays a part. Do students-athletes at GT have less idle time to get themselves in trouble than at other major programs such as UGA? Or is it that there’s simply more to do in Atlanta with that free time than there is in Athens? I’m not sure there is a single answer.
Keep in mind that these questions do not pertain specifically to this one isolated incident, but rather to the larger picture of incidents over the last few recent years.
"You could spend the next fifteen seconds of your life watching a man and a tiger scream together, or you could be an idiot."
Fact.
This happened "to" UGA, not "with."
It’s a narrow distinction, but an important one. UGA has really put the clamps down on bad actors and ran several players off. We are really touchy because – as everyone knows – there was a rash of players acting stupidly. Players who engaged in truly criminal behavior were given the boot first time. Players who made stupid mistakes – driving with an expired license, hitting a parked car – were suspended, often for multiple games. There has not been a peep since.
So, it’s true, we are sensitive because the program has been in the limelight for bad reasons. But we hope that we’ve turned that corner.
by first and thom on Apr 19, 2011 4:38 PM EDT up reply actions
UGA seems like there is always some kind of criminal activity going on.
It’s ridiculous.
by RamblinWreck7 on Apr 19, 2011 9:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Interesting word choice.
Does pride have anything to do with UGA being in the limelight for criminal activity while GT is not?
by RamblinWreck7 on Apr 20, 2011 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions
You said, "Beware hubris"....
Which means pride, doesn’t it…
by RamblinWreck7 on Apr 21, 2011 4:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Kinda.
It’s a greek word for tragic pride, or pride that comes back to bite you later. In this instance, I used hubris because I thought you were holding UGA to a standard that nobody can keep.
I think trying to lay these robberies at the feet of UGA is a display of hubris, a false pride in your institution or a false sense of superiority over mine. There is a lot of criminal activity that occurs around Tech’s campus – stuff much more serious than these thefts. If these are going to sully UGA’s football program, where do we draw the line so that UGA is at fault but Tech is not?
Plus, only one of these jokers had an offer from UGA – and he’s got offers to half a dozen other schools. Are they equally tainted by these thefts? And, if not, is UGA get the blame because it was the victim?
Rarely is the victim to blame for a crime, and I don’t buy the argument that UGA is at fault in any fashion here. Do you? And, if not, why bring up that criminal activity “is always going on” around UGA?
by first and thom on Apr 21, 2011 5:42 PM EDT up reply actions
Because it's always on the news.
I’m not making this stuff up. Just google Universtiy of Georgia football crime and there’s tons of stuff. There football players are always getting into some kind of trouble.
by RamblinWreck7 on Apr 22, 2011 4:11 PM EDT up reply actions
UGA football players were victims here
Nobody affiliated with the program did anything wrong.
by first and thom on Apr 22, 2011 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh my gosh.
I said they are always on the news for criminal activity. That means that over the last few years UGA has been on the news for crime related stuff. I’m not just talking about this latest incident.
by RamblinWreck7 on Apr 23, 2011 2:13 AM EDT up reply actions
A lot of the "criminal activity" going on in Athens
is just stupid college student stuff and the Athens police department not having anything better to do with their time.
Sure, there have been some real crimes, but a lot of them are little things that Atlanta policemen are too busy to bother with.
I’m sure you were a perfect angel when you went to Tech, if, in fact, you did go to Tech, but I had a few discussions with both campus police and the Atlanta police that ended with a warning (and maybe a shaking of the head) that could, if they had been so inclined, ended with a ticket and perhaps an arrest. They just had real law enforcement issues to deal with and sent me home (this time with my headlights on, thank you very much).
There are ways to profile a recruit
I would also suggest that there are a series of risk factors. Most coaches take these into account and make a calculated guess as to whether or not this is “our kind of student athlete.”
As to the kinds of things one looks for, the list would be too long to print here but it can be things like watching how the student interacts with his parents, looking at who he hangs out with, getting the guidance counselor’s assessment, seeing how he responded to difficult class situations and looking at whole host of maturity factors.
I would argue two things. Some problems can happen to any program. But some programs have a sufficient number of hurdles academically and otherwise that the risk factors are considerably narrowed.
by Atlanta's original team on Apr 19, 2011 11:37 AM EDT reply actions
JOE HAMILTON
Programs bring kids on visits so they can figure stuff out about them. No program can afford to pay somebody to do the kind of research you’re advocating.
As a tax payer, I'm willing to foot the bill for a background check on any kid who's going to get $250,000 out of
my School’s athletic and academic fund for an education.
A non-athlete ripping off a piece of electronics on campus gets the handcuffs and a ride downtown. Athletes fling the laptop out the window, get (reportedly) $180,000, and win a National Championship.
Let’s face it, these guys aren’t here for the education. We’ve got to investigate them just like the NFL does before they let them in the draft.
On a Naval Ship, the highest crime after treason is theft. You are stealing from your own community, a small closed community that relies on cooperation to succeed. Theft used to be punished with 50 lashes on the rigged grating.
Might be useful in this case if these kids really want to don the Red and Black. Perhaps their team mates would see this as just punishment for violating the community.
by DressHerInWhiteAndGold on Apr 20, 2011 5:47 AM EDT up reply actions
Research?
The data is out there. Talk to any sociologist worth their salt. There are risk factors. Trust me. Some coaches do not even have to “take the class” to figure this out. With experience they can begin to intuit potential red flags.
When I was on the President’s cabinet at a small private school we had meetings first thing every Monday morning to discuss the “culture” of our campus. Every hire and every student recruited (and yes, we were all involved) looked at whether or not we thought the person could make it at our institution. Once when we were hiring a new soccer coach I got voted down on the choice that was made. I felt like we went with the inferior candidate. But the consensus was that the other coach with the better credentials and winning percentage would soon chaff and become disgruntled with the restrictions our academic and recruiting profiles would place on his work. Everything we did in recruiting and hiring came down to a set of parameters regarding retention.
But don’t miss the point. Every school will occasionally take chances on a kid. That is what one hopes will happen. It may be the only break some kids ever get and it may be the one thing that turns their life around.
But I still would argue that some schools are going to be more susceptible to this than others and some or going to be more immune because of the student profile they are looking at.
by Atlanta's original team on Apr 20, 2011 8:21 AM EDT up reply actions
Well said.
Risks exist for every hire or recruit, but organizations have to evaluate those risks and made judgments. That is what I think was lacking at uga in the past. When something like the theft happens, it is natural ask, what happened. And, why?
Part of the problem is the elevated status recruits are given in the courtship process. We at GT are also guilty. I think uga made some mistakes in the situation this month. The recruits were not properly supervised while touring the athletic department facilities. The athletes were not instructed or informed of the fact that guests would be touring the locker room and valuables should be secured. The recruits were not informed that they were to conduct themselves as men while at uga, not as teenagers hanging at the mall.
When I say uga suffered at reputation hit, this is what I am referring to.
I kinda get what you're trying to say
Risks exist for every hire or recruit, but organizations have to evaluate those risks and made judgments. That is what I think was lacking at uga in the past. When something like the theft happens, it is natural ask, what happened. And, why?
I would argue that this recruiting visit is part of the evaluation of those risks. However, I don’t see how you can make the logical jump that this somehow sullies the reputation or UGA or Mark Richt. I’m going to go out on a limb and assume Mark Richt does not possess clairvoyant powers and could not have seen this coming. I don’t see how you come to the conclusion that these recruits weren’t properly supervised or properly informed when this type of visit has been a standard operating procedure for the last ten years and this is the first instance of something like this happening. Based on the talk around here, you guys act like there should be no level of trust between coaches and recruits without the benefit of an FBI-level background investigation.
I think you are letting your bias as a tech fan get the best of you here. The only reputations I see taking a hit here are some kids that have their whole futures in front of them and just threw away a potential scholarship to their home state university via this act. It’s not like Mark Richt or anybody else at UGA gave these kids the keys to the locker room and told them where to find the goods.
Look, if you want to criticize Mark Richt or UGA over the numerous arrests over the last few years, those are fair game. But to imply that this situation is somehow the faults of UGA administrators or Mark Richt himself or is a stain to their respective reputations is just a ridiculous conclusion to come to.
http://hobnailboot.wordpress.com/
I don't see how you can not think that they weren't supervised
You said it yourself, this is standard operating procedure for the last ten years and this is the first time we hear of something like this happening. So are you telling me that it’s standard procedure to allow a couple of high school kids to walk freely through your inner workplace completely unsupervised and it’s taken ten years for one of them to finally be a five-fingered-ninja? To me, it’s much more likely that this is the first time that someone let their guard down around a couple of complete unknowns, because you’re right, neither UGA nor Richt are clairvoyant. It’s the same in just about any business; you don’t let your outside business partners wander around your workplace because there is the potential that some intellectual property could go missing. You escort them in, give them the quick tour, hold your business meeting, and you escort them out. It’s more than trust, it’s just a good business practice.
As for the reputation, like I mentioned above, you are absolutely right that this incident in a vacuum doesn’t itself put a black mark on the program or Richt, but we aren’t talking just this one incident. It’s everything that has happened with players over the past few years at UGA. All of those things should lead to, and imho obviously points to, the need for more srutiny on incoming players and their character. It’s clear to me that with the large amount of incidents that some part of the process either doesn’t exist or is failing along the way. Whether that is on Richt as the ultimate CEO of the program or someone else entirely I’m not sure, but what I do know is that if someone I work with were to get arrested that the company would look at that as a reflection on the company because that person represents this company. The person who hired the individual would also feel a level of responsibility. You may not agree with it, but that’s how it works. We all learn this at an early age – guilty by association – and unfortunately, more times than not, perception is reality. If people percieve you as part of the whole, then you actions reflect on the whole.
I’d say the same thing if the shoes were swapped as well. We’ve just been lucky to not have such a rapid fire of incidents that UGA has had to endure. I’ve yet to see anyone here say that it’s a direct corelation to being at GT that keeps that from happening so I fail to see your point about bias. No one is directly blame at UGA or Richt for these kids’ actions. In fact, I think we are simply asking why is it so different? Is it something in the process at GT that weeds out these types of individuals before they ever make it this far? Is it the environment at GT versus at UGA? Is it the academics required that thins the masses?
Whether we are GT or UGA fans, I think we all would rather see both schools do well and not have to endure these incidents because it makes that last game in November just that much better. I’d much rather have both of us coming into it with close to if not fully undefeated season with all of our best players in the game than have one side limited because their players are in county lock-up or suspended.
"You could spend the next fifteen seconds of your life watching a man and a tiger scream together, or you could be an idiot."
Fact.
@AuditDawg
I agree we all have our bias as fans, but evaluating risks can come before a problem or after. uga made a decision, whether intentional or not, to allow high school students to wander through their football locker room unsupervised while their current players’ property was stored in unsecured lockers. As Jesse said, you do not let people wander through your work place unsupervised.
So, let’s take this to an extreme example. Let us assume GT gets a silent commit from Joe Touchdown, a 5-star RB from Sparta. He is being recruited by everyone, but unknown to the other schools, his girlfriend’s brother is a co-op at GT and loves it. The guy wants to be part of the family. He also loves the attention he’s getting from the SEC and ACC power schools. uga invites him for a visit and he gets to sit in on the team meeting about an upcoming game. Or, does he? A prudent policy would be that recruits are escorted around and nothing private is revealed. You never know what will happen when they leave.
The problem reveals itself when you are so afraid of offending a recruit by implying he cannot be trusted that you leave him unsupervised. That is where uga erred.
That data is not out there buddy
Sociologists have data on trends and statistics, not on individuals. You think I can do a google search or something and get every kid’s character flaws in a nice little flowchart? No way. These kids didn’t have criminal records either, so nothing would show up on a background check. Maybe they had some disciplinary issues at school or on the football team, but is there anything there that would say “Hey, if you don’t observe these kids 100% of the time, they’re going to commit a felony?” I doubt it. I know you don’t like UGA and you have this sense of superiority because the school you root for has a marginally better academic reputation than UGA, but come on. You cannot really blame UGA for what happened with these kids.
I also think you should be more direct with your “student profile”. Do you mean you think UGA recruits kids with “potential felon” in their student profile on purpose? What exactly kind of kid, really, do you think UGA is recruiting that GT is not? And what about them would show up in their profile that would be a red flag? Is it mental capacity? Would it be geographic origin like, say, urban? Or maybe race is what you’re talking about? Drop the heavy implications and be straight about it. Let’s get some discourse going here.
I'm not sure who you are responding to
but since I raised the issue about sociological data let me point out where I think you are obfuscating. Individuals, whether we like it or not, fall within certain sociological trends. I am enough of a humanist however that I do not believe that defines all that a person is or can be. That is exactly why I lauded any institution that takes a chance on a kid. To repeat, that may be the only chance they get in life.
No where in my comments did I ever put down one institution or suggest that one is superior to another. All I said was that every college, and since I was in academia for a while I know whereof I speak, has a certain demographic or sociological profile that their recruiting falls within. Therefore it is obvious to me that some schools will be more susceptible to this kind of behavior than others. That is just a fact. It does not make one school better than another. Just a different clientele.
If you are looking for race or class snobbery in my remarks you will be looking in vain. Overall those are not the significant sociological factors in any schools search. President Obama went to excellent universities, not because of the color of skin but because the risk factors in his live were mitigated by other sociological factors. For instance, had he been an athlete the recruiter who spoke to his mother would have learned a great deal about whether he was going to fit in to a college setting.
I still stand by my comment that most coaches,even if they didn’t take any sociology courses, develop an intuition about whether or not a kid can make it in their school.
by Atlanta's original team on Apr 22, 2011 9:03 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I was replying to you
“But some programs have a sufficient number of hurdles academically and otherwise that the risk factors are considerably narrowed.”
You’ve said that twice now, and you know what you mean by it: GT is a more academically rigorous school and thus less likely to have these kind of problems. That implies superiority, just like you meant it to.
The signification sociological factors that coaches search for in football players are how well they play football. Sure some coaches like Richt look for kids who maybe have character values, and some like CPJ look for kids with blind loyalty to his program, but generally that’s what they’re looking for in their kids. Stop trying to cloak it in vague sociological concepts (which by the way, Obama, as much as I may not like him, went to great schools because he’s incredibly intelligent, not because of sociologically mitigated risk factors, whatever those are), because you’re not making any sense on that front. Just be straight about it: you think GT avoids these problems because they don’t recruit thugs like UGA does.
You can argue if you like
but don’t make me say things that I am not saying. I have not once used the term thug. You seem hyper sensitive about something. Maybe you should come clean about what that is.
As for the Obama reference you once again are missing the point. You seem determined to strain at gnats so you can swallow a camel. The latest research shows that a child’s I.Q. is not the primary determining factor in whether or not they will do well by the time they get to college. Self control, resiliance factors and the ability to self monitor are all far more determinative. So even if you grow up in a housing project, which sociologically speaking compounds your risk factors, these can be mitigated by the number of significant adults in a person’s life who show interest and offer positive support. The legendary Irk Russell used to say as much long before the research bore it out.
I am not cloaking anything. It seems crystal clear to me that some schools will be more prone to problems with student athletes than others. The mission of the school will play a part in this, not whether it is a good school or bad school.
Now, perhaps you and I have a basic disagreement and we will have to agree to disagree but I am convinced that Tech will always have a harder time recruiting quality athletes than Georgia simply because their recruiting profile is much narrower. I did not say superior. I said narrower.
by Atlanta's original team on Apr 22, 2011 3:18 PM EDT up reply actions
It's okay.
Some UGA people can’t handle the truth. They need to realize that THEIR football program is in the news a lot for criminal activity. You can ask anybody, not just GT fans, that UGA has problems with this kind of stuff.
by RamblinWreck7 on Apr 22, 2011 4:15 PM EDT up reply actions
UGA has had problems
Do you think this is one of them?
by first and thom on Apr 22, 2011 5:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Not officially because they were recruits.
I can’t believe they let kids walk through the locker room unsupervised though.
by RamblinWreck7 on Apr 23, 2011 2:15 AM EDT up reply actions
What evidence is there that Tech has a narrower recruiting profile?
Both teams recruit an awful lot of the same kids.
by first and thom on Apr 22, 2011 5:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Lots of evidence
I will give you just one example. I attended lots of colleges and universities working on several degrees when I was a youngster. The standard math load for Tech students would have been called a math major at one of the liberal arts schools I attended. Trust me, that narrows the profile very significantly.
by Atlanta's original team on Apr 23, 2011 6:51 AM EDT up reply actions
Your logic is flawed
Just because Tech students in general have to meet that profile, doesn’t mean that the athletes do as well. Hell, we’ve already seen that one of the athletes that fit your profile couldn’t count to 4 consistently. Most of your athletes, as I have pointed out on this site before, are not engineering majors, so you guys actually don’t have to narrow down your recruit pool as much as you seem to think.
I'm not trying to make you say anything you haven't already implicitly said
“It seems crystal clear to me that some schools will be more prone to problems with student athletes than others. The mission of the school will play a part in this, not whether it is a good school or bad school.”
You see this is what I’m talking about. You weren’t talking about recruits, you’re making a difference between schools. You imply that UGA’s mission allows for thugs to come to the school, while GT’s does not, and thus GT is less likely to have these kinds of problems, and this is what I have a problem with.
You're being hyper-sensitive
and I am bored by this conversation
by Atlanta's original team on Apr 23, 2011 8:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
SHOP THE FROM THE RUMBLE SEAT STORE
