I get the concern, but I think a bit of math might give you a way to think about this differently. When designing products, it is smart to figure out the segment of the population that has a natural reason to select your product over substitutes and then designing the features/benefits of those products to appeal to those most likely to select your product even if it turns off other segments. Of course, you have to do a bit of math with a heck of a lot of assumed factors...but it turns out to work pretty well if you understand your markets and targets.
In this case, I think we can agree that kids in Georgia, North Georgia in particular, are more likely to have GT in their consideration set than kids who are three or four states away. We can also reasonably assume...all factors not at play here being equal...that the willingness to consider coming to GT is inversely proportional to that distance. Let's assume that kids in N.Ga are 15% likely to choose GT. And let's assume that kids in say Kansas are only 2% likely to choose GT based on our fairly weak brand currently. If we can increase the marginal odds of N.Ga kids selecting GT by 25%, even though we decrease the marginal odds in Kansas by 25%, then it is a no-brainer (gain 5% absolute vs lose 0.5% absolute) assuming a sufficient number of qualified targets (since we only need to find 20ish qualified players each year). Given the talent within 300 miles of ATL, I think we can be comfortable that for every person we turn off from Kansas we'll attract several better players from the local area who might come here.
An admittedly complicated explanation using product development/brand management theory. And really just a long-winded way of saying...Relax, Don't Worry, Have a Home-Brew(tm).