JanKemp
Georgia Tech Fan
- Messages
- 84
- Location
- Cleveland,Ga
A lot of high school kids that have NFL aspirations don't want to play in this offense
Academic Standards
- Thread starter JanKemp
- Start date
JanKemp
Georgia Tech Fan
- Messages
- 84
- Location
- Cleveland,Ga
Do kids grow up @ say I'm gonna root for so & so university cause their academic standards are so great? Lol
- Messages
- 8,099
- Location
- Augusta, Georgia
You know, I think that's,really overblown. I have a friend who had a son play for uga, and his younger son was recruited by GT. He ended up at GaSo when we didn't offer, but he would have committed on the spot if offered. The elite prospects want to win championships and play on TV, so they gravitate to the factory schools that can let them major in NFL and they never really give u a look to begin with. Changing offenses isn't going to magically upgrade our recruiting. If you look at GT's from 2002, you will notice that we actually recruit better under CPJ than we did under Gailey, with the exception of 2007, when we captured lightning in a bottle.
It is a convenient foci for those who want to attack a coach who otherwise has outperformed most coaches in the history of our school.
- Messages
- 8,099
- Location
- Augusta, Georgia
I did. It's why I remain a fan.
- Messages
- 12,104
- Location
- Marietta, GA
Nor do the want to go to class or care about getting a degree. They are going to make it big in the NFL!
(Snark off now) Their our some on the GT squad now, that will be playing on Sundays. If you have talent and play at a P5 school, the NFL will give you the opportunity to be reviewed and evaluated. Even WRs in this program make it to the NFL. (granted tight ends don't, but that is to be expected...)
RonJohn
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 4,995
Criticism is OK. Outlandish statements are not. As far as I know the only tie to a D1-AA or FCS school was a tie to Furman in 1986. This year, GT played the #3 ranked FCS team and beat them handily. It was close in the first half, but GT pulled away convincingly in the second half. To say that we deserve to be in the same classification as FCS teams isn't a criticism, it is an insult. GT was extremely close to beating the #6-#10(depending on poll) team in FBS. In my opinion that is being competitive. Others can disagree and say that GT stinks because we lost to Miami. However, saying that because we lost by one point with four seconds left that we should give up and play against obviously weaker competition is not criticism, it is giving the team the middle finger.
RonJohn
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 4,995
Which ones in particular are you talking about? I have seen Will, he seems very intelligent. I have seen TaQuan, he seems fine. I have seen Juene, he seems intelligent but somewhat reserved. I have seen Shamire, and he is exceptional.
Animal02
Banned
- Messages
- 6,269
- Location
- Southeastern Michigan
Kids that think college is just a waystop to the NFL should be avoided. They will never be SAs
okiemon
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,783
That I can agree with. Perhaps I misunderstood your earlier statement. Or maybe I’ve become hypersensitive to some folks saying you can’t be a Tech fan and criticize the program.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Vespidae
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 5,327
- Location
- Auburn, AL
Lots of opinions here - academics, the TO, etc. If you are talking football, you have to be able to raise money, run a football program, and recruit players.
As to raising money, Tech has done OK (definitely not great), because they've never organized their fan base. If you look at virtually any SEC school and the major ACC schools, most of the funding comes from booster organizations - well organized local clubs that raise money. Tech needs a more well-rounded operation to raise money consistently.
Run a football program? We have the roles, but it feels patchwork to me. I couldn't even tell you who actually runs football operations because it is so fractured. However, Tech did one thing right IMO. They looked at the pro and cons of simply being able to recruit and felt that Tech could excel at getting smaller, faster athletes because most of the larger, stronger guys were going to the factory schools and couldn't see a way around that. So, to run a football program with small, quick athletes they needed an offense to do that ... the Triple Option.
Now, does the TO work? Heck yeah it works ... but there are times it doesn't. I feel that while Paul Johnson is an expert on it, GT is not. We need to take steps to make this the most effective, feared offense in the country. We are not there ... but could be. (Jim Collins calls this "the hedgehog principle"). We would be fools to discard the TO at this point.
Recruit players? We have an average recruiting organization. To succeed, we need a fully integrated recruiting team along with (volunteer) analysts to work a Moneyball angle. There are only 130 FBS schools. And only so many scholarships to go around. Tech CAN find players ... we just need a system.
Lou Holtz once said the TO was the most effective offense there is. But you can't recruit the big quarterback. Fortunately, you don't have to. You need a quarterback that can run and can take a hit. That actually opens up our pool, not closes it.
TStan is our best hope to fix the system because it's a system problem. But we are going to junk athletics, we aren't going to drop down to FCS, and we sure as heck aren't going water down our academics. Players who come here know the contract we provide: Give us 4 years and you will be a millionaire ... either from on the field or from your field (of study).
As to raising money, Tech has done OK (definitely not great), because they've never organized their fan base. If you look at virtually any SEC school and the major ACC schools, most of the funding comes from booster organizations - well organized local clubs that raise money. Tech needs a more well-rounded operation to raise money consistently.
Run a football program? We have the roles, but it feels patchwork to me. I couldn't even tell you who actually runs football operations because it is so fractured. However, Tech did one thing right IMO. They looked at the pro and cons of simply being able to recruit and felt that Tech could excel at getting smaller, faster athletes because most of the larger, stronger guys were going to the factory schools and couldn't see a way around that. So, to run a football program with small, quick athletes they needed an offense to do that ... the Triple Option.
Now, does the TO work? Heck yeah it works ... but there are times it doesn't. I feel that while Paul Johnson is an expert on it, GT is not. We need to take steps to make this the most effective, feared offense in the country. We are not there ... but could be. (Jim Collins calls this "the hedgehog principle"). We would be fools to discard the TO at this point.
Recruit players? We have an average recruiting organization. To succeed, we need a fully integrated recruiting team along with (volunteer) analysts to work a Moneyball angle. There are only 130 FBS schools. And only so many scholarships to go around. Tech CAN find players ... we just need a system.
Lou Holtz once said the TO was the most effective offense there is. But you can't recruit the big quarterback. Fortunately, you don't have to. You need a quarterback that can run and can take a hit. That actually opens up our pool, not closes it.
TStan is our best hope to fix the system because it's a system problem. But we are going to junk athletics, we aren't going to drop down to FCS, and we sure as heck aren't going water down our academics. Players who come here know the contract we provide: Give us 4 years and you will be a millionaire ... either from on the field or from your field (of study).
Vespidae
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 5,327
- Location
- Auburn, AL
To follow up on my previous post, I looked up the coaching records for all college coaches hired in 2008. In other words, how has the coaching class of 2008 performed?
So (drumroll, please), of the 30 college coaches hired in 2008 ... only 3 are still with the school that hired them. They are a) David Cutcliffe (Duke), b) Paul Johnson (Tech), and c) Ken Niumatalolo (Navy).
Both Ken (0.646) and Paul (0.591) have been successful with the same system: the TO. David (0.459) less so.
Half of all coaches hired in 2008 had records with their new school below 0.500.
So (drumroll, please), of the 30 college coaches hired in 2008 ... only 3 are still with the school that hired them. They are a) David Cutcliffe (Duke), b) Paul Johnson (Tech), and c) Ken Niumatalolo (Navy).
Both Ken (0.646) and Paul (0.591) have been successful with the same system: the TO. David (0.459) less so.
Half of all coaches hired in 2008 had records with their new school below 0.500.
Whiskey_Clear
Banned
- Messages
- 10,486
This thread is about recruiting so let me add this. Our biggest loss of attrition from last year was Harrison Buttkicker. Hands down.
If we have a comparable kicker this year we beat UT without a doubt. We very very likely also beat UM and UVA. Which would leave us with...drum roll please...one loss. One. How many of y'all would be crying about stars or academics if our only loss was to Clemson?
Our overall talent is improving. Despite our record and struggles on O this year. We still have a long way to go to get where we want but no team in their right mind takes us lightly. With a very good kicker all would downright fear us even this year. We have to use another scholly for a kicker again thus offseason.
Our punter is the best we've had in a while. We need an equivalent kicker.
If we have a comparable kicker this year we beat UT without a doubt. We very very likely also beat UM and UVA. Which would leave us with...drum roll please...one loss. One. How many of y'all would be crying about stars or academics if our only loss was to Clemson?
Our overall talent is improving. Despite our record and struggles on O this year. We still have a long way to go to get where we want but no team in their right mind takes us lightly. With a very good kicker all would downright fear us even this year. We have to use another scholly for a kicker again thus offseason.
Our punter is the best we've had in a while. We need an equivalent kicker.
- Messages
- 8,099
- Location
- Augusta, Georgia
I concur with this. I said something similar in a different thread. It's not just the missed FGs either, it's the touchbacks. We have consistently given teams good field position to start drives, which opens up their playbook.
Had King not been hurt to start the season, I think the dropoff might have been less, but you are right, HK was probably our biggest loss.
Supersizethatorder-mutt
Banned
- Messages
- 13,443
- Location
- Augusta, GA
But we're not nearly as far away from 1990 as 1990 was from 1952
Supersizethatorder-mutt
Banned
- Messages
- 13,443
- Location
- Augusta, GA
But we HAVE initiated attempts to add more majors (under Rice, most notably), and they have been shot down by the BOR. Ask your area representative about that.
GTfan4Life
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 189
And we're definitely closer to 1990 than 1980, if you get my drift...
Philhutch80
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 221
Still a shorter time span than 37yrs.
Philhutch80
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 221
Agree to disagree. Let's be realistic, has CPJ either had the funds or the manpower to properly recruit based upon this offense. That is a glaring NO! I am going to use Oregon as an example as they during Chip Kelly had a ton of speed and option plays run by a QB that was highly rated as well as the supporting cast around him. If CPJ had the same level of athletes do you believe he would have achieved as much? I know its a pretend idea but realistically, think about how CPJ has been a one legged one armed man in a fist fight for a decade essentially due to a poor set of AD's and zero support. It is what it is though.