Can Georgia Tech win a National Championship with CPJ?

[BleedGoldNWhite21]

We finished 7th in the country three years ago with an unreliable D. CPJ could win a Natty with better D. Not saying it's going to happen, but CPJ gives us as good of a chance as we'll get, IMO.

 

[Skeptic]

The reason it's interesting, and a good point to point to '14 is because it proved that Tech can be a top 10 team with a BAD defense. Most teams that win or play for Natty's have the type of luck we had in 2014. (Auburn in 2010 and 2013 off the top of my head) My point is that we have had offenses good enough to be a top 4 team. With a solid, consistent defense, we wouldn't need all of those breaks. It takes a great QB and overall offense such as the one we had in 2014 and a defense that we have yet to see under Johnson. And you don't have to recruit 5 stars to have a top tier defense. Ask Boston College. Of course GTs chances to win a Natty are low, it is such a tough thing to do. You have to play nearly perfect football. But for us to think GT wouldn't have a good shot with a good offensive year accompanied with a top 20 defense is naive.

Having a "great" QB is much desired, in any offense. But most of us would be hard-pressed to name even one Alabama QB during their run, and they got back into the final game with a freshman this year. (And I am at the front of the line in thinking this offense requires a very good one.) And while I value luck as much as anyone, luck being defined as something unexpected beyond your control, you still have to be prepared to take advantage. But I do disagree as to defensive quality. I think the NC has to have an outstanding defense. In an era when even great defenses get 35 points scored on them -- Alabama in '15 and '16, Clemson in '15 and then 31 in '16 -- scoreboards are going to light up and a merely strong defense will break the boards. It's easy to get fooled by all those points because those were two outstanding defenses in the title game.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Yes, correct. Ross took over after Curry left for Alabama.

Because Curry said he could not win a NC here.

 

[Vespidae]

I think the most important thing for Tech to work on is consistency.

Organizing to deliver 8-9 wins a year consistently would really elevate our program and get out of the rebuilding philosophy that seems to hit us every few years. That means we need a solid game philosophy (how we play), an effective recruiting process, a solid player development process, and marketing (getting fans to the games).

Listening to 680 The Fan the other day, the host made a comment about Tech that I picked up on. The future of Tech is based on the ability to generate the next generation fan. That means dads taking sons to games and getting them involved. Most kids, once they form allegiances, are very difficult to break. And the last time Tech really did that ... was the 1960's. Since then, so much has changed in Atlanta, but Tech's fan base hasn't. They need more kids wanting to attend the games and they do that by following teams that win consistently.

If we do that, we'll be competitive and occasionally, strike lightning in a bottle.

 

[Steer1990]

It's not CPJ and the offense. We don't get the big time 5 star recruits like Clemson and Georgia because of how strict the acadmic policy is at Tech. Hopefully the new AD can help us out with that.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I think the most important thing for Tech to work on is consistency.

Organizing to deliver 8-9 wins a year consistently would really elevate our program and get out of the rebuilding philosophy that seems to hit us every few years. That means we need a solid game philosophy (how we play), an effective recruiting process, a solid player development process, and marketing (getting fans to the games).

Listening to 680 The Fan the other day, the host made a comment about Tech that I picked up on. The future of Tech is based on the ability to generate the next generation fan. That means dads taking sons to games and getting them involved. Most kids, once they form allegiances, are very difficult to break. And the last time Tech really did that ... was the 1960's. Since then, so much has changed in Atlanta, but Tech's fan base hasn't. They need more kids wanting to attend the games and they do that by following teams that win consistently.

If we do that, we'll be competitive and occasionally, strike lightning in a bottle.

The Athletic Dept has made some recent efforts to cultivate it's fanbase among the non-traditional-fan-of-football student body (foreign students and women), who eventually become alumni with money to donate and buy tickets if they are so inclined. At odds with this effort is the the academic side, admins and profs, which are indifferent or even adversarial toward athletics. It's a shame, too, because other institutions of higher learning embrace athletics and promote it among their students and reap the benefits and rewards of doing so. Not so much at GT. Sad.

 

[Vespidae]

Not so much at GT. Sad.

That's why I keep referring to the study by Harvard. Harvard!

They demonstrated that an investment in a winning football program delivers results across the board ... better applications, higher quality candidates, more National Merit scholars, more donations, etc.

The President of Alabama said that no matter what he pays Nick Saban, it's the best investment he ever made. Not only are all metrics up, the Athletic Department has built academic facilities and made donations to the school side. It's a win win.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

That's why I keep referring to the study by Harvard. Harvard!

They demonstrated that an investment in a winning football program delivers results across the board ... better applications, higher quality candidates, more National Merit scholars, more donations, etc.

The President of Alabama said that no matter what he pays Nick Saban, it's the best investment he ever made. Not only are all metrics up, the Athletic Department has built academic facilities and made donations to the school side. It's a win win.

Somebody needs to float the study across Bud's desk.

 

[Vespidae]

It's not CPJ and the offense. We don't get the big time 5 star recruits like Clemson and Georgia because of how strict the acadmic policy is at Tech. Hopefully the new AD can help us out with that.

It's not unlike a business that cannot get the talent it needs to run operations.

That's why you see many companies provide inhouse training and development.

I think it's fine for Tech to realize they won't get 5 star recruits. So the mission has to be how do we get smart, 3 star athletes to develop and play like 5 star athletes within 3 years?

The first stop to improve a process is to recognize the bottleneck.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

It's not unlike a business that cannot get the talent it needs to run operations.

That's why you see many companies provide inhouse training and development.

I think it's fine for Tech to realize they won't get 5 star recruits. So the mission has to be how do we get smart, 3 star athletes to develop and play like 5 star athletes within 3 years?

The first stop to improve a process is to recognize the bottleneck.

I think our staff knows this already, plans for it and acts accordingly. Fans... not so much.

 

[Vespidae]

I think our staff knows this already, plans for it and acts accordingly. Fans... not so much.

I see no evidence they do. They look to me like they do what everyone else does ... which with fewer resources, is destined to be sub-optimal.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I see no evidence they do. They look to me like they do what everyone else does ... which with fewer resources, is destined to be sub-optimal.

We don't chase 5 stars who show no interest in GT. There's your evidence.

 

[Skeptic]

It's not CPJ and the offense. We don't get the big time 5 star recruits like Clemson and Georgia because of how strict the acadmic policy is at Tech. Hopefully the new AD can help us out with that.

Once again, we don't get it. It ain't the academic policies that kill. Good players can qualify and have qualified. Our problem is not enough good players want to qualify because the course offerings are so limited. I don't know why we keep being surprised that not a lot of players have any interest at all in technical pursuits, and not a few people see GT and Clemson engineering and technical degrees as "learning a trade.". For that matter,not a lot of across-the-board freshmen. Fellows, it is just boring to a lot of students. Several years ago I had knee replacement. My physical therapist's husband went to NC State. Brilliant guy, ROTC and academic scholarships, spent all his leisure time reading because his parents did not allow TV, got a degree in civil engineering in three years. Spent a year in Iraq as an Army combat engineer. Came home to work for the state highway department until he announced to his wife that he refused to spend the rest of his life answering 3 a.m. phone calls about a traffic signal not working. He is now an FBI agent in Memphis and presumably much happier, though maybe Comey gives him second thoughts. The whole thing is as simple as that horses and water

That's why I keep referring to the study by Harvard. Harvard!

They demonstrated that an investment in a winning football program delivers results across the board ... better applications, higher quality candidates, more National Merit scholars, more donations, etc.

The President of Alabama said that no matter what he pays Nick Saban, it's the best investment he ever made. Not only are all metrics up, the Athletic Department has built academic facilities and made donations to the school side. It's a win win.

At some schools yes, at some schools no. Apparently from what I read after the Clemson win it pays off at Clemson, but as for others I haven't heard. At my local college, basketball only, not so much . Student fees are through the roof to support the coach's salary, and while the record is good, the income isn't.

 

[Vespidae]

We don't chase 5 stars who show no interest in GT. There's your evidence.

No, but we sure talk about it a lot.

The way I think about these things is ... "Do we have an effective recruiting process that works for Tech, and if so, how do we know?" The fact that we don't chase 5 stars who show no interest, doesn't tell me that we have an effective recruiting process.

In fact, I doubt very seriously our coaches could articulate our recruiting and player development approach. Most companies can't describe their approach to talent management, so I don't think I'm far out on this point. Maybe I'm wrong, and if so, I'd like to see CPJ (or his delegate) just say, "We are completely delighted with how well our recruiting is and honestly, there's nothing I would change. I think it's the best in FBS for our type of school."

Never read a statement like that for Tech football. I've read several from companies. And when you think about it, at a spend of $75MM a year, Tech football is basically a company that puts on a product.

Nuf said. Time to move on.

 

[Jacket4Life9]

If Tech doesn't do something to change the perspective of kids, especially within the state of GA, GT will not reach its potential as a program. You have to keep up and it matters more about "how things look" than people think. No matter the system, we should recruit better. We are in a recruiting hot-bed. I know there is more competition, but the perception that players and HS coaches have about GT football, no matter how inaccurate it is, must be changed. UGAG could go 4-8 the next 3 years and still out recruit a GT program that goes 8-4. This is because of perception. We have to 1) Beat GA 2) Look good: No RUSSELL ATHLETIC and maybe implement a consistent marketing scheme that doesn't include yellow, navy, gold, white, and black as our colors. 3) Get kids to the NFL 4) APPEAR TO BE COOL... to kids, this matters. 10-18 year olds like things and people because they appear to be cool. If going to GT is not the "cool" thing to do, kids won't.

 

[Vespidae]

If going to GT is not the "cool" thing to do, kids won't.

I couldn't agree more. I grew up in Alabama and we always had Auburn and Alabama coming to the school every month or two to talk about life at Auburn or Alabama ... school, sports, life, etc. The local alumni chapters were very active and recruited kids ... "You're going to Auburn, son, right?"

It was all over the place. Tech? Not so much. I think this is a huge miss in our home state. And it will get worse over time. Tech should always position themselves as the leading alternative to UGAG.

 

[GTHomer]

I couldn't agree more. I grew up in Alabama and we always had Auburn and Alabama coming to the school every month or two to talk about life at Auburn or Alabama ... school, sports, life, etc. The local alumni chapters were very active and recruited kids ... "You're going to Auburn, son, right?"

It was all over the place. Tech? Not so much. I think this is a huge miss in our home state. And it will get worse over time. Tech should always position themselves as the leading alternative to UGAG.

Go in any K - 12 classroom in Georgia. The likelihood of a GT graduate or supporter leading the class is very low. The likelihood of a UGA graduate or supporter is much higher. Children will see more UGA paraphernalia in classrooms than GT hence will have greater awareness of that school. I've spoken at career days several times and proudly touted by GT degree and experience. I was definitely in the minority when compared to other speakers regarding college experience.

There are some obstacles that are tough to overcome.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Once again, we don't get it. It ain't the academic policies that kill. Good players can qualify and have qualified. Our problem is not enough good players want to qualify because its not cool.

fify.

Like so many things today, it's all about perception. Getting an offer from GT does not stroke their egos enough. We don't have the fanbase. We don't have the stadium. We don't have media attention. We are not in the national title hunt. We don't have bagmen. GT is hard. All of these things matter way more to blue chip athletes than anything remotely related to course offerings. It's sad, but it's true.

 

[ATL1]

That's why I keep referring to the study by Harvard. Harvard!

They demonstrated that an investment in a winning football program delivers results across the board ... better applications, higher quality candidates, more National Merit scholars, more donations, etc.

The President of Alabama said that no matter what he pays Nick Saban, it's the best investment he ever made. Not only are all metrics up, the Athletic Department has built academic facilities and made donations to the school side. It's a win win.

That's not necessarily true. The majority of programs don't make money and has yielded limited if ineffective results.

 

[Skeptic]

fify.

Like so many things today, it's all about perception. Getting an offer from GT does not stroke their egos enough. We don't have the fanbase. We don't have the stadium. We don't have media attention. We are not in the national title hunt. We don't have bagmen. GT is hard. All of these things matter way more to blue chip athletes than anything remotely related to course offerings. It's sad, but it's true.

Well, we will agree to disagree there. If I don't want to do technical stuff and that's about all you offer, then ...