Carpenter (nothing to worry about)

[MikeJackets1967]

I also have a degree in civil but my degree is listed as a “BS in Civil Engineering”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've known people who had a BS in BS

 

[GT_05]

I've known people who had a BS in BS

I majored in that too, Mike. [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GT_05]

I've known people who had a BS in BS

I majored in that too, Mike. [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MikeJackets1967]

I majored in that too, Mike. [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL

 

[Techster]

Here's the bottom line with recruiting:

Is it harder to recruit at GT? Yes.
Are the limited (i.e. HARDER) degree choices compared to other schools a factor? Yes.
Are our math and science requirements a factor? Yes.

Anyone that argues those points and argues our pool of recruits isn't smaller than for the majority of FBS schools is kidding themselves and shouldn't even try to debate this issue.

HOWEVER, that being acknowledged, it's time to also acknowledge that GT should be doing better than we have in recruiting. I'm not talking about top 10, or even top 20 (althought it's not unreasonable to think GT should have a top 20 class once every 5 years or so). There are PLENTY of high level recruits that have the academic credentials and aptitude and are willing to take Calculus. We are recruiting 15-20 "smart" kids a year. We are not starting over and recruiting 85 kids a year.

As I pointed out earlier, there's really not much difference between recruiting in the 50's and recruiting in the 30's. The difference teams who recruit in the 30's sign 2-3 more 4 stars per year, and the back end of their signings are rated a little higher. That really shouldn't be difficult. It's definitely not as difficult as some on here want to believe.

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

I just have a bachelor of Civil Engineering, no science mentioned.

It depends on when you got out. My degree is a Bachelor of Electrical Engineering (BEE, ie the ultimate fan). I don't know when, but they removed a few requirements to dumbed it down to ONLY a Bachelor of Science of Electrical Engineering. That was actually a good move as I did not have many spots to take electives to specialize much in anything with the BEE degree.

 

[AE 87]

Here's the bottom line with recruiting:

Is it harder to recruit at GT? Yes.
Are the limited (i.e. HARDER) degree choices compared to other schools a factor? Yes.
Are our math and science requirements a factor? Yes.

Anyone that argues those points and argues our pool of recruits isn't smaller than for the majority of FBS schools is kidding themselves and shouldn't even try to debate this issue.

HOWEVER, that being acknowledged, it's time to also acknowledge that GT should be doing better than we have in recruiting. I'm not talking about top 10, or even top 20 (althought it's not unreasonable to think GT should have a top 20 class once every 5 years or so). There are PLENTY of high level recruits that have the academic credentials and aptitude and are willing to take Calculus. We are recruiting 15-20 "smart" kids a year. We are not starting over and recruiting 85 kids a year.

As I pointed out earlier, there's really not much difference between recruiting in the 50's and recruiting in the 30's. The difference teams who recruit in the 30's sign 2-3 more 4 stars per year, and the back end of their signings are rated a little higher. That really shouldn't be difficult. It's definitely not as difficult as some on here want to believe.

How do you quantify how difficult it is and how difficult some believe?

 

[biggtfan]

Here's the bottom line with recruiting:

Is it harder to recruit at GT? Yes.
Are the limited (i.e. HARDER) degree choices compared to other schools a factor? Yes.
Are our math and science requirements a factor? Yes.

Anyone that argues those points and argues our pool of recruits isn't smaller than for the majority of FBS schools is kidding themselves and shouldn't even try to debate this issue.

HOWEVER, that being acknowledged, it's time to also acknowledge that GT should be doing better than we have in recruiting. I'm not talking about top 10, or even top 20 (althought it's not unreasonable to think GT should have a top 20 class once every 5 years or so). There are PLENTY of high level recruits that have the academic credentials and aptitude and are willing to take Calculus. We are recruiting 15-20 "smart" kids a year. We are not starting over and recruiting 85 kids a year.

As I pointed out earlier, there's really not much difference between recruiting in the 50's and recruiting in the 30's. The difference teams who recruit in the 30's sign 2-3 more 4 stars per year, and the back end of their signings are rated a little higher. That really shouldn't be difficult. It's definitely not as difficult as some on here want to believe.

Thank you

Good post. My questions would be

1. Can you overcome academics to improve recruiting?
2. Can you overcome our option scheme to improve recruiting?
3. Which would be easier?

 

[g0lftime]

Probably easier to recruit top quarterbacks because those kids tend to be pretty smart kids in a pass oriented system. DL seems to be a problem due to academics for some reason. The main thing seems to be that the top athletes want to get to the NFL and for some reason don't think our current system is the best path. A lot of the kids only want to play football and college is how they get there. There arent any other options.

 

[biggtfan]

My opinion would be that academics are easier to overcome. Consider QB's from around the ACC (and USF) and whether they could succeed at GT. I believe many would do well. As stated earlier in the thread, we only need a few more 4-star recruits to make a difference. With the right scheme, you would get a QB and then build around them (eg, WR, O-line). As an aside, I have read that O-line has very smart people on it.

Defensive recruits would go against a pass-oriented offense in practice, further preparing those with thoughts of playing in the NFL.

I liked the Bowling Green offense - 4-5 receivers, quick passes, someone always open, etc. That checks the box for having a different type of offense to overcome any limitations we have with majors.

Thoughts?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Probably easier to recruit top quarterbacks because those kids tend to be pretty smart kids in a pass oriented system. DL seems to be a problem due to academics for some reason. The main thing seems to be that the top athletes want to get to the NFL and for some reason don't think our current system is the best path. A lot of the kids only want to play football and college is how they get there. There arent any other options.

Most.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Here's the bottom line with recruiting:

Is it harder to recruit at GT? Yes.
Are the limited (i.e. HARDER) degree choices compared to other schools a factor? Yes.
Are our math and science requirements a factor? Yes.

Anyone that argues those points and argues our pool of recruits isn't smaller than for the majority of FBS schools is kidding themselves and shouldn't even try to debate this issue.

HOWEVER, that being acknowledged, it's time to also acknowledge that GT should be doing better than we have in recruiting. I'm not talking about top 10, or even top 20 (althought it's not unreasonable to think GT should have a top 20 class once every 5 years or so). There are PLENTY of high level recruits that have the academic credentials and aptitude and are willing to take Calculus. We are recruiting 15-20 "smart" kids a year. We are not starting over and recruiting 85 kids a year.

As I pointed out earlier, there's really not much difference between recruiting in the 50's and recruiting in the 30's. The difference teams who recruit in the 30's sign 2-3 more 4 stars per year, and the back end of their signings are rated a little higher. That really shouldn't be difficult. It's definitely not as difficult as some on here want to believe.

Unfortunately most of them want to go to Stanford or ND. We like to claim we have the best combination of Academics and Athletics around. That's all fine and dandy until one of these two want our wish list. But we don't often go up against them for some reason. We're battling a whole different subset of program most of the time.

 

[Techster]

Unfortunately most of them want to go to Stanford or ND. We like to claim we have the best combination of Academics and Athletics around. That's all fine and dandy until one of these two want our wish list. But we don't often go up against them for some reason. We're battling a whole different subset of program most of the time.

I pray our coaches don't recruit with the same hopelessness as Cheese does...

 

[GTRhino24]

I came here to read awesome stuff about Carpenter and found ANOTHER recruiting thread. Like what I see so far from Tariq. We have needed someone to fear on that side of the ball. Some people just know how to hit. I’m high school it was Gabe Chapman. At Tech it was Travaris Tillman who knocked my eye crooked one time.

 

[biggtfan]

I came here to read awesome stuff about Carpenter and found ANOTHER recruiting thread. Like what I see so far from Tariq. We have needed someone to fear on that side of the ball. Some people just know how to hit. I’m high school it was Gabe Chapman. At Tech it was Travaris Tillman who knocked my eye crooked one time.

Sorry for the hijack. I like Carpenter, too. Hard hitter and usually somewhere near the ball carrier. #40 (Oliver?) has also impressed me. As long as we are giving kudos, I also thought #3 had a good game Saturday.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Wheels matter most at LB imo. But size matters when your OLB is tasked with getting around or through an OT.

Imo we should be able to recruit for this system fine. And we don’t need to average 250 lbs at LB to do it. 220 pound ILBs with great wheels can be very effective. 235 with great wheels is even better.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Unfortunately most of them want to go to Stanford or ND. We like to claim we have the best combination of Academics and Athletics around. That's all fine and dandy until one of these two want our wish list. But we don't often go up against them for some reason. We're battling a whole different subset of program most of the time.

Stanford says they treat their athletes like they do their special needs students. They have a different track. It’s like Clemson too, which has good academics. But they alsobhve some silly worthless majors like Parks and Rec to shove athletes through. The kid across the street from me (not an athlete) majored in in that and still hasn’t found a job after graduating in spring 2017. He still lives over there at home in his parents house playing video games all day with his friends.

Back to Tariq, I also love his passion like Juanyeh and others have. I miss the Austins in all those ways.

 

[ATL1]

The main thing seems to be that the top athletes want to get to the NFL and for some reason don't think our current system is the best path. A lot of the kids only want to play football and college is how they get there. There arent any other options.

That’s the bottom line. As a former educator and someone that still works with youth;
1. “GT plays football?” The know GT players football but.... GT is not remotely on the forefront.
2. “I don’t like that offense.”
3. “I don’t want to play in that offense.”
4. “I want to play in the NFL.”

Even the “smart” kids want a shot at the league. It ain’t calculus that’s turning off kids on site.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

That’s the bottom line. As a former educator and someone that still works with youth;
1. “GT plays football?” The know GT players football but.... GT is not remotely on the forefront.
2. “I don’t like that offense.”
3. “I don’t want to play in that offense.”
4. “I want to play in the NFL.”

Even the “smart” kids want a shot at the league. It ain’t calculus that’s turning off kids on site.

Sure it is. But it’s the whole STEM kit and caboodle of which calc is just a part.

 

[biggtfan]

Sure it is. But it’s the whole STEM kit and caboodle of which calc is just a part.

It would be interesting to poll recruits that we offered but went elsewhere: was it the academic difficulty, the offense, or something else?

Anyone close to the recruiting process or contact with recruits that can share any insights?