Collins on Packer & Durham

[Northeast Stinger]

I am fairly certain that these points are made routinely, not just at GT, but by every college recruiter out there. As I stated earlier, people who make their living as recruiters generally know how to sell their product. The assumption that GT recruiters are failing to sell correctly because enough of the right people aren't buying the product is a biased assumption. It assumes no fault of the product, but only fault of the salesman. The reality is that the limited majors, perceived difficulty and rigor, added to lack of consistent success makes GT a hard sell. We can argue "stay home" but half a dozen or more factories are a day trip away, so even that argument is muted somewhat. At the end of the day, there is a reason GT struggles to recruit well. Blaming that solely on the recruiter ignores a mountain of other evidence out there and frankly, ignores reality.

To clarify, I agree with you 100% about the challenge of limited majors. It instantly reduces the number of viable prospects by more than half. I was just agreeing with the other post that this means we have to try even harder in our sales pitch as a result of this major challenge.

 

[Vespidae]

To clarify, I agree with you 100% about the challenge of limited majors. It instantly reduces the number of viable prospects by more than half. I was just agreeing with the other post that this means we have to try even harder in our sales pitch as a result of this major challenge.

This from a Masters Thesis which studied the factors driving school selection:

"In the end, I was only able to confirm much of what was already believed to be the secret to successful recruiting: winning. Previous winning percentage, both in the last two years and all-time, along with bowl victories, are major factors in the quality of a recruiting class.

On top of winning, the schools that were good at recruiting in the past tend to be good at recruiting in the future, and schools that win also tend to have higher average attendances and better recruiting
classes. However, the most interesting information about this study was the insight into the validity of what stakeholders seem to think impacted recruiting. Some of the most striking revelations were not necessarily what factors were shown to affect recruiting, but rather what factors were shown to not affect recruiting, despite the anecdotal evidence espoused by student-athletes, coaches, and the media. Academic quality of the institution, thought to be a deciding factor for student-athletes, was shown not to be a significant factor in any of the models. The same can be said for apparel affiliation, NCAA violations, athletic department expenses, and type of offense. Despite what is thought to be impactful on student-athlete college choice, none of these factors were shown to have an effect on the quality of a school’s recruiting class."

 

[orientalnc]

This from a Masters Thesis which studied the factors driving school selection:

"In the end, I was only able to confirm much of what was already believed to be the secret to successful recruiting: winning. Previous winning percentage, both in the last two years and all-time, along with bowl victories, are major factors in the quality of a recruiting class.

On top of winning, the schools that were good at recruiting in the past tend to be good at recruiting in the future, and schools that win also tend to have higher average attendances and better recruiting
classes. However, the most interesting information about this study was the insight into the validity of what stakeholders seem to think impacted recruiting. Some of the most striking revelations were not necessarily what factors were shown to affect recruiting, but rather what factors were shown to not affect recruiting, despite the anecdotal evidence espoused by student-athletes, coaches, and the media. Academic quality of the institution, thought to be a deciding factor for student-athletes, was shown not to be a significant factor in any of the models. The same can be said for apparel affiliation, NCAA violations, athletic department expenses, and type of offense. Despite what is thought to be impactful on student-athlete college choice, none of these factors were shown to have an effect on the quality of a school’s recruiting class."

Can you post a link to the paper?

 

[Northeast Stinger]

This from a Masters Thesis which studied the factors driving school selection:

"In the end, I was only able to confirm much of what was already believed to be the secret to successful recruiting: winning. Previous winning percentage, both in the last two years and all-time, along with bowl victories, are major factors in the quality of a recruiting class.

On top of winning, the schools that were good at recruiting in the past tend to be good at recruiting in the future, and schools that win also tend to have higher average attendances and better recruiting
classes. However, the most interesting information about this study was the insight into the validity of what stakeholders seem to think impacted recruiting. Some of the most striking revelations were not necessarily what factors were shown to affect recruiting, but rather what factors were shown to not affect recruiting, despite the anecdotal evidence espoused by student-athletes, coaches, and the media. Academic quality of the institution, thought to be a deciding factor for student-athletes, was shown not to be a significant factor in any of the models. The same can be said for apparel affiliation, NCAA violations, athletic department expenses, and type of offense. Despite what is thought to be impactful on student-athlete college choice, none of these factors were shown to have an effect on the quality of a school’s recruiting class."

Fascinating. Academic quality of the institution? Does that also mean schools with a narrow range of majors?

Interesting that brand name of apparel makes no difference after all those years people complained about Russell. And no one cares what style of offense you run either.

I would like to see another masters thesis on the effectiveness of negative recruiting, whether it makes a difference and, if so, what is the most effective technique.

 

[TooTall]

I would like to see another masters thesis on the effectiveness of negative recruiting, whether it makes a difference and, if so, what is the most effective technique.

gtswarm.com

 

[MidtownJacket]

This from a Masters Thesis which studied the factors driving school selection:

"In the end, I was only able to confirm much of what was already believed to be the secret to successful recruiting: winning. Previous winning percentage, both in the last two years and all-time, along with bowl victories, are major factors in the quality of a recruiting class.

On top of winning, the schools that were good at recruiting in the past tend to be good at recruiting in the future, and schools that win also tend to have higher average attendances and better recruiting
classes. However, the most interesting information about this study was the insight into the validity of what stakeholders seem to think impacted recruiting. Some of the most striking revelations were not necessarily what factors were shown to affect recruiting, but rather what factors were shown to not affect recruiting, despite the anecdotal evidence espoused by student-athletes, coaches, and the media. Academic quality of the institution, thought to be a deciding factor for student-athletes, was shown not to be a significant factor in any of the models. The same can be said for apparel affiliation, NCAA violations, athletic department expenses, and type of offense. Despite what is thought to be impactful on student-athlete college choice, none of these factors were shown to have an effect on the quality of a school’s recruiting class."

but was it successfully defended?

 

[Vespidae]

but was it successfully defended?

I think the key point made by the author is that we all think we know why kids do or do not select the school based on mostly anecdotal evidence.

 

[wesgt123]

COLLINS. ON. PACKER. AND. DURHAM.

NOT RESEAAARCHHHH PAPERS OR WHATEVER

 

[Pointer]

This from a Masters Thesis which studied the factors driving school selection:

"In the end, I was only able to confirm much of what was already believed to be the secret to successful recruiting: winning. Previous winning percentage, both in the last two years and all-time, along with bowl victories, are major factors in the quality of a recruiting class.

On top of winning, the schools that were good at recruiting in the past tend to be good at recruiting in the future, and schools that win also tend to have higher average attendances and better recruiting
classes. However, the most interesting information about this study was the insight into the validity of what stakeholders seem to think impacted recruiting. Some of the most striking revelations were not necessarily what factors were shown to affect recruiting, but rather what factors were shown to not affect recruiting, despite the anecdotal evidence espoused by student-athletes, coaches, and the media. Academic quality of the institution, thought to be a deciding factor for student-athletes, was shown not to be a significant factor in any of the models. The same can be said for apparel affiliation, NCAA violations, athletic department expenses, and type of offense. Despite what is thought to be impactful on student-athlete college choice, none of these factors were shown to have an effect on the quality of a school’s recruiting class."

I'd love to read it. Sounds interesting.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

This from a Masters Thesis which studied the factors driving school selection:

"In the end, I was only able to confirm much of what was already believed to be the secret to successful recruiting: winning. Previous winning percentage, both in the last two years and all-time, along with bowl victories, are major factors in the quality of a recruiting class.

On top of winning, the schools that were good at recruiting in the past tend to be good at recruiting in the future, and schools that win also tend to have higher average attendances and better recruiting
classes. However, the most interesting information about this study was the insight into the validity of what stakeholders seem to think impacted recruiting. Some of the most striking revelations were not necessarily what factors were shown to affect recruiting, but rather what factors were shown to not affect recruiting, despite the anecdotal evidence espoused by student-athletes, coaches, and the media. Academic quality of the institution, thought to be a deciding factor for student-athletes, was shown not to be a significant factor in any of the models. The same can be said for apparel affiliation, NCAA violations, athletic department expenses, and type of offense. Despite what is thought to be impactful on student-athlete college choice, none of these factors were shown to have an effect on the quality of a school’s recruiting class."

Tennessee's record over the last 5 years is 27-33. Their last 5 recruiting classes ranked 12, 35, 8, 13, and 20.
FSU is 26-33 over the last 5 years. Their last 5 recruiting classes ranked 21, 27, 20, 17, and 10.

Not sure winning is a prerequisite.

 

[Pointer]

Tennessee's record over the last 5 years is 27-33. Their last 5 recruiting classes ranked 12, 35, 8, 13, and 20.
FSU is 26-33 over the last 5 years. Their last 5 recruiting classes ranked 21, 27, 20, 17, and 10.

Not sure winning is a prerequisite.

Ahh but they get lumped into the sec winning hype.

Also outside of 15 is not that impressive, and in Tennessee's hay day, they were recruiting like all the elite sec teams.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

Fascinating. Academic quality of the institution? Does that also mean schools with a narrow range of majors?

Interesting that brand name of apparel makes no difference after all those years people complained about Russell. And no one cares what style of offense you run either.

I would like to see another masters thesis on the effectiveness of negative recruiting, whether it makes a difference and, if so, what is the most effective technique.

Dodd said that opposing coaches would take a calculus book lay it in the hands of a prospect and say: "Think you can pass this?" Best technique of negative recruiting I can think of for some recruits.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Tennessee's record over the last 5 years is 27-33. Their last 5 recruiting classes ranked 12, 35, 8, 13, and 20.
FSU is 26-33 over the last 5 years. Their last 5 recruiting classes ranked 21, 27, 20, 17, and 10.

Not sure winning is a prerequisite.

Well, the synopsis we had of the master’s thesis defined winning 3 different ways: Recent winning streak, past history of winning, or bowl teams. FSU certainly has a sexy past history. Tennessee would have to go back further but they do check off the other box -attendance.

I think the problem any Tech fan can see is that we don’t check any of the boxes. So it was never about the type of offense or the apparel brand. Calculus still might be a factor depending on how the study defined “quality academics.”

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

It's very different than Tech.

The athletic department itself is very well run and very professional. The facilities are first class and there is no shortage of resources or money for that matter.

The downside is that it is almost entirely run by big billionaire boosters (Jimmy Raines especially, Mr Yellawood) and decisions are made ABOVE the level of the AD. Often, the university president and board of trustees take part in football decisions. A coach can't just coach at Auburn. He has to coach and schmooze the egos of very rich, very powerful people who pretty much can do whatever they want almost without repercussion. For example, Raines decided Auburn needed a 5 star hotel and culinary school. Cost? $110 million. Wrote a check for it. AU is NOT going to not consider what he thinks. The only reason Harsin got hired in the first place is that the current (now outgoing) president was interim and was somewhat immune to the politics.

But Auburn is well-known for boosters operating behind the backs of the coaches and pulling strings. Much like Tennessee but 10X worse.

Alabama was the same way until Saban laid down the law and said "Boosters, out". I don't see Auburn getting back to an elite level of football until they do that and ... I don't see them doing that.

An excellent summary of Auburn's football follies. I wanted to ask why they fired Gus if they are upset with this new guy already but you answered that question.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

It wasn't a rumor. CPJ himself said he was offered the job but turned it down. He preferred the kids at Tech who are more like service academy kids than the typical university.

Someone like Bill Snyder to me, is the prototypical college coach. Good track record - some big years, some not so big - but part of the history of the school now. But you need a good coach at a school outside of the pressure cooker of the Top 30. Other than that .... yes ... head to the pros.

Coach Johnson socializing with the likes of "Yella Wood"? Nope, can't see him lowering his standards for that.

 

[Vespidae]

I'd love to read it. Sounds interesting.

See attached. I'm not the author, so I won't take personal offense if you flame it.

 

[slugboy]

See attached. I'm not the author, so I won't take personal offense if you flame it.

Cue the flaming of UNC as an academic institution

 

[Randy Carson]

This from a Masters Thesis which studied the factors driving school selection:

"In the end, I was only able to confirm much of what was already believed to be the secret to successful recruiting: winning. Previous winning percentage, both in the last two years and all-time, along with bowl victories, are major factors in the quality of a recruiting class.

On top of winning, the schools that were good at recruiting in the past tend to be good at recruiting in the future, and schools that win also tend to have higher average attendances and better recruiting
classes. However, the most interesting information about this study was the insight into the validity of what stakeholders seem to think impacted recruiting. Some of the most striking revelations were not necessarily what factors were shown to affect recruiting, but rather what factors were shown to not affect recruiting, despite the anecdotal evidence espoused by student-athletes, coaches, and the media. Academic quality of the institution, thought to be a deciding factor for student-athletes, was shown not to be a significant factor in any of the models. The same can be said for apparel affiliation, NCAA violations, athletic department expenses, and type of offense. Despite what is thought to be impactful on student-athlete college choice, none of these factors were shown to have an effect on the quality of a school’s recruiting class."

LeBron loves Cleveland. But he also wanted a ring. Winning matters.

 

[CEB]

Dodd said that opposing coaches would take a calculus book lay it in the hands of a prospect and say: "Think you can pass this?" Best technique of negative recruiting I can think of for some recruits.

Good thing it’s all on line these days.

I still don’t know how my kids do school without a book... but I digress

 

[TooTall]

LeBron loves Cleveland. But he also wanted a ring. Winning matters.

I hate the guy but he was in the finals plenty of times prior to his "decision" and the he did bring a ring to Cleveland and then bolted.