Forbes Article on Stanford's Rise to Football Prominence

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

The funny thing about Tuitt is he actually WANTED to come to GT, so he wasn't shucking us to get an anthropology degree at ND. Believe it or not, there are kids of Tuitt's caliber on and off the field who are actually willing to do the work.

Now momma on the other hand...

Yes sir. There are kids out there. Say 40 in each state, 2000 overall. We need but 7 or 8. Gotta identify them, target them, schmooze them, sell the degree, sell the city, sell the school, sell the UNIQUENESS of the experience. Replace 7 no-stars with seven 3 or 4 star recruits every signing day and you are there. Not going to get Calvin, or Tuitt, or Hershel, or Suh often, but if you got those seven, those 28 better players across four years, you would win more games. Win more games, you attract more Calvins. It isn't rocket surgery. It's recruiting. Unlike Troy, or MTSU, or Memphis or even Texas Tech, we've got something very special to sell. Where the hell is MIT ranked this pre-season. How many School of Mines alumni in the NFL?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

And the point I'm trying to make is there are quite a few elite kids out there that don't care about hiding behind easy majors. Quites a few in fact in just the metro Atlanta area alone. GT only needs to sign 3+ of those kinds of SA's on each side of the ball every year.

So you are saying there are "quite a few" elite football players who are also elite students who value the 40 yr plan over the 4 yr plan and you say there quite a few in the metro Atlanta area? I don't know about that. Let's assume you are correct. Even if they exist as you say, guys who are that serious about their academics, most likely have a very specific academic plan figured out. They know what they want to do and they know what it takes to get there. Here's where our limited offerings shoots us in the foot. Hell, even if the kid is dead set on becoming an engineer, Stanford has a higher ranked program. Most likely it's in a field we don't offer. Most likely the kid, or his mama, will be swayed by the overall prestige of the institute and we still lose to Stanford and ND, etc.

Our best target is the elite athlete, elite student, who wants to be an engineer or technical whatever, lives in the Atlanta area and wants to stay close to home. Almost any other scenario and we're second fiddle. I went to Tech and love my school so I'm not selling GT short for dubious reasons. I'm just looking at it objectively.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Yes sir. There are kids out there. Say 40 in each state, 2000 overall. We need but 7 or 8. Gotta identify them, target them, schmooze them, sell the degree, sell the city, sell the school, sell the UNIQUENESS of the experience. Replace 7 no-stars with seven 3 or 4 star recruits every signing day and you are there. Not going to get Calvin, or Tuitt, or Hershel, or Suh often, but if you got those seven, those 28 better players across four years, you would win more games. Win more games, you attract more Calvins. It isn't rocket surgery. It's recruiting. Unlike Troy, or MTSU, or Memphis or even Texas Tech, we've got something very special to sell. Where the hell is MIT ranked this pre-season. How many School of Mines alumni in the NFL?

From what scientific study did you get those numbers?

 

[Techster]

So you are saying there are "quite a few" elite football players who are also elite students who value the 40 yr plan over the 4 yr plan and you say there quite a few in the metro Atlanta area? I don't know about that. Let's assume you are correct. Even if they exist as you say, guys who are that serious about their academics, most likely have a very specific academic plan figured out. They know what they want to do and they know what it takes to get there. Here's where our limited offerings shoots us in the foot. Hell, even if the kid is dead set on becoming an engineer, Stanford has a higher ranked program. Most likely it's in a field we don't offer. Most likely the kid, or his mama, will be swayed by the overall prestige of the institute and we still lose to Stanford and ND, etc.

Our best target is the elite athlete, elite student, who wants to be an engineer or technical whatever, lives in the Atlanta area and wants to stay close to home. Almost any other scenario and we're second fiddle. I went to Tech and love my school so I'm not selling GT short for dubious reasons. I'm just looking at it objectively.

Sorry, but not to be nasty, but that's just excuse making for our staff's average to below average recruiting. Our past staff, Chan Gailey of all people, has proven he can sign those few elite guys that GT needs to compliment the role players and diamond in the roughs. I think our staff can coach the heck out of the talent they have, but they're not exactly working with a lot of top shelf talent. Part of it is half of the recruiting pool (the offensive players) don't want to come here because of the offense.

GT does have limited course offerings, but we have course offerings that are among the most popular majors for all college students (Business, humanities, science). Anyone who follows recruiting knows there are atleast 25-30 top tier kids in GA alone who have the academic credentials to do well on and off the field, and GT hasn't been able to sign many of them the past 5 years. If GT can sign just 10% of those kids (3+), on each side we would do well...see the 2009 team which we had 4 very special guys on offense and 2 very special guys on defense. Sorry, but history shows us that elite level kids DO want to come to GT...maybe not in bunches like the 2007 class or factory schools, but more than what we're getting now.

 

[DCSS]

Do you think when the coaches at these private schools recruit the Atlanta area, they sell the parents on the cost of a private education? For example, "Your son could go to Georgia Tech on a Hope Scholarship like his friends or he could come play football at Notredanfordbilt and have a free ride where it costs a million dollars a year in tuition."

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

From what scientific study did you get those numbers?

I made them up. Assume I am way off, that there are only 10 kids in 50 states, 500 overall. They are still out there--in what quantity, we'll have to debate. As you are a Notre Dame fan, you are already aware that one of their advantages over the years was they draw from the parochial schools very well. How many Catholic schools have very strong academics?? At the risk of being unscientific, and because my son went to Catholic middle school, I will say "90 % of all parochial schools" have superior academics to the general public schools" regardless of the community. Marist, St. Pius X, Aquinas, Benedictine in Georgia, Jesuit, Aquinas in Fort Lauderdale, John Bosco Prep in New Jersey, New Iberia in Louisiana, and on and on. The level of parental involvement required by the schools, plus the financial commitment by the family to education develops many outstanding athletes, in every major city in the country. Notre Dame and Boston College can't sign any more than we can. We did well in the DC area and Maryland. We just need half a dozen a year. If I were Paul Johnson, I'd convert to Catholicism immediately.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

Do you think when the coaches at these private schools recruit the Atlanta area, they sell the parents on the cost of a private education? For example, "Your son could go to Georgia Tech on a Hope Scholarship like his friends or he could come play football at Notredanfordbilt and have a free ride where it costs a million dollars a year in tuition."

It is a good point. I would say that that ploy has been used, because I believe every possible form of negative recruiting that exists has been and continues to be used against us.

 

[Techster]

Do you think when the coaches at these private schools recruit the Atlanta area, they sell the parents on the cost of a private education? For example, "Your son could go to Georgia Tech on a Hope Scholarship like his friends or he could come play football at Notredanfordbilt and have a free ride where it costs a million dollars a year in tuition."

I don't think that tact is any different than saying their kid could go to there instead of UGA/'Bama/UNC/FSU/NC State/Tennessee/Ole Miss/etc. GT isn't for everybody, but neither is Stanfod/Vandy/Duke/or any of those factory schools I named. It all comes down to selling a school...that's all recruiting is. ALL schools get negatively recruited against (see Carvell's piece on it), it's just a matter of how staffs deal with it and their abilty to sell GT. That's just recruiting.

 

[augustabuzz]

I don't think that tact is any different than saying their kid could go to there instead of UGA/'Bama/UNC/FSU/NC State/Tennessee/Ole Miss/etc. GT isn't for everybody, but neither is Stanfod/Vandy/Duke/or any of those factory schools I named. It all comes down to selling a school...that's all recruiting is. ALL schools get negatively recruited against (see Carvell's piece on it), it's just a matter of how staffs deal with it and their abilty to sell GT. That's just recruiting.

Are the SEC schools allowed to negative recruit each other?

 

[ATL1]

Chat with some of the recruits and they will tell you what the SEC and "factory schools" are selling and what they say negatively about GT. GT has to brand differently and separate it'self from the rest.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Sorry, but not to be nasty, but that's just excuse making for our staff's average to below average recruiting. Our past staff, Chan Gailey of all people, has proven he can sign those few elite guys that GT needs to compliment the role players and diamond in the roughs. I think our staff can coach the heck out of the talent they have, but they're not exactly working with a lot of top shelf talent. Part of it is half of the recruiting pool (the offensive players) don't want to come here because of the offense.

GT does have limited course offerings, but we have course offerings that are among the most popular majors for all college students (Business, humanities, science). Anyone who follows recruiting knows there are atleast 25-30 top tier kids in GA alone who have the academic credentials to do well on and off the field, and GT hasn't been able to sign many of them the past 5 years. If GT can sign just 10% of those kids (3+), on each side we would do well...see the 2009 team which we had 4 very special guys on offense and 2 very special guys on defense. Sorry, but history shows us that elite level kids DO want to come to GT...maybe not in bunches like the 2007 class or factory schools, but more than what we're getting now.

I'll admit we have to recruit better if you'll admit GT is a harder to recruit. You give me the impression you think there's a level playing field and I can't even begin to debate someone with that thought process. The truth is the vast majority of recruits in general, and elite recruits specifically, for one reason or another, don't fit GT.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

I'll admit we have to recruit better if you'll admit GT is a harder to recruit. You give me the impression you think there's a level playing field and I can't even begin to debate someone with that thought process. The truth is the vast majority of recruits in general, and elite recruits specifically, for one reason or another, don't fit GT.

But hasn't that been the case for most of the last 100 years? I am not sure of your definition of "vast majority", but using 80% as a starting point, then 20% of recruits in general might be potential fits at Georgia Tech. How many kids get scholarships to FBS programs each year, 125 teams x 18 players each? Is 2200 close enough? There is also the FCS schools to consider, but lets stick with the FBS.
Twenty per cent of 2200? We get a shot at 440, only a portion of which are outstanding players, but we're just looking for a few, less than a dozen.
Of course, there are those out there that will tell you that academic talent and truly elite athletic talent are inversely proportional. In that case our 440 potentials would be skewed toward lesser on the field talent. I don't think that is the case. I think the players are out there, we just have to go find them.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

But hasn't that been the case for most of the last 100 years? I am not sure of your definition of "vast majority", but using 80% as a starting point, then 20% of recruits in general might be potential fits at Georgia Tech. How many kids get scholarships to FBS programs each year, 125 teams x 18 players each? Is 2200 close enough? There is also the FCS schools to consider, but lets stick with the FBS.
Twenty per cent of 2200? We get a shot at 440, only a portion of which are outstanding players, but we're just looking for a few, less than a dozen.
Of course, there are those out there that will tell you that academic talent and truly elite athletic talent are inversely proportional. In that case our 440 potentials would be skewed toward lesser on the field talent. I don't think that is the case. I think the players are out there, we just have to go find them.

If we had an unlimited recruiting budget and a staff of 200 and they dropped all the NCAA recruiting restrictions just for us then you may have a point. What you forget to include is the limited budget in both time and money we have and the colossal geographic expanse that needs to be covered and the fact that most of recruiting depends on time honed relationships.

While we're out hunting for academic elite/athletic elite niche needles in haystacks, the factories have the knuckledraggers beating down their doors. Even the extremely rare niche athletes that fit GT aren't a slam dunk because many, if not most, still prefer the factories because you can still get pretty good education anywhere if you apply yourself plus you get all the perks of a factory on top of it.

 

[Techster]

I'll admit we have to recruit better if you'll admit GT is a harder to recruit. You give me the impression you think there's a level playing field and I can't even begin to debate someone with that thought process. The truth is the vast majority of recruits in general, and elite recruits specifically, for one reason or another, don't fit GT.

I've admitted GT isn't easy to recruit to MANY times. GT isn't a factory environment...anyone realistic about it knows that. At the same time, GT isn't as hard to recruit to as you make it out to be. GT has gotten elite athletes in our programs, and CAN do it in more than we have in the past 5 years.

You ignore a lot of things when you defend what's been happening under CPJ in regards to recruiting. Both Radakovich and Bobinski have been on record saying that our athletic programs are given ample resources in terms of dollars and man power when it comes to recruiting. Many publications have pointed out GT is one of the biggest spenders in the NCAA when it comes to recruiting expenses. GT also has some of the best facilities in all of college sports. All that jives with what our former and current ADs have said. You also ignore the fact half our recruiting pool of elite SAs don't want to come to GT because of the offense...and that does make a difference.

Like I said MANY times...we'll never get a class full of 4/5 star guys or even a class like the 2007 class...but we can certainly do much better than what's been going on since CPJ has been here. I don't expect top 10 classes...but GT is certainly capable of pulling in top 20-30 classes. You give CPJ that kind of talent and we are consistently a 9-10+ win team and playing for more ACC championships.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I've admitted GT isn't easy to recruit to MANY times. GT isn't a factory environment...anyone realistic about it knows that. At the same time, GT isn't as hard to recruit to as you make it out to be. GT has gotten elite athletes in our programs, and CAN do it in more than we have in the past 5 years.

You ignore a lot of things when you defend what's been happening under CPJ in regards to recruiting. Both Radakovich and Bobinski have been on record saying that our athletic programs are given ample resources in terms of dollars and man power when it comes to recruiting. Many publications have pointed out GT is one of the biggest spenders in the NCAA when it comes to recruiting expenses. GT also has some of the best facilities in all of college sports. All that jives with what our former and current ADs have said. You also ignore the fact half our recruiting pool of elite SAs don't want to come to GT because of the offense...and that does make a difference.

Like I said MANY times...we'll never get a class full of 4/5 star guys or even a class like the 2007 class...but we can certainly do much better than what's been going on since CPJ has been here. I don't expect top 10 classes...but GT is certainly capable of pulling in top 20-30 classes. You give CPJ that kind of talent and we are consistently a 9-10+ win team and playing for more ACC championships.

And I've said we need to recruit better many times. But when I say recruit better, I mean players who end up panning out, not how many stars they have by their name. The two are not synonymous. The last couple of classes have no data yet from which to draw conclusions. Look, I know our offense limits our recruiting to some extent, but that goes with the territory. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The very reason it's effective with lesser talent, it's uniqueness, makes it less attractive to higher talent. However, once CPJ shows he can win big with it for longer than one season, the bigger recruits will get on board.

Also, CPJ has made several changes to improve recruiting, but only time will tell if it bears fruit. The most recent class is very promising, imo, regardless of it's poor ranking.

 

[SidewalkJacket]

Yahoo should at least get the fight song right. I suspect the Mtrain at Tech has a more difficult math requirement than Organizational Development, History, or Communications majors at those other schools.

Easy on the criticism of History as a major... Just sayin...

 

[augustabuzz]

Are the SEC schools allowed to negative recruit each other?

Does anyone have any experience or knowledge whether Slive allows this?

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

I've admitted GT isn't easy to recruit to MANY times. GT isn't a factory environment...anyone realistic about it knows that. At the same time, GT isn't as hard to recruit to as you make it out to be. GT has gotten elite athletes in our programs, and CAN do it in more than we have in the past 5 years.

You ignore a lot of things when you defend what's been happening under CPJ in regards to recruiting. Both Radakovich and Bobinski have been on record saying that our athletic programs are given ample resources in terms of dollars and man power when it comes to recruiting. Many publications have pointed out GT is one of the biggest spenders in the NCAA when it comes to recruiting expenses. GT also has some of the best facilities in all of college sports. All that jives with what our former and current ADs have said. You also ignore the fact half our recruiting pool of elite SAs don't want to come to GT because of the offense...and that does make a difference.

Like I said MANY times...we'll never get a class full of 4/5 star guys or even a class like the 2007 class...but we can certainly do much better than what's been going on since CPJ has been here. I don't expect top 10 classes...but GT is certainly capable of pulling in top 20-30 classes. You give CPJ that kind of talent and we are consistently a 9-10+ win team and playing for more ACC championships.

Maybe some of our problem is that an offensive player that is smart enough to do the work at Georgia Tech, and smart enough to understand that college is a 40 year decision and not a four year decision, is smart enough to know this offense is not conducive to developing his natural talents in the way he'd like them to be developed.

 

[Techster]

And I've said we need to recruit better many times. But when I say recruit better, I mean players who end up panning out, not how many stars they have by their name. The two are not synonymous. The last couple of classes have no data yet from which to draw conclusions. Look, I know our offense limits our recruiting to some extent, but that goes with the territory. You can't have your cake and eat it too. The very reason it's effective with lesser talent, it's uniqueness, makes it less attractive to higher talent. However, once CPJ shows he can win big with it for longer than one season, the bigger recruits will get on board.

Also, CPJ has made several changes to improve recruiting, but only time will tell if it bears fruit. The most recent class is very promising, imo, regardless of it's poor ranking.

CPJ has had as much time as Ross, O'Leary, and Gailey to prove his worth in recruiting. All of those guys showed marked improvement in recruiting as the years went by. CPJ actually has more resources at his disposal now than any of the coaches I named. Given that scouting recruits given the proliferation of technology and video has become readily available with just an email, the whole "man power" excuse is just that...an excuse. Recruiting even 5-10 years ago was much harder since the coaches had to call and harass coaches for actual tape and fly out to watch kids play...and that might be the first time a coach put his eyes on a kid.

Every year since "CPJ's guys" have filtered through the team, and despite everyone saying "the recruits fit the system so rankings don't mean anything" and "this class is promising despite the poor ranking"...we've ended up where we were when we got rid of the last coach: 7 wins. The "system" matters very little because great players with be great players no matter what system they're in (See BeyBey in our offense, and then under Tebow and Manning). That's what CPJ has been sorely lacking...great players that transcend systems.

 

[augustabuzz]

CPJ has had as much time as Ross, O'Leary, and Gailey to prove his worth in recruiting. All of those guys showed marked improvement in recruiting as the years went by. CPJ actually has more resources at his disposal now than any of the coaches I named. Given that scouting recruits given the proliferation of technology and video has become readily available with just an email, the whole "man power" excuse is just that...an excuse. Recruiting even 5-10 years ago was much harder since the coaches had to call and harass coaches for actual tape and fly out to watch kids play...and that might be the first time a coach put his eyes on a kid.

Every year since "CPJ's guys" have filtered through the team, and despite everyone saying "the recruits fit the system so rankings don't mean anything" and "this class is promising despite the poor ranking"...we've ended up where we were when we got rid of the last coach: 7 wins. The "system" matters very little because great players with be great players no matter what system they're in (See BeyBey in our offense, and then under Tebow and Manning). That's what CPJ has been sorely lacking...great players that transcend systems.

Ross, O'Leary, and Gailey each had way more leniency in who could be recruited than had Johnson his first five years. Just when Gailey began to understand how to recruit to Tech, the morons wanted him gone. This has been the pattern for Tech. head coaches since Dodd retired. And now that Johnson has been given some leave to recruit some outside the " Tech. cookie cutter", most of the same morons want him gone.

As far as I'm concerned, they can take their ADD/ADHD and/or OCD problems and put them in that spot in Nebraska where the sun doesn't shine. I will not support the insanity.