High school coaches impressed by Collins...

[TheSilasSonRising]

and that our offense didn't practice against our defense, scheme vs scheme, after early August ...
I just cringe every time I hear someone on TV who should know better - radio doesn't count, because most of them are morons, with the exception of one or two - regurgitate the tired line of "they practice against their offense all the time." No. No they don't. You practice against the offense you're going to face that Saturday. Now, you may go against your own offensive personnel (especially in the NFL, where you have a much limited roster) but you still don't go up against your own scheme in 1s v 1s. PJ would go 1 v 1 during the season but that was almost exclusively short yardage and goal line work. Or whenever he wanted some competition between the two. But Monday through Thursday, for the vast majority of 80-93 practice periods no, his D wasn't lining up against the option.
But if you say something enough and if you have some gravitas, it becomes true. No matter how false it is.

Regardless, the perception (which is reality oftentimes) As quoted by these H.S. coaches in the article was that it Hurt our recruiting efforts with D players. We may not like that, know a different reality, don’t care, or whatever.

But I believe these coaches when they say it hurt us. IIWII.

 

[Animal02]

Regardless, the perception (which is reality oftentimes) As quoted by these H.S. coaches in the article was that it Hurt our recruiting efforts with D players. We may not like that, know a different reality, don’t care, or whatever.

But I believe these coaches when they say it hurt us. IIWII.

Of course you do,it fits you narrative.

 

[GTJake]

If you (anyone) don't think this is a good thing, maybe you need to take a step away and get a breath of fresh air ... or go see a councilor.

 

[ncjacket79]

Regardless, the perception (which is reality oftentimes) As quoted by these H.S. coaches in the article was that it Hurt our recruiting efforts with D players. We may not like that, know a different reality, don’t care, or whatever.

But I believe these coaches when they say it hurt us. IIWII.

The problem we had with this is that we could never sell our side of the story, so the negative view won in the minds of players and coaches. I agree that whether it was true or not became immaterial. So we them had to find kids who either liked that style or could overlook it.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

The problem we had with this is that we could never sell our side of the story, so the negative view won in the minds of players and coaches. I agree that whether it was true or not became immaterial. So we them had to find kids who either liked that style or could overlook it.

Or find kids where school is greater than or equal to football on their priority list (iow, most of our current players).

 

[ncjacket79]

Or find kids where school is greater than or equal to football on their priority list (iow, most of our current players).

True

 

[GTJake]

Or find kids where school is greater than or equal to football on their priority list (iow, most of our current players).

IMO, I think this pool of players is going to grow, especially if we sell it the right way ... with the whole concussion thing going on, I think the smart guys (not all) are going to want to have a back-up plan even if they make it to the NFL.
Look at Calvin as an example, got out early and now has a second career.

 

[Jmonty71]

Just wait. The coaches at our rival schools will come up with something to attempt to shoot him down, just like they did with falsely claiming that any defensive player who signed to play under Johnson stood the high probability of career-ending leg and knee injuries. They used calculus books against Dodd and cut blocking against Johnson. You know damn well they will find something to use against Collins, and they they will all say Collins can't recruit or he can't coach. The same old BS by them, regardless of who the Tech coach is. I just hope Collins can get a leg up on them early and make them suffer. Johnson almost did, but I guess the arguments against him were just too loud and convincing.

But, doesn't all schools do that to each other??? I mean, we could say... UGA.... where you can have 3 DUIs, and still start.... I think recruiting has become more like mud slinging politics.

 

[Dpjacket]

Thanks BC for retrieving this. DP, I was looking for this data that BC showed in another thread. Thanks again BC.

With due respect and ignorance, where is the link to this outside a copy-paste to a forum?

Asking because the numbers seem contrary to other simple searches on Google. If it’s not simple, cool. But I’m sure others here like direct source links, too. And don’t necessarily checkbox spreadsheets. Thanks!

 

[knoxjacket]

Or find kids where school is greater than or equal to football on their priority list (iow, most of our current players).

The myths you guys tell yourselves about our players...

 

[BCJacket]

With due respect and ignorance, where is the link to this outside a copy-paste to a forum?

Asking because the numbers seem contrary to other simple searches on Google. If it’s not simple, cool. But I’m sure others here like direct source links, too. And don’t necessarily checkbox spreadsheets. Thanks!

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/customdata/search

It's the data schools are required to submit to the DOE for Title IX compliance. Equity in Athletics. Select 'Conference' option and choose the P5 conferences, select the data: Football expenditures and the Year(s) you want.

My best guess on the discrepancy you're seeing is two things-
1. The DOE-EiA data lags by two years, ie the 'current' data is 2016. I'm pretty sure that our budget has gone up further the past two years under TStan, but it's not publicly available, yet. (That I have seen).
2. Other info- coaching salaries, spending on specific line items, etc is not required to be reported publicly. It's either available from FoI requests or not at all- Private schools and some state laws make that confidential. So, for example, USA Today has written some articles on CFB spending and either excluded or guessed on those schools. We may rank differently in specific areas.

Be interested to see links to contrary data you're finding on Google. Not sure what keywords you're searching for. The DOE data is by far the most comprehensive and authoritative data I've found. But I'm always open to more/better data sources.

(And Kudos for demanding access to primary sources instead of trusting what some dude on the internet [maybe] made up.)

 

[Madison Grant]

The myths you guys tell yourselves about our players...

I know I'm going to get screamed at for pointing this out, but after doing some searching on Rivals, it appears those old phonies at Stanford had 5 of their 7 4 star recruits who were offered by Ivies. How many of ours were?

 

[4shotB]

I know I'm going to get screamed at for pointing this out, but after doing some searching on Rivals, it appears those old phonies at Stanford had 5 of their 7 4 star recruits who were offered by Ivies. How many of ours were?

If you were able to do the research on the Stanford guys, wouldn't you be able to do the same for GT recruits?? I doubt anyone would know the answer to your question without some research themselves.

 

[Animal02]

The problem we had with this is that we could never sell our side of the story, so the negative view won in the minds of players and coaches. I agree that whether it was true or not became immaterial. So we them had to find kids who either liked that style or could overlook it.

The other half of the problem is the so called fans that think we had to abandon the 3O because other schools were talking bad about us.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

The myths you guys tell yourselves about our players...

Do you ever read the quotes from the recruits?

 

[Madison Grant]

If you were able to do the research on the Stanford guys, wouldn't you be able to do the same for GT recruits?? I doubt anyone would know the answer to your question without some research themselves.

Well, obviously, zero 4 star recruits, which is what I was referring to in the previous post. Not because I'm a 'Stanford fan' or 'CPJ hater', but to dispel some of the 'myths' floating around here, as Knoxjacket refers to, such as Stanford is a private school who gets a bunch of high rated recruits and hides the fact that they are just like what Oregon or USC sign academically.

I did look into us as you suggest, and we have 3 recruits from our class that had Ivy offers according to Rivals (one of which was a CGC recruit). But we had a handful offered by Vandy or the service academies, which is a good indicator of good SA academics.

 

[Techster]

I'll repeat it again:

Stanford and GT are in the same boat only in the sense that BOTH schools require recruits to have academic credentials greater than about 90% of what other P5 level schools require. IMO, that's about where our similarities end.

Stanford's recruiting challenges are on the front end. GT's recruiting challenges are on the back end.

After doing research all these years for message board "discussions" (talk about a LOT of wasted time...), I've found that Stanford's admissions process is what does them in. They have higher entrance standards. GT doesn't have as high of entrance standards, but we also have the harder road to hoe in keeping our SAs eligible, which means we have to be smart about who we sign. It's not as impossible as some make it seem, but it is a challenge that factory schools and a lot of P5 schools don't have to go through. Keep in mind, we've gotten SAs because Stanford admissions would not accept them...the two examples are Louis Young and Anree Saint Amour...both turned out to be our better players during their time here.

Bottom line for BOTH schools: We can sign the elite guys, but the number of elite guys we can sign that qualifies is fewer than the rest of the P5 programs. Same goes for recruiting period.

 

[Techster]

I know I'm going to get screamed at for pointing this out, but after doing some searching on Rivals, it appears those old phonies at Stanford had 5 of their 7 4 star recruits who were offered by Ivies. How many of ours were?

We lost a QB recruit from nearby Tucker to Harvard a few years ago.

 

[ncjacket79]

The other half of the problem is the so called fans that think we had to abandon the 3O because other schools were talking bad about us.

There may be some of those but there are also those who feel it’s a limiting factor in recruiting because of what recruits and HS coaches say. I couldn’t care less what other schools say but the reality is it put us in a box that a lot of recruits weren’t interested in.

 

[slugboy]

Well, obviously, zero 4 star recruits, which is what I was referring to in the previous post. Not because I'm a 'Stanford fan' or 'CPJ hater', but to dispel some of the 'myths' floating around here, as Knoxjacket refers to, such as Stanford is a private school who gets a bunch of high rated recruits and hides the fact that they are just like what Oregon or USC sign academically.

I did look into us as you suggest, and we have 3 recruits from our class that had Ivy offers according to Rivals (one of which was a CGC recruit). But we had a handful offered by Vandy or the service academies, which is a good indicator of good SA academics.

I don’t think that’s what anyone is saying. Who is saying that they would lower their admission standards to compete with an Auburn or an Oklahoma State?

A poster was saying that we’re taking Stanford’s academic rejects. Based on their curriculum, they should have at least as much admission flexibility as we do. We may exercise it for some recruits that they don’t, but I think it’s more of a matter that they’re recruiting stronger classes and don’t feel the need to make as many exceptions.

Hopefully, we get to the same state soon.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk