Hot seat

[dressedcheeseside]

GT has always had one of the highest recruiting budgets. CPJ chose to recruit within a limited area when he first got here, and even made it a point to recruit GA harder. It didn't work out as well as he thought. Have to give him credit for changing up our recruiting philosophy to cover nationally and more specifically recruiting academic intensive regions that play high level prep football.

Your first statement is hard to prove. Every school that reports data on this picks and chooses it's own criteria as to what constitutes a "recruiting expense." As a result, you have no way to compare objectively. On top of that, there are many schools that don't report any data, period. Get me a study that compares apples from one school to the exact same apples at GT and I'll be convinced and not before.

Even if we assume we have "one of the highest recruiting budgets" in college football (which I pointed out above is a false assumption), we damn well better. Our recruiting hurdles are exponentially harder so our budget needs to reflect that just to bring the playing field to square one.

I agree with everything else in your post.

 

[Rodney Kent]

I should know this since I started following Tech when Dodd became coach, but I don't. I don't remember ever hearing about any contract negotiations or guaranteed years at a specified sum per year for Dodd. It appears everybody just assumed he would always return the next year. Did he have guaranteed salaries for extended years or was his contract just renewed each year? I am under the impression that assistants are only renewed from year to year.

 

[Techster]

Your first statement is hard to prove. Every school that reports data on this picks and chooses it's own criteria as to what constitutes a "recruiting expense." As a result, you have no way to compare objectively. On top of that, there are many schools that don't report any data, period. Get me a study that compares apples from one school to the exact same apples at GT and I'll be convinced and not before.

Even if we assume we have "one of the highest recruiting budgets" in college football (which I pointed out above is a false assumption), we damn well better. Our recruiting hurdles are exponentially harder so our budget needs to reflect that just to bring the playing field to square one.

I agree with everything else in your post.

I'm not here convince you.

People who want to play the "it's no an apples to apples comparison" and "we're not on a level playing field" game will cry about it all day long no matter what data is out there....and there's LOT of data regarding recruiting expenses. Iwish I could find the article where Radakovich defended our program befire he left saying GT doesn't have the mot resources but our coaches don't lack for resources, and our coaches are given everything they need in terms of recruiting. The Data that's floating on the internet backs it up.

Who cares who doesn't report. That'sa weak defense. Keep harping on the "exponentially harder" recruiting hurdles. Coaches in the past have proven that they can recruit well enough to be successful. Hey, if you say it enough times you may be able to convince yourself.

 

[Squints]

I don't think anyone embraces mediocrity. But some schools put themselves into a position in which they have no other choice financially but to accept mediocrity. That's the situation that a school should avoid.

Yea I can be on board with that. Being inflexible due to finances is definitely not the way to go.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I'm not here convince you.

People who want to play the "it's no an apples to apples comparison" and "we're not on a level playing field" game will cry about it all day long no matter what data is out there....and there's LOT of data regarding recruiting expenses. Iwish I could find the article where Radakovich defended our program befire he left saying GT doesn't have the mot resources but our coaches don't lack for resources, and our coaches are given everything they need in terms of recruiting. The Data that's floating on the internet backs it up.

Who cares who doesn't report. That'sa weak defense. Keep harping on the "exponentially harder" recruiting hurdles. Coaches in the past have proven that they can recruit well enough to be successful. Hey, if you say it enough times you may be able to convince yourself.

What I said is true. You can believe what you want.

I'm not here convince you.

People who want to play the "it's no an apples to apples comparison" and "we're not on a level playing field" game will cry about it all day long no matter what data is out there....and there's LOT of data regarding recruiting expenses. Iwish I could find the article where Radakovich defended our program befire he left saying GT doesn't have the mot resources but our coaches don't lack for resources, and our coaches are given everything they need in terms of recruiting. The Data that's floating on the internet backs it up.

Who cares who doesn't report. That'sa weak defense. Keep harping on the "exponentially harder" recruiting hurdles. Coaches in the past have proven that they can recruit well enough to be successful. Hey, if you say it enough times you may be able to convince yourself.

Your tone is borderline acceptable, but I'll respond anyway.

It's absolutely true that schools use different criteria in reporting recruiting expenses.

Another reason for the disparity in recruiting expenses may be the reporting method itself. One issue with data received from the Department of Education, is that the reporting guidelines are not ironclad. As such, there is much deference given to a university as to what they are required to report as recruiting expenses. An interview with Notre Dame, whose men’s sports recruiting expenses exceed $1 million, demonstrated how this deference can impact what a school reports. In sum, the more detailed a school gets in its reporting and the more line items it adds, the more likely it is that the amount of recruiting expenses they report is higher.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciaj...football-what-the-top-25-spend-on-recruiting/

It would be nice if you included some quotes or links in your argument, too.

From the same article I found this gem:

As noted above, one driving force in a program’s recruiting expenses is the distance it needs to travel to attract talent. On that level, the method by which an institution travels also impacts the expense amount.

Even though the methodology is flawed, I'll still concede that GT spends a lot on recruiting. Maybe we spend a lot because we have a larger geographic footprint to cover? Maybe we have a small subset of targets spread over a humongous area? Spending does not directly correlate to wins and losses. That is very simplistic thinking. The formula for winning at GT is very complex. That said, I think we should spend even more in this department.

The Service Academies spend more than anybody. I guess their coaches should be fired if they don't place in the top 5 every year.

 

[Techster]

What I said is true. You can believe what you want.

Your tone is borderline acceptable, but I'll respond anyway.



Even though the methodology is flawed, I'll still concede that GT spends a lot on recruiting. Maybe we spend a lot because we have a larger geographic footprint to cover? Maybe we have a small subset of targets spread over a humongous area? Spending does not directly correlate to wins and losses. That is very simplistic thinking. The formula for winning at GT is very complex. That said, I think we should spend even more in this department.

The Service Academies spend more than anybody. I guess their coaches should be fired if they don't place in the top 5 every year.

The irony in the person speaking those words. Pretty sure it's not lost on people who visit other boards as well a this one.

Anyhow, back to the topic at hand. I'm glad you conceded that GT spends a lot on recruiting, and that was the gist of my original point. GT coaches have more than enough resources at their disposal to recruit better. Your link makes my case. Let me ask you this: Why do you think they feel the need to recruit nationwide now that their original plan of attacking Georgia hard as well as regions nearby hasn't worked out for them? It's not for lack of quality recruits who have the academic credentials. People only have to look at the two recruiting forums that the mods have created. PLENTY of guys who have the grades and have offers from us, and that's just in the Southeast. Yet why nationwide now? Is it because GT football has become a product no longer attractive to SAs? Look at the more recent interviews done with GT targets. Pretty much all of them cite our prestigious academics as one of the main reason why GT is even considered. So it's not that recruits don't appreciate what GT can offer them OFF the field. What does that leave? ON the field. Who's responsible for GT's on the field product? The coaches.

It's really sad as GT fan that we're now being compared to the Service Academies.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

The irony in the person speaking those words. Pretty sure it's not lost on people who visit other boards as well a this one.

Anyhow, back to the topic at hand. I'm glad you conceded that GT spends a lot on recruiting, and that was the gist of my original point. GT coaches have more than enough resources at their disposal to recruit better. Your link makes my case. Let me ask you this: Why do you think they feel the need to recruit nationwide now that their original plan of attacking Georgia hard as well as regions nearby hasn't worked out for them? It's not for lack of quality recruits who have the academic credentials. People only have to look at the two recruiting forums that the mods have created. PLENTY of guys who have the grades and have offers from us, and that's just in the Southeast. Yet why nationwide now? Is it because GT football has become a product no longer attractive to SAs? Look at the more recent interviews done with GT targets. Pretty much all of them cite our prestigious academics as one of the main reason why GT is even considered. So it's not that recruits don't appreciate what GT can offer them OFF the field. What does that leave? ON the field. Who's responsible for GT's on the field product? The coaches.

It's really sad as GT fan that we're now being compared to the Service Academies.

I'll answer that.

1. I've recently pledged not to be a jackarse on the forums and I mean it.

2. I agree the original plan to go after local recruits as our primary focus was flawed. Maybe CPJ felt he had substantial contacts from his GSU days? Maybe he felt that he did fine recruiting the state when he coached at Southern and it should work at Tech, too? I dunno why the strategy was formulated, but I have a good bet why it failed. And that is because the vast majority of the local athletes can't get in or don't value education and the attraction of the surrounding factories is too much to overcome. Sure they give good lip service about academics in interviews, it sure sounds good, but in the end, they value other things more.

3. I agree there are plenty of local recruits with the needed credentials, but what matters most is how high academics are on their priority list. That's where the region fails us. That is why you are seeing us reach further and farther from our campus. Imo, academics has to be the top or in the top 2 reasons why the kids are choosing a school. Very few SA's have that and even fewer who are difference makers and even fewer if your just looking locally.

Hope this answers your question: "Why do you think they feel the need to recruit nationwide now that their original plan of attacking Georgia hard as well as regions nearby hasn't worked out for them?"

 

[Animal02]

It is comical reading how someone laments Tech being "now" compared to service academies. Prior to the rise of the NFL as a career path (and hence the rise of the farm /factories schools) The service academies, schools like Tech, Duke, Stanford, the Ivy league etc were the place athletes strived to get to because it meant a high paying career after college.

 

[Techster]

It is comical reading how someone laments Tech being "now" compared to service academies. Prior to the rise of the NFL as a career path (and hence the rise of the farm /factories schools) The service academies, schools like Tech, Duke, Stanford, the Ivy league etc were the place athletes strived to get to because it meant a high paying career after college.

Good thing the modern economy has evolved to where modern athletes can play at other colleges and still have high paying careers afterwards. It's also a good thing we're no longer playing with leather helmets...

 

[Mack]

There is no comparison of Dodd to modern day college football......it was a totally different environment. As for CPJ......is it possible that his hands were tied WRT recruiting by a limited budget which forced him to recruit regionally? At Navy, recruiting would have HAD to be national since congress critters have limited nominations, so they are spread throughout the states.

DOdd would win in any era.it is still blocking and running and tackling. And syrup mouth could charm and high school senior to go to tech.era is different but a hc must be s le to outfox the roadblocks in front of him.it is very clear we need to go outside the state to get results.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

it is very clear we need to go outside the state to get results.

Did Dodd have to?

 

[Tech First]

I should know this since I started following Tech when Dodd became coach, but I don't. I don't remember ever hearing about any contract negotiations or guaranteed years at a specified sum per year for Dodd. It appears everybody just assumed he would always return the next year. Did he have guaranteed salaries for extended years or was his contract just renewed each year? I am under the impression that assistants are only renewed from year to year.

It was renewed every year the way I remember.

 

[Tech First]

Did Dodd have to?

Not so much but he did from time to time.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Not so much but he did from time to time.

What was the recruiting trail like in those days? Was GT a 'destination' team because we offered a great future beyond football before the NFL or is that just urban myth?

 

[Rodney Kent]

TechFirst: That is the way I thought it to be, but I was not sure.

dressedcheese: As far as I can remember, Tech was an icon of a successful nationally known football program without any under-the-table stigma. It was considered an institution that had the confidence of the parents and players for its integrity in sports and its high caliber of education. The first three head coaches had great success in football and the institution was well known nationally for its football.

John Heisman was the most successful coach at Tech, but was also very successful at Maryland, Auburn, Clemson, and several other schools, but Bobby Dodd was probably the most high profile in the media. He was a true gentleman, and was often called that by the media as well as a great coach. It was difficult for Tech to get the big time athletes because of the entrance criteria, but there were many qualified athletes who just wanted to play for Bobby Dodd. He attracted the media, players, fans, etal, like a magnet. There was an aura about Tech and Bobby Dodd as big as Alabama and Bear Bryant, and the present coach, Saban.

Also, Bobby Dodd was a great football quarterback at Tennesse, making All-American two years in a row. He may have been a better basketball player than a football player. He also played semi-pro baseball. He and Bitsy Grant doubled at the Bitsy Grant Tennis Center to challenge all comers. When he was young and in High School, he was a Pool Shark and made extra money conning the unwary into playing him in Pool. If you ever get the opportunity, read "Dodd's Luck". You will be amazed at the Charisma of Bobby Dodd from his youth upward.

So, the first three full-time coaches at Tech built such a reputation in football, that many wanted to come and play here if they could get past the studies. Football has really fallen from those days at Tech. I don't think the education at Tech was as big a factor at that time, it was the charisma of football at Tech and its football reputation.

 

[Mack]

Did Dodd have to?

Well he used to raid Coral Gables Fla and many of his players were outside of ga..........Maxie Baugh ,Lenny Snow are two that come to mind.

 

[Mack]

TechFirst: That is the way I thought it to be, but I was not sure.

dressedcheese: As far as I can remember, Tech was an icon of a successful nationally known football program without any under-the-table stigma. It was considered an institution that had the confidence of the parents and players for its integrity in sports and its high caliber of education. The first three head coaches had great success in football and the institution was well known nationally for its football.

John Heisman was the most successful coach at Tech, but was also very successful at Maryland, Auburn, Clemson, and several other schools, but Bobby Dodd was probably the most high profile in the media. He was a true gentleman, and was often called that by the media as well as a great coach. It was difficult for Tech to get the big time athletes because of the entrance criteria, but there were many qualified athletes who just wanted to play for Bobby Dodd. He attracted the media, players, fans, etal, like a magnet. There was an aura about Tech and Bobby Dodd as big as Alabama and Bear Bryant, and the present coach, Saban.

Also, Bobby Dodd was a great football quarterback at Tennesse, making All-American two years in a row. He may have been a better basketball player than a football player. He also played semi-pro baseball. He and Bitsy Grant doubled at the Bitsy Grant Tennis Center to challenge all comers. When he was young and in High School, he was a Pool Shark and made extra money conning the unwary into playing him in Pool. If you ever get the opportunity, read "Dodd's Luck". You will be amazed at the Charisma of Bobby Dodd from his youth upward.

So, the first three full-time coaches at Tech built such a reputation in football, that many wanted to come and play here if they could get past the studies. Football has really fallen from those days at Tech. I don't think the education at Tech was as big a factor at that time, it was the charisma of football at Tech and its football reputation.

Yep young lads may not like this comparison but Dodd did it all.Tech had it all their way for years.He didnt like playing Miss or MSU due to game receipts their and folks forget that at one time Grant Field was one of the largest stadiums in the SEC.Also Dodd ran a fun offense that was exciting to watch.Folks that think he couldnt change to today's era I think are wrong.Folks forget he hired excellent asst coaches in Coleman,Graves adn of course Broyles and hey the Belly series is a grandaddy of our veer and option today.Shoot in 62 he even ran the shotgun vs Bama and whipped them too.Now he had challenges from the Hill too.In 57 the Hill wanted to reduce football emphasis and NCAA made folks play both ways for awhile and still he won.I think Ole Sryup Mouth would still be winning since he understood the game.I will agree with many here though that today's kids look for ways to the NFL and in Dodds day they enjoyed football and wanted a education.Shoot if Ole Joe Pa could coach for forty years bet Ole Dodd and the Bear could too.

 

[Mack]

It is comical reading how someone laments Tech being "now" compared to service academies. Prior to the rise of the NFL as a career path (and hence the rise of the farm /factories schools) The service academies, schools like Tech, Duke, Stanford, the Ivy league etc were the place athletes strived to get to because it meant a high paying career after college.

Agree with you and folks forget that until about 61 Duke basketball was second to the Devil football team and yes Stanford and Ivy schools were schools who viewed football as a second level sport.....not that way now at Stanford and Duke seems to be coming back.

 

[Animal02]

What was the recruiting trail like in those days? Was GT a 'destination' team because we offered a great future beyond football before the NFL or is that just urban myth?

It wasn't just Tech, but the other schools I mentioned......Army and Navy offered not just an education, but a career.

 

[Animal02]

DOdd would win in any era.it is still blocking and running and tackling. And syrup mouth could charm and high school senior to go to tech.era is different but a hc must be s le to outfox the roadblocks in front of him.it is very clear we need to go outside the state to get results.

Dodd even admitted he would have a hard time beating Bama, because he good not get the players admitted that Bama could (at least in his book he did)