You are not off base that much but I don't think you can reduce recruiting to a sales pitch. Sure, Tech has a great sales pitch it can make and you do a nice job of showing how that pitch can be applied to and sell to a somewhat diverse range of high-school student athletes. I have noticed others on various Tech boards who want to treat or reduce football recruiting to Tech to a matter of sales technique and pitch.
So your belief in your last sentence is easily or logically separable from everything that you placed before it as an argument over what a great sales pitch Tech has to offer.
Recruiting is not simply about which coaching staffs "sales pitch" won the day. There are a multitude of factors involved in a kids decision on where to commit. And Tech faces challenges that no other program faces in terms of what actual courses a recruit took in high school. Besides the fact that to have top recruiting classes based on recruiting pay sites rankings you have to oversign and rely on bagmen. So there are several reasons to not expect top 30 recruiting classes based on (as if it could ever be just based on) "everything about GT and what GT can do for any person."
If you keep the evaluative criteria of top 30 classes separate from your presentation of a Tech sales pitch then I agree with your pride in that pitch.
To me, what you're saying is the essence of recruiting. Recruiting = sales...plain and simple. How are you pitching the product? If the product is the same (product being GT), then wouldn't the outcome of "the pitch" be the same for everyone? No...because recruiting is an art and a skill. Some recruit better than others. Giff Smith, Andy McCollum, Ted Roof...all were/are considered very good recruiters. Coach Sewak is not considered a good recruiter. Why can one coach have more success pitching GT and another coach not do as well if the end product is the same...the end product being GT and all that encompasses being a GT SA (high barrier to entry/or high entry requirements, rigorous classes, low coed ratio, etc)? Is it just a coincidence that GT is doing better this year (Ranked #19 by Rivals) now that some of our better recruiters (Roof, Pelton) have had a year to get their feet under them, and that our athletic department is investing in more recruiting resources for the staff?
As others who have intimate knowledge of the SA requirements have said, GT is harder than the average state factory, but there are degrees at GT that are worthwhile for SAs and at the same time very manageable because of the resources at the disposal of those SAs. Like I said in my OP, GT isn't for everyone, but there are MORE than enough high achieving SAs out there who can, and more importantly will, do the work at GT to make us a top level football program. It's been done before, and it can be done again.
