If you are asking WHY

[RonJohn]

I get it. But at the same time how many staff members does it take to convince 20 to 25 young men to like what your program offers? I personally feel this is good but yet overrated.

It takes zero staff members to get 20 people to sign a scholarship offer. Just send offers out to random kids in high school and you can sign 25 easily.

Getting 20-25 players that people on this forum won't complain about takes significantly more staff, especially when every other ACC and probably every other P5 programs have more than what GT has.

 

[ibeattetris]

I get it. But at the same time how many staff members does it take to convince 20 to 25 young men to like what your program offers? I personally feel this is good but yet overrated.

We had a pretty interesting thread about this

Great find! That was exactly the data I was looking for. Much more strongly correlated (r=.7997) with the results than total athletics revenue (r = .6722)

Adding that data in lieu of revenue brought the total model correlation up to .8861. Which is ridiculously accurate. Changes things a bit. I also showed average star rating in addition to average ranking since @takethepoints asked about it:

View attachment 4651

Overall spending was directly correlated with recruiting rankings. There were other factors as well like average attendance, but the fact remains that spending is important. The model did not include staff, because I doubt @BCJacket could easily find that data. I would argue though that if Alabama and Clemson think having 30+ recruiting staff is necessary, then it probably is.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

One can believe our spending was unacceptable while simultaneously believing it wouldn’t have helped Johnson much.

I think it would have helped a ton. How do you find a needle in a hay stack... more eyes lookin’.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Johnson couldn't capitalize on great 2008 and 2009 years in regards to recruiting. He just wasn't a good recruiter. He wouldn't have been a good recruiter running a different offense and the offense he did run didn't appeal to many recruits, especially the top ones. Spending more would have eased the burden a little, but it wouldn't have gotten rid of the other issues in regards to recruiting.

At least with more $$ he could have hired the DC he wanted.

 

[RickStromFan]

At least with more $$ he could have hired the DC he wanted.

who did he want that he didn't get that would've been willing to come here, given the restrictions of the school and scheme in place already?

 

[BleedGoldNWhite21]

Somehow I don’t think additional recruiting staff would have helped much. Getting kids to play in the triple was always the bigger obstacle.

I actually don’t think that’s really true. Maybe against the elite teams, sure, but our offense was fine against most of the teams we played. The additional recruiting staff could have helped a hell of a lot on defense, though. Realistically, we could have averaged 10 wins a season with the exact same offensive units we had over CPJ’s tenure if we fielded a semi-acceptable defense. His first year pretty much proves this as we averaged the fewest amount of points that year, but won 9 games because we had a solid defense.

Our Points per game:

2018: 33
2017: 27.2
2016: 27.7
2015: 25.6
2014: 37.8
2013: 29.1
2012: 31.6
2011: 31.9
2010: 24.8
2009: 33.5
2008: 24.2

Now look at points per game for the 50th best Defense every year:
2018: 25.9
2017: 26.1
2016: 26.7
2015: 26.5
2014: 26.2(It was us!)
2013: 25.8
2012: 26.6
2011: 25.3
2010: 24.7
2009: 24.8
2008: 23.6

We averaged more points per a game than the 50th ranked scoring defense every year but one. Does anyone even consider the 50th ranked scoring defense that great? Seems like a perfectly realistic goal. Recruiting the triple wasn’t even a problem. We did more than enough with the guys we got. The problem was the defense. More recruiting resources could have helped that. We weren’t running the triple on defense. Could we have fielded a 50th ranked scoring defense with better recruits? I don’t know, maybe not(our defense was almost always awful, that’s definitely a coaching thing too), but I like my chances better with the better recruiting resources than without them.

 

[UgaBlows]

Your statement is technically true (if CGC's class ends up top 40)*. But the implication is not. Gailey's overall recruiting was essentially the same as CPJ, and that's with that one great class boosting his average a ton. The widely believed narrative that CPJ recruited worse than Tech's baseline is simply not true.

Be interesting to see if CGC can really break through, or if the school/budget is determinative. From all the data I've looked at, 90%+ of recruiting is the school 'recruiting itself'. Miami has had great recruiting regardless of the coach, Tennessee has mostly recruited well while being bad... James Franklin had Vandy rolling in the mighty $EC when he was there and his best class was ranked 43rd. (And is a renowned recruiter)

*On pace to be around 30th.

Yes CPJ recruited about on avg with normal GT baseline, but i would argue that in general the talent at OL/DT/DE/LB fell in the dirt and the QB’s he recruited, even if highly rated were WR/DB/RB at any other Div. 1 school. This did not leave us poised for success when he left. Also, Our All-ACC and NFL representation during his time fell way off compared to O’leary and Gailey, that says a lot about his success being very system and coach driven imo. I’m not taking anything away from CPJ, i loved the guy and his good years here were awesome, but when he QUIT he did not leave us in a good position to transition away from his offense. I believe that CGC can recruit better than any coach we’ve ever had in the modern era of GT fb, he needs time and patience to succeed and it's very sad that so many of our “fans” can’t understand that.

 

[ScGold]

What is your problem? Why are you so hateful? Did CPJ not let you on the team or something?

Why are u so sensitive to the truth?

 

[Animal02]

Yes CPJ recruited about on avg with normal GT baseline, but i would argue that in general the talent at OL/DT/DE/LB fell in the dirt and the QB’s he recruited, even if highly rated were WR/DB/RB at any other Div. 1 school. This did not leave us poised for success when he left. Also, Our All-ACC and NFL representation during his time fell way off compared to O’leary and Gailey, that says a lot about his success being very system and coach driven imo. I’m not taking anything away from CPJ, i loved the guy and his good years here were awesome, but when he QUIT he did not leave us in a good position to transition away from his offense. I believe that CGC can recruit better than any coach we’ve ever had in the modern era of GT fb, he needs time and patience to succeed and it's very sad that so many of our “fans” can’t understand that.

Same flawed arguments that ignore the correlation of funding and recruiting as well as the claim that recruiting cures all ills. He needs more than time and patience to succeed, and at this point he does not appear to have the other assets. THAT is what these other "fans" do understand.

 

[Jmonty71]

By regulation the GT Athletic Association is a separate legal entity than Georgia Tech. The school by regulation can only provide 10% of the budget of the athletic department, which it does.(Not exactly 10%, but very close to it) The other 90% has to come from the athletic department itself. Tickets, concessions, merchandise, media money(from the ACC), etc. and donations. The GT Athletic Association spends most of the revenue that it receives. Some years, they will save a little, but last year they spent a large chunk of their rainy day funds. In other words, the school is legally prevented from providing any more than it already is. If GT fans want GT athletics to spend more money, then GT fans have to buy more tickets, buy more merchandise, and donate more.

Thanks for explaining. That kind of makes sense. So, the 10%? Is that a NCAA mandate or a GT thing? Curious whether other schools have similar restrictions.

 

[Animal02]

Thanks for explaining. That kind of makes sense. So, the 10%? Is that a NCAA mandate or a GT thing? Curious whether other schools have similar restrictions.

Think it is a state of Georgia thing.

 

[armeck]

View attachment 6943

So what I see here is a school outspending everyone and still tanking (FSU) and a school who is above the bottom line (pun intended) of spending still in the gutter?

 

[Animal02]

So what I see here is a school outspending everyone and still tanking (FSU) and a school who is above the bottom line (pun intended) of spending still in the gutter?

FSU is outspending and recruiting high...yet tanking....Shows the $$$ to recruiting correlation and also shows that recruiting does NOT equal success.....i.e coaching has a lot to do with it

 

[RonJohn]

Thanks for explaining. That kind of makes sense. So, the 10%? Is that a NCAA mandate or a GT thing? Curious whether other schools have similar restrictions.

It is a University System of Georgia policy. It applies to all public colleges in Georgia. I'm not sure but I think many other states have similar policies.
https://www.usg.edu/policymanual/section4/C331

4.5.8 Funding of Intercollegiate Athletic Programs. Only P5 schools are limited to 10%. The limits are higher for non-P5 FBS, FCS, Division II. The policy was implemented or changed(I'm not sure which) when Georgia State and KSU were starting their football programs. Georgia State students were extremely upset that mandatory student fees were providing the majority of the funding for football. Some complained that the large increase in mandatory fees that were paying for a program that mostly alumni wanted was forcing them to drop out of Georgia State.

I have stated many times that GT fans should be supporting the program more. The mutts had $177 million in revenue in 2018. $3.5 million of that came from student fees. Zero came from the school. GT Athletics had $92 million in revenue in 2018. $5.5 million of that came from student fees. $2.7 million of that came from the school. The SEC average payout was $43 million. The average ACC payout was $30 million, so that accounts for $13 million of the difference. Still: 177-3.5-43 = 130.5 while 92-5.5-2.7-30 = 53.8. So the mutts raised $130.5 from ticket sales, merchandise sales, and donations, which all come from fans. GT raised $53.8 from the same sources.

At GT, the school pays more but the fans are pathetic.

 

[armeck]

FSU is outspending and recruiting high...yet tanking....Shows the $$$ to recruiting correlation and also shows that recruiting does NOT equal success.....i.e coaching has a lot to do with it

With Duke and UNC being almost on par (one above, one below) GT the entire time...

 

[RonJohn]

At GT, the school pays more but the fans are pathetic.

I should have clarified -- but the fans are pathetic as it relates to spending on and donating to the program.

 

[gthxxxx]

@AlabamaBuzz I agree but yet disagree just little bit... He coached at GSU and did very well. These were not Navy kids. I remember him talking about how GSU kids were always around and watching film were GT had kids in study hall....

If true, good for the GT students. Maybe played some part in nearly doubling the graduation rate.

 

[ibeattetris]

I actually don’t think that’s really true. Maybe against the elite teams, sure, but our offense was fine against most of the teams we played. The additional recruiting staff could have helped a hell of a lot on defense, though. Realistically, we could have averaged 10 wins a season with the exact same offensive units we had over CPJ’s tenure if we fielded a semi-acceptable defense. His first year pretty much proves this as we averaged the fewest amount of points that year, but won 9 games because we had a solid defense.

Our Points per game:

2018: 33
2017: 27.2
2016: 27.7
2015: 25.6
2014: 37.8
2013: 29.1
2012: 31.6
2011: 31.9
2010: 24.8
2009: 33.5
2008: 24.2

Now look at points per game for the 50th best Defense every year:
2018: 25.9
2017: 26.1
2016: 26.7
2015: 26.5
2014: 26.2(It was us!)
2013: 25.8
2012: 26.6
2011: 25.3
2010: 24.7
2009: 24.8
2008: 23.6

We averaged more points per a game than the 50th ranked scoring defense every year but one. Does anyone even consider the 50th ranked scoring defense that great? Seems like a perfectly realistic goal. Recruiting the triple wasn’t even a problem. We did more than enough with the guys we got. The problem was the defense. More recruiting resources could have helped that. We weren’t running the triple on defense. Could we have fielded a 50th ranked scoring defense with better recruits? I don’t know, maybe not(our defense was almost always awful, that’s definitely a coaching thing too), but I like my chances better with the better recruiting resources than without them.

We can take this one more step and do points per drive (since we limited drives, we were fundamentally lower total scoring in both offense and defense) and points per play (I don't have time to compile all of that right now).
GT PPD:

Here is the 50th ranked ppd and def ppd

Here is GT ppd and def ppd

Stats gathered here: https://www.cfbanalytics.com/2018-scoring

If anyone is interested I compiled 2008-2018 into a spread sheet. I can upload it to google drive if anyone is interested.

I agree with everything you said @BleedGoldNWhite21 . Wish we could have found a way to consistently pair a good defense with our offense.

 

[Vespidae]

I guess the question is... Who controls the spend at GT?? It's a Board of Directors, I assume? Like any other business.. What it comes down to is this? Does their BoD believe that having a competing athletic program matter? If not, then expect to lose fans by attrition. Also expect continued low attending games. But, then again... The BoD may not care and put 100% faith in the curriculum. I'm not a GT grad, so I am the exception to many of you and my opinion may not matter. But, it would seem that the BoD needs to loosen the purse strings a bit.

The GTAA operates the athletics program and is separate and distinct from the school.

 

[SteamWhistle]

I actually don’t think that’s really true. Maybe against the elite teams, sure, but our offense was fine against most of the teams we played. The additional recruiting staff could have helped a hell of a lot on defense, though. Realistically, we could have averaged 10 wins a season with the exact same offensive units we had over CPJ’s tenure if we fielded a semi-acceptable defense. His first year pretty much proves this as we averaged the fewest amount of points that year, but won 9 games because we had a solid defense.

Our Points per game:

2018: 33
2017: 27.2
2016: 27.7
2015: 25.6
2014: 37.8
2013: 29.1
2012: 31.6
2011: 31.9
2010: 24.8
2009: 33.5
2008: 24.2

Now look at points per game for the 50th best Defense every year:
2018: 25.9
2017: 26.1
2016: 26.7
2015: 26.5
2014: 26.2(It was us!)
2013: 25.8
2012: 26.6
2011: 25.3
2010: 24.7
2009: 24.8
2008: 23.6

We averaged more points per a game than the 50th ranked scoring defense every year but one. Does anyone even consider the 50th ranked scoring defense that great? Seems like a perfectly realistic goal. Recruiting the triple wasn’t even a problem. We did more than enough with the guys we got. The problem was the defense. More recruiting resources could have helped that. We weren’t running the triple on defense. Could we have fielded a 50th ranked scoring defense with better recruits? I don’t know, maybe not(our defense was almost always awful, that’s definitely a coaching thing too), but I like my chances better with the better recruiting resources than without them.

Bottom line is it was way to easy for Coach Blank and Blank University to talk down on Techs offense and that hurt recruiting more then most want to admit. 75% of D1 players are ones that want to play in the NFL. Take away that group, plus Techs standards, no money, made recruiting a nightmare for CPJ staff.