Is Georgia Tech football in better spot today (2018) than when you started 2008?

[bobongo]

Thanks for posting this again. Stating facts that show that Tech is at a disadvantage is often interpreted as settling by the squeaky wheels here.
All they want to show is how much better things were before under a coach that could not cut it under the current restrictions.
The only options are:
1. We either need to add some simple majors
2. We need a support team for recruiting that is larger than our competitors to find the rare players who can bring us to the next level. We cant do it with having such a small recruiting team.

We need money and lots of it.

#1 is a long-range goal, subject to the slow, grinding processes of the Hill and the BOR.

#2 is something we can do right now, if we can just spend a small fraction of the money we have allocated for buildings and facilities (which yes, do help recruiting tangentially) directly on recruiting where it will give us a much bigger and quicker return on the football field.

 

[jgtengineer]

I have previously pointed out why this isn't true, but I'll post it again.

The NCAA calculates graduation rates by recruiting class. Flunkgate happened under Gailey, not under O'Leary. But those recruiting classes were O'Leary's not Gailey's. Gailey's failure to monitor class attendance and academic work was a black mark against O'Leary's graduation rates.

For those that don't remember Flunkgate, when Gailey came to Tech he thought he was still an NFL coach or a coach at an easy school. He didn't monitor class attendance or academic progress. The kids were used to O'Leary who ran all things with an iron fist. Since Gailey was lax, so were the kids, and we had a major academic problem after year 1 of Gailey.

To Gailey's credit, he learned. He put academic monitoring in place. His recruiting improved. He learned to be a good head coach at this level and this institution, and then we fired him. He had one flaw, and that is that he would not hire a quality offensive coordinator. Pat Nix? Last I heard he was coaching high school ball.

Then we hired a good offensive coordinator. He is also the head coach. Recruiting, defense and special teams have been subpar under this head coach. Is there another BCS school where the head coach is also a coordinator? In modern college football I'm not sure it's possible to do both.

Miami has richt acting as OC.

Chip Kelly did it at oregon and now UCLA

Lane Kiffen was it as USc, and is so at FAU.
I think Charlie Strong is basically the defense Coordinator at south florida.

 

[steebu]

I have previously pointed out why this isn't true, but I'll post it again.

The NCAA calculates graduation rates by recruiting class. Flunkgate happened under Gailey, not under O'Leary. But those recruiting classes were O'Leary's not Gailey's. Gailey's failure to monitor class attendance and academic work was a black mark against O'Leary's graduation rates.

This is all true; but I didn't mention flunkgate nor was I referring to it. I'll have to dig it up if I can find it, but I'm referring to the mid/later years of O'Leary's tenure, so think mid 90's to late 90's. Some of those kids, though, would have been He-Who-Will-Not-Be-Mentioned's.

As to your last point, it's probably easier to be OC/playcaller for our offense considering we only run three plays: fullback dive, triple option, and "everybody go long but the fat guys block".

 

[Boaty1]

Thanks for posting this again. Stating facts that show that Tech is at a disadvantage is often interpreted as settling by the squeaky wheels here.
All they want to show is how much better things were before under a coach that could not cut it under the current restrictions.
The only options are:
1. We either need to add some simple majors
2. We need a support team for recruiting that is larger than our competitors to find the rare players who can bring us to the next level. We cant do it with having such a small recruiting team.

We need money and lots of it.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Tech does not face some recruiting challenges. I think it's obvious that we do. The question is are those challenges the chief culprit for our current state of recruiting or is it a coach that runs a wildly unpopular offense with high school recruits and combines that with a lack of personality? Could we, with another coach, bring in recruits that are capable of running a more modern offense and getting better results than we are currently seeing?

https://n.rivals.com/search#?formVa....offer":true,"page_number":1,"page_size":100}

I think it's essential when comparing the O'Leary classes with Johnson's to look at the percentage of recruits that we HAVE offered that we ultimately close on. An offer indicates the coaching staff has vetted the academic abilities of a recruit and believes they can make the grade here. The link above is a list of 67 4 star players that we have offered this year. To this point we have not received a commitment from a single one. Honestly, looking at the projections for these players I don't see any that I would say we are likely to get. He is closing on 0% of the 4 stars he is offering. If we give Johnson the benefit of the doubt this year and say he pulls 2 4 star players out of this class, that is still only a close percentage of 3%. So for O'Leary's classes to be chalked up simply to a larger recruiting pool that was expanded due to less restrictions, he would have had to offer over 300 4 star players to get to a close percent of 3%. That just simply wasn't the case. In 07 Gailey offered just 37 4 star players but closed on 8 of them. For the argument to be effective that the tougher academic restrictions under Johnson are the chief culprit for his recruiting troubles, he would have to be closing on a higher percentage of the players he can get in here than he currently is.

I researched some other schools from around the country that either have similar recruiting classes to us under Johnson or academic restriction that are more burdensome than your standard school. I didn't review schools like FSU or Alabama because they are getting an overwhelming majority of their players from this pool and can spend more time there. A school like us just can't waste time on prospects we are more than likely not going to sign in the first place. Ultimately I don't believe that the 67 4 star players we have offered are the only academically qualified 4 star players in the nation, rather they are the only ones we spent our time on recruiting. This is where I agree a larger budget would help. Here are the number of 4 star or higher players other schools have offered that I view as similar to us in modern recruiting in results or academics.

Indiana- 93
Vanderbilt- 93
Minnesota- 77
NC State- 64
UNC -103
Stanford- 45

While our offerings of 67 4 star or higher players is lower than the 79 average offerings by these schools, can we really say that that difference is the primary cause of us not recruiting at a higher level?

On this list you will find that Stanford has offered 22 less 4 star or higher players than we have yet they have closed on numerous of them. They have established a program that has done this consistently over the past decade where before that they recruited woefully. The change came when Harbaugh changed the culture of that program and Shaw has kept it going. And before anyone talks about the diversity of majors at Stanford please stop. One thing that the O'Leary years does unequivocally prove is that the limited curriculum at Georgia Tech can be overcome with the right leadership. Our curriculum options has not shrunk over the past 18 years. Faced with the same situation Johnson is in this regard, O'Leary won one big time recruiting battle after another over the national powers.

The discussion of whether Johnson is the right coach for our program requires the understanding that whether you believe he is or not, he will never reach the full potential of what Georgia Tech can have in terms of raw talent. That fact has been made abundantly clear.

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

I don't think anyone is arguing that Tech does not face some recruiting challenges. I think it's obvious that we do. The question is are those challenges the chief culprit for our current state of recruiting or is it a coach that runs a wildly unpopular offense with high school recruits and combines that with a lack of personality? Could we, with another coach, bring in recruits that are capable of running a more modern offense and getting better results than we are currently seeing?

https://n.rivals.com/search#?formValues={"sport":"Football","recruit_year":2019,"prospect_profiles.stars":{"range":"gte","number":4},"prospect_profiles.prospect_colleges.college_common_name":["Georgia Tech"],"offer_and_visit_type":["Offer"],"prospect_profiles.prospect_colleges.offer":true,"page_number":1,"page_size":100}

I think it's essential when comparing the O'Leary classes with Johnson's to look at the percentage of recruits that we HAVE offered that we ultimately close on. An offer indicates the coaching staff has vetted the academic abilities of a recruit and believes they can make the grade here. The link above is a list of 67 4 star players that we have offered this year. To this point we have not received a commitment from a single one. Honestly, looking at the projections for these players I don't see any that I would say we are likely to get. He is closing on 0% of the 4 stars he is offering. If we give Johnson the benefit of the doubt this year and say he pulls 2 4 star players out of this class, that is still only a close percentage of 3%. So for O'Leary's classes to be chalked up simply to a larger recruiting pool that was expanded due to less restrictions, he would have had to offer over 300 4 star players to get to a close percent of 3%. That just simply wasn't the case. In 07 Gailey offered just 37 4 star players but closed on 8 of them. For the argument to be effective that the tougher academic restrictions under Johnson are the chief culprit for his recruiting troubles, he would have to be closing on a higher percentage of the players he can get in here than he currently is.

I researched some other schools from around the country that either have similar recruiting classes to us under Johnson or academic restriction that are more burdensome than your standard school. I didn't review schools like FSU or Alabama because they are getting an overwhelming majority of their players from this pool and can spend more time there. A school like us just can't waste time on prospects we are more than likely not going to sign in the first place. Ultimately I don't believe that the 67 4 star players we have offered are the only academically qualified 4 star players in the nation, rather they are the only ones we spent our time on recruiting. This is where I agree a larger budget would help. Here are the number of 4 star or higher players other schools have offered that I view as similar to us in modern recruiting in results or academics.

Indiana- 93
Vanderbilt- 93
Minnesota- 77
NC State- 64
UNC -103
Stanford- 45

While our offerings of 67 4 star or higher players is lower than the 79 average offerings by these schools, can we really say that that difference is the primary cause of us not recruiting at a higher level?

On this list you will find that Stanford has offered 22 less 4 star or higher players than we have yet they have closed on numerous of them. They have established a program that has done this consistently over the past decade where before that they recruited woefully. The change came when Harbaugh changed the culture of that program and Shaw has kept it going. And before anyone talks about the diversity of majors at Stanford please stop. One thing that the O'Leary years does unequivocally prove is that the limited curriculum at Georgia Tech can be overcome with the right leadership. Our curriculum options has not shrunk over the past 18 years. Faced with the same situation Johnson is in this regard, O'Leary won one big time recruiting battle after another over the national powers.

The discussion of whether Johnson is the right coach for our program requires the understanding that whether you believe he is or not, he will never reach the full potential of what Georgia Tech can have in terms of raw talent. That fact has been made abundantly clear.

A lot of what you are stating is true, But you cannot ignore the progress toward graduation requirement from the NCAA that the previous coaches did not have to deal with. This has hurt us a LOT and further limited our commits. Stanfords close rate is higher because they dont even offer until the student has passed all of their entrance requirements. I don't see it as a bad thing to throw out a large net. Due to all of our limitations, I would hope we do that and claiming a poor close rate to be a problem I think is misguided. Hell I wish we would offer 5X more of them. But we need the larger recruiting staff to help to qualify more of them so we can offer more.

 

[Treb1982]

Very interesting to see that 75% of the people on this board thinks that the program is improved since CPJ was hired but based on previous threads I would say 75% wanted CPJ gone two weeks ago.

 

[bke1984]

I actually voted No on this...but not because I think we are worse off, but because I think we are basically in the same spot. If you really step back and look at it we've had 2 great seasons (2009/2014), 1 good season (2008), 2-3 bad seasons (2010/2015/2017...anything with a losing record is bad) and bunch of mediocre seasons. Yes, I call 2016 mediocre because 4-4 in conference cannot be considered good under any circumstances...and as much as I love beating Georgia, that in itself does not constitute a "good season." This year could still land in any of those three categories...

BTW, it's not all the fault of the coach, the hill, or the AD(s) individually...all three share some of the blame for our struggles. Some prior AD's handcuffed us from a cash standpoint, the hill IWII, and our head coach can turn into the most stubborn person on earth at critical times in games, causing him to make head scratching decisions.

I hope Paul turns this around and exits Tech gracefully in a few years, because the alternative is bad for us. Firing a coach that is owed a bunch of money does nothing but hurt the program (see Paul Hewitt). And honestly...as odd as it sounds, if we were to win the next 5 games we would most likely win the division and get a rematch with Clemson (sheesh)...and I really do think it's possible. The next two are the big ones...get by Duke and Miami and we've got a real chance.

 

[Animal02]

I don't think anyone is arguing that Tech does not face some recruiting challenges. I think it's obvious that we do. The question is are those challenges the chief culprit for our current state of recruiting or is it a coach that runs a wildly unpopular offense with high school recruits and combines that with a lack of personality? Could we, with another coach, bring in recruits that are capable of running a more modern offense and getting better results than we are currently seeing?

https://n.rivals.com/search#?formValues={"sport":"Football","recruit_year":2019,"prospect_profiles.stars":{"range":"gte","number":4},"prospect_profiles.prospect_colleges.college_common_name":["Georgia Tech"],"offer_and_visit_type":["Offer"],"prospect_profiles.prospect_colleges.offer":true,"page_number":1,"page_size":100}

I think it's essential when comparing the O'Leary classes with Johnson's to look at the percentage of recruits that we HAVE offered that we ultimately close on. An offer indicates the coaching staff has vetted the academic abilities of a recruit and believes they can make the grade here. The link above is a list of 67 4 star players that we have offered this year. To this point we have not received a commitment from a single one. Honestly, looking at the projections for these players I don't see any that I would say we are likely to get. He is closing on 0% of the 4 stars he is offering. If we give Johnson the benefit of the doubt this year and say he pulls 2 4 star players out of this class, that is still only a close percentage of 3%. So for O'Leary's classes to be chalked up simply to a larger recruiting pool that was expanded due to less restrictions, he would have had to offer over 300 4 star players to get to a close percent of 3%. That just simply wasn't the case. In 07 Gailey offered just 37 4 star players but closed on 8 of them. For the argument to be effective that the tougher academic restrictions under Johnson are the chief culprit for his recruiting troubles, he would have to be closing on a higher percentage of the players he can get in here than he currently is.

I researched some other schools from around the country that either have similar recruiting classes to us under Johnson or academic restriction that are more burdensome than your standard school. I didn't review schools like FSU or Alabama because they are getting an overwhelming majority of their players from this pool and can spend more time there. A school like us just can't waste time on prospects we are more than likely not going to sign in the first place. Ultimately I don't believe that the 67 4 star players we have offered are the only academically qualified 4 star players in the nation, rather they are the only ones we spent our time on recruiting. This is where I agree a larger budget would help. Here are the number of 4 star or higher players other schools have offered that I view as similar to us in modern recruiting in results or academics.

Indiana- 93
Vanderbilt- 93
Minnesota- 77
NC State- 64
UNC -103
Stanford- 45

While our offerings of 67 4 star or higher players is lower than the 79 average offerings by these schools, can we really say that that difference is the primary cause of us not recruiting at a higher level?

On this list you will find that Stanford has offered 22 less 4 star or higher players than we have yet they have closed on numerous of them. They have established a program that has done this consistently over the past decade where before that they recruited woefully. The change came when Harbaugh changed the culture of that program and Shaw has kept it going. And before anyone talks about the diversity of majors at Stanford please stop. One thing that the O'Leary years does unequivocally prove is that the limited curriculum at Georgia Tech can be overcome with the right leadership. Our curriculum options has not shrunk over the past 18 years. Faced with the same situation Johnson is in this regard, O'Leary won one big time recruiting battle after another over the national powers.

The discussion of whether Johnson is the right coach for our program requires the understanding that whether you believe he is or not, he will never reach the full potential of what Georgia Tech can have in terms of raw talent. That fact has been made abundantly clear.

And your assumption that any of those schools is anything close to Tech WRT recruiting limitations is simply a fantasy. EVERY one of those schools has a vastly greater array of degree offerings than Tech has with its 35 +/- degree offerings all requiring a form of calculus. Combine the limited offerings with the admissions difficulties as well as the difficulty in remaining eligible, on top of the declining dollars spent on the program as compared to "similar schools" and you get the current state of the program.
It is comical the anti CPJ posters that ignore than elephants in the room and point and the peanut in the corner.

 

[bobongo]

Very interesting to see that 75% of the people on this board thinks that the program is improved since CPJ was hired but based on previous threads I would say 75% wanted CPJ gone two weeks ago.

I noted that myself. We're a fickle fan base, but we've been through some severe turbulence over the last few years.

 

[bobongo]

I don't think anyone is arguing that Tech does not face some recruiting challenges. I think it's obvious that we do. The question is are those challenges the chief culprit for our current state of recruiting or is it a coach that runs a wildly unpopular offense with high school recruits and combines that with a lack of personality? Could we, with another coach, bring in recruits that are capable of running a more modern offense and getting better results than we are currently seeing?

https://n.rivals.com/search#?formValues={"sport":"Football","recruit_year":2019,"prospect_profiles.stars":{"range":"gte","number":4},"prospect_profiles.prospect_colleges.college_common_name":["Georgia Tech"],"offer_and_visit_type":["Offer"],"prospect_profiles.prospect_colleges.offer":true,"page_number":1,"page_size":100}

I think it's essential when comparing the O'Leary classes with Johnson's to look at the percentage of recruits that we HAVE offered that we ultimately close on. An offer indicates the coaching staff has vetted the academic abilities of a recruit and believes they can make the grade here. The link above is a list of 67 4 star players that we have offered this year. To this point we have not received a commitment from a single one. Honestly, looking at the projections for these players I don't see any that I would say we are likely to get. He is closing on 0% of the 4 stars he is offering. If we give Johnson the benefit of the doubt this year and say he pulls 2 4 star players out of this class, that is still only a close percentage of 3%. So for O'Leary's classes to be chalked up simply to a larger recruiting pool that was expanded due to less restrictions, he would have had to offer over 300 4 star players to get to a close percent of 3%. That just simply wasn't the case. In 07 Gailey offered just 37 4 star players but closed on 8 of them. For the argument to be effective that the tougher academic restrictions under Johnson are the chief culprit for his recruiting troubles, he would have to be closing on a higher percentage of the players he can get in here than he currently is.

I researched some other schools from around the country that either have similar recruiting classes to us under Johnson or academic restriction that are more burdensome than your standard school. I didn't review schools like FSU or Alabama because they are getting an overwhelming majority of their players from this pool and can spend more time there. A school like us just can't waste time on prospects we are more than likely not going to sign in the first place. Ultimately I don't believe that the 67 4 star players we have offered are the only academically qualified 4 star players in the nation, rather they are the only ones we spent our time on recruiting. This is where I agree a larger budget would help. Here are the number of 4 star or higher players other schools have offered that I view as similar to us in modern recruiting in results or academics.

Indiana- 93
Vanderbilt- 93
Minnesota- 77
NC State- 64
UNC -103
Stanford- 45

While our offerings of 67 4 star or higher players is lower than the 79 average offerings by these schools, can we really say that that difference is the primary cause of us not recruiting at a higher level?

On this list you will find that Stanford has offered 22 less 4 star or higher players than we have yet they have closed on numerous of them. They have established a program that has done this consistently over the past decade where before that they recruited woefully. The change came when Harbaugh changed the culture of that program and Shaw has kept it going. And before anyone talks about the diversity of majors at Stanford please stop. One thing that the O'Leary years does unequivocally prove is that the limited curriculum at Georgia Tech can be overcome with the right leadership. Our curriculum options has not shrunk over the past 18 years. Faced with the same situation Johnson is in this regard, O'Leary won one big time recruiting battle after another over the national powers.

The discussion of whether Johnson is the right coach for our program requires the understanding that whether you believe he is or not, he will never reach the full potential of what Georgia Tech can have in terms of raw talent. That fact has been made abundantly clear.

I must say, you've done your homework and you've acknowledged but also have compellingly addressed the academic restrictions angle. Your point is well taken that the offers on the table that are being more frequently forgone now are to highly rated players that are qualified to gain admission. It's given me a bit more to think about regarding our present situation. But (as you point out), we could use a larger recruiting budget, too.

 

[Boaty1]

And your assumption that any of those schools is anything close to Tech WRT recruiting limitations is simply a fantasy. EVERY one of those schools has a vastly greater array of degree offerings than Tech has with its 35 +/- degree offerings all requiring a form of calculus. Combine the limited offerings with the admissions difficulties as well as the difficulty in remaining eligible, on top of the declining dollars spent on the program as compared to "similar schools" and you get the current state of the program.
It is comical the anti CPJ posters that ignore than elephants in the room and point and the peanut in the corner.

I’ll pose one question at a time with you.

Let’s start here. If GT’s limited number of majors is a significant challenge in recruiting, then how do you explain the successful O’Leary years in regards to recruiting. Keep in mind that our degree options have not decreased over the past 18 years. Please address that issue first and then we can move on to your other points.

 

[lv20gt]

Let’s start here. If GT’s limited number of majors is a significant challenge in recruiting, then how do you explain the successful O’Leary years in regards to recruiting. Keep in mind that our degree options have not decreased over the past 18 years. Please address that issue first and then we can move on to your other points.

What you have to understand is that for some people the only comparative schools are the ones who don't have football programs. It lets them make any claim they want without really having to support it.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

On recruiting, I thought the academic progress requirements became tougher for Tech. Would CCG recruit better today under stricter requirements? We can only speculate.

 

[eetech]

It’s better in that the 10 years preceding 2018 were better than the 10 years preceding 2008.

It’s worse in that the future does not look as bright. The 2007 recruiting class was an awesome one.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Flunkgate happene as much from the transition from the quarter system to the semester system as anything else. It wasn't all about that, but that was a major contributor. Also, Chan Gailey not watching these teenagers closely (they're adults, we'll treat them like adults!), cause flunkgate and the probation from the late 199o's/early 2000's.

 

[iceeater1969]

Let's go watch gt destroy Duke for the *** whipping we took last year!

 

[THWG16]

I can’t believe this question could even be asked with a straight face! Yes in 08 we had lost 7 in row to ugag , & now we’ve atleast beaten them recently & yeah we won an acc title , but it’s so obvious a blind man could see that this program is on the down hill slide big time ! In 08 we had a lot of nfl talent on the team , had a top 20 recruiting class the year before , were disappointed with winning 7 games a year & going to crummy bowls . Now the possibility of ANY bowl excites us , so does a winning season , our recruiting class is 11th in acc , the future looks bleak ! And not to mention that 07 recruiting class that was so good was probably the reason we won the acc & won 20 games in 08,09

 

[Animal02]

I’ll pose one question at a time with you.

Let’s start here. If GT’s limited number of majors is a significant challenge in recruiting, then how do you explain the successful O’Leary years in regards to recruiting. Keep in mind that our degree options have not decreased over the past 18 years. Please address that issue first and then we can move on to your other points.

Quite simple. There was no need to graduate, no need to advance toward graduation like there is today. All they had to do is stay eligible. That was the only concern.

 

[THWG16]

Very interesting to see that 75% of the people on this board thinks that the program is improved since CPJ was hired but based on previous threads I would say 75% wanted CPJ gone two weeks ago.

The fact anyone would think the program is better now than in 08 is beyond me

 

[Milwaukee]

The fact anyone would think the program is better now than in 08 is beyond me

Yea, you've mentioned...in every thread at least 2 to 8 times.