Johnson

bravejason

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
307
...
GT has been a good football program for the last 20+ plus years. In fact, you could say GT has been a model of consistency in terms of being a competitve football team. CPJ didn't exactly have to save us from college football purgatory.

Recent 10+ win seasons:
2014 11-3
2009 11-3
1998 10-2
1990 11-0-1

Recent 9 win seasons:
2008 9-4
2006 9-5
2000 9-3
1985 9-2-1
1970 9-3


Recent 8 win seasons:
2011 8-5
2001 8-5
1999 8-4
1991 8-5

Recent 7 win seasons, where a maximum of 11 games were played:
1989 7-4
1975 7-4

I chose the 11 game cutoff for 7 win seasons because at 12 games, we get a lot of 7-5 seasons, and I don't think most people consider that success. If they did, we would not have released Gailey. I know 7-5 sounds great when you just went through 3-9, but we'd probably still be arguing about CPJ if he had gone 7-5 this year with a healthy team after the expectations going into the season.

You can go further back in time than I what listed above, but rest assured that you won't find any successes not listed above until 1966 unless you consider 7-5 and 7-6 to be a success.
 

Scubapro

Banned
Messages
717
3. Kids today are better prepared for college in terms of knowing what it takes to get an athletic scholarship, and HS kids also have more educational resources with the internet and accessible computers. This makes the pool of potential GT SAs larger along with my first point.

This isn't exactly true...many kids, esp in the south, may know what needs to be done but they don't have the drive or the access to the education required. Never mind that many kids, even the 2 star guys, think they will hit it rich in the League.
 

JorgeJonas

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,147
Is it really harder to recruit these days? Think about it.

1. The population in the South has EXPLODED...which means there are more HS playing football, and there are more high level recruits. The South is where 90+/- percent of our recruits come from, and the metro Atlanta area in particular is a gold mine for recruits.

2. With the internet, and readily accessible film on recruits, it's easier to identify recruits back when O'Leary and Gailey were head coaches. Recruiting services have exploded, which means recruit database has expanded. No longer are coaches having to spend their time driving around filtering kids when all they need to do is cue up the tape on their computers.

3. Kids today are better prepared for college in terms of knowing what it takes to get an athletic scholarship, and HS kids also have more educational resources with the internet and accessible computers. This makes the pool of potential GT SAs larger along with my first point.

4. With the advent of social media, coaches can keep tabs on recruits like never before...and they can make sure recruits are taking courses and making the grades they need to get into GT. It also makes it easier for our staff to find highly qualified kids to come to GT.

Just those 4 points alone gives CPJ and his staff a HUGE advantage over previous staffs.

I'm not minimizing academics and the rigor of courses at GT. Simply put, the pool of qualified kids both academically and athletically is far greater than what previous staffs had. It's up to CPJ and his staff to close...and as the 2014 class proves, there are kids out there that fit bill for us to sign.
It's not an advantage if all of your competitors have it, too.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
17,859
It's not an advantage if all of your competitors have it, too.

Well, that's why it's called recruiting. You think top tier academically inclined kids are just gonna waltz into GT? Heck no...EVERYONE wants those kids, the question is whether or not our staff has the ability to close.

The 4 points I outlined have made identifying those kids far easier than anything our previous staff had.
 

JorgeJonas

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,147
Well, that's why it's called recruiting. You think top tier academically inclined kids are just gonna waltz into GT? Heck no...EVERYONE wants those kids, the question is whether or not our staff has the ability to close.

The 4 points I outlined have made identifying those kids far easier than anything our previous staff had.
But comparing them to one another makes no sense, unless you want to talk about conversion rates. They aren't competing with one another (obviously). The other issue I'd take with what you wrote is that you mentioned the population increase in the south without mentioning that fewer kids are playing football.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
17,859
Actually it does makes sense. You just don't want it to make sense because you saying that (despite your assertions being false) supports your agenda.

Are fewer kids playing football? Well, not really:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bobcook...eported-declines-is-about-as-popular-as-ever/

It's not like kids are fleeing football like refugees out of Syria. The decline is less than 2 percent, BUT those numbers fluctuate as the article state.

OK, buddy, it's been fun giving you stats while you come back at me with only opinion. This conversation from my end is done.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
17,859
This isn't exactly true...many kids, esp in the south, may know what needs to be done but they don't have the drive or the access to the education required. Never mind that many kids, even the 2 star guys, think they will hit it rich in the League.

The record number of people graduating from college and going to college would disagree with your statement.
 

JorgeJonas

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,147
Actually it does makes sense. You just don't want it to make sense because you saying that (despite your assertions being false) supports your agenda.

Are fewer kids playing football? Well, not really:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bobcook...eported-declines-is-about-as-popular-as-ever/

It's not like kids are fleeing football like refugees out of Syria. The decline is less than 2 percent, BUT those numbers fluctuate as the article state.

OK, buddy, it's been fun giving you stats while you come back at me with only opinion. This conversation from my end is done.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/...ball-but-mark-cuban-might-be-wrong-about-why/
 

JorgeJonas

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,147
Dude, just stop. Your posts are really undermining your points. Just because you say something doesn't mean it's true...especially when facts refute you.
The link I produced was written before the link you provided. It would be quite unique for something written before another thing to cite that other thing. Someone here is being undermined, but it's not me.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
17,859
The link I produced was written before the link you provided. It would be quite unique for something written before another thing to cite that other thing. Someone here is being undermined, but it's not me.

Are you serious? I mean really? From YOUR link:

The NFL’s high-profile concussion issues might be playing some role in the sport’s falling popularity among kids. But as Forbes’ Bob Cook pointed out in November, the effect is just as likely attributable to other factors (Go ahead, click on this linked phrase in YOUR article...I dare you!), including the increasing trend toward specialization in young athletes.

Yikes...now you're just ignoring all reality.
 

Whiskey_Clear

Banned
Messages
10,486
Are you serious? I mean really? From YOUR link:

The NFL’s high-profile concussion issues might be playing some role in the sport’s falling popularity among kids. But as Forbes’ Bob Cook pointed out in November, the effect is just as likely attributable to other factors (Go ahead, click on this linked phrase in YOUR article...I dare you!), including the increasing trend toward specialization in young athletes.

Yikes...now you're just ignoring all reality.

Article he cited claims participation in organized football, since 2008, from ages 6-18, has fallen 5.4 percent. The article linked a wsj report for the sourc of that info. Jorge's earlier post stated his belief that fewer kids are playing football. Pretty clear reference to his point.
The why of it doesn't really matter. If the article is correct that those that do participate are more "hardcore"....that might indicate the reduction in participation is a wash. Have the number of high school football players declined since 2008? That answer could help shed light on the issue. I tend to doubt high school participation has declined. This whole side argument is a bit sidetracked IMO.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
17,859
Article he cited claims participation in organized football, since 2008, from ages 6-18, has fallen 5.4 percent. The article linked a wsj report for the sourc of that info. Jorge's earlier post stated his belief that fewer kids are playing football. Pretty clear reference to his point.
The why of it doesn't really matter. If the article is correct that those that do participate are more "hardcore"....that might indicate the reduction in participation is a wash. Have the number of high school football players declined since 2008? That answer could help shed light on the issue. I tend to doubt high school participation has declined. This whole side argument is a bit sidetracked IMO.

I didn't refute that the numbers were declining, my inference was that decline is neglible:

"In 2008-09, 1,112,303 boys participated in 11-player football, and the most recent trough was 1,086,627 in 2012-13 — only a 2.3 percent drop, or 25,676 players. With more than 14,000 schools playing high school football for NFHS-affiliated schools, that’s a decline of only one or two players per team, total, over the course of four years."

Definitely not enough to impact the recruiting numbers. The poster was making it seem like declining participation could be factor in recruiting. Those numbers would refute that. My bigger issue isn't so much in his opinion, which every poster is entitled to, but his lack of any credible evidence to back up his opinion. As his last post exemplifies, he was more enamored with his opinion than being accurate, which makes having a constructive discussion impossible.
 

Whiskey_Clear

Banned
Messages
10,486
Not sure about your first line. When GOL was here FSU was on an NCAA historic run. No one could beat them and they set NCAA records left and right in record and finishing in top 3. I would say their strangle hold on the ACC then made it much tougher to win that conference than today. So I am not sure how you can qualify it as fact, vs an opinion.

I do however, agree, it has gotten tougher since Chan for sure..... Also an opinion.

Your second statement is a fact. But I would offer the opinion with the new bowl tie ins and playoffs, ACC sending 2 teams to BCS or major bowls is more frequent, making attending the orange bowl for the "second" ACC team easier, and an option never done in the past or available.

If that option was available in 1998, GT would have been in the orange bowl in 1998 and possibly 2000.

LOL....was my first fact shaded with opinion? Sure. There are more hurdles to get over now, that's a fact, which makes it more difficult to achieve....more is required to win it. The ACC is larger now. Tech has to win its division, and then win a championship game now. If you can't recognize its harder now....well you are entitled to that opinion. FSU isn't consistently as elite as they were in Bowden's heyday...but they haven't fallen far and won a national championship a couple years ago. Clemson has a very good chance to do the same this year.
 

JorgeJonas

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,147
Are you serious? I mean really? From YOUR link:

The NFL’s high-profile concussion issues might be playing some role in the sport’s falling popularity among kids. But as Forbes’ Bob Cook pointed out in November, the effect is just as likely attributable to other factors (Go ahead, click on this linked phrase in YOUR article...I dare you!), including the increasing trend toward specialization in young athletes.

Yikes...now you're just ignoring all reality.
This will be my final response to you on the matter. I have no agenda, because that's stupid. All I said is that it makes no sense to point out technological advantages Johnson has over his predecessors, because technology is always improving, and the guys he's competing against have the same stuff (maybe even more). Lastly, the link posted didn't link to the one you posted. Read the first sentence on each. They're different. And with that, we're done here.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,046
The South lags far behind the rest of the nation in secondary education. As a result, more recruits for the colleges that don't value education, less recruits for the schools that do.


To make it worse, GT sits in the middle of SEC country.

Even attracting the academic athlete is no picnic. As good as our reputation is, it still lags behind Stanford and Notre Dame. Those two schools also offer a broad curriculum. Nerd athletes don't have to pick Engineering or technically based management at those schools.
 

IEEEWreck

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
655
The South lags far behind the rest of the nation in secondary education. As a result, more recruits for the colleges that don't value education, less recruits for the schools that do.


To make it worse, GT sits in the middle of SEC country.

Even attracting the academic athlete is no picnic. As good as our reputation is, it still lags behind Stanford and Notre Dame. Those two schools also offer a broad curriculum. Nerd athletes don't have to pick Engineering or technically based management at those schools.

Two things:

1. Our reputation lags behind Notre Dame? Admittedly, I live and work in the South, but in numerous contacts with IEEE people from all over the country I never got that idea.

2. Our school of business is now MUCH broader than it used to be. Want to specialize in HR? You can absolutely do that. Marketing? That too. It's a part of why they changed the name from Management to Business.

That also brings up an important point that may not be perceived by recruits, and which we as fans might be doing ourselves no favors in talking the way we do:

Getting a Business degree at GT on the Football team with all the support and handholding (if you want/need it) that that entails is really not the hardest thing in the world. Calc I is fundamentally different from the (****ty) way highschools teach algebra- it's about learning patterns and using them. Cognitively it has more in common with flappy birds or a jigsaw puzzle than algebra 'memorize this rule' drudgery. It's also highly visual and intuitive in a way that highschool math is not. I'd argue that any football player who has experience figuring out how to chase a runner has an intuitive grasp of normal vectors and instantaneous slope that puts him at a serious advantage to his peers. Hell, if you have the sort of brain that can follow an option offense or be a defender anywhere you have practiced all the skills you need to make an A in Calc I- Your brain handles "if qb falls back, attack gap X, if handoff, proceed to Y hauling ***" in exactly the same way it handles "if I see an odd power of trig functions, use the euler identity" or "if I see a known derivative, use u substitution"

Georgia Tech isn't only for people who can put up with a lot of pain now for a lot of gain later. Painting it as such to people who more likely than not have been pigeonholed their whole lives by teachers (probably well meaning) as Athletes who by that identity can't really cut it in the classroom, is only going to drive them away. And that's a damn shame, because I think anybody who has the guts to get smacked around by 300lb guys every day and twice on weekends has the guts to stick it out in an accounting classroom.

We ought to be painting the academic life at GT (especially the B school) as glamorous, and completely different and more fun than highschool anything. Yeah, you could go to B school at U(sic)gA or Bama, but they're not going to get you presentations in front of Fortune 100 executives (or something. I don't know- I'm just an Engineer with a minor in Business and Technology). Then lay on thick the comparison in average incomes of graduates. If they've got the NFL in their eyes, show them they're not dreaming big enough. Yeah, you can be comfortable on saved NFL earnings if you ration them well, but why accept living on limited money? Do you really want to be doing sad radio endorsements for South Georgia car dealerships like (name any famous UGA player old enough) when you're 45? That's a chump's game. A GT degree shows you how to take NFL earnings and keep on making millions- you can be a player until the day you die.

And then quietly, to the side, you show the parents the same thing, but with an emphasis on a 80k salary out of school vs. good ****in luck if they don't make the NFL.
 
Top