Let's compare coaches, just for fun !

[smathis30]

I would *love* to see your data on this. The only data I have ever found on the SAT scores for universities is quite old and showed a much broader gap between UGa and GT.....(it was an old AJC study) so you will forgive me if I am skeptical of your information.

While I have *no* doubt that GT athletes are admitted when other students might not be, and get help with tutoring and the like, we also do still suffer from being extremely limited in our degree offerings. I also suspect pretty strongly that if you want to compare us to someplace like UGa the academic gap is MUCH wider than you suggest. The money gap is CLEARLY enormous.

It's that Same be AJC article. The gap is way smaller than expected relative to other schools, the gap you're thinking of is the one between average athletes and average students, which Tech has the largest of.
And again, most people change majors and offerings of majors isn't as big of a deal as people make it to be. People typically choose the school and coach before they pick the major.

 

[awbuzz]

Players hate it, any potential Sidewalk fans hate it. Just a big fat sore thumb on the program, makes us a joke. People don’t realize some of the SAs GT recruits have never even heard of GT. It’s the reason so many of them say “Georgia Tech Unicersity” etc. Tech’s name alone doesn’t recruit itself like so many other P5 programs do. Imagine being a RB that’s never heard of Tech, then coming down for a visit and watching the game and seeing GT line up in wishbone. That’s why we hate it cause recruits do. Also a personal beef I have with the TO is Tech plays dirty and cut block on the Oline (No problem with the ABs doing it) I would seriously rather play Alabama’s offense than GTs as a defensive coordinator. Lot of people will say “WELL AINT THAT A GOOD THING?” No, it’s not. I will always support Tech’s student atheletes and would even support CPJ if he was just a head coach and allowed someone else to call plays but for now I’m done with the triple option. Even if Tech wins Saturday I’ll still want it out of there!

Just a monor FYI - we don't line up in "the wishbone". Although sometimes we end up with the formation if we are running the "draw them offside" play.

 

[awbuzz]

Just a monor FYI - we don't line up in "the wishbone". Although sometimes we end up with the formation if we are running the "draw them offside" play.

* minor ... not monor

 

[awbuzz]

Regarding Clemson -

“Upfront, they’re better than we are,” Johnson said. “Not close. That comes back to us recruiting. We knew that. Anybody who watched the game knew that. So that means we have to do things right.”

 

[MWBATL]

It's that Same be AJC article. The gap is way smaller than expected relative to other schools, the gap you're thinking of is the one between average athletes and average students, which Tech has the largest of.
And again, most people change majors and offerings of majors isn't as big of a deal as people make it to be. People typically choose the school and coach before they pick the major.

Actually, I believe you are incorrect on a couple of counts. First of all as to what I was thinking....
1) an earlier study by the AJC in 2008 is the one I was thinking of and it showed a much wider gap between the two schools. In fact, it showed that GT had the highest SAT scores amongst all public universities in the USA. ALL. You may quibble with that study if you wish, and argue that the gap is not statistically significant, but it is what it is.
From what I can see, GT is still at or near the top of the list even though more recent studies have not been nationwide or as comprehensive;
2) a 2014 study by CNN showed a broader gap...UGa was reported as having an average SAT score there of 941. GT was not in that study but every study I have seen shows GT around 1030...that is the gap I recall seeing and averaging over 85 kids that is a pretty wide margin;(The CNN study covered a different time period ranging from 2007-2012)
3) UGa also allows more than twice as many special admits as GT. The AJC study you mention cites 63 for UGa and 31 for GT (the AJC study covered a 6 year period from 2009-14). That makes for an ENORMOUS difference in a football squad. According to the CNN study, 22 members of the UGa football squad scored below a 400 on the SAT Verbal Test. That is the threshold for college literacy. (GT was not included in the CNN study)

Further, I completely disagree with your statement that offerings of majors isn't as big a deal as people make it out to be. I have heard this sentiment expressed any number of times by the guys who should know best...the coaches and assistant coaches who recruit for GT. While the factors that go into recruiting are many and complex, it appears that the highly limited curriculum at GT puts us into a different category right from the start with many recruits. Is it the only factor? Nope. The biggest? Depends upon the kid....hard to make a generalized statement. But it certainly appears to be true that if a kid isn't numerically inclined and doesn't want a BS degree, they often eliminate GT in the first round of their thinking.

So, we disagree and I do not accept your opinions. The academics side is a differentiator. A HUGE one. If you don't believe that, listen to the interviews of kids at SEC schools and then listen to the interviews of kids who go to GT.

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

I seem to remember ( not this year ) CPJ saying that players today are not the same as they were 10-15 years ago. Maybe that is the problem communicating with todays players is not the same as it was 10 years ago. CPJ knows how to coach maybe it understanding how to communicate with todays players and how to get the light to come on for them.

No doubt generations change. Some very successful coaches recognize it and change with the times.

But hard to make the “light come on” when you think the main source of light is a candle..

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

The only reason we lose to teams like USF, Pitt, etc. is the fact that we have no passing game. A one-dimensional running team, even as funky as ours, is infinitely more defensible than if we had any credible passing threat. For our offense, give me an average dual QB anytime over a good ABack in a QB’s jersey...

Combined with a HC having, since his arrival, minimizing the total team concept with D and ST being part of his
“genius”.

 

[Fatmike91]

Regarding Clemson -

“Upfront, they’re better than we are,” Johnson said. “Not close. That comes back to us recruiting. We knew that. Anybody who watched the game knew that. So that means we have to do things right.”

Interesting quote. I suspect a lot of people around here think he's saying we need to recruit better. I really think what CPJ is saying is that our kids and the scheme are good enough to win, and we need to do a better job executing within the offense.

/

 

[MikeJackets1967]

If CPJ is still around the future will be a replay of 2017 and 2018

 

[smathis30]

Actually, I believe you are incorrect on a couple of counts. First of all as to what I was thinking....
1) an earlier study by the AJC in 2008 is the one I was thinking of and it showed a much wider gap between the two schools. In fact, it showed that GT had the highest SAT scores amongst all public universities in the USA. ALL. You may quibble with that study if you wish, and argue that the gap is not statistically significant, but it is what it is.
From what I can see, GT is still at or near the top of the list even though more recent studies have not been nationwide or as comprehensive;
2) a 2014 study by CNN showed a broader gap...UGa was reported as having an average SAT score there of 941. GT was not in that study but every study I have seen shows GT around 1030...that is the gap I recall seeing and averaging over 85 kids that is a pretty wide margin;(The CNN study covered a different time period ranging from 2007-2012)
3) UGa also allows more than twice as many special admits as GT. The AJC study you mention cites 63 for UGa and 31 for GT (the AJC study covered a 6 year period from 2009-14). That makes for an ENORMOUS difference in a football squad. According to the CNN study, 22 members of the UGa football squad scored below a 400 on the SAT Verbal Test. That is the threshold for college literacy. (GT was not included in the CNN study)

Further, I completely disagree with your statement that offerings of majors isn't as big a deal as people make it out to be. I have heard this sentiment expressed any number of times by the guys who should know best...the coaches and assistant coaches who recruit for GT. While the factors that go into recruiting are many and complex, it appears that the highly limited curriculum at GT puts us into a different category right from the start with many recruits. Is it the only factor? Nope. The biggest? Depends upon the kid....hard to make a generalized statement. But it certainly appears to be true that if a kid isn't numerically inclined and doesn't want a BS degree, they often eliminate GT in the first round of their thinking.

So, we disagree and I do not accept your opinions. The academics side is a differentiator. A HUGE one. If you don't believe that, listen to the interviews of kids at SEC schools and then listen to the interviews of kids who go to GT.

Actually, I believe you are incorrect on a couple of counts. First of all as to what I was thinking....
1) an earlier study by the AJC in 2008 is the one I was thinking of and it showed a much wider gap between the two schools. In fact, it showed that GT had the highest SAT scores amongst all public universities in the USA. ALL. You may quibble with that study if you wish, and argue that the gap is not statistically significant, but it is what it is.
From what I can see, GT is still at or near the top of the list even though more recent studies have not been nationwide or as comprehensive;
2) a 2014 study by CNN showed a broader gap...UGa was reported as having an average SAT score there of 941. GT was not in that study but every study I have seen shows GT around 1030...that is the gap I recall seeing and averaging over 85 kids that is a pretty wide margin;(The CNN study covered a different time period ranging from 2007-2012)
3) UGa also allows more than twice as many special admits as GT. The AJC study you mention cites 63 for UGa and 31 for GT (the AJC study covered a 6 year period from 2009-14). That makes for an ENORMOUS difference in a football squad. According to the CNN study, 22 members of the UGa football squad scored below a 400 on the SAT Verbal Test. That is the threshold for college literacy. (GT was not included in the CNN study)

Further, I completely disagree with your statement that offerings of majors isn't as big a deal as people make it out to be. I have heard this sentiment expressed any number of times by the guys who should know best...the coaches and assistant coaches who recruit for GT. While the factors that go into recruiting are many and complex, it appears that the highly limited curriculum at GT puts us into a different category right from the start with many recruits. Is it the only factor? Nope. The biggest? Depends upon the kid....hard to make a generalized statement. But it certainly appears to be true that if a kid isn't numerically inclined and doesn't want a BS degree, they often eliminate GT in the first round of their thinking.

So, we disagree and I do not accept your opinions. The academics side is a differentiator. A HUGE one. If you don't believe that, listen to the interviews of kids at SEC schools and then listen to the interviews of kids who go to GT.

1. The AJC article is from 2014 so its supercedes every study done before that as it is more accurate. I just put in a FOIA to uga to get more recent data, ill see if it goes through
That study? UGA 977 Tech 1025.
48 point difference. Which is roughly 2-3 questions a section out of 54. Its still (the highest?) among public schools but acting like its night and day is naive
2. Yup they get more waivers. But even with those waivers, they are still only 48 points behind GT. As for the majors thing, heard my take from that from players and a former academic advisor. Acting like people don't have every crutch available. Since CPJ came to tech, UGA and GT have had the same number of players declared academically inelgible: 2. Gailey and O'leary years are different, but since APR and the creation of the tutoring and academic advising system for athletes, its become a relative non-issue, or at least an issue that appears to be similar with other in-state schools and thus a non-issue. The safety net exists and you're just wrong if you don't think its there. Tech is definitely harder with its majors offerings, but come on. Athletes make it year in year out with no issues since tutoring and advising for athletes moved into the office of the provost's responsibilities. and to make my oppinion abundently clear: Academics are an issue, but they aren't the biggest pot hole in the road to GT's success. I really don't see a reason we should every be higher than 6th in recruiting rankings in conference (Clemson, FSU, Miami, VT should always be higher) (UNC, Louisville, Pitt, NC State, GT should be the interchangable middle tier) (BC, Syrcause, Wake, Duke, UVA bottom)

 

[jandrews]

Interesting quote. I suspect a lot of people around here think he's saying we need to recruit better. I really think what CPJ is saying is that our kids and the scheme are good enough to win, and we need to do a better job executing within the offense.

/

We should be executing at a higher level. Compared to Army and Navy we look slow off the ball and not nearly as crisp on our reads.

 

[MWBATL]

1. The AJC article is from 2014 so its supercedes every study done before that as it is more accurate.

Again, disagree. It does not supersede any prior study. It simply is for a differing time period. The CNN study which I cited is from UGa's own self-reported data and is therefore every bit as accurate as the AJC article. Perhaps you should read it and do a bit more research:
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/01/us/college-scores/index.html

 

[MWBATL]

2. Yup they get more waivers. But even with those waivers, they are still only 48 points behind GT. As for the majors thing, heard my take from that from players and a former academic advisor. Acting like people don't have every crutch available. Since CPJ came to tech, UGA and GT have had the same number of players declared academically inelgible: 2. Gailey and O'leary years are different, but since APR and the creation of the tutoring and academic advising system for athletes, its become a relative non-issue, or at least an issue that appears to be similar with other in-state schools and thus a non-issue. The safety net exists and you're just wrong if you don't think its there. Tech is definitely harder with its majors offerings, but come on. Athletes make it year in year out with no issues since tutoring and advising for athletes moved into the office of the provost's responsibilities. and to make my oppinion abundently clear: Academics are an issue, but they aren't the biggest pot hole in the road to GT's success. I really don't see a reason we should every be higher than 6th in recruiting rankings in conference (Clemson, FSU, Miami, VT should always be higher) (UNC, Louisville, Pitt, NC State, GT should be the interchangable middle tier) (BC, Syrcause, Wake, Duke, UVA bottom)

We aren't that from each other on this more generalized topic. My argument is pretty simple...the academic advisors and players at GT are a self-selected group....they don't include the majority of players who ruled out GT because of its limited majors and tightly focused curriculum. I am arguing that the limitations in our curriculum, are restricting the number of athletes who are interested in coming to GT. You seem to be arguing that they have a ton of support once they get to GT and that they are plenty of 'exceptions' in the academic world of GT to help them get through school. I don't argue with what you are saying (my daughter was in class with and often on project teams with football players just 3 years ago, I know the realities). So, we seem to be making entirely different points. The support system that exists at GT to help athletes does NOT offset the fact that so many athletes don't consider us in the first place because of the limited number of majors.

Academics are not, however, the sole reason athletes select schools, any more than available females or the size of the stadium or the geography of the school is...there are multiple determining factors. On that, we agree. And, in point of fact, I strongly suspect our recruiting is probably about where you show us...mired in the middle or slightly lower in the league. The difference in recruiting rankings between the #7 team in the ACC and the #13 team in the ACC is probably razor thin if you look at it in detail.

But there is an enormous difference between us and the top 20 schools in the country. We are likely somewhere in the #30-#60 range each year, and our results tend to show that. This year would appear to show us in a downward trajectory, hence the collective desire for change.

 

[iceeater1969]

Again, disagree. It does not supersede any prior study. It simply is for a differing time period. The CNN study which I cited is from UGa's own self-reported data and is therefore every bit as accurate as the AJC article. Perhaps you should read it and do a bit more research:
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/01/us/college-scores/index.html

I was looking at the NCAA site about grad rates and felt it had a helpful data sort feature. Queried by team ( uga and gt) , by sport - football , then by 4 sets of years spaced by 2 years ( covers johnson era.

Found that we both sucked (50 % approx) at start and made progress. Last period showed a big drop for uga - back to where they started we kept chugging up at about 9 points a period and are at 83 iirc.

Do U guys think that NCAA data is valid.

( If yes- I would proudly have that 83 sewn on the jerseys to expose the negative recruiting)

 

[MWBATL]

Do U guys think that NCAA data is valid.

yes, I do.

 

[takethepoints]

I can’t beleive you are making a argument that we recruit good players because off one player in JT and a player who hasn’t even taken his first snap in CFB. You have no idea if Graham is a good player yet. And this is my point and I think the majority of everyone else’s point, we can’t survive just recruiting a great player at one position every few years. We need good players everywhere. It can’t be the way it has gone after 11 recruiting classes. We have no depth because we have a very shallow talent pool. You have to damand better than one or two good players over 11 years.

Also of course we lead the nation in rushing. It’s 90% of our offense. Navy and Army are right there with us but would you call them great teams? Is that really where you think GT should be measured? Also we are 41st in total offense. If you are going to post stats at least post objective ones. Not just ones that support your claim.

Well, I expect I've been watching Tech longer then you have, but let's take a walk down memory lane, shall we?

Joe Hamilton - Short (5'10" after neck traction) and with an average arm, Joe was not heavily recruited by major schools and those who did (Penn State, Nebraska) wanted him as an "athlete". Tech was his best offer if he wanted to play QB, sorta like JT. They didn't have stars in those days so we don't know, but I'm guessing he'd have been a 3 star as an athlete.

Kelly Campbell - Kelly was an afterthought, recruited very late with no real interest from anyone but Tech. And the rest is history. A two star at best.

Marco Coleman - Coleman was an all-region LB in Ohio; he didn't even make all-state. He wanted to go to OSU, but, despite 31(!) sacks in his senior year, got little interest from major powers. He was a "tween" and nobody could figure out where to put him. Except Bobby Ross. Another 3 star.

Shawn Jones - A 53% passer at Thomasville, Shawn was also not heavily recruited out of high school. Except by Bobby Ross. Another three star.

George Godsey - Another so-so QB in high school with an average arm and (very) average foot speed. He got some interest from what were then Div 2 teams, but Tech was his best offer from a major school. And the rest is history. Again. A two star at best.

Well, I could go on, but since there aren't any reliable star comparisons, I'll stop there. What it comes down to is that Tech has been living on 3 star and the occasional 4 star player for a very long time. Many of our best teams were largely made up of them; 1990 was top to bottom with high school semi-stars.

So what has changed? The main factor here - besides Bobby Ross's second-to-none eye for talent - is the graduation progress requirement. Most of the players listed above graduated long after their eligibility ran out. Of course, we could have "majors" that graduate people who can't read - like UNC - or have a system of ruthlessly washing out players who can't "make it" - like Bammer. But I don't think anyone wants that.

 

[GTRX7]

I was looking at the NCAA site about grad rates and felt it had a helpful data sort feature. Queried by team ( uga and gt) , by sport - football , then by 4 sets of years spaced by 2 years ( covers johnson era.

Found that we both sucked (50 % approx) at start and made progress. Last period showed a big drop for uga - back to where they started we kept chugging up at about 9 points a period and are at 83 iirc.

Do U guys think that NCAA data is valid.

( If yes- I would proudly have that 83 sewn on the jerseys to expose the negative recruiting)

Probably worth reminding folks of the study by USC earlier this year that looked into recent athlete graduation rates and, specifically, for African Americans. Tech and UGA were actually found to have similar overall athlete graduation rates at 70% for Tech and 68% for Georgia. That is not the whole story though. When looking specifically at basketball and football, the study found that 57% of basketball and football players at Tech are African American, while 72% of basketball and football players at UGA are African American (compared to only 3% of total undergraduates). And when they focused, specifically, on those players, there is an enormous, Grand Canyon sized gap between the two schools.

Tech was found to have the 6th highest graduation rate for African Americans at 70% (behind only Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Stanford, and Duke). In contrast, UGA had the 2nd lowest graduation rate for African Americans at 36% (ahead of only LSU). More than that, while Tech graduates both African American and other athletes at the exact same rate (70%), the drop in graduation rates for African Americans at UGA (from 68% for all athletes to 36% for African Americans) was among the highest in the country.

In other words, when looking at graduation rates for Tech football and basketball compared to UGA, the difference night and day. Tech is a national leader, while UGA is pretty embarrassing. Regardless of anything else on the field with CPJ, we should all be proud of this accomplishment.

https://race.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/2018_Sports_Report.pdf

 

[okiemon]

Regarding Clemson -

“Upfront, they’re better than we are,” Johnson said. “Not close. That comes back to us recruiting. We knew that. Anybody who watched the game knew that. So that means we have to do things right.”

If he is saying we haven’t recruited well enough, and that we have to do a better job of it — and that’s the way I read it — then I sincerely hope that is not a new realization for him.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[northgajacket]

Well, I expect I've been watching Tech longer then you have, but let's take a walk down memory lane, shall we?

Joe Hamilton - Short (5'10" after neck traction) and with an average arm, Joe was not heavily recruited by major schools and those who did (Penn State, Nebraska) wanted him as an "athlete". Tech was his best offer if he wanted to play QB, sorta like JT. They didn't have stars in those days so we don't know, but I'm guessing he'd have been a 3 star as an athlete.

Kelly Campbell - Kelly was an afterthought, recruited very late with no real interest from anyone but Tech. And the rest is history. A two star at best.

Marco Coleman - Coleman was an all-region LB in Ohio; he didn't even make all-state. He wanted to go to OSU, but, despite 31(!) sacks in his senior year, got little interest from major powers. He was a "tween" and nobody could figure out where to put him. Except Bobby Ross. Another 3 star.

Shawn Jones - A 53% passer at Thomasville, Shawn was also not heavily recruited out of high school. Except by Bobby Ross. Another three star.

George Godsey - Another so-so QB in high school with an average arm and (very) average foot speed. He got some interest from what were then Div 2 teams, but Tech was his best offer from a major school. And the rest is history. Again. A two star at best.

Well, I could go on, but since there aren't any reliable star comparisons, I'll stop there. What it comes down to is that Tech has been living on 3 star and the occasional 4 star player for a very long time. Many of our best teams were largely made up of them; 1990 was top to bottom with high school semi-stars.

So what has changed? The main factor here - besides Bobby Ross's second-to-none eye for talent - is the graduation progress requirement. Most of the players listed above graduated long after their eligibility ran out. Of course, we could have "majors" that graduate people who can't read - like UNC - or have a system of ruthlessly washing out players who can't "make it" - like Bammer. But I don't think anyone wants that.

Joe Hamilton was pretty heavily recruited, just not as a qb.

And uga wanted Shawn Jones as a db.

 

[MikeJackets1967]

Joe Hamilton was pretty heavily recruited, just not as a qb.

And uga wanted Shawn Jones as a db.

How heavily were Pat and Ken Swilling recruited?