Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Mostly “Fire Geoff Collins”, some reminiscing, maybe bourbon or other distractions
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="takethepoints" data-source="post: 820397" data-attributes="member: 265"><p>I've said this before too.</p><p></p><p>Tech has a problem and its a big one. We will never be able to recruit the players needed to make the typical college spread offense work well enough to be a top 25 team consistently. I repeat, <em>never</em>. The school is already an anomaly; the only other STEM institution that wins consistently at a P5 level is Purdue and they haven't won as consistently as Tech. The admission standards get higher every year, rendering the exceptions granted for football players more and more difficult to fit to the players we need to get into school and stay. </p><p></p><p>There are two solutions to this. One is to go the UNC route; i.e. don't even begin to think of your major sports athletes as students, shunt them into fake majors, ignore the occasional scandals, and keep the standards for the rest of the school as stringent as they are. This works. UNC's rep as an academic institution hasn't suffered appreciatively and their teams win. The problem with this solution for Tech is that the nature of the institution doesn't give the athletic programs the majors needed to hide the athletes. It's an <em>engineering</em> school; it doesn't even have the few liberal arts majors that Purdue depends on. Further, neither the administration, the faculty, or the alums would like the cheapening of the degrees that could result. Not to mention the General Assembly, of course.</p><p></p><p>The second is the on Tech has usually take: play <em>Moneyball</em>. Successful Tech football programs are usually based on schemes - usually on offense - that allow Tech to attract good players who meet our requirements and who fit the scheme, even if they aren't highly recruited. This is what Dodd did with the dazzle-dazzle wing-T, what Ross/O'Leary/Fridgen did with their bewildering multiple offenses, and what Paul did with the spread option. As many have pointed out here before, under all of these coaches - and only Paul had to contend with Tech's higher academic requirements - we scored. A lot. Often with players that weren't highly recruited by other programs. As long as we got the players who "get on base" and a couple of others to sweeten the pot, we could put together winning seasons. This route can actually work, without having to corrupt the institution's academic standards to do it.</p><p></p><p>You pays your money …</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="takethepoints, post: 820397, member: 265"] I've said this before too. Tech has a problem and its a big one. We will never be able to recruit the players needed to make the typical college spread offense work well enough to be a top 25 team consistently. I repeat, [I]never[/I]. The school is already an anomaly; the only other STEM institution that wins consistently at a P5 level is Purdue and they haven't won as consistently as Tech. The admission standards get higher every year, rendering the exceptions granted for football players more and more difficult to fit to the players we need to get into school and stay. There are two solutions to this. One is to go the UNC route; i.e. don't even begin to think of your major sports athletes as students, shunt them into fake majors, ignore the occasional scandals, and keep the standards for the rest of the school as stringent as they are. This works. UNC's rep as an academic institution hasn't suffered appreciatively and their teams win. The problem with this solution for Tech is that the nature of the institution doesn't give the athletic programs the majors needed to hide the athletes. It's an [I]engineering[/I] school; it doesn't even have the few liberal arts majors that Purdue depends on. Further, neither the administration, the faculty, or the alums would like the cheapening of the degrees that could result. Not to mention the General Assembly, of course. The second is the on Tech has usually take: play [I]Moneyball[/I]. Successful Tech football programs are usually based on schemes - usually on offense - that allow Tech to attract good players who meet our requirements and who fit the scheme, even if they aren't highly recruited. This is what Dodd did with the dazzle-dazzle wing-T, what Ross/O'Leary/Fridgen did with their bewildering multiple offenses, and what Paul did with the spread option. As many have pointed out here before, under all of these coaches - and only Paul had to contend with Tech's higher academic requirements - we scored. A lot. Often with players that weren't highly recruited by other programs. As long as we got the players who "get on base" and a couple of others to sweeten the pot, we could put together winning seasons. This route can actually work, without having to corrupt the institution's academic standards to do it. You pays your money … [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What jersey number did Joshua Nesbitt wear?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Mostly “Fire Geoff Collins”, some reminiscing, maybe bourbon or other distractions
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top