Paul Johnson's job

[GTRX7]

Now you're trying to move the goal post. No one has argued it's an easier job to keep kids eligible or recruit to varied majors at other schools. That is not the discussion.

I think you're missing the point. I've already stated : I've said over and over that GT's academic environment precludes us from recruiting certain kinds of SAs. The fact that GT is a place where we can't hide SAs simply because GT across all majors is difficult isn't something new. No one disagrees with that.

How is that me not "seeing a huge disadvantage"? Clearly I'm stating we are at a disadvantage, BUT there are enough majors at GT to attract 15-20 kids a year to sign with us. How many of those scholarship players GT signs end up in a STEM major? If someone is going to make a point out of STEM majors, lets apply the statistic correctly. Kids for various reasons do not sign here outside of academics. Offense (DeShaun Watson, Joshua Dobbs...even though he's majoring in Aerospace Eng. at UT), inability of staff to close (Stephon Tuitt), not liking a certain coach (Shane Skov), Atlanta is too big of a city (forget the name of the recruit, but it was a DT that ended up signing with Iowa), etc.

If you want to say GT needs more majors, that's fine. That's not the argument I'm making. I'm simply stating that if someone chooses to make STEM majors a qualifier, let's show how many of our SAs are actually majoring in STEM fields. You're trying to argue something else that I'm not disagreeing with you about.

I guess I just don't understand your point. Leaving STEM aside, it sounds like you agree we don't have many majors to offer (including what appears to be about 90% of the most popular majors that football players choose). It also seems you agree the majors we do have are hard and that all of these factors are disadvantages for Tech. For my part, I agree with you that Tech does have things to sell (e.g., the strength of the degrees we do have, the city of Atlanta), and I assume the coaches are in fact trying to maximize that. We definitely are not going to get all the kids we attempt to recruit, and you point out some examples of kids we have missed on. On the other hand, there are some 4* kids that we do get.

I agree that we could be doing a better job recruiting than we are. I think CPJ and his staff are fine at recruiting (on par or a little below Gailey IMHO), but it is clearly not a strength. I also think our system is an impediment to recruiting. That said, I think CPJ and his staff are better than average at maximizing results based on the talent they do have, so it is a bit of a balancing act. In a perfect world, I agree that I would like one of the top recruiters and one of the top football minds in the country coaching here. So would everyone else. And, like in recruiting, most of those schools have more to sell such a coach than Tech does (facilities, fanbase, ease of recruiting).

So, I guess we have no disagreement? (Unless you are suggesting we have enough majors that we should be getting top 25 classes every year, which I would say is belied by Tech's recruiting results across numerous coaches in the modern era. Remember, any kid that is a 4-5* and academically inclined is still going to be recruited just as hard, or harder, by the football factories. And, as much as we don't want to admit it, some of them have some pretty good academic programs too in addition to their joke majors. I am just not sure what Tech has to sell that they don't. Our STEM majors are one thing but, as we discussed, there just isn't a lot of interest there. And, even places like Michigan and Stanford have that too.)

The world of college football is just a tough, competitive business. In general, I am proud of how Tech has done. And, if we can repeat our accomplishments over the last 8 years in the next 8 (2 orange bowls, 3 ACC title games), sign me up.

 

[iceeater1969]

A recent bleacher report cited the most popular majors for ACC and SEC football players as follows:
African American Studies (UF) --Tech does't have.
Agricultural Leadership and Development (Texas A&M) --Tech does't have.
Arts and Sciences (BC, Pitt, UVA) --Tech does't have.
Business (with rankings shown -- Ga Tech (#36), Georgia (#67), Missouri (#76), Alabama (NR), Auburn (NR))
Communication (UL, Syracuse, Vandy) -- Tech does have a BS in Literature, Media, and Communication
Exercise and Sport Science (UNC) --Tech does't have.
General Studies (Ole Miss) --Tech does't have.
Human Development/Science (Va Tech, Miss. St.) --Tech does't have.
Parks, Recreation and Tourism (Clem) --Tech does't have.
Recreation and Sport Management (Arkansas, Tenn) --Tech does't have.
Sociology (Duke) --Tech does't have.
Social Science (FSU) --Tech does't have.
Sports Administration (Miami, LSU) --Tech does't have.
Sport and Entertainment Management (S. Car.) --Tech does't have.
Undergraduate Studies (UK) --Tech does't have.

Other Top 10 Teams:
Advertising (Mich) --Tech does't have.
American Ethnic Studies (Washington) --Tech does't have.
Business (Nebraska (not ranked in Bloomberg's top 114))
Life Sciences Communication (Wisc.) --Tech does't have.
Sport Industry (Ohio St) --Tech does't have.

And...Stanford...Science, Technology, and Society (notably, listed on Stanford's website as "The only major at Stanford to offer both a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of Science."). Tech's is only a BS. And, the fact that it is the most popular major on Stanford's football team seems to indicate that they may have more football players majoring in this major than all students combined in Tech's program.)

If you don't see a huge disadvantage in the variety and type of majors offered at Tech compared to most schools (especially the top football schools), I don't know what to tell you.

Source: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-for-2015-power-5-conference-football-players

Thanks for showing specifics.
I think the uga biased BOR has done a good job keeping us in our place.

If easy could u check to see how many students are enrolled in the new engineering courses . ???

 

[Vespidae]

Help me understand something. When I attended Tech, I was Greek and we had an organized set of tutors and support to get kids to pass classes. I ended up being a TA myself.

Doesn't the GTAA have a tutor program? We had ball players in our fraternity and honestly, I don't recall any of them complaining any more than the rest of us.

Then again, Tech is a lot tougher today. I probably couldn't get in with current standards.

 

[Techster]

I guess I just don't understand your point. Leaving STEM aside, it sounds like you agree we don't have many majors to offer (including what appears to be about 90% of the most popular majors that football players choose). It also seems you agree the majors we do have are hard and that all of these factors are disadvantages for Tech. For my part, I agree with you that Tech does have things to sell (e.g., the strength of the degrees we do have, the city of Atlanta), and I assume the coaches are in fact trying to maximize that. We definitely are not going to get all the kids we attempt to recruit, and you point out some examples of kids we have missed on. On the other hand, there are some 4* kids that we do get.

I agree that we could be doing a better job recruiting than we are. I think CPJ and his staff are fine at recruiting (on par or a little below Gailey IMHO), but it is clearly not a strength. I also think our system is an impediment to recruiting. That said, I think CPJ and his staff are better than average at maximizing results based on the talent they do have, so it is a bit of a balancing act. In a perfect world, I agree that I would like one of the top recruiters and one of the top football minds in the country coaching here. So would everyone else. And, like in recruiting, most of those schools have more to sell such a coach than Tech does (facilities, fanbase, ease of recruiting).

So, I guess we have no disagreement? (Unless you are suggesting we have enough majors that we should be getting top 25 classes every year, which I would say is belied by Tech's recruiting results across numerous coaches in the modern era. Remember, any kid that is a 4-5* and academically inclined is still going to be recruited just as hard, or harder, by the football factories. And, as much as we don't want to admit it, some of them have some pretty good academic programs too in addition to their joke majors. I am just not sure what Tech has to sell that they don't. Our STEM majors are one thing but, as we discussed, there just isn't a lot of interest there. And, even places like Michigan and Stanford have that too.)

The world of college football is just a tough, competitive business. In general, I am proud of how Tech has done. And, if we can repeat our accomplishments over the last 8 years in the next 8 (2 orange bowls, 3 ACC title games), sign me up.

LOL...nope we are essentially agreeing, just maybe applying the information a little differently.

And yes, getting consistent top 25 recruiting classes at GT is probably not a reality. But it is possible to get top 25 classes at least once every 4-5 years IMO. We were close a couple of years ago...just needed a few more 4 stars to put us in the top 25.

I'm fine with CPJ staying here as long as he wants (provided he gets his defense fixed), but I'm sure as heck interested in seeing how recruiting goes with the next coach if he comes in with an offensive skill player friendly offense given all the top tier skill players the state of GA is producing lately.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Cheese, we've butted heads over this before, and while I think it's certainly an important distinction to have...your 75% cutoff is arbitrary considering the fact that 90% (being liberal here) of our scholarship SAs do not have a STEM major. If you look further along the list of schools with STEM grads you'll find Stanford (54%), NC State (48%), Purdue (44%), Rice (44%), Michigan (43%), VA Tech (40%) as well as others on the list.

Now if the percentage of our players was in the neighborhood of 50% majoring in STEM fields, I'd think your 75% cutoff would have reasonable value, but the reality is less than 10% of our scholarship football SAs fit the STEM criteria.

BTW, since we're discussing majors, is anyone aware that GT is #5 for starting salaries for LIBERAL ARTS grads? It's true:

http://www.iac.gatech.edu/news-even...s-starting-salaries-liberal-arts-grads/332171

Techster, I know most of our players are not STEM, however, the fact that GT is a STEM school, the stigma associated with that goes with it. That makes it hard to recruit in addition to rigor, which is probably the main associated hurdle to being a STEM school that requires Calculus and lab science in all majors.

 

[Techster]

Then again, Tech is a lot tougher today. I probably couldn't get in with current standards.

Maybe GT is accepting more students better prepared than they were before, but GT these days has a FAR better retention and graduation rate than they did even 5-10 years ago:

http://factbook.gatech.edu/academic-information/graduation-and-retention-rates-tables-5-11-5-12/

GT has made it a priority to help freshmen succeed through various programs available to those who want it. From what I understand, there's less "pride" in the fact that freshmen are failing. Gone are the "look to the left, look to the right" days.

 

[4shotB]

Maybe GT is accepting more students better prepared than they were before, but GT these days has a FAR better retention and graduation rate than they did even 5-10 years ago:

http://factbook.gatech.edu/academic-information/graduation-and-retention-rates-tables-5-11-5-12/

GT has made it a priority to help freshmen succeed through various programs available to those who want it. From what I understand, there's less "pride" in the fact that freshmen are failing. Gone are the "look to the left, look to the right" days.

this topic has come up a bit over the last several years and I do understand why they do this...but I am left to wonder if this is ultimately beneficial to our students in the long run? Does "tough to get in, easy to get out" make for a better "end product" in the eyes of employers?

 

[Vespidae]

this topic has come up a bit over the last several years and I do understand why they do this...but I am left to wonder if this is ultimately beneficial to our students in the long run? Does "tough to get in, easy to get out" make for a better "end product" in the eyes of employers?

Interesting question. Most of the kids who flunked out in my time were from Georgia. I think the faculty message was ... "you had what it takes to get in, can you stay in?"

I think my class was the last one to get true sheepskin diplomas. Framed and I look at it every day. Toughest 4 years I've ever done. I literally crawled naked over broken glass to pass Transport Phenomena. Wouldn't trade the experience for anything.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Oh yeah....meant to mention sooner. The Oline has been doing a good job lately. Not perfect but good. And that with a couple of freshman starting. Sewak must be a genius coach.

 

[COJacket]

A recent bleacher report cited the most popular majors for ACC and SEC football players as follows:
African American Studies (UF) --Tech does't have.
Agricultural Leadership and Development (Texas A&M) --Tech does't have.
Arts and Sciences (BC, Pitt, UVA) --Tech does't have.
Business (with rankings shown -- Ga Tech (#36), Georgia (#67), Missouri (#76), Alabama (NR), Auburn (NR))
Communication (UL, Syracuse, Vandy) -- Tech does have a BS in Literature, Media, and Communication
Exercise and Sport Science (UNC) --Tech does't have.
General Studies (Ole Miss) --Tech does't have.
Human Development/Science (Va Tech, Miss. St.) --Tech does't have.
Parks, Recreation and Tourism (Clem) --Tech does't have.
Recreation and Sport Management (Arkansas, Tenn) --Tech does't have.
Sociology (Duke) --Tech does't have.
Social Science (FSU) --Tech does't have.
Sports Administration (Miami, LSU) --Tech does't have.
Sport and Entertainment Management (S. Car.) --Tech does't have.
Undergraduate Studies (UK) --Tech does't have.

Other Top 10 Teams:
Advertising (Mich) --Tech does't have.
American Ethnic Studies (Washington) --Tech does't have.
Business (Nebraska (not ranked in Bloomberg's top 114))
Life Sciences Communication (Wisc.) --Tech does't have.
Sport Industry (Ohio St) --Tech does't have.

And...Stanford...Science, Technology, and Society (notably, listed on Stanford's website as "The only major at Stanford to offer both a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of Science."). Tech's is only a BS. And, the fact that it is the most popular major on Stanford's football team seems to indicate that they may have more football players majoring in this major than all students combined in Tech's program.)

If you don't see a huge disadvantage in the variety and type of majors offered at Tech compared to most schools (especially the top football schools), I don't know what to tell you.

Source: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...-for-2015-power-5-conference-football-players

This should be required reading for all new members of the GtSwarm. taught at the Business school today. Great conversation of having athletes in B school classes. Great insight to the difficulties of keeping athletes in school. Plus the opportunities of engaging them in a learning experience that they will not get at other schools. Only so many atheletes will recognize this opportunity I am afraid

 

[Vespidae]

This should be required reading for all new members of the GtSwarm. taught at the Business school today. Great conversation of having athletes in B school classes. Great insight to the difficulties of keeping athletes in school. Plus the opportunities of engaging them in a learning experience that they will not get at other schools. Only so many atheletes will recognize this opportunity I am afraid

Would they feel better attending Arkansas State?

 

[Techster]

Techster, I know most of our players are not STEM, however, the fact that GT is a STEM school, the stigma associated with that goes with it. That makes it hard to recruit in addition to rigor, which is probably the main associated hurdle to being a STEM school that requires Calculus and lab science in all majors.

Again, that's not my disagreement. I actually agree here with the gist of this reply. My disagreement is your arbitrary cutoff of the 75% STEM graduation statistic that doesn't represent our football team at all.

No one argues it's a tougher challenge to recruit to GT. Even our staunchest rivals admit to that.

 

[danny daniel]

While I agree with your comment, there are two addenda to be added.

First ... shouldn't the quality control coach be involved to tell CPJ that this play is not working too well?

Second ... a lot of teams, most probably, use a play call sheet with the top 35 plays or so to be used and that were practiced during the week. In other words, these are the plays that we have practiced and part of our game plan today and thus, more likely to succeed.

I understand that CPJ doesn't use play call sheets. Is that true? Does anyone know?

No call sheet. A knowledgeable coach does not need one. Reading a play sheet looking for something all the time takes your eyes and concentration off the game action. Its in your head or you have not prepared. The only good thing that comes from a call sheet is to slam dunk it when frustration overtakes you. That's where most call sheets wind up.... Voice of lots of play calling experience.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Again, that's not my disagreement. I actually agree here with the gist of this reply. My disagreement is your arbitrary cutoff of the 75% STEM graduation statistic that doesn't represent our football team at all.

No one argues it's a tougher challenge to recruit to GT. Even our staunchest rivals admit to that.

Yes it arbitrary, but it suits my intention of defining our academic brothers, none of which play big boy football. They could do what we do, but they don't. Gee, I wonder why?

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Again, that's not my disagreement. I actually agree here with the gist of this reply. My disagreement is your arbitrary cutoff of the 75% STEM graduation statistic that doesn't represent our football team at all.

No one argues it's a tougher challenge to recruit to GT. Even our staunchest rivals admit to that.

I think you are missing his point. IIUC, I think it's reasonable to say that any university/Institute that graduates 75% or higher in STEM fields can be fairly labeled a STEM university. Yes, 75% is arbitrary, but I would argue that at a minimum, at least two thirds (67%) would be a proper metric for determining STEM university status. 75% seems reasonable.

Now, that only qualifies the university. Now that we have this list, what do we notice? These are our peers. These schools function in the very same way we do. None but us play FBS football, much less P5 FBS football.

Now, while you are correct that 90% of our SAs don't major in STEM fields, you miss a larger point. Kids pick a college not only for the football and academics, but also for the "college lifestyle" on said campus. Fair or not, when you think of CalTech or MIT, you generally aren't thinking Greek Fraternities and parties. GT is much the same. While we joke about uga and the other footballs as party schools, that's an experience that most kids want at least some of.

We argue ad nauseam about selling the importance of academics to recruits, and that is indeed a priority. We also agree that you can get to the NFL from GT. Where we fail is breaking the stereotype of "nerd" school. Now, I am not arguing that we should become a party school, per se, but I do believe we could better showcase how much fun can be had at GT while earning a great degree.

This, in addition to the limited curriculum, is a major impediment to recruiting, and ultimately success, at GT.

 

[Vespidae]

This, in addition to the limited curriculum, is a major impediment to recruiting, and ultimately success, at GT.

I always enjoy the recruiting challenges at Tech. It's only been going on since 1892.

Here are some thoughts ..

1. Recruiting classes aren't everything. Tennessee and UGA both have recruiting classes whose composite score is double ours. Look at their teams. They are in shambles. Coaching and discipline matter too.
2. An impediment is an opportunity. It looks to me like Tech is trying to recruit like everyone else. If the recruiting process isn't working, change the process. Or change the specs on the ideal recruit. Maybe Tech doesn't WANT 5 star recruits. Fine. Then recruit and develop differently.
3. Navy had a run going and they dealt with it. Is it the school, the kids, or the coaching? If we had a defense worth a salt, I doubt we'd spend much time on the forums re recruiting.

I've seen similar complaints from other "tech" schools re recruiting. And it's a fact that we can only target 20% of the total pool because our standards are that much higher.

My personal take is that we need a HUGE pool to pull from which means we need a truly national recruiting program. (Recruiting nationally is not the same as having a national recruiting program.) Has anyone at GTAA ever benchmarked our recruiting process and made recommendations for improvement? I'm not sure. I don't think so.

But don't you feel like a real CHAMPION when you do put it together and win? I do.

 

[AE 87]

According to football outsiders, our O is up to #9, FEI.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feioff

Unfortunately, we're #109 in defense.

 

[Techster]

Now, while you are correct that 90% of our SAs don't major in STEM fields, you miss a larger point. Kids pick a college not only for the football and academics, but also for the "college lifestyle" on said campus. Fair or not, when you think of CalTech or MIT, you generally aren't thinking Greek Fraternities and parties. GT is much the same. While we joke about uga and the other footballs as party schools, that's an experience that most kids want at least some of.

We argue ad nauseam about selling the importance of academics to recruits, and that is indeed a priority. We also agree that you can get to the NFL from GT. Where we fail is breaking the stereotype of "nerd" school. Now, I am not arguing that we should become a party school, per se, but I do believe we could better showcase how much fun can be had at GT while earning a great degree.

This, in addition to the limited curriculum, is a major impediment to recruiting, and ultimately success, at GT.

Let me ask you something, and I'm not trying make it seem like you're obtuse here, but when was the last time you actually hung out in and around GT? I graduated in 2004, and GT today is totally different from even a decade ago. When I was at GT, you didn't really venture out beyond the 4 major roads that box GT in (North Ave, 10th St, Northside, 75/85 connector). As a student even during my time at GT, you either hung out at GT or left to visit friends at home or other college campuses. GT was pretty much dead outside of Greek life. You definitely did not want to wander outside of the GT campus after dark.

Today, social life is COMPLETELY different at GT. The Fraternities and Sorrorities use to be the center of GT's social life during my time there, I would say that if you are not part of the Greek system today, going to frat parties would be a fall back if you had nothing to do.

There use to be only a few spots GT students really went to close to campus (Rocky Mountain Pizza, Northside Tavern, etc.), but today you could probably find a different spot to go to everyday and still not make it to all the places by the end of the school year. Midtown between North Ave and 17th Street is booming with bars and restaurants. West Midtown has developed into a very unique area with the various establishments popping up there. If you visit the cluster of renovated homes between 10th and 14th street right across from campus, you'll find tons of house parties every weekend....and GT actively has campus police patrolling the area. GT also now owns "Olympic Village" on the other side of Smith Dorms (where I stayed as a frosh).

There may still be a "nerd" stigma associated with GT (though today "nerd" is actually a compliment due to tech billionaires), but as far as having a dead college social scene, that's just far from the truth. GT now is just like any other college. If you want the "college experience" it's there for you. You just need to step out of your dorm. I know when I was in school, downtown Athens was really popular to compare GT's social scene to (or lack thereof), but today the type social environment in and around GT dwarfs what UGA has in Athens. In fact, if I were at GT today, I would probably have a hard time concentrating on why I was actually at GT because now there may be TOO much to do. I haven't even touched on all the new clubs, events, and facilities available to GT students today that wasn't available when I was there.

If you don't follow GT recruiting, I'd urge you to look at some of the guys we're recruiting. Look at their reaction to the first time they actually step foot on campus. Their reaction is usually something along the lines of "GT is nothing like I thought it would be. I'm impressed!".

 

[awbuzz]

Oh we want 5* recruits... Just also want them to want us AND have a reasonable possibility to graduate with a GT Degree.
Unfortunately those can be areas of the pond that doesn't have any fish.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Let me ask you something, and I'm not trying make it seem like you're obtuse here, but when was the last time you actually hung out in and around GT? I graduated in 2004, and GT today is totally different from even a decade ago. When I was at GT, you didn't really venture out beyond the 4 major roads that box GT in (North Ave, 10th St, Northside, 75/85 connector). As a student even during my time at GT, you either hung out at GT or left to visit friends at home or other college campuses. GT was pretty much dead outside of Greek life. You definitely did not want to wander outside of the GT campus after dark.

Today, social life is COMPLETELY different at GT. The Fraternities and Sorrorities use to be the center of GT's social life during my time there, I would say that if you are not part of the Greek system today, going to frat parties would be a fall back if you had nothing to do.

There use to be only a few spots GT students really went to close to campus (Rocky Mountain Pizza, Northside Tavern, etc.), but today you could probably find a different spot to go to everyday and still not make it to all the places by the end of the school year. Midtown between North Ave and 17th Street is booming with bars and restaurants. West Midtown has developed into a very unique area with the various establishments popping up there. If you visit the cluster of renovated homes between 10th and 14th street right across from campus, you'll find tons of house parties every weekend....and GT actively has campus police patrolling the area. GT also now owns "Olympic Village" on the other side of Smith Dorms (where I stayed as a frosh).

There may still be a "nerd" stigma associated with GT (though today "nerd" is actually a compliment due to tech billionaires), but as far as having a dead college social scene, that's just far from the truth. GT now is just like any other college. If you want the "college experience" it's there for you. You just need to step out of your dorm. I know when I was in school, downtown Athens was really popular to compare GT's social scene to (or lack thereof), but today the type social environment in and around GT dwarfs what UGA has in Athens. In fact, if I were at GT today, I would probably have a hard time concentrating on why I was actually at GT because now there may be TOO much to do. I haven't even touched on all the new clubs, events, and facilities available to GT students today that wasn't available when I was there.

If you don't follow GT recruiting, I'd urge you to look at some of the guys we're recruiting. Look at their reaction to the first time they actually step foot on campus. Their reaction is usually something along the lines of "GT is nothing like I thought it would be. I'm impressed!".

You think Tech has changed since 2004? Try the 60s....LOL It was not particularly safe to venture out after dark back then either, but it was because of the "ghetto" surrounding it, and I'm not talking about a minority ghetto. Tech was on the edge of the Techwood Housing Development on the south and slums on the west. Most of the people in those areas were white, poor, and MEAN. O'Keefe HS was in its final years of existence, and the "O'Keefies" were nasty kids, not averse to causing trouble for Tech students, day or night. Fraternity life was probably the focus of most students, and I was a member of one for 2 years, before realizing it wasn't for me. Once I, or some of my friends, got cars, we were able to get away from the campus, and even back then there were some good and inexpensive restaurants to go to. There was definitely a lot more to do in Atlanta than there was in Athens. Back then Tech was pretty much still referred to as a factory, and it pretty much looked like one too. New, modern buildings and facilities started appearing on campus midway through my time there, but it was still not a very attractive campus. The changes on the Tech campus as well as in the surrounding areas are night-and-day different from what existed back then. And yet, in spite of all that, those of us who actually wanted to be there loved the place. I wouldn't exchange my 5 years at Tech (BS and MS) for anything in the world.