Recruiting strategy, not the star system, is the issue.

[Buzz776g]

Shag Mason would like a word with you,

So would BeyBey and Smelter.

That's the whole point, actually. If you stand out in a system that allegedly does not highlight your strengths, then you REALLY stand out. Since these kids all think they're going to set the world on fire anyway -- and some of them may -- use that as a selling point, not as a perceived disadvantage to be overcome.

Kick *** at Bama? You're one of twenty.

Kick *** at GT? You're one of one.

Which do you think will attract the most attention and recognition of your game-changing ability?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

So would BeyBey and Smelter.

That's the whole point, actually. If you stand out in a system that allegedly does not highlight your strengths, then you REALLY stand out. Since these kids all think they're going to set the world on fire anyway -- and some of them may -- use that as a selling point, not as a perceived disadvantage to be overcome.

Kick *** at Bama? You're one of twenty.

Kick *** at GT? You're one of one.

Which do you think will attract the most attention and recognition of your game-changing ability?

I'd rather be able to tell them "come here and compete with and against the best in the nation every day!"

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Ross and O'Leary had contacts and networks up that way through their previous coaching stops.

PJ has a very good network in Georgia and Florida. And there's a lot of guys coaching in Georgia who played for him when he was OC or HC at Southern. And the guys I know who are coaching and played for him love him. They may not always have a kid who can play at Tech. But I'm willing to bet they'll look out for him

Thank you. This is the real reason Ross did well recruiting the North and the real reason CPJ does better recruiting the South. It is all about contacts and networking. Thank you.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I think we are doing about reasonable. Last year we had the 2014 season to recruit from and got good results. This year we had a 3 - 9 year to recruit from and I suspect that made the close sales harder. It happens. The remarkable thing is how good a class we got, given the circumstances. We pretty much hit our targets and got some key players to switch.

Should we hope that 2014 became the average class we get at Tech? Yes, but we can't do that every year. I trust the coaches's judgment on this and we'll see about the question after next year's results.

Not that one can draw too much from this but I noticed that this year we went head-to-head with Alabama on three recruits and we got everyone of them.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I refuse to subscribe to the theory that some GT 'fans' have that CPJ and his team sit around content to cash the checks that they receive, phone-in their jobs and not worry about quality of the program they administer.

Yeah, that attitude never made sense to me. CPJ strikes me as one of the most competitive people coaching today. He does not like to lose at anything and he keeps working to find ways to even the odds.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Please try not to stereotype an entire region

But, but, but, entire political campaigns are won and lost by stereotyping large groups of people by region. What are you, un-American?

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Reported budgets are hard to compare because not all schools include the same things when they report.

Yes. Our thread blew up a while back because people could not agree on an accurate way to compare recruiting budgets. To use an extreme example, Alabama has over 70 people on staff directly or indirectly related to recruiting but if you just look at recruiting budgets they only spend a few hundred thousand more than Tech. None of their private aircraft and pilot salaries are even figured into the budget. I'll stop now. The issue of money is huge and we can't even agree on how much is enough.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Hey, lighten up. Really. I am not offended. I thought it was funny, and not ridicule funny, just funny. You know, Tommy DeVito funny. So have a good time with it. Lord knows we have a long way to go until August.

Hey, and my wife is from Detroit.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Why would an elite RB want to come to Tech? He's not going to get his 20+ carries every game.

Less brain damage and he gets to play longer in the NFL?

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Well, this thread was fun.

 

[zhavenor]

I woulda sworn ohio woulda been the darker red.

I don't know if anyone answered this for you but I think it would be except for the sheer number of mac schools in Ohio. Akron, Ohio, Miami, Toledo, Bowling Green etc are all in Ohio. I might have even left one or 2 out. Those are all D1 schools and would take the percentage down quite a bit.

 

[Skeptic]

Yes. Our thread blew up a while back because people could not agree on an accurate way to compare recruiting budgets. To use an extreme example, Alabama has over 70 people on staff directly or indirectly related to recruiting but if you just look at recruiting budgets they only spend a few hundred thousand more than Tech. None of their private aircraft and pilot salaries are even figured into the budget. I'll stop now. The issue of money is huge and we can't even agree on how much is enough.

I read that Harbaugh has a contract that he can spend $10,000 basically whenever for recruiting flights, first class being too inconvenient and all. (I agree, but all commercial flying is.) Then I read that he plucked the next McCaffrey brother as a 2017 QB. I will guarantee this: he did not climb any trees, do any sleepovers, go to any classes or otherwise act the fool or try to smother that family. He could spend all he wants, but he would have gotten the door in a hurry.

 

[Animal02]

From August 2015

Map shows the states with the best college football recruiting situations

A couple of additional maps that show the clusters are even more focused.
http://mode.github.io/blog/2014-01-16-football-hometowns/index.html#
http://mode.github.io/blog/2014-01-24-sports-hometowns-update/county.html

 

[TechPhi97]

I put my text in the quote, not separately. So, repost.

Well, it's an interesting theory. But you don't really have any facts, with the exception of your 1990 team. Which was 25 years ago.

So, how about this one: Our 2007 class was widely considered to be the best recruiting class that we had signed in a decade. Of the 20 kids that signed:
12 (60%) were from Georgia
16 (80%) were from Georgia, Alabama, or Florida
The remaining recruits were from Texas, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.
Of the nine kids that were 4-star in the class, 67% were from Georgia

Based on this, I think your theory is unproven and probably incorrect. I also dislike the fact that you're using 132 players as your guide - lots of walk-ons there. Take those guys out to get to scholarship players so we can talk about recruiting.

Finally, when Chan Gailey came in to Tech they made a big to-do about how we were going to recruit nationally because we are a national school. Well, when that didn't work they decided to focus on the south, because.......that's where all the majority of talented players are! Hence the 2007 class. People seem to think that a success can be explained by a simple metric or to, not just in recruiting but in the real world also. But the truth is that there a complex set of situations that guide recruiting, and the only true way to be succesfull is to focus your limited resources on a place that you have an advantage. If you're George O'Leary and you can walk into a house in New York and relate to a kid because you've got a similar background, then you leverage that advantage. If you're Paul Johnson and you created your reputation as an offensive guru and winner in the deep south, then you leverage that advantage. One strategy or tactic does not work as time changes; and one of the hardest things to do is figure out the winning strategy. Because it's hard to see the future.

Figuring that national recruiting is the pathway to the promised land based on the makeup of the 1990 squad is like saying that I think a bowl haircut and high white socks is stylish because that's what I did in 1986.

 

[Skeptic]

I put my text in the quote, not separately. So, repost.

Well, it's an interesting theory. But you don't really have any facts, with the exception of your 1990 team. Which was 25 years ago.

So, how about this one: Our 2007 class was widely considered to be the best recruiting class that we had signed in a decade. Of the 20 kids that signed:
12 (60%) were from Georgia
16 (80%) were from Georgia, Alabama, or Florida
The remaining recruits were from Texas, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.
Of the nine kids that were 4-star in the class, 67% were from Georgia

Based on this, I think your theory is unproven and probably incorrect. I also dislike the fact that you're using 132 players as your guide - lots of walk-ons there. Take those guys out to get to scholarship players so we can talk about recruiting.

Finally, when Chan Gailey came in to Tech they made a big to-do about how we were going to recruit nationally because we are a national school. Well, when that didn't work they decided to focus on the south, because.......that's where all the majority of talented players are! Hence the 2007 class. People seem to think that a success can be explained by a simple metric or to, not just in recruiting but in the real world also. But the truth is that there a complex set of situations that guide recruiting, and the only true way to be succesfull is to focus your limited resources on a place that you have an advantage. If you're George O'Leary and you can walk into a house in New York and relate to a kid because you've got a similar background, then you leverage that advantage. If you're Paul Johnson and you created your reputation as an offensive guru and winner in the deep south, then you leverage that advantage. One strategy or tactic does not work as time changes; and one of the hardest things to do is figure out the winning strategy. Because it's hard to see the future.

Figuring that national recruiting is the pathway to the promised land based on the makeup of the 1990 squad is like saying that I think a bowl haircut and high white socks is stylish because that's what I did in 1986.

I don't do recruiting at all. It just seems to consume too much time and research and numbers so I duck it altogether. Coaches recruit, I fan. But along with the not doing stats very well, your breakdown of recruits confuses me, very easy to do so don't be offended. If 12 were from Georgia, were four from Alabama or Florida to total the 16? And please don't respond with a pie chart. I hate them more than stats.

 

[Buzz776g]

A couple of additional maps that show the clusters are even more focused.
http://mode.github.io/blog/2014-01-16-football-hometowns/index.html#
http://mode.github.io/blog/2014-01-24-sports-hometowns-update/county.html

Those are extremely interesting.

Can we hire an assistant coach with connections in Houston? Seriously.

 

[Animal02]

Those are extremely interesting.

Can we hire an assistant coach with connections in Houston? Seriously.

There are a few distinct areas of the country that seem to produce the most......it would seem that you could target those efficiently.

East coast - DC to Boston
Midwest - Chicago - Pittsburgh
East Texas
Southern California
South Florida
SEC country.

That would be six primary recruiting territories.

 

[takethepoints]

And please don't respond with a pie chart. I hate them more than stats.

Good! The only place you should ever see a pie chart is at a baker's convention. And they shouldn't use them either. Polar charts aren't quite so bad, but it takes more ink to explain what's going on then to make the graph.

Sorry. I'm one of the few people I know who has fierce prejudices about statistical graphics. Blame Ed Tufte.

 

[GTG768B]

You are making my point for me.

Rigid standards + limited exception + require progress ---> you start with a limited pool of potential recruits in the entire nation. So why would you further handicap yourself by concentrating your search efforts in a single state?

Here's the problem; we have considerably better relationships with the coaches in this part of the country, and we can spend a lot more time evaluating prospects. Further, we can also spend more face time with kids here, and at a much lower cost. I trust the coaches a lot more taking a two-star that they have had to three camps and have seen them play in person numerous times than taking some four-star from Idaho that they have met once, tweeted a bunch with, and watched his cropped and accelerated highlights. Plus, our players seem to be good kids that don't get into trouble. Beware the lure of Cedric Everson.

 

[Skeptic]

Good! The only place you should ever see a pie chart is at a baker's convention. And they shouldn't use them either. Polar charts aren't quite so bad, but it takes more ink to explain what's going on then to make the graph.

Sorry. I'm one of the few people I know who has fierce prejudices about statistical graphics. Blame Ed Tufte.

I was in a meeting once with dept. heads who upon instruction from the site boss had prepared elaborate Power Point demos for the visiting company president. He came in, looked about at the paraphernalia, and announced as he was a few minutes early he would be back as soon as we got the room cleaned up. Only time I ever saw corporate win the battle for hearts and minds.