Recruiting

[takethepoints]

And qualified high school S/As who also like to dream of the NFL automatically scratch us off due to the system we run.

We cut our own throats.

In case you haven't noticed, there isn't a single pro team that runs a shotgun spread option either. Seattle and Carolina fool around with edge reads occasionally, but there's nobody who stays with it consistently. If the rosters were bigger they might get serious, but that will happen about the same time as aliens from Neptune land on the White House lawn.

For our O, there isn't any difference to speak of in the way RBs and WRs work in shotgun Os and ours. Same with OLs; our players do need to learn the pro schemes for pass blocking, but so does anyone who has been part of a zone blocking O. There is a difference in QB play and that does limit us to some extent, but we aren't competing for pro style QBs and can get good players (see JT) who fit our O better. The D is pure vanilla pro too.

Bottom line = we have recruiting problems, but they stem (no pun intended) from Tech's curriculum and rigor more then our offensive scheme.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

The information in this link probably wouldn't affect the recruiting of athletes, but it certainly should at least tell them something about the potential of going to Tech if they never make it to the NFL. Just look at how many of the top paying majors are offered at Tech ---

https://www.glassdoor.com/blog/50-highest-paying-college-majors/

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Do you agree that Duke should never out-recruit us in football?

No. Never is a very absolute word. Times change, programs change. There was a time when the Academies ruled the football world.

 

[steebu]

Do you agree that Duke should never out-recruit us in football?

Cheese made a very good point, but I'd like to follow that up with something PJ pointed out on his radio show: this is not the ACC of old. Duke has upped its commitment to football, to the point where they have more staff to help with recruiting than we do. They have 14 staff members; we have 9.

 

[steebu]

Stanf..................... nevermind

I really dislike this argument.

Both Stanford and GT are good schools with high academic reputations. If a guy can get into GT he has the capacity to excel at GT academically. Same goes for Stanford. The APR enforces that academic schools maintain their APR, and as PJ points out, punishes them to a degree.

The academic difference between Stanford and GT isn't difficulty of curriculum, it's variety of majors.

Among Stanford's starting 22 there are 9 different majors represented, with the most being ... Undeclared (6). The next highest is 4 each of "Science, Technology and Society", "Management Science and Engineering", and "Communication".

Among GT's starting 22 there are 6 different majors represented (including Undeclared, 1), with the most being Management ... with THIRTEEN.

So 27% of Stanford's kids are undeclared, 18% are majoring in STS, 18% in MSE, and 18% in Communication. Meanwhile, 60% of GT's starting 22 is majoring in MGMT. The problem is not difficulty in academics, it's variety of majors.

PJ: "Hey smart 4* kid with the 4.0 GA. Wanna come to GT? We have great academics."
4* Kid: "Awesome! I wanna be on NFL Countdown someday. Do you have a communications major? You're right next to CNN!"
PJ: "No, but you can study calculus while you take Management."
4* Kid: "Guess it's off to Stanford for me."

I am not suggesting that we "dumb down" the academics for football players. The academics and rigor of GT is what makes GT, well, GT. I sat in my freshman CS orientation and they did the whole, "look to your left, look to your right, those guys will flunk out" bit way back in the day. And guess what? Those guys flunked out (I escaped with two CS degrees ... so I was a glutton for punishment I guess). But my point is that you can add majors without watering down the curriculum to give a bit more variety. We will never have African Studies, Japanese, or Theater Performance Studies like Stanford. But there's no reason why we can't have a Technical Communications major. Well, yes there is, the Board of Regents.

When you compare academics at GT and Stanford, it's not comparing apples to apples; it's comparing a gigantic 20 pound variety grab bag of apples to two Red Delicious in your hand.




* post inspired by someone else's work who showed similar numbers last year between GT and other schools. One ACC school had tremendous variety in their majors, something like 13 different ones represented.

 

[OldJacketFan]

@steebu

* post inspired by someone else's work who showed similar numbers last year between GT and other schools. One ACC school had tremendous variety in their majors, something like 13 different ones represented.

I took a look at Stanford, NW, Notre Dame, Vandy and Michigan a couple of years ago, based on what I found the fewest number of majors offered by these 5 schools is no less than DOUBLE the number offered by Tech and IIRC NW offers over 100 different majors.

Of course there are high level SAs out there with the academic ability to get in Tech, progress at Tech and graduate Tech but if there is no a major they're interested in pursuing their ability is a moot point.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I really dislike this argument.

Both Stanford and GT are good schools with high academic reputations. If a guy can get into GT he has the capacity to excel at GT academically. Same goes for Stanford. The APR enforces that academic schools maintain their APR, and as PJ points out, punishes them to a degree.

The academic difference between Stanford and GT isn't difficulty of curriculum, it's variety of majors.

Among Stanford's starting 22 there are 9 different majors represented, with the most being ... Undeclared (6). The next highest is 4 each of "Science, Technology and Society", "Management Science and Engineering", and "Communication".

Among GT's starting 22 there are 6 different majors represented (including Undeclared, 1), with the most being Management ... with THIRTEEN.

So 27% of Stanford's kids are undeclared, 18% are majoring in STS, 18% in MSE, and 18% in Communication. Meanwhile, 60% of GT's starting 22 is majoring in MGMT. The problem is not difficulty in academics, it's variety of majors.

PJ: "Hey smart 4* kid with the 4.0 GA. Wanna come to GT? We have great academics."
4* Kid: "Awesome! I wanna be on NFL Countdown someday. Do you have a communications major? You're right next to CNN!"
PJ: "No, but you can study calculus while you take Management."
4* Kid: "Guess it's off to Stanford for me."

I am not suggesting that we "dumb down" the academics for football players. The academics and rigor of GT is what makes GT, well, GT. I sat in my freshman CS orientation and they did the whole, "look to your left, look to your right, those guys will flunk out" bit way back in the day. And guess what? Those guys flunked out (I escaped with two CS degrees ... so I was a glutton for punishment I guess). But my point is that you can add majors without watering down the curriculum to give a bit more variety. We will never have African Studies, Japanese, or Theater Performance Studies like Stanford. But there's no reason why we can't have a Technical Communications major. Well, yes there is, the Board of Regents.

When you compare academics at GT and Stanford, it's not comparing apples to apples; it's comparing a gigantic 20 pound variety grab bag of apples to two Red Delicious in your hand.




* post inspired by someone else's work who showed similar numbers last year between GT and other schools. One ACC school had tremendous variety in their majors, something like 13 different ones represented.

A few more points to add:
1. Even if a kid is high on Engineering it's not a lock for GT, Stanford has a darn good Engineering department. They actually rank higher than us in the US News ranking.
2. Prestige. The brainiac student athletes eat this up and Stanford has us beat by a mile. GT is world renowned in it's own right, but Stanford is on another level.
3. They are a well established top tier program right now. Yes, we may beat them in history and tradition, but what they have going right now beats us big time.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Stanford has a darn good Engineering department. They actually rank higher than us in the US News ranking.

That depends on which school in the engineering department you are talking about. Tech is number one 1n Industrial Engineering and, if I remember right, one other school.

 

[RamblinWreck92]

No. Never is a very absolute word. Times change, programs change. There was a time when the Academies ruled the football world.

yeah, yeah "Pepperidge Farm remembers". But it's 2016 and academies haven't ruled the football world for 50 years.

We should never lose to a program like Duke, especially one in Duke's current state.

 

[RamblinWreck92]

Cheese made a very good point, but I'd like to follow that up with something PJ pointed out on his radio show: this is not the ACC of old. Duke has upped its commitment to football, to the point where they have more staff to help with recruiting than we do. They have 14 staff members; we have 9.

Oh good Lord. Duke's facilities suck suck SUCK. Durham's a hellhole. Stop making excuses for our poor recruiting. We should never lose recruiting battles to the high-school facility that is the Duke football program.

Staff, schmaff. A HS athlete qualified for both universities should choose us 80% of the time. Only a throwing QB should consider Duke over us.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

yeah, yeah "Pepperidge Farm remembers". But it's 2016 and academies haven't ruled the football world for 50 years.

Exactly, thanks for making my point: Times change.

We should never lose to a program like Duke, especially one in Duke's current state.

You say never and current in the same sentence. Never implies forever, not just now.

Here's a "current state" factoid for ya:

Duke is ranked #32 in 5 year recruiting rank average. (That's the current roster just in case you didn't know.)
GT is #55.

You tell me who's current state is better.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...ge-football-recruiting-improvement-tcu-baylor

 

[Vespidae]

Doesn't Tech offer a BS in Communication? The Ivan Allen School has a lot of less demanding curricula. It's not all engineering.

 

[Milwaukee]

#micDrop for Cheese

 

[RamblinWreck92]

Exactly, thanks for making my point: Times change.

You say never and current in the same sentence. Never implies forever, not just now.

Here's a "current state" factoid for ya:

Duke is ranked #32 in 5 year recruiting rank average. (That's the current roster just in case you didn't know.)
GT is #55.

You tell me who's current state is better.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...ge-football-recruiting-improvement-tcu-baylor

It does sum up how low our program has fallen in year 9 of CPJ. I know, I know - insert all sorts of excuses here as to why our poor, underpaid, understaffed coach is losing to mighty Duke.

 

[ATL1]

Has Duke surpassed GT as a program?
Really! Yikes

 

[InsideLB]

Saying recruiting staff doesn't matter shows a fundamental lack of understanding of how recruiting works.

I am thinking new AD Stansbury is going to be helping us out quite a bit. He like Johnson is a good fit for GT. Rad and Bobinski were not, though each did some good things.

Tech is a very unique animal. People either get that or they don't. I really like our staff. I am hoping the institute sees the value and makes the prudent investment. Money talks! That's just my opinion based on the totality of the information I absorb.

 

[Lawyer mark]

I wish standbury were starting sooner and could impact this recruiting cycle

 

[Vespidae]

I have mixed feelings on recruiting. To me, if we play the same game as everyone else, we lose. Simply put, we have to be incredibly efficient.

If we were to look at our own data from the last say, five years ... we'd probably identify the ten or fifteen schools that deliver, consistently, a Tech-style recruit. (Or maybe it won't.)

I also hear a lot about how hard running the TO makes recruiting. Old rule of marketing - if you have a shortcoming, turn it into an advantage. (Do our camps promote teaching the TO? Recruiting the TO? Coaching the TO?)

If we could get guys that were 90% ready and then have a better coaching staff and develop them to play a Tech-style of football ... would that not give us an advantage?

I'm a sucker for Moneyball.

 

[steebu]

If we could get guys that were 90% ready and then have a better coaching staff and develop them to play a Tech-style of football ... would that not give us an advantage?

I'm a sucker for Moneyball.

I'm sure it does, but recruiting isn't just white and black like that and Moneyball rules don't necessarily always translate over to collegiate recruiting.

Perhaps our system does have a positive effect on the offensive side of the ball; I can think of several guys on the offensive side who played in a system similar to ours in high school.

But ultimately ... ultimately ... recruiting will eventually boil down to one simple thing: they've gotta want what you're selling.

A kid comes to GT and sees an academic presentation, a 40-year plan, coursework that will set you up for life. An above-average practice facility and weight room. A 55k stadium half-full at kickoff with half the stadium in opposing team's colors.

Now the kid goes to X-school and sees a dazzling video montage of great football moments. An incredible practice facility and weight room. He's told that he will be prepared for the NFL. A cute girl hanging on each arm as he tours. A rocking 85k stadium completely full an hour before kickoff, fans going crazy as the team enters the stadium.

That's the reality of recruiting right now.

One snippet from a post-game presser - we recruited DeShaun Watson and Clemson's entire defensive front 7, but they ultimately rejected us because they didn't want what Tech had to offer. You can sit here all day and offer up all the advantages we have of being in a different system, the 40-year plan, etc. But if they just don't want what you're selling you'll never get them, no matter how hard you try to legally recruit them.

PJ gave a funny analogy: it's like trying to date a pretty girl. You can ask her all you want but it won't matter if she doesn't like you.

 

[Vespidae]

I once had to compete against a major Swiss firm. They had a very interesting approach to segmenting the market. They only pursued potential customers that were highly likely to buy from them. They had all sorts of ways to analyze it, but the bottom line was they didn't compete on price or even product. They competed on relationship - who are the prospects most likely to identify with us? Hugely effective.

It's not very efficient to go after 8 players and come up with zip. Is this the best way?

Interesting discussion.