Redditor's Take on Why Georgia Tech Struggles in Recruiting

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Poor time to berate our recruiting. We will never be high in the rankings due to our offense. .

Yeah, we had top five recruiting classes before we switched offenses.

 

[iceeater1969]

Yesterday went to Waycross and back to pensacola. I was only vehicle or person w gt on vehicle or shirt.

At Cafe I got some very strange looks when a young kid said he was a cousin of d mills (Lots of uga hats).

We are recruiting in occupied and hostile territory. Branding sounds a bit high brow.
Glad we have played uga close in recent years.

We need something to create some buzz!

 

[travgt01]

Recruiting is really hard to rank pre 2002. To say we've never done really good in recruiting is really based on the past 14 years or so. I'm glad we have CPJ but it look like Chan had finally figured out what to sell to get top recruits his last year here. I always wondered if we would've kept that going with a pro style offense?

It might be hard to find the data today, but it wasn't hard to see who had the better classes pre 02 if you read Athlon and other magazines/websites that had recruiting information.

 

[Skeptic]

If I read one more time about our offense......In my life time, Watching Tech since 1969, we have run every offense and formation there is. And we have never had a top 20 recruiting class. How many QBs from Tech have ever started in the NFL......none. How many running backs have been starters and top performers.......1 Dorsey Levens, a Notre Dame Transfer. Wide receivers, um really only 2 Calvin, and Bey Bey. We put a fair number of defensive players in and some O lineman. Fact is CPJ, with his feared offense is the most successful coach in Tech History. And as said recruiting stars mean very little.

As to the "top 20" recruiting class, I am with you and just kind of sick of hearing any more about Feb. 1, a day that now lives in infamy in our head coach's office in the land. (By the way, imagine my burst bubble to read those commitments aren't faxed any more. They are scanned and emailed. I would be shocked, shocked, if techno-centered Tech is still on horse-and-buggy time.) In fact the only portion of the post is that Johnson being the "most successful" coach thing. Back in one of my literature classes the professor, a woman well known for her prose -- I mean published in popular press as well as peer reviewed coma causers -- cautioned with some passion about writing such comparisons: most, biggest, best, fastest, tallest, shortest, etc. as she noted that no sooner would one write such things than a disclaimer would pop up immediately to disprove such rashness. Lacking a specific basis of comparison, then perhaps the writer means exactly what he writes.

Of my many failings being a slow learner isn't one, so what I know is that even oblique criticism of Johnson on this board might result in a cybernet thrashing with wet neutrons or whatever, so I restate: I am a Johnson fan, thin skin and all. I loved his offense before it became his offense. Kinda. I don't care if some people don't like it. And I do think it gives GT the best chance to compete in today's environment. But there is a guy in the not-so-distant past, though before my rooting time, whose game-day coaching was arguably not only better than Johnson's but more creative -- and that is saying something because few today match Johnson. He won six straight bowl games when bowl games actually meant something, there being only five, I believe, won a national championship, coaching his team to 31 straight unbeaten games before hated ND beat him, routinely beat SEC's best when the SEC was in fact tough top to bottom and the top rung was the likes of GT, Alabama, Tennessee, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, pick 'em, and not the paper mache ESPN creation of today, sent dozens of players to the NFL, and in one memorable unbeaten, two-platoon year, had six All-Americans, six, and he himself is in coaching and player halls. And that was in the day when there was no bragging rights unless it was first team all-American.

I wasn't around and know that what is past is past and have no desire to relive it, but when we began to compare with such adjectives, we should know the past. And if we don't, there are all kinds of books on the subject and they make fun reading. That he is in the conversation speaks highly of Johnson on its own merits.

 

[99jacket]

I believe the author makes some valid points about branding and choice of majors. However, he could not be more wrong about the admissions of athletes and their academics. They do not just arbitrarily wave requirements like the author makes it seem. And yes there are a lot of athletes we do not recruit because of academics. I don't care how much tutoring an athlete receives it doesn't make it possible for someone without the intellectual capability suddenly thrive in calculus or any other complicated subject. As a result we turn away a lot of prospects who the coaches and/or The Hill feel would not be successful. Yes I will admit that we grant waivers. However that is the exception not the rule. When they do grant waivers it is usually someone who has demonstrated capability but came up short because of a period of underperformance that later improved or they attended a school that failed to set them up for success.

 

[GlennW]

First, GA Tech has fewer Majors than other Power Five Programs in the Country, and that's because the Georgia Board of Regents refuses to allow GA Tech to expand its offerings while allowing UGA to add Engineering and Computer Science Majors to THEIRS (areas where GA Tech excelled Nationally).

Second, GA Tech DOESN'T take Exceptions into our Program like other Power Fives do.

Third, when players arrive at GA Tech, they have to take the exact same classes every other student who steps on campus does (there are no "cryp" classes at GA Tech) like other Power Five Programs do.

GA Tech has some of the most stringent Admission Requirements for Football Players of ANY Power Five Program in America (compare with Stanford, Notre Dame, Virginia, Southern Cal, etc.), coupled with the FEWEST number of available Majors to choose from for potential recruits, which means OUR pool of "scholar athletes" who are interested in joining the program that we can effectively recruit is the smallest in the Country.

 

[croberts]

As to the "top 20" recruiting class, I am with you and just kind of sick of hearing any more about Feb. 1, a day that now lives in infamy in our head coach's office in the land. (By the way, imagine my burst bubble to read those commitments aren't faxed any more. They are scanned and emailed. I would be shocked, shocked, if techno-centered Tech is still on horse-and-buggy time.) In fact the only portion of the post is that Johnson being the "most successful" coach thing. Back in one of my literature classes the professor, a woman well known for her prose -- I mean published in popular press as well as peer reviewed coma causers -- cautioned with some passion about writing such comparisons: most, biggest, best, fastest, tallest, shortest, etc. as she noted that no sooner would one write such things than a disclaimer would pop up immediately to disprove such rashness. Lacking a specific basis of comparison, then perhaps the writer means exactly what he writes.

Of my many failings being a slow learner isn't one, so what I know is that even oblique criticism of Johnson on this board might result in a cybernet thrashing with wet neutrons or whatever, so I restate: I am a Johnson fan, thin skin and all. I loved his offense before it became his offense. Kinda. I don't care if some people don't like it. And I do think it gives GT the best chance to compete in today's environment. But there is a guy in the not-so-distant past, though before my rooting time, whose game-day coaching was arguably not only better than Johnson's but more creative -- and that is saying something because few today match Johnson. He won six straight bowl games when bowl games actually meant something, there being only five, I believe, won a national championship, coaching his team to 31 straight unbeaten games before hated ND beat him, routinely beat SEC's best when the SEC was in fact tough top to bottom and the top rung was the likes of GT, Alabama, Tennessee, Auburn, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, pick 'em, and not the paper mache ESPN creation of today, sent dozens of players to the NFL, and in one memorable unbeaten, two-platoon year, had six All-Americans, six, and he himself is in coaching and player halls. And that was in the day when there was no bragging rights unless it was first team all-American.

I wasn't around and know that what is past is past and have no desire to relive it, but when we began to compare with such adjectives, we should know the past. And if we don't, there are all kinds of books on the subject and they make fun reading. That he is in the conversation speaks highly of Johnson on its own merits.

It would be hard to find anything negative about the Coach or Man. It is easy to find falt with his vision for Tech and his ability to run the Athletic dept. I think that my Grandfather, class of 22, and Father, class of 44, would punch me in the mouth bringing up any negatives about their beloved Dodd!

 

[Deleted member 2897]

https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2007

That was 1453 points. This year we had 1508 points.

 

[tmhunter52]

So, who is this "Kaylee"?

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Our primary brand at Georgia Tech is our elite academics (1450 SAT in the current Freshman class and an average of 11 AP class taken in high school) and highly Engineering/STEM oriented. I never want to change that no matter what. I want to be the underdog. I don't want anything to be easy. If something is easy, then what's the point? Where's the reward? That's the experience of Georgia Tech, what we learn, what becomes a part of our soul and why so many of us succeed wildly in life after graduation. Look at the top 15-20 classes every year - they are nearly all poor academic schools - 10-12 SEC schools and then a few good schools sprinkled in like Clemson and Stanford. But make no mistake, Clemson and Stanford do not have the *tight* academic rigor we have with such limited majors. And we don't get the resources they do. So there are a lot of legitimate points in the article. But one, which may seem like semantics - we struggle to get highly rated classes, but we don't struggle in recruiting itself. How many of our official visitors in January ended up committing? Of the ones we know of, wasn't it like 90%? We don't have time to chase people with poor academics, so we don't chase many of the highly rated athletes - and lets be honest, there are smart and not smart guys all up and down the board. But the higher you climb the ladder, the higher the chance of poor academics. People aren't born 5 stars, these are guys that spend so much time getting bigger, faster, stronger that school frequently suffers. We don't struggle to get them, because they don't want to be here and we don't want them here. So one way to change the question is, what do we need to do to get more of those guys? But I don't want them. I don't want us in the top 15-20 because that means we're changing who we are. I want to land as many of the few smart, talented, academically gifted elite athletes we can, but that's a much smaller pool. I think our ceiling in this philosophy is probably in the low 20s so don't get me wrong, we could do a heck of a lot better. But I don't lose too much time thinking about it. Besides, as we know from our next door neighbor, having a monopoly on all the elite talent in the nation has not done much other than making them a laughing stock of the country. georgia finishes in the top 10 in the Fulmer Cup every year, but not in football.

 

[Techster]

So, who is this "Kaylee"?

Right?! All these other posters spinning their wheels over the same well worn arguments about GT recruiting, while overlooking the real conundrum of that guy's (or gal's) post.

 

[jacobchbe]

A 3.0 GPA at Georgia tech is equivalent to a 3.5+ at Stanford.

 

[CrackerJacket]

IMO, the most telling point in the reditor's post is our smaller variety of majors than the ESUs (enormous state universities, i.e., football factories).
GT offers three dozen different Bachelors degrees, give or take a few. The typical ESU offers in excess of 120 different Bachelors degrees, and most of the ones I've checked offer > 150. All other things being equal, the schools with broader offerings would find it easier to attract SAs.

Another interesting point is the content of comparative programs. Take BS in Psych for example. GT's requires calc, two programs at other schools I've checked do not. Business administration is another example. I know a former SA who recently graduated with a business admin degree from a public university in the south; he didn't have a calc requirement. I'm not arguing for GT to soften our degrees, I'm just pointing out differences.

Ours is the road less traveled, and it makes a difference. The other way is a four-year decision - it might be more fun over that period. Our way is the forty-year decision - it'll probably give you a chance at a better life. That's why I have great admiration for Tech SAs. I'm old enough to be their grandpa, but they are my heroes.

 

[redmule]

I had a Clemson friend argue with me once that since we won the MNC in 1990, it proves our academics for FB players are a sham. I asked him what the other 50+ years without a MNC proved. He said it proves we aren't good at football. Hard to beat that reasoning.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I had a Clemson friend argue with me once that since we won the MNC in 1990, it proves our academics for FB players are a sham. I asked him what the other 50+ years without a MNC proved. He said it proves we aren't good at football. Hard to beat that reasoning.

Thats what schools with sham academics for their players say. They think if they do it then obviously everybody else does.

For the record, we have 4 National Championships plus 2 other undefeated seasons where we didn't get the votes. At 50-29-2, we've beat them nearly twice as many times as they've beat us. This year's incoming Freshman class averages a 1450 on the SAT whereas Clemson is around 1100. They have been a better football team in just the last couple years, and and they do have a good football history over the long run. But #Facts.

Interesting stat - I am pretty sure both our football teams have exactly 716 wins over the life of the programs.

 

[GTRX7]

For some reason I don't think he was really talking about GT recruiting. Seems like he wrote the entire thing to draw attention to the fact his girlfriend (Kaylee) is a cheating ho....

And now we know.

I just assumed he was talking about ESPN's Kaylee Hartung. Only Kaylee I know, but doesn't seem like the cheating kind. Maybe the Reddit guy needs to treat his girlfriends better ; ) -- plus, just an excuse to post a pic of Kaylee Hartung.

 

[CuseJacket]

Business (with rankings shown -- Ga Tech (#36), Georgia (#67), Missouri (#76), Alabama (NR), Auburn (NR))

Georgia’s academics, much to the detriment of GT students and grads, are surprisingly on par with Georgia Tech, especially if you take engineering and CS out of the picture.

LOL #1

Due to its location and crammed campus, Tech has a more restricted social scene.

LOL #2

our 80th ranked classes

LOL #3

When you do stuff like that within the same article, it should call credibility of the rest into question. I've heard these refrains/embellishments before, and they typically come from a GT guy trying to score points with his SEC friends. It's unfortunate because I think there are fair points in there that get lost when the writer proves he shouldn't be taken seriously.

Those things aside, while the post includes some of the story, it fails to paint the full story, as subsequent replies point out.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I noticed the same stuff. Some really good points, ruined because there is so much obviously false information at the same time.

I even just take issue with the word struggle. How many guys on our big board did we struggle to get versus those we did? Of all the official visits in the last 2 months, didn't we get something like 80%+?

I look at the schools in the top 20 of recruiting rankings each year, and I don't want to be like the vast majority of them. There are a couple exceptions (like Notre Dame and Stanford) that have good reputations, but 10-12 of the top 20 each your is SEC Trash, and then you get sprinkled in there other schools like Florida State, Miami, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Penn State, Maryland. I mean no offense to those schools (honestly), I just don't want to change our academics in any way to compete with them on recruiting class rankings. I'd frankly rather continue to be an elite institution and be the underdog. Most schools who are perhaps most like us in terms of academic standards and Engineering/STEM focus like MIT and Cal Tech don't even have athletic programs.

 

[Foxyg]

The theme of his post rings true. The coolness factor, or lack thereof, isn't enough to make up for the dearth of majors offered and the reputation for the academic work load required of players. Some of that can be overcome by devoting more resources to finding "our kind of recruit" and some of it can be overcome with enhancing the brand through things like continued success, better uniform suppliers, better facilities, etc., but we'll never be UGA or Auburn given the somewhat limited scope of our majors. We're a world class engineering school that attempts to field a football team solely out of funneling our kids into our business school, which is above-average, but not world class. Our business school isn't so much better than other schools that recruits will view it as a deal breaker. So then we're left trying to beat programs in a head to head based upon things like a) social scene; b) success putting players in the NFL; c) success on the field, etc.

I've noticed that for kids we get late in the process, a lot of times we're the best football program that's offered them and they're coming here mostly for football reasons. Those are the kids that wind up transferring when they get here and don't have immediate success on the football field.

 

[AE 87]

LOL #1


LOL #2


LOL #3

When you do stuff like that within the same article, it should call credibility of the rest into question. I've heard these refrains/embellishments before, and they typically come from a GT guy trying to score points with his SEC friends. It's unfortunate because I think there are fair points in there that get lost when the writer proves he shouldn't be taken seriously.

Those things aside, while the post includes some of the story, it fails to paint the full story, as subsequent replies point out.

Anybody who dismisses academics as a major issue affecting recruiting shouldn't be taken seriously.

Even on the basketball side, CJP said the biggest issue about GT that he didn't fully appreciate before being at Tech was the academic requirements.