Stansbury Article

[awbuzz]

Worth the time to read the link in @jwsavhGT post above.

TS certainly seems more supportive of getting additional resources for the GT Football (and I'm sure other sports too).

 

[gtpi]

Worth the time to read the link in @jwsavhGT post above.

TS certainly seems more supportive of getting additional resources for the GT Football (and I'm sure other sports too).

along that same thinkins (i read this morning article too. yeeeeee haaaa). all the stuff about locker rooms etc is nice but imo our problem is recruiting recruiting recruiting.

the article mentioned making changes and additions. does anybody know what they are talkiing about? a staff of 16 would be nice. 4 payed and 12 interns doing all the grunt work???
i do know we are vastly outnumbered numbers wise. we currently have 4 where bama tosu uga clemson etc all have 30 people on their recruiting staffs.

is it possible that a group of local alumni could offer services pro bono to help with recruiting? when i lived in jacksonville i did volunteer work year around for the gator bowl. anyhoooo is that something that could happen?

 

[gtpi]

If you are referring to their poll, is that what the station thinks? Or, regardless of the skeptics, is that what respondents think? Just coz we may disagree does not mean others do not believe that.

And, if TStan is correct, by saying nobody wants to play us, well that could hurt GT. If it is true, that means we can not schedule more attractive games ($) and are stuck with crap like gsu & mercer taking up 2 home games a year that do not help us.

Not that I do not like the O - I just think it cuts down on our recruiting pool and we should take notice that in these discussions D is never mentioned. Seems to be an afterthought - like a necessary evil part of the game we have to be bothered with.

As regards, from another post, funding it seems those giving now are going to have to buy more tickets/ give more $ per ticket or we will have to sell more tickets / get more $ donations from those not buying / giving now. Or both.

Which will it be if not both. And I would hope we all know which would be best.

sorry but i just dont buy the excuse that the offense we run cuts down on our recruiting pool. as i see it we... are self limited in staff as compared to the big boys. we have 4 they have 25-30 people on their staffs.

want to increase the recruiting pool for gt? put 30 people on staff. id be happy with 15. heh

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Army-Navy has returned to being a premier rivalry game of national interest.

I wonder since it is coached by CPJ offspring can it be called a sibling rivalry?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

all the stuff about locker rooms etc is nice but imo our problem is recruiting recruiting recruiting.

The locker room thing is mainly about recruiting.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

sorry but i just dont buy the excuse that the offense we run cuts down on our recruiting pool. as i see it we... are self limited in staff as compared to the big boys. we have 4 they have 25-30 people on their staffs.

want to increase the recruiting pool for gt? put 30 people on staff. id be happy with 15. heh

It's a budgetary issue. How much of that is "self limiting" is debateable. However, Bama football brings in waaaaaaaaaaaay more in revenue than GT football.

 

[SolicitorJacket]

25 to 30 people on the recruiting staff will not make a 5 star DT say, "yes, calculus please."

25 to 30 people will not overcome 10 plus years of "SEC or bust" hype among elite recruits.

25 or 30 people will not cause BDS to sell out every week at 55,000, much less 80k like a factory.

25 to 30 people will not overcome the "Tech Sucks" dwag centric media narrative that pervades every corner of this state.

What 25 to 30 people might do is allow us to identify talent fits and maintain a presence with them throughout recruiting.

We need talented football players who are interested in STEM, who can do the classwork, who relish swimming against the tide of public opinion, and who do not get all starry eyed when Stanford, Cal or Notre Dame comes calling.

That's it....easy peasy....

 

[dressedcheeseside]

25 to 30 people on the recruiting staff will not make a 5 star DT say, "yes, calculus please."

25 to 30 people will not overcome 10 plus years of "SEC or bust" hype among elite recruits.

25 or 30 people will not cause BDS to sell out every week at 55,000, much less 80k like a factory.

25 to 30 people will not overcome the "Tech Sucks" dwag centric media narrative that pervades every corner of this state.

What 25 to 30 people might do is allow us to identify talent fits and maintain a presence with them throughout recruiting.

We need talented football players who are interested in STEM, who can do the classwork, who relish swimming against the tide of public opinion, and who do not get all starry eyed when Stanford, Cal or Notre Dame comes calling.

That's it....easy peasy....

Yes. Extra staff will help us turn over rocks and find the diamonds in the rough, the needles in the haystacks, the projects, the late bloomers, the guys who fall through the cracks, etc, etc, etc,..... They're out there, to be sure. Finding them is another story.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Hell if Clemson, Bama, and the mutts have staffs of 30....we need a staff of 60 to make up for our deficits. Good luck with that. But a staff of 4 is inexcusable.

 

[gtpi]

25 to 30 people on the recruiting staff will not make a 5 star DT say, "yes, calculus please."

25 to 30 people will not overcome 10 plus years of "SEC or bust" hype among elite recruits.

25 or 30 people will not cause BDS to sell out every week at 55,000, much less 80k like a factory.

25 to 30 people will not overcome the "Tech Sucks" dwag centric media narrative that pervades every corner of this state.

What 25 to 30 people might do is allow us to identify talent fits and maintain a presence with them throughout recruiting.

We need talented football players who are interested in STEM, who can do the classwork, who relish swimming against the tide of public opinion, and who do not get all starry eyed when Stanford, Cal or Notre Dame comes calling.

That's it....easy peasy....

i dont agree with your comments re 25-30 years. if that were true bobby cremins would never have established us as point guard u. if we were point guard u for all of bobby's tenure why not now?

my point is times change. even puke recruits better than we do in fb now and look at what they had to overcome.

for my money give me a staff that matches the rest of the acc and see what happens. 4 just does not cut it. its not like we need to have an alabama recruiting year. we do pretty darn well for only having 4 staffers. for us to be a perennial top 25 team we only need 4-5 difference making recruits as i see it.

 

[MikeJackets]

It's great to have a Tech man as Athletic Director and hopefully he can work well with the administration and get the ball rolling on a lot of different things.

 

[SolicitorJacket]

i dont agree with your comments re 25-30 years. if that were true bobby cremins would never have established us as point guard u. if we were point guard u for all of bobby's tenure why not now?

my point is times change. even puke recruits better than we do in fb now and look at what they had to overcome.

for my money give me a staff that matches the rest of the acc and see what happens. 4 just does not cut it. its not like we need to have an alabama recruiting year. we do pretty darn well for only having 4 staffers. for us to be a perennial top 25 team we only need 4-5 difference making recruits as i see it.

FWIW, I agree that we dont know what dividends it would pay decdes down the line, but we also dont know what CFB will even look like then.

My point, possibly clumsily made, is that simply copying what the factories do to get ahead is not likely to work for Tech. We have a very unique set of challenges that dont lend themselves to quick, keep up with the Joneses, fixes.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

FWIW, I agree that we dont know what dividends it would pay decdes down the line, but we also dont know what CFB will even look like then.

My point, possibly clumsily made, is that simply copying what the factories do to get ahead is not likely to work for Tech. We have a very unique set of challenges that dont lend themselves to quick, keep up with the Joneses, fixes.

Well getting out staffed to the tune of 5-1 sure is doing it different than the factories. I see absoeffinglutely nothing beneficial in it.

 

[SolicitorJacket]

Well getting out staffed to the tune of 5-1 sure is doing it different than the factories. I see absoeffinglutely nothing beneficial in it.

Totally agree that we need more folks and we are currently understaffed. I just think we need to find the most efficient number for us instead of just trying to match one for one with someone else.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Bottom line: How to sign a DL that can get in and pass at Tech. If we had Clemsons front 7, we would be in the hunt every year. And it's not just recruiting.

 

[a5ehren]

Bottom line: How to sign a DL that can get in and pass at Tech. If we had Clemsons front 7, we would be in the hunt every year. And it's not just recruiting.

A lot of teams would be in the hunt with Clemson's front 7. There's maybe 3-5 teams in the country who are in the same vicinity.

 

[Skeptic]

A lot of teams would be in the hunt with Clemson's front 7. There's maybe 3-5 teams in the country who are in the same vicinity.

Probably three of them made the cut to four. The thing with Clemson is that now they can two deep across the front and when those guys declare for the draft there is a replacement in the pipeline.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

A lot of teams would be in the hunt with Clemson's front 7. There's maybe 3-5 teams in the country who are in the same vicinity.

But they have always been good on the DL, even when they had bad teams.

 

[Boss Ross]

But they have always been good on the DL, even when they had bad teams.

A lot of teams would be good if they took over 60 percent special admits and offered all the fringe benefits Clemson does .

 

[Skeptic]

A lot of teams would be good if they took over 60 percent special admits and offered all the fringe benefits Clemson does .

Not quite sure what you mean but "fringe benefits" implies pay for play or such. I don't question that Clemson benefits from a huge curriculum offering and an often less rigorous academic environment for athletes in particular (I hear parks and recreation is a favored major), and that is the luck of the draw for schools like Georgia Tech which is severely limited in majors, along with an technical focus that frankly turns out the pilot light for a huge amount of otherwise qualified students. But that is what it is. But I have never heard or read anybody saying Swinney or the boosters gave recruits anything in inducements, and in fact landed one 5-star after his mother angrily rejected a hefty "gift" from a school in the SEC. Clemson is winning but if they are to be accused of buying the wins I'd sure like to see the evidence.