The dynamics of recruiting, a historical perspective

[dressedcheeseside]

I agree with your post. However, Stanford and ND have dealt successfully with these changes and are stronger now despite the hurdles. (I know the standard rebuttal will include the dreaded "c" word or the phrase "liberal arts".) Oregon was a laughing stock not to far back as were TCU , Baylor, Kansas State (which, if you did not know, is located in the middle of Kansas) and even FSU not that long ago. At one point in time, I would imagine that their fans also spent hours justifying why they couldn't compete against USC or Texas or Florida. Although different, their obstacles were as great if not greater than the ones faced by GT.

My perspective in short is that we have unique challenges and opportunities.But no larger than the ones faced by TCU, Baylor or even FSU at one point. Of course, once these schools ascend out the abyss, we all look back and say it was inevitable for whatever reason. I just wish the dialogue amongst the fan base (and more importantly, the GTAA and school leadership) was focused on overcoming them rather than the constant rationalization of why we can't. As more than one person has said on the various boards, justifying the staus quo is not a mind set that many of us bring (or brought in the case of us older guys) to our professional lives.

Stanford and ND are way better situated for a national approach to recruit the kind of guys I think we should go after. It comes down to prestige and we lose on those grounds hands down. Our best bet with recruiting the high profile smart SA is with guys who want to stay close to home and happen to live closer to us than either of them. We still need to land 2 or 3 blue chippers a year and then do most of our work turning over rocks and finding those diamonds in the rough. We're pretty good at finding them, the hard part is keeping them in the fold when the factories come in late to swoop them away. Target guys who want the family feel, get them to commit early, then constantly shower them with "love" until NSD.

 

[chewybaka]

1. Win more, for starters.
2. Hire a bigger support staff.
3. Make sure all the assistants are pulling their weight on the recuiting trail. We have some good ones. Roof, Andy Mac, Pelton maybe some of the others, just not sure.
4. Market better
5. Try to fill the stadium at all costs even if it means giving away nosebleeds.
6. Incentivise getting to the game early and wearing same color.
7. Mobilize and energize the student body, make it a positive on game day instead of a liability. ND does a great job of mobilizing the students with a student game day tshirt.
7. Reach out to Calvin Johnson, try to get him on board in any capacity.

I might also add that since the census of those able to qualify is so narrow, Tech may consider recruiting nationally for the STEM SA...Stanford can only poach and accept so many recruits from Georgia...perhaps that leaves quite a large census available throughout the country in targeted areas with SA's with those interests which still leaves quite a fertile pool of applicants?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I might also add that since the census of those able to qualify is so narrow, Tech may consider recruiting nationally for the STEM SA...Stanford can only poach and accept so many recruits from Georgia...perhaps that leaves quite a large census available throughout the country in targeted areas with SA's with those interests which still leaves quite a fertile pool of applicants?

It might help to get profs more on board with being more accommodating. From what I understand, they don't cut them much slack.

 

[4shotB]

Confess that my head swims a little with these discussions. It feels like for the most part we have not figured out all the variables in Tech recruiting, what holds it back and what would make it better. Without having figured out all of these variables some think the solution is to simply point to other schools that are having success, even though that only adds even more unknown variables to the discussion. It ends up being a conversation about how people feel rather than a conversation that nails the topic.

I don't usually talk like this but I have to say that for a bunch of Tech people the analysis and trouble shooting drops off the scale when compared to the usual keen analysis and efficient problem solving that Tech people usually produce and I have come to expect. I have my opinions about this topic, as we all do, but it feels like in general we miss the forest for the trees on this one.

the analysis by fans on the internet is for grins and giggles. What holds us analytical types back from putting forth real solutions is that we don't have the "inside" data. I think a fair number of us would be able to assess our company's strengths and weaknesses relative to our competition. And be able to articulate strategies to close (or widen) the gaps. And considered that to be a part of our responsibilities.

To me, the real issue is that the solutions really need to come from within. And they don't. Which, from the outside looking in, alludes to complacency (we are fine with who we are and where we are at) and/or incompetency (my job is to stay the course/everything is lovely here on North Avenue/GT -love it or leave it)). The last time I truly felt we had a visionary leader (and one brought a Tech-like problem solving mentality to the table) was Dr. Homer Rice.

 

[SolicitorJacket]

Maybe read 4shotB's post again, and read it slowly.

Cut me some slack. I have 2 degrees but they are both from UGA.

4shot's later post gets to the crux of the marketing problem and I think it is culturally endemic to Tech. Despite the widened curriculum, Tech is still a school for engineers, by engineers. Having been raised by a couple of generations of them, I can say with some certainty that engineers could give a flying fig for the idea/concept of marketing. If the bridge or electrical design works as planned that is marketing enough.

It sounds like a cliche or stereotype, but engineers do not often become politicians, and it is that mindset that you need to market well. Engineers look at all of that as a waste of time and so in addition to not engaging in it themselves, they also dont normally hire folks who have a skillset that they dont really respect.

 

[Milwaukee]

Cut me some slack. I have 2 degrees but they are both from UGA.

4shot's later post gets to the crux of the marketing problem and I think it is culturally endemic to Tech. Despite the widened curriculum, Tech is still a school for engineers, by engineers. Having been raised by a couple of generations of them, I can say with some certainty that engineers could give a flying fig for the idea/concept of marketing. If the bridge or electrical design works as planned that is marketing enough.

It sounds like a cliche or stereotype, but engineers do not often become politicians, and it is that mindset that you need to market well. Engineers look at all of that as a waste of time and so in addition to not engaging in it themselves, they also dont normally hire folks who have a skillset that they dont really respect.

I just meant don't skim his post, read the entire thing. No disrespect.

 

[Milwaukee]

Cmon Brown Deer, don't be like that

I'm in Brown Deer pretty regularly; couple of decent public golf courses and a great private club. Don't be knocking Brown Deer, although it has a rough area on the North side.

 

[Sideways]

I hear all the time "if Ross and O'Leary could recruit GT, CPJ should be able to." Now I'm hearing the same wrt to Gailey. This opinion ignores several changes in the college football landscape that have made it increasingly more difficult for GT to get top players. I'll try to outline a few of them here.

1. APR. This has got to be the biggest back fire piece of "legislation" ever in attempt to create parity in college football. Maybe that wasn't the goal, but it was supposed to be a bi-product. Nothing could be further from the truth. Factories have sham majors that require very little effort to pass, while legitimate academic minded schools now have the burden of keeping guys on track to graduate.

Ross and O'Leary had no such burden. They could, and often did, keep kids in remedial studies throughout the duration of their eligibility. They didn't have to recruit kids with the thought that they had to graduate or at least stay on track to do so. Many of those kids, especially the key guys, would never get a whiff of GT today. O'Leary, to his credit, raised the graduation rate, but it's a shadow of what it is today.

2. ESPN. The sports network has a vested interest in the SEC. In Ross and GOL's day, there were only a handful of SEC teams that were fashionable. Auburn, Tenn, Uga, LSU and Florida was about it. Bama hadn't yet risen to prominance yet. Now, any team in the conference is a prize to recruits. In large part, this is due to ESPN's constant drum beat touting the SEC as a super conference top to bottom.

3. Rise of Stanford and ND. These teams struggled in the Ross and O'Leary years. Stanford was not on anyone's wish list and ND was suffering a string of bad coaching hires.

4. Rise of other programs to "eye candy" status among recruits. Oregon is the poster child of this group. TCU, Bailor, and other teams that were off the radar in the 90's have raised their status among recruits, as well.

5. GT's self inflicted wounds post O'Leary. Flunkate and two NCAA probations have hurt our recruiting efforts post Ross/O'Leary. No need to go into detail on this, it's obvious to anybody and it's something Ross and O'Leary didn't have to deal with.

I may be off on some of these things but certainly not all. Maybe some of you can nitpick one or two of these things, but nobody can deny that recruiting is not the same as it was in the era of Ross/O'Leary. It's more difficult now.

Pretty much spot on. I would add that every coach at Tech has had to deal with recruiting restrictions of one form or another. It is worse now than ever before, I will grant you that. To me, it highlights the need to recruit nationally at certain positions, massively increase the recruiting budget, hire more recruiting help. (no, not Ole Miss style bag men) and demand more leeway from the Hill. Just my two cents. Which is what everyone else seems to be saying. It would be interesting to hear a round table discussion among the coaches about this topic. Fly on the wall kind of thing.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

The most needed changes, more $$ / more staff, has to come from the top...the prez. Without that we are all just pissin in the wind.

 

[Techster]

2. ESPN. The sports network has a vested interest in the SEC. In Ross and GOL's day, there were only a handful of SEC teams that were fashionable. Auburn, Tenn, Uga, LSU and Florida was about it. Bama hadn't yet risen to prominance yet. Now, any team in the conference is a prize to recruits. In large part, this is due to ESPN's constant drum beat touting the SEC as a super conference top to bottom.

You realize ESPN has a vested interest in the ACC ($1.86 Billion) as well, right? As they do PAC 12 ($3 Billion), Big 12 ($2.6 Billion), and they did with the B1G. ACC basketball coverage is viewed by the sportsworld the same way SEC football is...ESPN beating the drum way too hard for them. The fact is, television is driven by ratings. Fans like to see dominant teams. That's why FSU and Clemson are seen A LOT on ABC/ESPN stations during the fall for the ACC...the same reason why Florida (with Meyer and Tebow), Alabama's run with Saban, Auburn with Cam Newton, Florida with Spurrier, etc. The fact is, the SEC has won what? 10 of the last 12 national football championships (I'm just going off the top of my head)? That's not ESPN favoritism, that's just ESPN putting good teams on TV for higher ratings.

When GT had a great year in 2009 and 2014, ESPN was all over campus talking with CPJ and our SAs. Remember Florida with Tebow and Urban Meyer? We couldn't go a week without hearing about Florida and Tebow. Now that they're not winning much, ESPN has moved on...DeShaun Watson and Clemson is beginning to get more of the attention, even more than SEC schools. Stanford is a great story with their academics and athletics...and they've continued to win big. That's why they're getting the publicity.

If GT can return to 2014 form, our marketing and SID need to pump us up the same way Stanford is doing it. GT is flat out slow and almost negligent with taking advantage of the tools offered to promote itself. Anyone remember the social media debacle? Now it's recruiting camps. Instead of taking advantage of it, we complained that other schools were misinterpreting the intent of the rule. Well, while other schools were taking advantage of it in our own backyard (See James Franklin with Penn State and GA State), we sat own our butts in a tizzy because we thought it was wrong (when in fact it was legal from an NCAA compliance standpoint). Fast forward two years later and now we're doing camps. If the opportunity for marketing and and getting our coaches and school in front of potential SAs exist through tools like social media and football camps, we need to take advantage of it and not watch other schools and coaches do it while we sit on the sidelines. That's how we fall behind.

 

[bravejason]

I'm of the opinion that winning more games is #1 thing, particularly winning more bowl games. Bowl games have a wider audience and so those wins count more for national recruiting marketing than wins over ACC opponents. A few Orange Bowl wins creates some national publicity and puts the team on the radar of recruits and high school coaches and that primes the pump so to speak for the recruiting pipeline.

The hard part, of course, is getting those wins in the first place. CPJ got one of them in 2014, but those wins "expire" very fast and so it is important to get another high profile win very soon. The 3 win season is a negative, of course, but I think the recruiting publicity gap between a 7-6 season and a 3-9 season is much smaller than the gap between a 7-6 season and an 11-3 season.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

You realize ESPN has a vested interest in the ACC ($1.86 Billion) as well, right? As they do PAC 12 ($3 Billion), Big 12 ($2.6 Billion), and they did with the B1G. ACC basketball coverage is viewed by the sportsworld the same way SEC football is...ESPN beating the drum way too hard for them. The fact is, television is driven by ratings. Fans like to see dominant teams. That's why FSU and Clemson are seen A LOT on ABC/ESPN stations during the fall for the ACC...the same reason why Florida (with Meyer and Tebow), Alabama's run with Saban, Auburn with Cam Newton, Florida with Spurrier, etc. The fact is, the SEC has won what? 10 of the last 12 national football championships (I'm just going off the top of my head)? That's not ESPN favoritism, that's just ESPN putting good teams on TV for higher ratings.

What is their contract with the SEC? Besides that, you missed my point. ESPN controls the narrative. They invented the mythical SEC speed. They invented the myth that the SEC bottom dwellers are as good or better than the top of other conferences. The fact is that they are top heavy like all other conferences. Yes, their top has been better in recent times than the tops of the others, but it's still a top heavy conference.

I'm not even making a moral judgement on the SEC/ESPN relationship, I'm only saying it has hurt our recruiting. Every kid in our geographic footprint grows up dreaming of playing college football in the SEC. It doesn't matter which college for many of them, just the conference. That kind of pub helps teams like Vandy, Ole Miss, Arkansas, etc recruit which has a negative effect on us.

In a much broader scope, the whole business side of college football has hurt academic institutions while helping those who have sold out.

 

[WreckinGT]

Stanford and ND are way better situated for a national approach to recruit the kind of guys I think we should go after. It comes down to prestige and we lose on those grounds hands down. Our best bet with recruiting the high profile smart SA is with guys who want to stay close to home and happen to live closer to us than either of them. We still need to land 2 or 3 blue chippers a year and then do most of our work turning over rocks and finding those diamonds in the rough. We're pretty good at finding them, the hard part is keeping them in the fold when the factories come in late to swoop them away. Target guys who want the family feel, get them to commit early, then constantly shower them with "love" until NSD.

I agree with this. Im not sure if people realize it or not but Stanford sits in the most talent rich state in the country and hardly any of their recruits actually come from that state. Only 3 from the most recent class. ND is a bit of a different situation but they also obviously they recruit nationally as well. Neither of these schools are stockpiling local kids. Could GT do the same thing? To an extent, but not at the same level. Notre Dame has a strong academic reputation and they are also one of the most storied college football programs in history. Stanford is the absolute best school academically that any recruit can attend and still play top level college football. Their academic reputation is way beyond what anyone else can offer. I am not sure what GT's sales pitch could be to get the kind of mind share that either of those schools can get.

We are in a weird position where we probably need to recruit nationally but we don't really have the national mindshare and possibly financial resources to do it successfully. If we focused exclusively on local kids though, the competition is incredibly harsh, there are more roadblocks, and we get a smaller pool due to academic reasons. There is some balance in there that would likely work for us but I'm not sure what it is.

 

[MWBATL]

These threads seem to pop up over and over on all message boards.

If you want to compete with the football factories, you have to become a football factory.

That's what TCU and Baylor and Kansas State and Notre Dame and Stanford have all done. It is very well known that if you can get into Stanford, getting by is a breeze. Especially for athletes.

All the rest is arm-waving.

GT has too many people in its Administration, GTAA Board and Alumni who reject the idea of becoming a factory.

End of story.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

If you want to compete with the football factories, you have to become a football factory.

Not true, we beat factories all the time. The trick is finding consistency. For GT, finding the right mix of kids and keeping it is a real challenge. Two years ago we were real good and we were a team comprised mostly of 3 stars.

It is very well known that if you can get into Stanford, getting by is a breeze. Especially for athletes.

If you can get in is a HUGE if. The #1 wr in America couldn't even get into Stanford and he was very serious about academics.

GT has too many people in its Administration, GTAA Board and Alumni who reject the idea of becoming a factory.

Of course they do and rightfully so.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

If we start acting like a factory how in the world will we be able to lift our noses in haughty derision at other fans?!?!?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

If we start acting like a factory how in the world will we be able to lift our noses in haughty derision at other fans?!?!?

Factory fans have no idea what you just said.

 

[RonJohn]

If we start acting like a factory how in the world will we be able to lift our noses in haughty derision at other fans?!?!?

My attitude about acting like a factory have nothing to do with a superiority complex. It's only that I believe the college athletics should be about college students competing against each other. The current state of college football reminds me of industrial softball leagues where ringers are brought in who either don't work for the company, or are hired part-time temporarily and then paid to play softball. It isn't company A beating company B, it is the hired ringers from company A beating hired ringers from company B.

 

[Techster]

What is their contract with the SEC? Besides that, you missed my point. ESPN controls the narrative. They invented the mythical SEC speed. They invented the myth that the SEC bottom dwellers are as good or better than the top of other conferences. The fact is that they are top heavy like all other conferences. Yes, their top has been better in recent times than the tops of the others, but it's still a top heavy conference.

I'm not even making a moral judgement on the SEC/ESPN relationship, I'm only saying it has hurt our recruiting. Every kid in our geographic footprint grows up dreaming of playing college football in the SEC. It doesn't matter which college for many of them, just the conference. That kind of pub helps teams like Vandy, Ole Miss, Arkansas, etc recruit which has a negative effect on us.

In a much broader scope, the whole business side of college football has hurt academic institutions while helping those who have sold out.

I didn't miss your point. ESPN "hypes" SEC and their "SEC speed" because it's a great hook that their analysts and highlight commentators can use. Much the same as college basketball analysts and highlight commentators speak with reverence towards ACC basketball (for good reason if you watched the last NCAA tournament). Your reply let's us know you don't understand the basics of marketing and the business in general: ESPN has no reason to create one monster (SEC) to hurt other assets (ACC/Pac12/Big12). ESPN has more interest in making ALL of their assets appear superior that way when you get matchups like Clemson vs UGA, or FSU vs 'Bama, even GT vs UGA more attractive to viewers. In fact, ESPN has actually begin to promote ACC more recently because they get first crack at the ACC's biggest games as opposed to the SEC going with CBS.

Do you know how the whole "SEC speed" and "SEC myth" even began? It didn't begin with ESPN, it began with opposing coaches telling journalist about the difference between the SEC and everyone else. Those same opposing coaches went on ESPN college shows and spoke with reverence about how much speed SEC had compared to other conferences, especially along the lines. All ESPN did was latch on to what opponents were saying, and turned it into a hook when showing highlights. It's the same thing they did with FSU during the 1990's. So in a way, coaches who compete with your so called "SEC myth" did it to themselves.

As far as negative effects on recruiting, Duke sure seems to not be hurt by the so called "SEC myth". They've gotten incrementally better at recruiting under Cutcliffe, as has Pitt under Pat Narduzzi, as has UNC under Fedora. The so called mid tier ACC teams are recruiting just as well as the mid tier SEC schools:

http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/CompositeTeamRankings

SEC was able to land 9/25 top recruiting classes. If you look at the teams landing the talent, (Alabama, Auburn, Florida, UGA, TX A&M, USCe, LSU, Ole Miss, UTenn) everyone except maybe Ole Miss and pre Spurrier USCe has been historically strong recruiting schools even before ESPN latched onto college sports. The same could be said for the ACC schools (FSU, Miami, Clemson, ND if you count them as ACC). If you look closer, now you're seeing teams like Pitt, Duke, UNC rising every year in the recruiting rankings above those same middle and lower tier SEC schools you bring up. Why is that? Because their coaches are doing a better job of recruiting. That's it.

No one cares about the bottom dwellers. SEC gets the pub they get because they win on the national stage more times than not. That means their top teams are more times than not beating top teams from other P5 conferences. No one cares if Vanderbilt or Kentucky or Miss St beats up on NC State/GT/Duke/UVA. Outside of each schools fans, majority of fans only care about the results when Clemson plays UGA, or FSU plays 'Bama. Football fans care about matchups.

Sure there are kids that go to the SEC because they are the "SEC", same reason kids to go to ACC schools in basketball. When you do well, you attract talent. Amazing how that works.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

We are in a weird position where we probably need to recruit nationally but we don't really have the national mindshare and possibly financial resources to do it successfully. If we focused exclusively on local kids though, the competition is incredibly harsh, there are more roadblocks, and we get a smaller pool due to academic reasons. There is some balance in there that would likely work for us but I'm not sure what it is.

Mainly this.