The dynamics of recruiting, a historical perspective

[dressedcheeseside]

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.

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

Perhaps a lot of truth here.

But no help from new majors?

If so impossible is the answer to drop out of athletics?

Why pay to win 6 or 7 per year in weaker (relative to others) conference?

Dynamics or eternal excuses?

Seems as if there are only 2 answers given stated scenario. What to do?

 

[4shotB]

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.


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.

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.

 

[Milwaukee]

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.

/thread

 

[SolicitorJacket]

/thread

Ok....let's assume arguendo that you are correct. I have yet to hear concrete suggestions (that have an actual chance of being implemented) to fix the problem.

"Don't suck" is not a suggestion. If you have something that will help attract more 4 and 5 star talent to Tech annually, please don't be shy.

 

[AE 87]

Fwiw, I think nothing besides winning will move the meter on recruiting. I don't support CPJ and make excuses for bad recruiting but because I think he gives us a great shot at winning now which will then improve recruiting and make winning more consistent.

Early on, the policy on exceptions tied his hands. Then once untied, he signed the 2013 class that had a lot of guys who couldn't/wouldn't stick. We now know that that getting them in is not the only hurdle.

I think this year will tell us a lot. If the O doesn't come back to form, then it's possible it's just OL depth, but worrisome -- even by my standards. If the D doesn't turn the corner, we will legitimately need to question if it can.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Imo, the ideal player for us to go after is the "Will Bryan" type: top performance on both the field of play and in the classroom and highly values education. I think this is our primary focus these days, not the exception types that barely qualify. The problem is there are way fewer of the former than the latter and they are spread far apart and not concentrated in the state of Georgia.

This problem is huge but not insurmountable. The real challenge is how do you establish relationships on such a large geographic scale with a limited staff and not the automatic draw and name recognition of a Stanford or ND. A bigger recruiting staff would help, but how much? Most recruiting is done by the assistant coaches, a finite subset, and much of the recruiting is done well before their senior year. These are the guys that establish the crucial relationships not the support staff.

Also, where do you get the funds to hire a larger support staff? Fund raising or cuts to other expenditures? It sure would be nice to have Calvin Johnson on staff.

 

[kittysniper101]

What's disappointing is that we seem to tread water in branding, fan intensity, and ultimately on the field performance.
We have an academic reputation that is well known in business circles for producing competent and successful engineers. Besides that, our brand is totally lacking as far as a cohesive vision.

Ya'll need to think seriously about efforts like GT_Jason from FromTheRumbleSeat who is urging everyone to wear gold (tops at least). Not blue, not white, not black, not any other random color you see in attendance. Begin to present a unified identity from the fans. That's something that we can all contribute to easily. I'll be in attendance for at least a couple games from MI and will be wearing gold, what's your excuse?

You mentioned Baylor and Oregon. They sold themselves as being fun to play for and Oregon had all that Nike money and "swag." We have none of that and our attempts have been horrendous (see "bubble wrap").
We need to play to our strengths and mitigate our weaknesses, is my suggestion. We have a wealth of intellect at the school and it's criminal to me that our athletic association can't use that and market that. Work towards a place where we can sell the academic and athletic merging uniquely. Play that as our strength. There's only a few places that can actually compete with the student body that we have so use it to our advantage. The spread-option offense we use actually complements this idea of beating the opponent by outsmarting them so you can incorporate that (don't ask me about our defense IDK how to save that). That's not something we can individually do much about, but you can talk to the athletic association. I got a chance to chat about some of these ideas, so maybe ya'll should send in some emails if you agree.

Another part of this is changing the perception of GT as a place of crushed dreams and everything. Sure you it's fun to remember getting out and the effort you put in, but it doesn't sell. It especially doesn't sell to many athletes who already understand the efforts they have to put into succeeding on the field. I admire those that come here and achieve academically and athletically. The reality is that GT probably isn't the same place that you went to and it is entirely possible to pass (AKA meeting APR requirements) with relatively minimal effort. You're going to have to compromise is student athlete ability (and time) to achieve in the classroom to make significant strides on the field. All this to say, please don't talk about Tech as a place of doom and gloom. It does us no favors and it doesn't reflect the reality of the school today. It's another easy thing that we can do daily and on this message board to help.

Obviously there are very real challenges to success at GT as outlined in the first post, but other schools are trending upward (Duke, Stanford, Clemson) while I couldn't tell you what our trend is. I'd love to hear thoughts or criticisms for any part of this analysis and the suggestions I presented.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Admissions??????

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

What's disappointing is that we seem to tread water in branding, fan intensity, and ultimately on the field performance.
We have an academic reputation that is well known in business circles for producing competent and successful engineers. Besides that, our brand is totally lacking as far as a cohesive vision.

Ya'll need to think seriously about efforts like GT_Jason from FromTheRumbleSeat who is urging everyone to wear gold (tops at least). Not blue, not white, not black, not any other random color you see in attendance. Begin to present a unified identity from the fans. That's something that we can all contribute to easily. I'll be in attendance for at least a couple games from MI and will be wearing gold, what's your excuse?

You mentioned Baylor and Oregon. They sold themselves as being fun to play for and Oregon had all that Nike money and "swag." We have none of that and our attempts have been horrendous (see "bubble wrap").
We need to play to our strengths and mitigate our weaknesses, is my suggestion. We have a wealth of intellect at the school and it's criminal to me that our athletic association can't use that and market that. Work towards a place where we can sell the academic and athletic merging uniquely. Play that as our strength. There's only a few places that can actually compete with the student body that we have so use it to our advantage. The spread-option offense we use actually complements this idea of beating the opponent by outsmarting them so you can incorporate that (don't ask me about our defense IDK how to save that). That's not something we can individually do much about, but you can talk to the athletic association. I got a chance to chat about some of these ideas, so maybe ya'll should send in some emails if you agree.

Another part of this is changing the perception of GT as a place of crushed dreams and everything. Sure you it's fun to remember getting out and the effort you put in, but it doesn't sell. It especially doesn't sell to many athletes who already understand the efforts they have to put into succeeding on the field. I admire those that come here and achieve academically and athletically. The reality is that GT probably isn't the same place that you went to and it is entirely possible to pass (AKA meeting APR requirements) with relatively minimal effort. You're going to have to compromise is student athlete ability (and time) to achieve in the classroom to make significant strides on the field. All this to say, please don't talk about Tech as a place of doom and gloom. It does us no favors and it doesn't reflect the reality of the school today. It's another easy thing that we can do daily and on this message board to help.

Obviously there are very real challenges to success at GT as outlined in the first post, but other schools are trending upward (Duke, Stanford, Clemson) while I couldn't tell you what our trend is. I'd love to hear thoughts or criticisms for any part of this analysis and the suggestions I presented.

Sadly, and unaccountably, Tech has NEVER been good at marketing itself, neither to athletes, the media, or the general public. Tech alums included.

 

[tech_wreck47]

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.

I get where you are coming from, but even though Stanford and notre dame have risen doesn't mean we should be dropping. Imo if we had someone who recruited better (not saying it has to be the head coach, I like cpj) I believe we would be able to recruit like we use to, I blame it more on a small staff and not really having anyone who is a guy known for big time recruiting.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

Sadly, and unaccountably, Tech has NEVER been good at marketing itself, neither to athletes, the media, or the general public. Tech alums included.

I still say the people best able to market Tech are sidewalk fans like me.

 

[Milwaukee]

Ok....let's assume arguendo that you are correct. I have yet to hear concrete suggestions (that have an actual chance of being implemented) to fix the problem.

"Don't suck" is not a suggestion. If you have something that will help attract more 4 and 5 star talent to Tech annually, please don't be shy.

Unfortunately you're answering your own question. It's not something that any of us want to hear, but the answer simply is to just recruit better.

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

 

[AE 87]

Unfortunately you're answering your own question. It's not something that any of us want to hear, but the answer simply is to just recruit better.

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

Cmon Brown Deer, don't be like that

 

[chewybaka]

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.

Nice analysis. . .any thought on what should be done now in response?

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I still say the people best able to market Tech are sidewalk fans like me.

We still need better professional marketing by the Tech athletic association. There's no reason for them to rely on us fans to do what they are paid to do.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

We still need better professional marketing by the Tech athletic association. There's no reason for them to rely on us fans to do what they are paid to do.

That's what I'm saying. They need some better people they get their input from.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

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. Tech in its history has never had a coach produce consistent 9 win seasons. Ever. Tech in the last 50 years has never had a coach who consistently recruited top 20 classes.

I agree completely that more recruiting staff and budget might help. I also agree that having alums become more loyal and getting more support from the fans on game day would help. And I certainly agree that Tech needs to step up its marketing game while getting more support from the administration. My question is whether our short comings are really about these things or is there something systemic and historic related to Tech's unique status in big time college football? And, if it is both of these things, which one are we talking about in this discussion and/or which one do we need to focus on first?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Nice analysis. . .any thought on what should be done now in response?

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.

 

[alagold]

Sadly, and unaccountably, Tech has NEVER been good at marketing itself, neither to athletes, the media, or the general public. Tech alums included.

it would be a PERFECT Masters marketing thesis subject--it ought to be done by 3 guys every yr