The dynamics of recruiting, a historical perspective

[dressedcheeseside]

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.

OK, you do a great job of supporting your point. I concede. But the last sentence sticks in my craw a bit. Amazing how that works. It works just fine for factories with no regard for academics. Not so much for schools unwilling to compromise academic standards and create fake majors for jocks to coast through school (UNC) or have easy ones (Duke and Pitt). (wow, poly sci, soc and anthropology are some killers....)

My biggest thing with ESPN is the same with any national media exposure. It creates a great attraction to schools that are constantly in the lime light. The rich get richer. We're nobody's media darling. We're not even mentioned in articles highlighting schools with great academics and football. Those articles mention Stanford, ND, Vandy, not us. I'm not necessarily condemning this, either. Just pointing out how it has impacted GT recruiting since the days of Ross/O'Leary. Yes, they existed back then, too, but it's much more intense now.

 

[takethepoints]

Well, first off: Puke and Pitt have really good (great in Puke's case) polysci programs. That isn't it.

Now on to the problem:

First, Tech and marketing. Jeebus, have I ever heard enough of this. You'd think that the reason Oregon or TCU recruit well is because they have fancy jerseys and great looking cheerleaders. (Well, that might work for Oregon.) Every time the program opens up a bit on their strategies, we find out that they are already doing what everybody is suggesting. I doubt seriously if we can used-car-salesman out of our recruiting difficulties.

Second, would more staff and money help? You bet. As I've said here before, I'm a great believer in throwing money at problems. Things always get better when you do that. I'm not sure by how much, but this should be the first step. I think it would help some with our national recruiting - yes, Tech already recruits nationally - largely by allowing the coaches to keep in better touch with the prospects.

Finally, there's a real problem with Tech's course offerings. When you get right down to it, not a lot of athletes want to take STEM courses at a high level. If I were to point to a single factor that causes us problems in recruiting, it would be that Tech is an engineering school. There's a reason why Cal Tech and MIT aren't athletic giants. Frankly, I'm surprised that we get as many good recruits as we do, given the problems with getting young people interested then keeping them in the school.And then we go out and win! That's even more remarkable.

 

[Techster]

OK, you do a great job of supporting your point. I concede. But the last sentence sticks in my craw a bit. Amazing how that works. It works just fine for factories with no regard for academics. Not so much for schools unwilling to compromise academic standards and create fake majors for jocks to coast through school (UNC) or have easy ones (Duke and Pitt). (wow, poly sci, soc and anthropology are some killers....)

My biggest thing with ESPN is the same with any national media exposure. It creates a great attraction to schools that are constantly in the lime light. The rich get richer. We're nobody's media darling. We're not even mentioned in articles highlighting schools with great academics and football. Those articles mention Stanford, ND, Vandy, not us. I'm not necessarily condemning this, either. Just pointing out how it has impacted GT recruiting since the days of Ross/O'Leary. Yes, they existed back then, too, but it's much more intense now.

I don't like it anymore than you do, but that's the world we live in. If CPJ is able to consistently win 10+ games, and we're knocking on the doors of the top 10 every year, GT would see greater interest in our football program and we would get more media attention.

In terms of being a "smart school" media darling, maybe we need to do a better job of marketing it. Before every game, the announcers and crew from the TV stations go over talking points about our offense, defense, team as a whole, and any special interest stories they should share with fans during the broadcast. THAT would be a great time to say, "Well, our potential starting B-back had a heck of a week. Marcus Allen had a finals in his chemical engineering classes, barely slept, but tore it up in practice all week! Look for him to have a hell of a game. Heck, most of our guys are enrolled in one of the best business schools in all of the country...how's that for being an SA at an elite institution?!"

Another thing that bothers me is how we treat the press. It's funny as fans seeing CPJ take reporters to the carpet, but you reap what you sow. Some fans on here have intimated with pride how CPJ barely speaks to Ken Seguira of the AJC, and how MBob barely acknowledges him. At the end of the day who does that really hurt? When CPJ rips into an ESPN reporter (see Heather Dinich), it's funny, but who is he really hurting? We're not Saban and Alabama who are winning at such a large clip they can pretty much dictate who and what gets access. Our program needs every bit of publicity we can get...but if you're working against the press, you're really working against yourself. If we want exposure, we have to work harder (see: embracing social media, getting into football camps across the Southeast), and work with the press, not against them.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

We're not even mentioned in articles highlighting schools with great academics and football.

Ain't that the truth. I seem to recall that when Dodd was a national light, Tech was sometimes referred to as "a good school."

 

[Northeast Stinger]

In terms of being a "smart school" media darling, maybe we need to do a better job of marketing it. Before every game, the announcers and crew from the TV stations go over talking points about our offense, defense, team as a whole, and any special interest stories they should share with fans during the broadcast. THAT would be a great time to say, "Well, our potential starting B-back had a heck of a week. Marcus Allen had a finals in his chemical engineering classes, barely slept, but tore it up in practice all week! Look for him to have a hell of a game. Heck, most of our guys are enrolled in one of the best business schools in all of the country...how's that for being an SA at an elite institution?!"

In all my years of watching Tech football I could count on one hand (with fingers left over) the number of times that an announcer stressed how remarkable the student athletes are at Tech. Hear it fairly regularly about Army or Navy but not Tech. How does this get changed?

 

[Milwaukee]

In all my years of watching Tech football I could count on one hand (with fingers left over) the number of times that an announcer stressed how remarkable the student athletes are at Tech. Hear it fairly regularly about Army or Navy but not Tech. How does this get changed?

Maybe change the way you think about Tech? It's not MIT.

We've gotten studs in before and kept them eligible for a few years. There's a couple in the league currently who, while listening to them speak, don't sound like they came from a crazy difficult academic environment. Can any of you explain this?


*prepares to be pounced by the Tech alum

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Another thing that bothers me is how we treat the press. It's funny as fans seeing CPJ take reporters to the carpet, but you reap what you sow. Some fans on here have intimated with pride how CPJ barely speaks to Ken Seguira of the AJC, and how MBob barely acknowledges him. At the end of the day who does that really hurt? When CPJ rips into an ESPN reporter (see Heather Dinich), it's funny, but who is he really hurting? We're not Saban and Alabama who are winning at such a large clip they can pretty much dictate who and what gets access. Our program needs every bit of publicity we can get...but if you're working against the press, you're really working against yourself. If we want exposure, we have to work harder (see: embracing social media, getting into football camps across the Southeast), and work with the press, not against them.

I think you are mostly right about all of this. I have said similar things on another blog.

On the other hand I have appreciated that CPJ has been tenacious in his defense of Tech. Lots of reporters have been very lazy when it comes to covering Tech, just phoning in their usual cliches about the program, the system and Tech's fortunes in general. CPJ has fought back relentlessly and it has forced the narrative to change just enough to allow Tech to get at least some fair coverage. I think we have to at least acknowledge that being a passive nice guy would have just reinforced the "loser image" that most of the press was already following. My hope is that Tech can become enough of a consistent winner that CPJ can soften his tone some. Then when he beats Georgia he will not have to have the first question by a reporter remind him of how often Tech has lost to them but rather just celebrate the win.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Maybe change the way you think about Tech? It's not MIT.

O.K., let's accept the premise that Tech is not MIT for the sake of argument.

Tech is also not Ole Miss, Tennessee or Florida State. Heck, in terms of comparing work load, real courses, and number of hostile professors, Tech is not even Georgia.

 

[Milwaukee]

O.K., let's accept the premise that Tech is not MIT for the sake of argument.

Tech is also not Ole Miss, Tennessee or Florida State. Heck, in terms of comparing work load, real courses, and number of hostile professors, Tech is not even Georgia.

Completely agree.

 

[WreckinGT]

Another thing that bothers me is how we treat the press. It's funny as fans seeing CPJ take reporters to the carpet, but you reap what you sow. Some fans on here have intimated with pride how CPJ barely speaks to Ken Seguira of the AJC, and how MBob barely acknowledges him. At the end of the day who does that really hurt? When CPJ rips into an ESPN reporter (see Heather Dinich), it's funny, but who is he really hurting? We're not Saban and Alabama who are winning at such a large clip they can pretty much dictate who and what gets access. Our program needs every bit of publicity we can get...but if you're working against the press, you're really working against yourself. If we want exposure, we have to work harder (see: embracing social media, getting into football camps across the Southeast), and work with the press, not against them.

Id rather have a coach who defends our team and program than one that just lays down and licks the boots of the local media who are going to trash us either way.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Id rather have a coach who defends our team and program than one that just lays down and licks the boots of the local media who are going to trash us either way.

Totally agree, but I do wish he thought more of Ken. Ken doesn't trash Tech and, to my knowledge, never has. In fact I think he does a superb job of covering all aspects of Tech athletics.

 

[PBR549]

Bottom line, the direction has to come from the top and the powers that be do not think winning football games is that important.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Maybe change the way you think about Tech? It's not MIT.

We've gotten studs in before and kept them eligible for a few years. There's a couple in the league currently who, while listening to them speak, don't sound like they came from a crazy difficult academic environment. Can any of you explain this?


*prepares to be pounced by the Tech alum

No pounce, just fact: GT is the only school that graduates 70 percent or higher STEM degrees per year that even fields a D1 team. We not only field a D1 team, we field a P5 team. We not only field a P5 team, we regularly go toe-to-toe with and occasionally beat factories/semi-pro teams.

We may not be MIT, but we're as close as you're gonna find in big boy football. Heck, most schools like us are in D3 if at all.

 

[flea77]

O.K., let's accept the premise that Tech is not MIT for the sake of argument.

Tech is also not Ole Miss, Tennessee or Florida State. Heck, in terms of comparing work load, real courses, and number of hostile professors, Tech is not even Georgia.

Having a son ( GT Alumni) attend both schools (SEC Honor Roll and GT Highest Honors) the difference between UGA and GT is huge in terms of work load and real courses. Justin had classes at UGA w football players who would sleep thru class everyday and pass. In one class, Justin made a B and a player everyone knows failed the first test but made a A in the class. Hard to make a A w 3 exams, sleeping w your hoodie pulled over your head and your beats on but it happens... Factories do not care about academics when it comes to the 30 to 40 players that need to be kept eligible. They find a way. Its all about the money. Name the last player that was academically ineligible at UGA. Players who can't read past a 5th grade level stay eligible. The only way they lose players is by breaking the law.

 

[LongforDodd]

...


Now on to the problem:

.... There's a reason why Cal Tech and MIT aren't athletic giants. .....

And our Provost, a holder of three degrees from MIT, recently (past 5 years ?) was quoted as saying that MIT does just fine without a football team. :-(

A definite uphill battle we have with no relief in sight.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

And our Provost, a holder of three degrees from MIT, recently (past 5 years ?) was quoted as saying that MIT does just fine without a football team. :-(

A definite uphill battle we have with no relief in sight.

They have a helluva crew team, however.

 

[Techster]

Id rather have a coach who defends our team and program than one that just lays down and licks the boots of the local media who are going to trash us either way.

There's a difference between defending your team, which CPJ should without question 100% of the time do, and being antagonistic with the press. CPJ's relationship with the press is not a secret...in fact, ESPN announcers joked about how *****ly he is after our Orange Bowl win.

The irony is CPJ is REALLY funny, and personable when there are no microphones around. People who know him swear by him, and players love him. He's the CEO of our football program, so that means a large majority of the time recruits and their parents who have never met him will get to know him first through the press. Well, if you don't have a good relationship with the press, and all recruits read about is how difficult he is and watch him during games (let's be real, CPJ is intense during a game...to point it's frightening sometimes how he reacts to players) it could turn off some recruits before we get a chance to make contact. We've got enough hurdles to jump over when recruiting, this is easiest one to overcome.

 

[GaTech4ever]

The irony is CPJ is REALLY funny, and personable when there are no microphones around. People who know him swear by him, and players love him. He's the CEO of our football program, so that means a large majority of the time recruits and their parents who have never met him will get to know him first through the press. Well, if you don't have a good relationship with the press, and all recruits read about is how difficult he is and watch him during games (let's be real, CPJ is intense during a game...to point it's frightening sometimes how he reacts to players) it could turn off some recruits before we get a chance to make contact. We've got enough hurdles to jump over when recruiting, this is easiest one to overcome.

I made this same argument on here and got flamed for it. I said in an old thread: "Again, I'm not saying he treats any recruits/players wrong at all! I'm saying there are people out there who don't get the opportunity to meet him in person who have this opinion because of how he is perceived. And the perception is largely a result of how he carries himself in the media."

And the response was, "I have two words for you... Jaylend Ratliffe." Which completely missed the point.

 

[Techster]

I made this same argument on here and got flamed for it. I said in an old thread: "Again, I'm not saying he treats any recruits/players wrong at all! I'm saying there are people out there who don't get the opportunity to meet him in person who have this opinion because of how he is perceived. And the perception is largely a result of how he carries himself in the media."

And the response was, "I have two words for you... Jaylend Ratliffe." Which completely missed the point.

I think a lot of times GT fans have "local think" versus "global think" when it comes to GT. Which is quite the opposite of GT the Institute itself which has always taught its students to think globally. Obviously we're all protective of GT being fans, but protective also means we eliminate how non-GT fans think. Not everyone is a GT fan, and I will say a vast majority of the kids we recruit are not raised as GT fans so they are naturally not as protective as fans are when someone talks about GT. So to them, the press cracking jokes about CPJ being ornery they may take CPJ is difficult to deal with. As GT fans, and it's obvious by responses, we think "Good for CPJ, sticking up for GT." But there are other ways of dealing with the press, and correcting them. I remember one time Heather Dinich predicted GT would lose to a certain team...as was her job to predict the winners of the ACC games that week. Obviously, half the coaches won't be happy with her predictions. After the game (and a big GT win), CPJ specifically sought her out to call her to the carpet. As a GT fan that's pretty funny, but as the CEO of a company who has to look at the larger picture, CPJ probably could have handled that a lot better...and kept his relationship with a reporter who has since been promoted to a more visible position, intact. I'm not sure Dinich has been very kind to CPJ since then, pretty much calling for his job after the 2013 season. Petty on her part? Probably, but as they say, "The pen is mightier than the sword" CPJ might have won the battle that day and GT fans had a good laugh, but I'm not sure he won the war in the long run.

 

[RonJohn]

And our Provost, a holder of three degrees from MIT, recently (past 5 years ?) was quoted as saying that MIT does just fine without a football team. :-(

A definite uphill battle we have with no relief in sight.

So you see it as a problem that the person whose primary responsibilities are: curriculum, instruction, and research: concentrates his attentions on: curriculum, instruction, and research?