The dynamics of recruiting, a historical perspective

[Sideways]

STEM or no STEM. Unless recruiting gets better we are doomed to mediocrity. It is what it is. Recruiting is the lifeblood of a college football program and quite frankly our program has not consistently recruited well since the late 90s when O'Leary placed a premium on it. Personally, I think we need to loosen up on the curriculum and allow the coaches to have a few exemptions each year. If they work out fine, if they don't well we tried.

 

[AE 87]

STEM or no STEM. Unless recruiting gets better we are doomed to mediocrity. It is what it is. Recruiting is the lifeblood of a college football program and quite frankly our program has not consistently recruited well since the late 90s when O'Leary placed a premium on it. Personally, I think we need to loosen up on the curriculum and allow the coaches to have a few exemptions each year. If they work out fine, if they don't well we tried.

APR

 

[dressedcheeseside]

APR

That and CPJ has been bitten twice on the low road and has tacked away from that route ever since.

 

[MWBATL]

I kinda skimmed over this entire discussion. The problem remains and always will, kids have to study here. Most 4 and 5 star recruits have the NFL on there mind and see college as a 3 or 4 year tryout for the pros. Most schools at least have a few majors these kids can coast through. We need more majors if you want to ever see 4 and maybe even a couple 5 stars on the roster.

This. Everything else is arm waving. Many (most?) GT grads oppose the idea of easy majors for athletes. The Administration *certainly* seems to oppose it. And there does not seem to be much appetite for pushing it in the AA. That will mean that most of the time we'll be a mediocre football program, with occasional breakthroughs both ways (see: last 2 years).

It is what it is, folks. It's really not that hard to understand. Those who say "recruit better" are simply ignoring the facts on the ground. As Dville says, the vast majority of top football talent simply wants to major in "Football". The real question one should perhaps ask is why it is unseemly to establish a major in Sports which would focus solely on preparing young men for life as a professional sports athlete? They could be taught how to successfully manage their money, how to select agents, and the Total Person concepts in the classroom, while spending the rest of their time on physical training and learning proper techniques on the field/court. Is this kind of preparation all *that* different from young men preparing for professional careers in business, engineering, etc?? Such an approach would level the playing field between the factories and the academic schools. It reflects the reality of life today. It might well benefit the young men involved more than the current approach. Why is that so bad?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

This. Everything else is arm waving. Many (most?) GT grads oppose the idea of easy majors for athletes. The Administration *certainly* seems to oppose it. And there does not seem to be much appetite for pushing it in the AA. That will mean that most of the time we'll be a mediocre football program, with occasional breakthroughs both ways (see: last 2 years).

It is what it is, folks. It's really not that hard to understand. Those who say "recruit better" are simply ignoring the facts on the ground. As Dville says, the vast majority of top football talent simply wants to major in "Football". The real question one should perhaps ask is why it is unseemly to establish a major in Sports which would focus solely on preparing young men for life as a professional sports athlete? They could be taught how to successfully manage their money, how to select agents, and the Total Person concepts in the classroom, while spending the rest of their time on physical training and learning proper techniques on the field/court. Is this kind of preparation all *that* different from young men preparing for professional careers in business, engineering, etc?? Such an approach would level the playing field between the factories and the academic schools. It reflects the reality of life today. It might well benefit the young men involved more than the current approach. Why is that so bad?

To make curricular decisions, if were even possible, on the basis of attracting football recruits is the tail wagging the dog and it would make us no better than the factories we despise. I'd much rather struggle to win taking the high road, than win easier going down the low road. To quote Robert Frost:

To answer you second question, what you are suggesting is more applicable to a school for the performing arts. They already have those and none, to my recollection, field football teams, but I would not be opposed if they did. That is not what GT was designed for and does not accomplish it's core mission.

 

[RonJohn]

As Dville says, the vast majority of top football talent simply wants to major in "Football".

So why are they forced to pretend to attend college? MLB and the NBA have developmental leagues. The NBA does not accept people until a year after high school graduation, but some go to Europe instead of college. MLB gives athletes a choice to attend college or enter developmental leagues immediately after high school. Only the NFL refuses to give ANY options to high school grads. Unfortunately many NCAA football programs are eager to take advantage of the athletes in the system that the NFL has in place.

 

[Sideways]

APR

Alrighty then,since you want to take the high road, fine. It is commendable that Tech persists in requiring calculus for every student. Idiotic, but commendable. More than 50 years ago, Dodd spoke about this. He would go into a recruits home and there would be a calculus textbook. A Georgia coach would leave it there saying: "Think you can pass this?" Dodd would curse to himself and mutter: "Worst thing that could happen to a school, requiring calculus" I am paraphrasing, of course, but the point is we can't be Ivy League during the week and a power 5 football team on Saturday. But you guys in the ivory tower keep up your fantasy. Maybe it will work but I suspect that we will continue to lose regularly to Georgia and soon enough Clemson and others whose idea of fair play begins and ends with "How can we win?"

 

[Sideways]

To make curricular decisions, if were even possible, on the basis of attracting football recruits is the tail wagging the dog and it would make us no better than the factories we despise. I'd much rather struggle to win taking the high road, than win easier going down the low road. To quote Robert Frost:

To answer you second question, what you are suggesting is more applicable to a school for the performing arts. They already have those and none, to my recollection, field football teams, but I would not be opposed if they did. That is not what GT was designed for and does not accomplish it's core mission.

Love this quote. But I got it beat: "A school without football is in danger of becoming a medieval study hall" Vince Lombardi

 

[AE 87]

Alrighty then,since you want to take the high road, fine. It is commendable that Tech persists in requiring calculus for every student. Idiotic, but commendable. More than 50 years ago, Dodd spoke about this. He would go into a recruits home and there would be a calculus textbook. A Georgia coach would leave it there saying: "Think you can pass this?" Dodd would curse to himself and mutter: "Worst thing that could happen to a school, requiring calculus" I am paraphrasing, of course, but the point is we can't be Ivy League during the week and a power 5 football team on Saturday. But you guys in the ivory tower keep up your fantasy. Maybe it will work but I suspect that we will continue to lose regularly to Georgia and soon enough Clemson and others whose idea of fair play begins and ends with "How can we win?"

Cool your jets, friend. I appreciate you.

I was replying to your post about prioritizing recruiting where you compared today to the O'Leary era as if it were just a question of prioritization.

Between then and now, the NCAA has implemented APR, or academic progress rate requirement which means that it's no longer possible, as it was earlier, to stay eligible taking classes that don't get you closer to degree completion.

So, I was saying that you can't just assert we did it before casually as if it's only a matter of priorities.

Also, it should be noted, that the year after cpj was given more flexibility in recruiting exceptions we signed a class with a large number of guys that didn't stick. So APR at Tech is a real hurdle imo. I think it took me 13 qtrs to graduate so, I'm not sure I would've made APR.

So, I wasn't addressing the question of whether GT could offer easier majors. I've said in another post that I think we should offer a practical tecnology degree which combines core classes in humanities, math, science and businesses with specializations in hvac, electronics, mechanics etc.

 

[Sideways]

Jets cooled. I understand that APR just about trumps everything. It is just frustrating that our recruiting is so much determined by "niches" of one sort or another. Coach Johnson alluded to this talking about the proper "fit" his term, that has become an obligatory part of recruiting for Tech. I would not want Coach Pelton's job. Good Lord, he takes one look at a possible recruit's transcript and immediately writes off a possible Lawrence Taylor. It's enough to make a grown man cry.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

Jets cooled. I understand that APR just about trumps everything. It is just frustrating that our recruiting is so much determined by "niches" of one sort or another. Coach Johnson alluded to this talking about the proper "fit" his term, that has become an obligatory part of recruiting for Tech. I would not want Coach Pelton's job. Good Lord, he takes one look at a possible recruit's transcript and immediately writes off a possible Lawrence Taylor. It's enough to make a grown man cry.

College coaches know what they sign up for. If they truly didn't want to have to factor in grade requirements they wouldn't agree to work at Tech.

 

[Sideways]

College coaches know what they sign up for. If they truly didn't want to have to factor in grade requirements they wouldn't agree to work at Tech.

True dat! But for what they are getting paid due diligence is to be expected. Tech is probably seen in the coaching fraternity as a very different kind of challenge with unique strengths and weaknesses not usually found in power conferences. Certainly not a graveyard like Vanderbilt, or a stepping stone like say North Carolina State, but a challenging environment none the less.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

So why are they forced to pretend to attend college? ........

Money. There is a viable farm league in college which is lucrative to those involved outside of the athletes who get sham degrees and injuries with no continuing medical coverage.

Also, there is the somewhat legitimate argument that players bodies need to develop before they can play against the bigger stronger men in the NFL. There is a lot more contact in the NFL than NBA or baseball. It would be more expensive to "warehouse" the football players for those years while they develop, and NCAA football is >>>>>> more popular and lucrative than the MLB minors or NBA farm teams.

As to the argument about another curriculum for a performing "arts" football degree, ain't gonna happen at GT. I have no problem with it happening at other schools though as I have said for years that NCAA football is like getting a performing arts degree in playing an instrument. And there is a reason for the saying "starving musician" applies to the vast majority of performing musicians. We just will continue to be non-competitive at the elite NCAA football levels. There are worse things.

 

[MWBATL]

Money. There is a viable farm league in college which is lucrative to those involved outside of the athletes who get sham degrees and injuries with no continuing medical coverage.

We just will continue to be non-competitive at the elite NCAA football levels. There are worse things.

Spot on, my friend.

I just wish that somehow the hypocrisy of the current system could be exposed and ridiculed (OK, changed) as it takes an awful lot of the fun out of college football for me. Although I do get to root for the "little guy" a lot, unfortunately the "little guy" almost always loses. (See GT vs UGa)

 

[RonJohn]

Money. There is a viable farm league in college which is lucrative to those involved outside of the athletes who get sham degrees and injuries with no continuing medical coverage.

Also, there is the somewhat legitimate argument that players bodies need to develop before they can play against the bigger stronger men in the NFL. There is a lot more contact in the NFL than NBA or baseball. It would be more expensive to "warehouse" the football players for those years while they develop, and NCAA football is >>>>>> more popular and lucrative than the MLB minors or NBA farm teams.

You listed a couple of the reasons that the athletes who are pushing for reform are going to end up winning. The NCAA cannot make an argument with a straight face that a UNC sham degree is anything but absolutely worthless. The quasi-student-athletes who received those degrees got no benefit from the scholarship money.

If the NCAA continues to allow the farm league mentality, then Div 1 football should drop the academic and amateur requirements totally. Why should a player only have 4 years of eligibility if college doesn't matter. Why should players not be paid if they don't want to and are not required to go to classes and operate as amatuers?

The NCAA and many schools attempt to gain all of the advantages of being a business, and all of the advantages of being amateur educational entities while attempting to avoid all of the responsibilities of both.

The fan bases and blogs get even worse. I saw a post recently that called for changes to NCAA football to make it suit the guys in their 40s and 50s who watch. The post pushed for eliminating band performances and reducing the length of halftime. That might make the middle aged guys happier, but it would take away a big college experience from hundreds of kids every game.