Thinking about the unusually high attrition of late

[dressedcheeseside]

It may just be an anomaly. We seem to have very low attrition rates over a longer period of time than most teams. Regardless, these losses will hurt the program going forward, we all agree on that.

The funny thing, to me, is that this phenomenon occurred while we are in the midst of a shift in our recruiting philosophy - one that is targeting the "S" of SA more aggressively than the "A." Maybe we're not, but these losses highlight the need to do so.

If we want to avoid these types of headaches in the future, we should be targeting recruits who are students first, athletes second. The old "40 yr plan" line is not just a ploy, it's a way of attracting the kinds of players that are going to stick. They'll stick through recruiting because they're not using us as an "insurance policy." Once in school, they'll stick because they're less likely to flunk out or get into trouble. And they'll stick with the program because they're focused more on their long term future than playing time/NFL stock.

Now I don't think we should abandon partial qualifiers completely, but it's not the way to build a successful program at GT - especially in an era of APR. There's many "renaissance men", if you will, who are amazing in the classroom as well as on the field, we just have to scour the globe and find them. With our expanded staff, maybe it's a little less daunting a task.

 

[33jacket]

what is a successful GT program? We always recruiting kids with a strong S; we were forced to. So what now is different? In my eyes nothing. The kids we have had trouble with all got in and were accepted by admissions. They were no statistically different than the kids before them.

but they had work ethic issues
off the field attitude problems etc. And that doesn't always show up on a report card

If you recruit even more of the S than you did, then GT won't be a 8 win team anymore. It just won't.

We need to continue to recruit the A first, and see if the S matches. If it doesn't we move on. So I will just disagree with you on how to create a successful GT program. It is getting good quality kids, like Nesbitt, that are A's first and we barely get into school, but know they are good quality kids who work hard so they can stay at GT. Josh was an exception. One of the rare ones in the past 8 years.

Daryl Smith another example. ALL the kids we lost under Paul this offseason; NOT ONE was an exception. Its not the S thats the problem. Its finding good athletes that are good kids that we know will work hard even if the S is borderline.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

what is a successful GT program? We always recruiting kids with a strong S; we were forced to. So what now is different? In my eyes nothing. The kids we have had trouble with all got in and were accepted by admissions. They were no statistically different than the kids before them.

but they had work ethic issues
off the field attitude problems etc. And that doesn't always show up on a report card

If you recruit even more of the S than you did, then GT won't be a 8 win team anymore. It just won't.

We need to continue to recruit the A first, and see if the S matches. If it doesn't we move on. So I will just disagree with you on how to create a successful GT program. It is getting good quality kids, like Nesbitt, that are A's first and we barely get into school, but know they are good quality kids who work hard so they can stay at GT. Josh was an exception. One of the rare ones in the past 8 years.

Daryl Smith another example. ALL the kids we lost under Paul this offseason; NOT ONE was an exception. Its not the S thats the problem. Its finding good athletes that are good kids that we know will work hard even if the S is borderline.

Don't agree with all of that, but I do with some. Nesbitt, I agree. I said not to scrap the partials altogether, just be extremely judicious. Before APR we could get kids to stay eligible w/o graduating them. Not any more. That's huge, imo. How many of Ross' players would have been eligible on today's standards (APR)? O'Leary was better, I admit, but nowhere near Johnson.

You also say "good kids" and "work ethic." Academic performance and priority usually take care of that for you. Not in all cases, but in most. I'm not saying that all high "S's" are good kids with strong work ethic and I'm not saying all low "S's" (Nesbitts, etc.) are bad kids with weak work ethics.

I'm willing to step back a little and say it needs to be at least an equal priority. Kids who have no interest in school or their future after football don't need to be at Tech. It's setting them up, as well as the program, for failure and misery.

You also didn't address the point I made about how it cuts down on kids flipping the last week before NSD. That is another huge incentive.

 

[Boomergump]

I think the recent attrition has the potential to be a net positive or negative for the program. It is hard to tell. If those guys cut loose were destined to be great players, who stayed eligible, and helped in the locker room, then for sure it was a negative. But if they weren't....? Look at it this way. If they were destined to be acidic teammates who underperformed and we did the typical GT, stay loyal, and honor the schollie, where would we be in a couple years? Right back to 2010. That is where.

When you look at all the factory teams with their great successes ON the field (certainly not off), one of the biggest differences between them and us is roster turnover. They have more of it. Just look at the number of kids they are signing every year and do the math. Guys who are generally non-compliant to team rules are rarely good for a program in the long run. It is better to lose them and give a new guy a chance to make an impact. At least the 78 guys or so left on the schollie rolls are "all in".

Certainly, we need to do a better job of identifying the right kids. That is the best scenario for all involved. Continuity is great so long as the kids are great. The problem is identifying them correctly. With today's BS going on in schools everywhere, how do you really know who the capable kids are off the field? Grade point averages have no meaning any more. Nobody will tell you the truth about a kid for fear of litigious repercussions. All you have to go by is what you see on the field and interviews etc. It can be pretty tricky.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I think the recent attrition has the potential to be a net positive or negative for the program. It is hard to tell. If those guys cut loose were destined to be great players, who stayed eligible, and helped in the locker room, then for sure it was a negative. But if they weren't....? Look at it this way. If they were destined to be acidic teammates who underperformed and we did the typical GT, stay loyal, and honor the schollie, where would we be in a couple years? Right back to 2010. That is where.

When you look at all the factory teams with their great successes ON the field (certainly not off), one of the biggest differences between them and us is roster turnover. They have more of it. Just look at the number of kids they are signing every year and do the math. Guys who are generally non-compliant to team rules are rarely good for a program in the long run. It is better to lose them and give a new guy a chance to make an impact. At least the 78 guys or so left on the schollie rolls are "all in".

Certainly, we need to do a better job of identifying the right kids. That is the best scenario for all involved. Continuity is great so long as the kids are great. The problem is identifying them correctly. With today's BS going on in schools everywhere, how do you really know who the capable kids are off the field? Grade point averages have no meaning any more. Nobody will tell you the truth about a kid for fear of litigious repercussions. All you have to go by is what you see on the field and interviews etc. It can be pretty tricky.

It is tricky, but good recruiters can get the scuttlebutt, one way or another. That's where having long established relationships at schools and with hs coaches is so important. Kids who are a cut above the rest in terms of character are really not hard to spot, imo. Having more and better recruiters goes a long way in this endeavor.

 

[Boomergump]

To follow up, I would like to ask the question. Would GT be better off signing say 22 kids every year on average, or 18?

 

[cyptomcat]

How do you figure that we are targeting the "S" of SA more aggressively than the "A." ?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

To follow up, I would like to ask the question. Would GT be better off signing say 22 kids every year on average, or 18?

Depends on our pan-out rate. The better we are there, the lower we need to be in numbers signed. That goes for us, particularly, because we sign more kids who need more time to develop (less 'oven ready' as some like to say). It also depends on how many actually use that 5th year.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

How do you figure that we are targeting the "S" of SA more aggressively than the "A." ?

No evidence, just a gut feeling I get when reading comments made by our commits, recruits and their parents. It also appears we are looking out of state in regions of the country known for strong academics and in the private sector more now than in CPJ's first classes. Even if I'm wrong in this observation, I feel we should be.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

It's a double edged sword cheese. If you target to higher academic standards you limit the talent pool pure and simple. The difficult job our coaches have is attempting to evaluate each recruit and balance talent and the probability of academic success and character issues (a question on character shoule be a non qualifier in my book but I may be a bit unreasonable in that even). They are going to have to take some chances on kids and will accept greater risk with greater talent. Then they will have to monitor and attempt to guide said players down the right path. The kids we get who are high talent / high academics / high character....well the coaches have to thank the big man upstairs for that and count their blessings. Those kids are more rare than we would like I imagine. There are no certainties in this though. Guys that seem high academic / high talent might wash out on either talent or schoolwork.

But to limit our potential pool even further for the purpose of limiting our risk on this kind of attrition. That is just an argument for limiting our exceptions. I don't think you can make a case for doing that based on one single year. And most of those who are gone now were not lost to academics.

 

[daBuzz]

I'm reasonably confident that Myles Autrey was the only exception out of the 14 and he never even made it into the school. So why are we talking about tightening restrictions on exceptions?

 

[Boomergump]

Truthfully, I would rather see us sign 18 and do it right with zero losses for attrition. However, I also realize, given today's climate, it is pretty hard to do.

In the end, I am glad the offenders are gone and I am glad the malcontents are gone. It is better than the alternative. Hopefully there will be fewer in the more recent and impending hauls.

 

[ATL1]

I posted this in another thread:

I'll probably get ripped for this but it may be time to look at the student athlete support system that is in place at Tech.

It may be time to overhaul. You don't get this many defections in one season for no reason something is or is not translating for the student.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I'm reasonably confident that Myles Austin was the only exception out of the 14 and he never even made it into the school. So why are we talking about tightening restrictions on exceptions?

Well I'm not saying tighten restrictions, in fact, I'm all for the right coach having leeway. You have to be smart about it. Going after lil' Autry was a fool's errand. Maybe the same could be said for Custis. We don't know how many of the other guys who left just felt the rigor and pressure of the academics was too much. Why did Justin Akins leave?

It's not just academics, it's character, too. When I say targeting the "S" in "SA", I meant the "C" (character) as well. (There's no C in SA). The two aren't always tied together but it is often the case. King Ocho was academic and character.

JHD is another academic casualty, btw.

 

[daBuzz]

JHD is another academic casualty, btw.

Academic casualties will happen to the smartest of students when they don't go to class.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Academic casualties will happen to the smartest of students when they don't go to class.

Yep and waaaaaaaaaaaay more likely at GT than anywhere else. I pointed it out because you made it sound like it was only one guy (MA).

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I posted this in another thread:

I'll probably get ripped for this but it may be time to look at the student athlete support system that is in place at Tech.

It may be time to overhaul. You don't get this many defections in one season for no reason something is or is not translating for the student.

I'd don't know if I'd go that far. It could be an overreaction. Prior to this we were lauding the program for record APR.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

How do you figure that we are targeting the "S" of SA more aggressively than the "A." ?

Just thought of one more reason.... record high APR.

 

[ATL1]

I'd don't know if I'd go that far. It could be an overreaction. Prior to this we were lauding the program for record APR.

That doesn't equate that the quality of life for students.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

That doesn't equate that the quality of life for students.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. What do you suggest?