Where are recruits from

[RamblinRed]

This is an excellent article and the blog that has the data is even better.

identifies where over 1,400 FBS players hometowns are from.


A few interesting notes. GT has one of the lowest travel distances for recruits 199.96 mile avg - which is the 11th lowest of the 128 FBS teams. So you can basically say that GT is recruiting almost exclusively in its backyard. (Hawaii had the longest distance and Stanford was 2nd longest.)


The SEC has the lowest avg distance of travel from hometown (337 miles). ACC was second lowest, PAC-12 had the highest avg travel distance 837 miles.


GA is 4th nationally in producing FBS players at 7.6% of all FBS players, behind only Texas, CA, and FL. SEC has moved heavily into SE TX since bringing in A&M.


http://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...llege-football-players-breakdown-by-hometown/


http://rukkus.com/blog/college-football-player-hometowns/

 

[jacketup]

This is why I am tired of the Academic Excuse (tm) from GT fans. As long as we are recruiting in our backyard, finding enough good academically qualified but high quality players will be a problem.

I don't know if this is a budget issue, a staff issue or both, but it is an issue. What I do know is that of the 1990 preseason 2 deep, more than half were from more than 300 miles from campus. You may recall that we won the NC that year. The recruiting footprint was very different than what we see today.

 

[AE 87]

LOL

 

[RamblinRed]

Looking at the blog, GT is the only high academic institution not really engaged in national recruiting.
Stanford, ND, Vandy, BC, NW, Duke - all of them have avg distance from hometowns of over 500 miles (and some alot more than that). BC isn't landing those DL that hurt us in their backyard - they are going distances to find them.

it would be stupid not to take advantage of all the talent close to campus, but on the flip side - we don't appear overly engaged in using our academic status to recruit nationally.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Looking at the blog, GT is the only high academic institution not really engaged in national recruiting.
Stanford, ND, Vandy, BC, NW, Duke - all of them have avg distance from hometowns of over 500 miles (and some alot more than that). BC isn't landing those DL that hurt us in their backyard - they are going distances to find them.

it would be stupid not to take advantage of all the talent close to campus, but on the flip side - we don't appear overly engaged in using our academic status to recruit nationally.

I think this is too strong a claim since your first post demonstrates that the highest concentration of talent is in the south, and deep south at that. The 2 southern high academic schools you mention also have a lot of in-state recruiting competition.

So it is still true that this suggests Tech doesn't emphasize national recruiting all that much but harder to quantify in relation to the other high academic programs given Tech's location.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Anyone remember the article a few years ago saying Tech is one of the highest spending programs in recruiting? I wonder how it stacks up today. Given CPJ has made it clear we have far less staff than most programs and this study showing we don't travel so much in recruiting, I wonder where they now rank in expenses.

 

[DvilleJacket]

I really think we're not selling the program nationally. We get most of our kids around here but how many of the better recruits care about only playing in the SEC. We all know the farther you get away from the GA the more thought of Tech seems to be. I know this discussion has been talked about before.

 

[RamblinCharger]

If we spent more money on recruiting and having a bigger staff I'm sure we could sign guys further away from GA, and that would be a good thing, but unless I win the lottery or we get our very own Phil Knight, then we will continue to recruit at an average level.

 

[Techster]

Anyone remember the article a few years ago saying Tech is one of the highest spending programs in recruiting? I wonder how it stacks up today. Given CPJ has made it clear we have far less staff than most programs and this study showing we don't travel so much in recruiting, I wonder where they now rank in expenses.

Here's the latest one I could find. GT isn't at the top, but our spending on recruiting ranks near the top:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...g-signing-day-sec-power-conferences/22813887/

Given the amount of high level recruits in the Metro area, and the surrounding states, the amount of money we spend does seem to be a bit high, especially given the stats referenced by @RamblinRed . Nowhere near UT and Auburn levels, but GT isn't being cheap on the recruiting front.

 

[BigDaddyBuzz]

We recruit all over if there is mutual interest. Shoot we have 1 commit from Hawaii and are in big on another from there. We signed a QB from Cali. Of course most of our kids are going to be from GA and FL. But look at the starting O this week for example. Pretty spread out to me:
QB - AL
BB - NC
AB - GA, GA
WR - NJ, GA
C - GA
G - GA, GA with TX pushing hard
T - PA, GA

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Here's the latest one I could find. GT isn't at the top, but our spending on recruiting ranks near the top:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...g-signing-day-sec-power-conferences/22813887/

Given the amount of high level recruits in the Metro area, and the surrounding states, the amount of money we spend does seem to be a bit high, especially given the stats referenced by @RamblinRed . Nowhere near UT and Auburn levels, but GT isn't being cheap on the recruiting front.

We have had these conversations so many times I feel like we all end up repeating ourselves. Oh, well. The problem with quoting recruiting budgets is that every school reports these differently. Tech seems to give a more straight forward answer than some schools. Other schools have much larger recruiting staffs, much larger support staffs, much larger marketing staffs, alumni relations budgets and more, which are usually listed separately, or even hidden, but which all engage in football recruiting.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

We recruit all over if there is mutual interest. Shoot we have 1 commit from Hawaii and are in big on another from there. We signed a QB from Cali. Of course most of our kids are going to be from GA and FL. But look at the starting O this week for example. Pretty spread out to me:
QB - AL
BB - NC
AB - GA, GA
WR - NJ, GA
C - GA
G - GA, GA with TX pushing hard
T - PA, GA

And I think you nailed something important. We do not have the kind of travel budgets some schools have to camp out on the door steps of players from Kansas to California, from Texas to New York and back. So if our initial inquiry leaves a recruit cold on Tech we are not going to waste our budget simply to say we recruit nationally.

But let me also say that I wish Tech could recruit nationally the way ND or Stanford do, but right now, until we add more staff, bigger budget and more national recognition due to a winning program, we are probably doing the best we can with this. Especially given the regions of the country that are more saturated with talent.

 

[Techster]

We have had these conversations so many times I feel like we all end up repeating ourselves. Oh, well. The problem with quoting recruiting budgets is that every school reports these differently. Tech seems to give a more straight forward answer than some schools. Other schools have much larger recruiting staffs, much larger support staffs, much larger marketing staffs, alumni relations budgets and more, which are usually listed separately, or even hidden, but which all engage in football recruiting.

I hear ya, and that's even in the article. Just giving @Bruce Wayne what he asked for.

Tennessee vice chancellor and athletics director Dave Hart said in a written statement to USA TODAY Sports the difference may be that Tennessee is more diligent in how it categorizes each of its teams' recruiting expenses, and that some other schools may place some of those costs into another category — which, if true, could mean that recruiting expenses at other schools are actually higher than reported.

 

[ATL1]

The current commits for the team says another thing.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

We have had these conversations so many times I feel like we all end up repeating ourselves. Oh, well. The problem with quoting recruiting budgets is that every school reports these differently. Tech seems to give a more straight forward answer than some schools. Other schools have much larger recruiting staffs, much larger support staffs, much larger marketing staffs, alumni relations budgets and more, which are usually listed separately, or even hidden, but which all engage in football recruiting.

Exactly, it's like trying to compare celsius to fahrenheit, there's no standard.

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

I really think we're not selling the program nationally. We get most of our kids around here but how many of the better recruits care about only playing in the SEC. We all know the farther you get away from the GA the more thought of Tech seems to be. I know this discussion has been talked about before.

That is why it is important to change that perception by beating the teams"around here." We need to change the way Tech is thought of. People, frankly, are tired of hearing the excuses. Winning is important too.

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

And I think you nailed something important. We do not have the kind of travel budgets some schools have to camp out on the door steps of players from Kansas to California, from Texas to New York and back. So if our initial inquiry leaves a recruit cold on Tech we are not going to waste our budget simply to say we recruit nationally.

But let me also say that I wish Tech could recruit nationally the way ND or Stanford do, but right now, until we add more staff, bigger budget and more national recognition due to a winning program, we are probably doing the best we can with this. Especially given the regions of the country that are more saturated with talent.

We ARE in one of the most talent saturated regions in the country.

Don't excuse out this thing.

 

[AE 87]

As most know, I'm a big fan of statistics ... when rightly used. However, I think that some people don't really understand or pay attention to where statistics can be misleading. For example, Georgia produces a lot of D1 athletes. If they go to Tech, then distance from hometown is smaller than if they go to Duke or BC.

Or to put it differently, the distance-from-hometown statistic as an indicator of the scope of a recruiting footprint becomes more meaningful the more homogeneous the population demographics are. In reality, population is not geographically homogeneous. Wyoming will have to go farther for recruits than GT simply from population demographics, and so will Duke.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Thanks Techster. The survey @Techster posted is interesting for Tech as it suggests we spend the most out of ACC schools. Given Duke being shown to recruit nationally more aggressively there seems to be a disconnect which must be in the lack of standardization in reporting. But it also seems this list is just for public universities as Duke isn't reported.

I wonder why all other public ACC schools would calculate the recruiting budget, or at least publicly acknowledge it, in a different manner than Tech? I suppose programs want to look like they get more done on the cheap? But that can easily backfire with the fanbase if you aren't getting the desired results.

ETA to reflect the article is on public reporting universities.

 

[jeffgt14]

I wouldn't use an article that goes off of what school's "said" they spent. Plus we all know that $557,208 Ole Miss spent is BS.
Nkemdiche and Tunsil got paid that much themselves.