Where Do College Football Players Come From

[Sebastian GT]

Found this and thought it was pretty cool. The first link is the best and has an interactive map. The second one has more statistical data. Tech would be wise to make more inroads into Gwinnett County. Roof should know that. The schools are very good in general so blaming it on non qualifiers is no excuse. South Florida and Southern California are ridiculous but we knew this anyway.

http://blog.modeanalytics.com/where-football-players-call-home/

http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2013/9/11/4718442/college-football-state-texas-california-florida

 

[ATL1]

Seems like two of the areas Tech is already hitting up but continued penetration is needed in Jacksonville, S. Florida, DMV (DC, Maryland, Virginia) and of course Metro Atlanta(which sadly appears to be our weakest targeted area)

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Read an article years ago that stated "if Tech could put a fence around the Atlanta area, they would not have to recruit anywhere else".

 

[Animal02]

Notice the area from Pittsburgh to Cleveland. Tech should take advantage of that when they play @ Pitt this year.

 

[Minawreck]

It can be hard to convert Big Ten guys but if we had hotter women, we would be monumentally more attractive (pardon the pun) to those northern kids. Tradition, football, education, weather, and ladies is a winning combination.

 

[Animal02]

It can be hard to convert Big Ten guys but if we had hotter women, we would be monumentally more attractive (pardon the pun) to those northern kids. Tradition, football, education, weather, and ladies is a winning combination.

Warm weather and big city life are the things to sell. I grew up in that area.....H.S. sports is about all they have there. The county (40 miles x 40 miles) I grew up in only had 120k, 35 years later it has about 100k....mostly farmland.

 

[collegeballfan]

Interesting map. GT has five commits from the metro Atlanta area as I define the metro area. Out of almost 1000 players. (Leggett, Marshall, Searcy, Austin and Austin)

Questions: Why only five? Why does GT not have a better reputation (is that the correct word?) in the area. Is GT seen as "nerdy" and nerdy, among the ignorant, is considered something of an insult?

Out of 1000 players you would think that at least 10% are academically OK for GT. And you would think you could sign 10% of those.

I have questions but no answers. What does the recruiting staff say? (Another question.)

 

[BainbridgeJacket]

Our reputation in Georgia high schools is abysmal amongst athletes. Tech isn't even consistently popular among the nerds.

 

[Techster]

There are enough elite and high major level talent in metro Atlanta alone that are academically qualified for GT fill two recruiting classes every year and STILL have recruits leftover.

The challenge isn't the number qualified (both on and off the field) recruits in metro Atlanta, the challenge is making GT attractive enough for them. Sorry, but that's the reality of GT football right now.

 

[Rodney Kent]

I am convinced there are plenty of very good athletes available to be educated at Georgia Tech and play football here. I am sure we offer many of these qaulified athletes scholarships every year, but of course, we are being turned down by many.

Question: You are qualified as a recruit to play at GT, Stanford, Vanderbilt, etal, as well as any of the other schools with lesser education levels. Which one do you choose? Personally, each one of you on the board, what is the most important, second most important, down though about your first five categories would you make your choice of a school to attend to play football. I am sure our background will have some bearing on our choices, but all board members have different backgrounds. I will give mine, and am curious of the reply from those who wish to respond. Maybe, it will give us a clue as to what to expect from Tech's recruiting. I am giving my selections as biased by my intention of playing football first, and education secondly.

1. The coach, my respect for his characteristics, and ability to make me a better player.
2. The School, its ability to win, bowl games, and its long-term history in football.
3. The quality of the education.,
4. For family reasons, its closeness to where I live, or if I am adventurous, then a college that is in another State where I would like to spend some time, preferably with good climate.
5. Being a single male at that time, a city with a goodly number of attractive females and some local attractions.

 

[OldJacketFan]

Yet again I see comments about the number of "qualified" athletes in the Metro area and the bemoaning of the lack those commitments to Tech without any comments as to the why other than some of the usual ones such as lack of women, nerd city, what can Tech do to change and the like.

IMO the vast majority of the problem lies in the mission of the institute itself, Tech is and will always be a STEM based and STEM focused environment and unless you are a SA with an aptitude and a desire to pursue such a program WHY would even you consider Tech? GA is the 3rd or 4th most heavily recruited area in the U.S. and the VAST majority of SAs in GA have absolutely zero interest in an academic program as narrow as Tech even if they are full qualifiers. To discount this is naive at best and disingenuous at worst.

Very simply until and unless the core foundation of Tech itself changes any coach is going to face the same difficulties recruiting that have existed, exist today and will exist tomorrow at Tech.

 

[4shotB]

. Maybe, it will give us a clue as to what to expect from Tech's recruiting. I am giving my selections as biased by my intention of playing football first, and education secondly.

1. The coach, my respect for his characteristics, and ability to make me a better player.
2. The School, its ability to win, bowl games, and its long-term history in football.
3. The quality of the education.,
4. For family reasons, its closeness to where I live, or if I am adventurous, then a college that is in another State where I would like to spend some time, preferably with good climate.
5. Being a single male at that time, a city with a goodly number of attractive females and some local attractions.

your list would be the same as mine except edit #3 to include "The quality of the education in my field of study'". Or. if I were unsure of my direction "diversity of majors and quality of education across the spectrum".

My son was accepted into GT but was unsure if he wanted to major in engineering. After orientation, he felt like there weren't many other options besides engineering that interested him and/or were better in their discipline than other schools he was looking at.. He ended up going to another school and majoring in chemistry.

 

[collegeballfan]

Yet again I see comments about the number of "qualified" athletes in the Metro area and the bemoaning of the lack those commitments to Tech without any comments as to the why other than some of the usual ones such as lack of women, nerd city, what can Tech do to change and the like.

IMO the vast majority of the problem lies in the mission of the institute itself, Tech is and will always be a STEM based and STEM focused environment and unless you are a SA with an aptitude and a desire to pursue such a program WHY would even you consider Tech? GA is the 3rd or 4th most heavily recruited area in the U.S. and the VAST majority of SAs in GA have absolutely zero interest in an academic program as narrow as Tech even if they are full qualifiers. To discount this is naive at best and disingenuous at worst.

Very simply until and unless the core foundation of Tech itself changes any coach is going to face the same difficulties recruiting that have existed, exist today and will exist tomorrow at Tech.

For what it is worth you sold me. As I recall from previous threads GT graduates 76% of its undergraduates in a STEM major. I believe that is the highest percentage among BCS level schools. Now, how do you overcome that fact and the perceptions it generates? (More questions.)

 

[GTrob21]

Yet again I see comments about the number of "qualified" athletes in the Metro area and the bemoaning of the lack those commitments to Tech without any comments as to the why other than some of the usual ones such as lack of women, nerd city, what can Tech do to change and the like.

IMO the vast majority of the problem lies in the mission of the institute itself, Tech is and will always be a STEM based and STEM focused environment and unless you are a SA with an aptitude and a desire to pursue such a program WHY would even you consider Tech? GA is the 3rd or 4th most heavily recruited area in the U.S. and the VAST majority of SAs in GA have absolutely zero interest in an academic program as narrow as Tech even if they are full qualifiers. To discount this is naive at best and disingenuous at worst.

Very simply until and unless the core foundation of Tech itself changes any coach is going to face the same difficulties recruiting that have existed, exist today and will exist tomorrow at Tech.

You nailed it. I work with students over in Gwinnett and this is probably the number 1 issue. Tech people don't want to hear this but the academic reputation of UGA is growing, I see many smart students choose UGA over Tech because they think they are not that far off in academic reputation. Tech has fallen WAY short of selling itself in its own state and making a case of WHY students should choose Tech.

Number 2: The perception is that if you want to be an engineer and can get in, go to TECH, but if you want to do practically anything else, go somewhere else. Not debating the truth of such statements but simply saying this is what I hear over in Gwinnett.

Number 3: Academic snobbery: Again I know I will get flamed, but it has to be said. In General Tech people come across as arrogant and condescending and many of them, not all, look down at liberal arts majors and schools.

Number 4: Student dissatisfaction. Living in Gwinnett there are many Tech people and students. In talking with them, there seems to a consistent theme of complaining about Tech. How hard it is, How few women there are, how MaTech doesn't care. Compare this to how UGA, Clemson, Auburn, even Kennessaw state people talk about their school, which is usually "My school is the best ever!" and you can see why any TEENAGER wouldn't really consider TECH.

There are so many reasons why students don't want to go to Tech, I am amazed we have done so well for so many years. I agree that the problem lies at the core of Tech's mission and isn't going to change. It would mean changing the direction of the school.

.

 

[ATL1]

Number 3: Academic snobbery: Again I know I will get flamed, but it has to be said. In General Tech people come across as arrogant and condescending and many of them, not all, look down at liberal arts majors and schools.

Number 4: Student dissatisfaction. Living in Gwinnett there are many Tech people and students. In talking with them, there seems to a consistent theme of complaining about Tech. How hard it is, How few women there are, how MaTech doesn't care. Compare this to how UGA, Clemson, Auburn, even Kennessaw state people talk about their school, which is usually "My school is the best ever!" and you can see why any TEENAGER wouldn't really consider TECH..

The snobbery is crazy like if you major in psychology you not smart as me cause I'm a Tech graduate. How insulting.

 

[LongforDodd]

...I see many smart students choose UGA over Tech because they think they are not that far off in academic reputation. ...

.

uga's reputation hasn't improved all that much. Granted, since the onset of the Ga Lottery the parents of these smarter kids have decided that they should send their kids to uga instead of expensive out of state schools and save some money. I have heard that from these parents for years now. Just because a bunch of smarter kids go there does not enhance what is being taught there. My daughter has friends that go there and some of these parents are stunned at the lack of academic challenge their kids have faced in their first three semesters in spite of what the word on the street is. So far the enhanced academic reputation over there is a fraud, mostly. It sounds the same since I spent 2 years there in the 70's.

 

[Techster]

Guys, elitism can work if you use it the right way.

I think that's what Stanford and Vandy have working for them. The schools on their own are elite. But the coaches made it known to the football players that by going there, they're now in an "elite" subset of a highly sought after subset: college football players.

GT football doesn't have that cachet. Just look at the SI article on the smart school football teams. GT football has been performing at a higher level for a longer time than any of the new "smart schools": Stanford, Vandy, Duke, Northwestern. GT was practicing the "smart school model" before there was a smart school model to practice. Yet GT wasn't even mentioned in that SI article.

Why is that? I really think it's because our coaches and our Athletic Department failed in selling the specialness of being in that elite subset. It's not this regime or AD, it's going back years ago. Instead, what we have is talk about "GT is a hard school and it's not for everyone." Well, that statement is true, but if you sell it like "GT is a special place for only the elite student athletes, it's not for every athlete"....see the difference? That's precisely how the "smart schools" are selling it.

GT doesn't have a plethora of majors and academic offerings to choose from, but it has enough to attract the 15-20 or so SAs every year that can take GT football to the next level. Elite athletes do look and consider GT (see Tuitt, Tomlinson, Megatron, etc.). All you have to do is look at Tuitt's mom saying "GT is more of a regional school" to see that our Athletic Department as a whole has failed to control the narrative through the years.

 

[OldJacketFan]

Guys, elitism can work if you use it the right way.

I think that's what Stanford and Vandy have working for them. The schools on their own are elite. But the coaches made it known to the football players that by going there, they're now in an "elite" subset of a highly sought after subset: college football players.

GT football doesn't have that cachet. Just look at the SI article on the smart school football teams. GT football has been performing at a higher level for a longer time than any of the new "smart schools": Stanford, Vandy, Duke, Northwestern. GT was practicing the "smart school model" before there was a smart school model to practice. Yet GT wasn't even mentioned in that SI article.

Why is that? I really think it's because our coaches and our Athletic Department failed in selling the specialness of being in that elite subset. It's not this regime or AD, it's going back years ago. Instead, what we have is talk about "GT is a hard school and it's not for everyone." Well, that statement is true, but if you sell it like "GT is a special place for only the elite student athletes, it's not for every athlete"....see the difference? That's precisely how the "smart schools" are selling it.

GT doesn't have a plethora of majors and academic offerings to choose from, but it has enough to attract the 15-20 or so SAs every year that can take GT football to the next level. Elite athletes do look and consider GT (see Tuitt, Tomlinson, Megatron, etc.). All you have to do is look at Tuitt's mom saying "GT is more of a regional school" to see that our Athletic Department as a whole has failed to control the narrative through the years.

Absolutely on point. Tech as a whole has done a remarkably poor job of marketing itself. You have one of the top academic institute, not only in the U.S., but worldwide but the perception outside of academia is a good regional school that turns out good engineers. And, for most, it appears this is sufficient. There is so little mention of the athletic history and tradition at Tech that it boggles the mind! Is Tech so piss poor at marketing that this can't be turned around and built on? A P/R campaign is needed and the Athletic Dept and SID needs to get off their collective arses and get with today's reality. Approach those Tech athletes in the professional ranks of all sports to see if you can get to buy in and extol the Tech experience, highlights SAs that have gone on to success in their professional fields in other words approach the selling of Tech as any successful organization would and market the program and the Institute! Highlight the exceptional nature of all things Tech!

 

[GTJackets]

The stork brings them.

 

[Animal02]

Absolutely on point. Tech as a whole has done a remarkably poor job of marketing itself. You have one of the top academic institute, not only in the U.S., but worldwide but the perception outside of academia is a good regional school that turns out good engineers.

I disagree with the notion that outside of academia it is just considered a good regional school.