Wisconsin

[Whiskey_Clear]

You mean empty seats between the 40's on gameday against a big conference foe isn't a great gameday atmosphere? It's another recruiting obstacle for some kids, one that's tough to hurdle. Stephon Tuitt loved GT until he took his official to ND and was blown away by their gameday atmosphere.

One thing I do hope for in Stansbury is bringing his experience, however short it was, from Oregon State. OSU plays second fiddle to Oregon and is the engineering school in the state. They're the GT if Oregon is Georgia. The majority of the bumper stickers and license plates have a big 'ol green O around here. The lady who baby sits our little guy sometimes is a huge Oregon fan, despite not having any connection to the school. And OSU gets routinely pounded by Oregon every year, although Mark Helfrich was Oregon's Jim Donnan last year.

So ... let's give Stansbury some time to get things rolling. It takes time to change, particularly in a big organization that is used to, "we've always done it this way". Even if we get new recruiting staff it will take time for them to be effective.

Totally agree. But it doesn't play well at all with the...."we must be excellent now and no excuses" crowd.

 

[steebu]

Totally agree. But it doesn't play well at all with the...."we must be excellent now and no excuses" crowd.

"We deserve better."

"OK, what are you doing to help us get better?"

"Why should I do anything? That's the coach and the AD's job."

 

[JacketFromUGA]

I went to college in wisconsin (not madison) before transferring to UGA.

I'm hoping the badgers win everything

 

[Jacket in Dairyland]

IMHO, the comparison of Tech and UW is fun, but there are so many differences in the respective situations that make it difficult to actually emulate their program. The only obvious similarity to me is that we both have been recruiting to a particular system for a long time. UW has so many majors and can cast a much wider net to get recruits. The UW system translates well for players looking to get to the NFL. Our system, not so much. So we have the situation of looking at players who want to be successful, just probably not in the NFL. Could we do better in recruiting with a different offensive scheme? Maybe? But how does that explain our mediocre recruiting on defense. We keep saying Roof is a good recruiter, and he does seem to get some better players. The D scheme is translatable to the NFL, right? But, when is the last time a D player was DRAFTED by the NFL?
So to me, what's keeping our recruiting from being better is more a function of highly skilled, NFL hopeful 4* and 5* *** ( athletic students) not wanting, or needing to work as hard academically as we ask them to. Especially OL, DL and WR. I think we will be better next year just not a lot. Looking at the schedule I see wins of Alcorn State, Bowling Green, Duke, Virginia, UNC. Losses of UM, Clemson, UL and UGA. Toss ups of USF, VT and Pitt. Think we are looking at 7-5, ho hum, mediocre bowl, maybe 8-5,

 

[Techster]

IMHO, the comparison of Tech and UW is fun, but there are so many differences in the respective situations that make it difficult to actually emulate their program. The only obvious similarity to me is that we both have been recruiting to a particular system for a long time. UW has so many majors and can cast a much wider net to get recruits. The UW system translates well for players looking to get to the NFL. Our system, not so much. So we have the situation of looking at players who want to be successful, just probably not in the NFL. Could we do better in recruiting with a different offensive scheme? Maybe? But how does that explain our mediocre recruiting on defense. We keep saying Roof is a good recruiter, and he does seem to get some better players. The D scheme is translatable to the NFL, right? But, when is the last time a D player was DRAFTED by the NFL?
So to me, what's keeping our recruiting from being better is more a function of highly skilled, NFL hopeful 4* and 5* *** ( athletic students) not wanting, or needing to work as hard academically as we ask them to. Especially OL, DL and WR. I think we will be better next year just not a lot. Looking at the schedule I see wins of Alcorn State, Bowling Green, Duke, Virginia, UNC. Losses of UM, Clemson, UL and UGA. Toss ups of USF, VT and Pitt. Think we are looking at 7-5, ho hum, mediocre bowl, maybe 8-5,

We've actually been recruiting better on defense the last few seasons. We've gotten at least 2 players rated 4 stars (by at least on of the services) on the defensive side of the ball the last 3 years. Last year we got four 4 stars on the defensive side. I've always said, GT needed about 3-5 elite guys (4 or 5 star players) signed along with guys who we can develop in our system or under the radar and we could be a top 25 team every year. Having 12-16 4-5 star guys on the roster isn't hard if you do that, and our defense is keeping their side of that equation up. It's harder for the offense, as you touched on, because those elite offensive players don't want to play in our system. I have absolutely no doubt that GT could easily get 3-5 elite offensive recruits every year if our offense was different. The state of GA produces way too much elite offensive talent that doesn't even give us consideration right now.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

IMHO, the comparison of Tech and UW is fun, but there are so many differences in the respective situations that make it difficult to actually emulate their program. The only obvious similarity to me is that we both have been recruiting to a particular system for a long time. UW has so many majors and can cast a much wider net to get recruits. The UW system translates well for players looking to get to the NFL. Our system, not so much. So we have the situation of looking at players who want to be successful, just probably not in the NFL. Could we do better in recruiting with a different offensive scheme? Maybe? But how does that explain our mediocre recruiting on defense. We keep saying Roof is a good recruiter, and he does seem to get some better players. The D scheme is translatable to the NFL, right? But, when is the last time a D player was DRAFTED by the NFL?
So to me, what's keeping our recruiting from being better is more a function of highly skilled, NFL hopeful 4* and 5* *** ( athletic students) not wanting, or needing to work as hard academically as we ask them to. Especially OL, DL and WR. I think we will be better next year just not a lot. Looking at the schedule I see wins of Alcorn State, Bowling Green, Duke, Virginia, UNC. Losses of UM, Clemson, UL and UGA. Toss ups of USF, VT and Pitt. Think we are looking at 7-5, ho hum, mediocre bowl, maybe 8-5,

to me the closest wisconsin school to Tech is probably Marquette and even they aren't that close of a comparison.

 

[Jacket in Dairyland]

We've actually been recruiting better on defense the last few seasons. We've gotten at least 2 players rated 4 stars (by at least on of the services) on the defensive side of the ball the last 3 years. Last year we got four 4 stars on the defensive side. I've always said, GT needed about 3-5 elite guys (4 or 5 star players) signed along with guys who we can develop in our system or under the radar and we could be a top 25 team every year. Having 12-16 4-5 star guys on the roster isn't hard if you do that, and our defense is keeping their side of that equation up. It's harder for the offense, as you touched on, because those elite offensive players don't want to play in our system. I have absolutely no doubt that GT could easily get 3-5 elite offensive recruits every year if our offense was different. The state of GA produces way too much elite offensive talent that doesn't even give us consideration right now.

I agree. We need some elite players - some game changers. We need a pass rushing stud, a speedy LB and a ball hawking FS. We need a QB who can pass some, a WR who can get separation, and a bell cow on the OL. Do we have any of those? Gray? Braun? Camp? Branch?

 

[Jmonty71]

Urban's a turd. He crosses the line between "I'm hurt bad" and "suck it up and play, your teammates need you" all the time.

I'm not a fan of Urban. He runs the score up and shows bad sportsmanship.

 

[awbuzz]

I dunno man, if either Wisconsin or UCF played our schedule, I doubt either would end up undefeated.

+1

 

[awbuzz]

This part is huge. Of course they recruit to their system just like we do. They just have an easier time getting their top choices.

Plus more degree options... (Not sure why this hasn't been mentioned, because it does make a difference.)

 

[UgaBlows]

War DAYUM Eagle!

 

[babuka]

So I think an important question is where should GTs athletic budget to be a consistent top 20 team? Currently it is half of some of these teams but as posters pointed out, some of those schools have as many as 5-10 more sports teams as GT.

Clemson is at 100M Tech is at 76M. So if Tech was at 86M, what would 10M per year be used on? It’s not all coaches, because 3-4M extra per year would cover high priced assistants deltas in both football and other sports compared to other top teams (not the Bama types who are on another world).

You can only update facilities so much, and Tech has already been doing that. A logical place would be to pay for additional AA employees and football staffers. $4M more on all coaches for all sports. $4M more on staffers (could mean an additional 20 heads). That still leaves $2M that could be used per year on marketing, advertising, facilities, etc.

Maybe 33 can chime in and give more insight into AA budgets. The thing is there are probably 130k or more GT alumni. If only a small percentage donated a couple of hundred bucks a year on top of what is currently being done then you could get there. I know a ton of fellow alumni and the AA had never reached out to us a single time. It would be super easy to convince 10k GT alumni to start auto donating to AA a few hundred dollars 1-2 Times per year, especially if they gained greater insight into the program.

Just trying to be pragmatic and ask questions where I don’t know the answers.

 

[RonJohn]

I know a ton of fellow alumni and the AA had never reached out to us a single time.

You can reach out to them and donate at ATFund.org . Also, if you feel that there are many who would donate if the GTAA reached out to them, send a message to the GTAA and let them know you feel that way. If they get get lots of messages about different types of marketing, they are likely to listen.

 

[Jophish17]

The Ivan Allen School of Business is top 30 in the nation, so while they may not be working on differential equations, they ain’t necessarily breezing through either

Scheller isn't difficult. Some classes harder than others but it's manageable even for an SA with a packed schedule. Lots of support. I didnt know many athletes who really struggled with the curriculum - no more so than the general students.

Btw you can get a taste of diff eqs if you study black-scholes as part of the finance program

 

[BootsCostMoney]

Scheller isn't difficult. Some classes harder than others but it's manageable even for an SA with a packed schedule. Lots of support. I didnt know many athletes who really struggled with the curriculum - no more so than the general students.

Btw you can get a taste of diff eqs if you study black-scholes as part of the finance program

Yeah, but that probably has more to do with us screening out the weaker SA’s BEFORE they get here during the recruitment process, as opposed to the relative difficulty of the business program. Imagine if we didn’t have to be concerned about screening prospective SA’s.... just like everybody else doesn’t have to do. At least not to our level of scrutiny. Just a thought....

 

[RonJohn]

I’m working on that! The point is there is a systemic fundraising and communication problem(s) between the AA and the alumni. They are greatly underutilizing, and under-communicating with their best and largest resource. I’ve heard they don’t have access to the roll call database, but I have a hard believing that in this day in age they can’t get that information. The roll call names and years consecutive donation is public knowledge. That department needs an infusion of funding and talent that focuses on communication and crowdfunding from the alumni.

According to KQ, TStan is working on implementing a grassroots fundraising system similar to Clemson's IPTAY. His Twitter post saying that is the only information I have seen. I don't know anything further about it. But if it is implemented, it could be successful in raising smaller donations from a larger group of people. I remember seeing a number of how many people donate annually to the AT Fund and it was very low, a few thousand. If they can get tens of thousands donating a few hundred every year, that would raise a substantial amount of money.

 

[babuka]

According to KQ, TStan is working on implementing a grassroots fundraising system similar to Clemson's IPTAY. His Twitter post saying that is the only information I have seen. I don't know anything further about it. But if it is implemented, it could be successful in raising smaller donations from a larger group of people. I remember seeing a number of how many people donate annually to the AT Fund and it was very low, a few thousand. If they can get tens of thousands donating a few hundred every year, that would raise a substantial amount of money.

Exactly! I hope they implement it correctly. Could easily raise annual revenue by 3-6M.

 

[bke1984]

I'm not a fan of Urban. He runs the score up and shows bad sportsmanship.

That’s a really good way to make sure you don’t lose the game. We’ve let leads of 20 and 28 slip away under CPJ. Gotta keep the pedal on the gas these days...

 

[JorgeJonas]

And whaddya know. They lost the one game this year where they played against a team with substantially better players. This isn’t a criticism of Wisconsin, but it is intended to highlight the fact that if they played six games against teams with better players, they’d probably never sniff nine wins a year.

 

[Milwaukee]

Lol.