WSB Trashing TECH RECRUITING

[AE 87]

The point on the other side is not that Stanford is offering all kinds of illiterate dolts willy nilly. The point is that their normal admissions process allows them to admit people which we would call exceptions, and we just don't have any way of knowing. They choose not to report high, low, and average SAT scores etc and don't have to because they're private.

So, it would be just as wrong to conclude that they have none as it would be to conclude that they abuse their admissions process.

I'm not sold on the idea that every 4 or 5 star recruit who majors in Psychology at Stanford could get into, or thrive at, GT.

 

[iceeater1969]

Football Facts about DR:
1. Stanford has refused to offer a football scholarship to the nations top or nearly the top WR until he gets a higher SAT.
2. Gt has offered and he would be admited.
3. For years Gt has heavily recruited him and family who live 45-60 from campus.
4. If he gets SAT up, it's almost certain he wants to and go several thousand miles across the usa to attend Stanford.

Imo
1. It sure appears Stanford has high integrity. If they are willing to pass on top WR who is close to entrance requirements, it leads me to think they would not bend rules for less qualified recruit. That's not SEC like.
2. Pretty much true that any Stanford recruit could get into gt.
3. He is the perfect example of an GREAT in state recruit which our ga first recruiting system has targeted. We and ND still have a good chance as long as he doesn't change his focus if rejected by Stanford ( might just go to Uga since close like gt and they have top qb recruit ). With a talent like this we needed to stay after him no matter what. This points out the narrow window within we recruit for top recruts. Must value education but must not be to smart!
4. If the school fits ( being on field w Christian m!) kids will travel. Stanford has buzz and we don't.

Just an idea. Perhaps we should stop making as many early offers (hey we offered u early so stay with us) and actively recruit Stanford recruits in the positions we need. By definition they are our type of SA.
Following Stanford around would cut costs - first by social media . Then by contacting coach to start a relationship. Then make a real offer by head coach. Stay in touch.
We did this follow the leader technique in building a large consulting company.

What we need is to dominate in Atl and get some real BUZZ.

 

[AE 87]

One of the downsides of targeting GA is not just that kids hear "Go to georgie or SEC," but that they hear a lot of "Don't go to Tech." It's kind of like the negative campaign ads affect.

While I don't agree that all Stanford admits would be accepted at Tech, I do like the idea of targeting Stanford targets.

 

[Techster]

Agree with your agreement of my agreement.

Another consideration is that probably some of our signees are not projects at all and were underrated by the services. Some of the twos are easily threes and some of the threes are easily fours.

Yup. Guys like AJ Gray, Marcus Marshall, Brant Mitchell, Will Bryan...those guys are Day 1 guys who for some reason or another didn't get the attention they probably deserved. Those are the kind of guys a program like GT can build on along with the "project" recruits. If we can add the 3-5 "elite" players every year, that's what takes us from a consistent 7 win program, to a consistent 9+ win program every year with the top 10 type seasons more often than not.

We're thisclose...and I don't doubt we'll get there sooner than later. There's just too much GT has going for itself. We just need to find the right formula.

 

[Techster]

Just an idea. Perhaps we should stop making as many early offers (hey we offered u early so stay with us) and actively recruit Stanford recruits in the positions we need. By definition they are our type of SA.
Following Stanford around would cut costs - first by social media . Then by contacting coach to start a relationship. Then make a real offer by head coach. Stay in touch.
We did this follow the leader technique in building a large consulting company.

What we need is to dominate in Atl and get some real BUZZ.

You'd be surprised, but a lot of teams do exactly that with GT recruits. Look at our offer sheet, and offer the same recruits. Funny how schools like Kentucky, Wisconsin, Vandy, etc. are often the same schools that are competing for our guys. It's not a coincidence.

 

[iceeater1969]

I wish we had a defensive scheme that had a buzz like our offense.
Guys like bryan, Cottrell, mills self recruit by seeing the triple option AND great school . Yes , some shy away but TO gives us an advantage on the field because we are so different from the rest.

We are so bland on defense. We are like every other team. Compared to the top twenty (I saw the ND players next to ours) our players are shorter lighter and have fewer back ups. Yet for all this with our offense chewing up time they get by. We have been poor on defense for a long time. Running the same defense w less talent is not working.

We need something that creates buzz so recruits will nust come

Following only as an example:
Some time ago there was a west texas high school ( small, fast, tough) that made to finals several years in row beating the big city and east texas schools that dominate texas hs football. The did it by passing on offense and being agressive on defense. They would line up close to los and rush 11, 10, 9 ,8, 7 or 1,2,3 but never 4,5,6. Mostly the sent 9. They were disciplined and coordinated _ u would see line men standing w no one to block yet the ab and rb were hit in back field. Yes the cheated by holding the ol, wr for a second but it worked .

We need defense that creates a buzz.
One that gets ATHLETES TO SELF RECRUIT to play in A UNIQUE DEFENSE while at a great school.
Our defense has been poor for a long time. If it was strong gt wiuld be tough to beat.
Hoping we improve next year is getting old.

 

[Skeptic]

I wish we had a defensive scheme that had a buzz like our offense.
Guys like bryan, Cottrell, mills self recruit by seeing the triple option AND great school . Yes , some shy away but TO gives us an advantage on the field because we are so different from the rest.

We are so bland on defense. We are like every other team. Compared to the top twenty (I saw the ND players next to ours) our players are shorter lighter and have fewer back ups. Yet for all this with our offense chewing up time they get by. We have been poor on defense for a long time. Running the same defense w less talent is not working.

We need something that creates buzz so recruits will nust come

Following only as an example:
Some time ago there was a west texas high school ( small, fast, tough) that made to finals several years in row beating the big city and east texas schools that dominate texas hs football. The did it by passing on offense and being agressive on defense. They would line up close to los and rush 11, 10, 9 ,8, 7 or 1,2,3 but never 4,5,6. Mostly the sent 9. They were disciplined and coordinated _ u would see line men standing w no one to block yet the ab and rb were hit in back field. Yes the cheated by holding the ol, wr for a second but it worked .

We need defense that creates a buzz.
One that gets ATHLETES TO SELF RECRUIT to play in A UNIQUE DEFENSE while at a great school.
Our defense has been poor for a long time. If it was strong gt wiuld be tough to beat.
Hoping we improve next year is getting old.

Well, you know, there is a small college coach somewhere in the upper Midwest who never punts and always onsides his kickoffs. Quotes all kinds of stats to justify it, and he wins. But nobody has rushed to emulate it.

I really am ready for football to change the subject to football again.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...65608/college-football-recruiting-wins-matter

Perception is really important in recruiting. Recruits want to see progress.

To that end, I got into an interesting Twitter discussion Wednesday about recruiting in Texas. The Aggies are falling off a bit, and Texas had a big close to its 2016 class. I argued that if Kevin Sumlin could have his pick, he would probably have wanted to save the 10-win seasons of 2012-13 for 2014-15.

The reason for this is that coaches get a big recruiting boost from what I call "new coach smell." Kids love the newness, the excitement, the promises of greatness and playing time. But after a while, that wears off and schools must sustain recruit interest via wins and NFL picks. Sumlin didn't need those 10-win seasons to attract recruits to A&M: he had newness, the SEC and a flailing Texas.

Timing and trajectory matter. The big seasons helped some, sure, but I'd argue maximum recruiting value was not extracted like it would have been if they had come in 2014-15, showing the program was on an upward swing. Instead, the perception is that the fewer Mike Sherman-recruited players in the program, the fewer wins for the Aggies. And to show progress, A&M would have had to ascend to the super elite status of 11 or 12 wins per year, which is basically impossible.

The same thing happened to Brady Hoke at Michigan, as he won 11 games and the Sugar Bowl in Year 1 with a team that was out over its skis, and couldn't keep up the pace in subsequent seasons. Ditto Charlie Weis, who won 19 games at Notre Dame in his first two seasons and just 16 in seasons three through five.

If those sequences were reversed, would Jim Harbaugh and Brian Kelly be in Ann Arbor or South Bend?

Charlie Strong, on the other hand, could show an upward trajectory just by not losing seven games. He could show progress in each of the next two seasons, never win the number of games Kevin Sumlin did in 2012-13, and yet still have a better public perception for Texas than A&M.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...65608/college-football-recruiting-wins-matter

I missed this original post but I have to say I find it quite compelling as a way to explain the psychology that goes along with winning programs. Excellent.

 

[alagold]

I read once that the biggest source of "special admits" at prestigious colleges comes from the children of very rich alumni or very generous donors. In terms of Stanford, of 2,142 admitted students, only 3% had a GPA lower than 3.7, and only 3% did NOT graduate in the top 20% of their class. That's roughly 64 "special" admits for the 2015 class. That fits with my VERY unscientific research (searching the internet for recruits GPA and test scores) on the GPA and test scores of various high level recruits Stanford signed the past couple of seasons.

What's interesting in my VERY unscientific research was the lowest GPA for a recruit I could find for a Stanford recruit was....Christian McCaffery. The Heisman runner-up last season. Coming out of HS, he sported a 3.5 GPA and scored a 24 on his ACT (according to his Rivals recruiting profile). If the "norm" for a Stanford admit is a GPA 3.7 and above, then you would assume that McCaffery was a "special admit". In terms of comparison, CM is obviously below the "benchmark" for the general student population at Stanford, but in terms of the "average" (or however you want to classify it) recruited SA in a P5 conference, McCaffery is probably in the top 95% of his athletic peers. So did Stanford use the gifted "special" admit for CM...it's safe to assume that relative to the profile of the general student population. However, it's not as if Stanford had to stretch the boundaries of what's acceptable for the general population to admit CM. A 3.5 GPA is VERY good, whether you're a athlete or "normal" student. CM's parents are also prominent Stanford alums (father played football, mother played soccer for the Tree). Would CM get into Stanford without football? Debateable, but not necessarily out of the realm of possibility.

In comparison to GT, in my VERY unscientific research, the lowest GPA for a recruit I could find was 3.0 (an OL who is graduating this Spring). That's still a very respectable GPA, and pretty good GPA for a recruited SA. In comparison to GT's general population ( http://admission.gatech.edu/images/pdf/2015_freshman_profile_web.pdf ) it's tougher to make the case that the recruit (now a full fledged GT SA) would have gotten in without football.

The point of this isn't to denigrate GT's recruiting, because we're obviously finding SAs who can do the work (as the 90% grad rate attests to), but to make the point that even with "no minimum requirements", Stanford still has pretty high standards for their recruited SAs. Does playing football help with admissions? Without a doubt, much in the same way it does for recruits at pretty much every school (anyone thinks 90% of UGAs recruits get in without football?). It's pretty silly though, with all the evidence available, to say or insinuate that Stanford hides behind their "no minimum requirements" to admit SAs on the basis of their football ability alone.

For whatever it is worth , I understand a distant friend of mine ,who is an Tech alumnus and was giving 100k a yr ,couldn't get his son (non-athlete) in school even with good solid grades and scores.Makes one wonder, how many exceptions there are at Tech.

 

[alagold]

I wish we had a defensive scheme that had a buzz like our offense.
Guys like bryan, Cottrell, mills self recruit by seeing the triple option AND great school . Yes , some shy away but TO gives us an advantage on the field because we are so different from the rest.

We are so bland on defense. We are like every other team. Compared to the top twenty (I saw the ND players next to ours) our players are shorter lighter and have fewer back ups. Yet for all this with our offense chewing up time they get by. We have been poor on defense for a long time. Running the same defense w less talent is not working.

We need something that creates buzz so recruits will nust come

Following only as an example:
Some time ago there was a west texas high school ( small, fast, tough) that made to finals several years in row beating the big city and east texas schools that dominate texas hs football. The did it by passing on offense and being agressive on defense. They would line up close to los and rush 11, 10, 9 ,8, 7 or 1,2,3 but never 4,5,6. Mostly the sent 9. They were disciplined and coordinated _ u would see line men standing w no one to block yet the ab and rb were hit in back field. Yes the cheated by holding the ol, wr for a second but it worked .

We need defense that creates a buzz.
One that gets ATHLETES TO SELF RECRUIT to play in A UNIQUE DEFENSE while at a great school.
Our defense has been poor for a long time. If it was strong gt wiuld be tough to beat.
Hoping we improve next year is getting old.

This may be the best comment I've heard this yr.HOW TRUE!

 

[Skeptic]

For whatever it is worth , I understand a distant friend of mine ,who is an Tech alumnus and was giving 100k a yr ,couldn't get his son (non-athlete) in school even with good solid grades and scores.Makes one wonder, how many exceptions there are at Tech.

It makes me wonder why your distant friend should continue to send Tech a hundred grand a year.

 

[Techster]

For whatever it is worth , I understand a distant friend of mine ,who is an Tech alumnus and was giving 100k a yr ,couldn't get his son (non-athlete) in school even with good solid grades and scores.Makes one wonder, how many exceptions there are at Tech.

Not scoffing at $100K, that's A LOT of money to give to anyone. Compare that to gifts of ultra rich donors at elite universities. Here's an example (ironically, from Stanford):

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/03/12/connections-to-university-can-affect-admissions-decision/

Both Golden and Reider referenced Margaret Bass ’02 as an example of a classic development case. Bass is the daughter of Robert Bass MBA ’74, who was the chair of the University’s Board of Trustees from 1996-2000 and donated $25 million to Stanford in 1991 and $50 million to the Graduate School of Business in 2005.

According to an article by Golden published in the Wall Street Journal, Bass was ranked 40th in her class of 79 at Groton High School. Out of the nine students from Groton that applied to Stanford that year, she was the only one accepted, though she had the second lowest SAT score of the Groton applicant group.

Her SAT score of 1220, out of 1600, was significantly lower than that of the typical Stanford student. When Bass applied in 1998, 75 percent of incoming freshmen had an SAT score of at least 1360.

“She was admitted because of her last name, and because the family was a big, big donor to Stanford,” Reider said.

Then there's certain schools (like MIT and Cal Tech) who claim no legacy or donor bias in their admissions process.

Hey, if someone told me they're giving 100K to fund 2 positions on CPJ's recruiting staff, and their kid's grade were at least competitive, I'd say "What time do I need to pick Johnny up for his first day of school?!"

 

[Skeptic]

Not scoffing at $100K, that's A LOT of money to give to anyone. Compare that to gifts of ultra rich donors at elite universities. Here's an example (ironically, from Stanford):

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2013/03/12/connections-to-university-can-affect-admissions-decision/

Both Golden and Reider referenced Margaret Bass ’02 as an example of a classic development case. Bass is the daughter of Robert Bass MBA ’74, who was the chair of the University’s Board of Trustees from 1996-2000 and donated $25 million to Stanford in 1991 and $50 million to the Graduate School of Business in 2005.

According to an article by Golden published in the Wall Street Journal, Bass was ranked 40th in her class of 79 at Groton High School. Out of the nine students from Groton that applied to Stanford that year, she was the only one accepted, though she had the second lowest SAT score of the Groton applicant group.

Her SAT score of 1220, out of 1600, was significantly lower than that of the typical Stanford student. When Bass applied in 1998, 75 percent of incoming freshmen had an SAT score of at least 1360.

“She was admitted because of her last name, and because the family was a big, big donor to Stanford,” Reider said.

Then there's certain schools (like MIT and Cal Tech) who claim no legacy or donor bias in their admissions process.

Hey, if someone told me they're giving 100K to fund 2 positions on CPJ's recruiting staff, and their kid's grade were at least competitive, I'd say "What time do I need to pick Johnny up for his first day of school?!"

Were I in charge of admissions at any school and an alum had donated $25 million and wanted a son or daughter admitted, I would ask one question: How many classmates would you like to send along?"

 

[Northeast Stinger]

All of which is to day this is why I never get hooked by stories of students trying to sue a school because they were unfairly excluded from admission in favor of someone less qualified. Qualified students get excluded every year and it has been this way since universities began in this country. Not everyone can get into the school of their choice. The math just doesn't work out.

The most we can ever hope for is some kind of class balance involving economic status, race, gender, special abilities, legacy, academic standing, hardships on so forth. Some will disagree but I truly believe if you are going to get a world class education today you will be at a disadvantage if everyone in your class looks just like you and has your same sociological profile.

My totally biased opinion is that uga, being the "flagship univeristy" of a fairly diverse state, has the poorest record of balancing classes I have ever seen.

 

[Skeptic]

My totally biased opinion is that uga, being the "flagship univeristy" of a fairly diverse state, has the poorest record of balancing classes I have ever seen.

My HS classmates down around Sylvester who went to Georgia and still speak of "The University" but in most other language the carefully couched and qualified code like (with an arched eyebrow) "marrying right, you know, a girl from Mississippi" will be camped out on your lawn Monday. I am afraid for them the South doesn't have to rise again since they still don't think it went anywhere. Down there diversity is shooting different birds.

 

[Buzz776g]

Were I in charge of admissions at any school and an alum had donated $25 million and wanted a son or daughter admitted, I would ask one question: How many classmates would you like to send along?"

I agree with this 100%, with the sole caveat that the kid be able to do the work, even if with some help. I think you're doing the kid, the school, or your own family no favors if you're trying to shove a very square peg into a very round hole.

 

[Lurkerjack]

The most we can ever hope for is some kind of class balance involving economic status, race, gender, special abilities, legacy, academic standing, hardships on so forth. Some will disagree but I truly believe if you are going to get a world class education today you will be at a disadvantage if everyone in your class looks just like you and has your same sociological profile.

Diversity is great if it occurs naturally. When you start playing games to artificially make it diverse you cause a whole bunch of other problems. Like the ones who deserved getting in looking down on those that were placed in. Or worse, everyone assuming that because you are a minority the only reason you got in was because of a diversity program when in fact you were highly qualified. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some small amount of "play" in the system, but when you have some kids getting into Tech but only wait listed at UGA something is wrong.

I've been fortunate to have worked with a pretty diverse group of folks over the years, and they all deserved to be there. Great teams with lots of respect for each other.

Lets stick to the merit system please. Too late as our beloved institute is fully on board with the diversity for diversity's sake thing right now (but that's another thread entirely).

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Lets stick to the merit system please.

My first point was that colleges have never just stuck to the merit system. There has always been some "play" in the system as you put it. Otherwise you wouldn't have the the quality of athletes you have at some schools, some other schools would be 75% female and some other schools would be 90% Asian. The "play" in the system used to just be about whose parents gave the most money. Now that play in many schools is handled in a more egalitarian way.

My second point was that the question ultimately isn't about letting undeserving students into the system. That just isn't going to happen as a rule. The question for several decades is really more about how to weed out all the deserving students who want to get in since you cannot admit them all. If you have room for a class of 1500 entering students but you have 30,000 apply who are all deserving of being there you better try to balance the class as best as you can to give as many people as possible as fair a shot at a quality education as possible.

 

[alagold]

It makes me wonder why your distant friend should continue to send Tech a hundred grand a year.

oh, he didn't anymore for sure