In-State Recruiting analysis

Stanford gets good players. Northwestern gets good player. Are our admission standards that much greater than theirs?
 
Northwestern is the Duke of the Big 10, basically. Nice run under the current coach, but historically, 6-6 is a good season for them.
 
Not only do we have a problem with recruiting guys but we have a problem KEEPING guys we recruit before graduation.The '13 class had over 50% loss rate and it is generally in the 30% area since --for WHATEVER reason..
 
GTRules said:
No they don't.
Click to expand...

Recruiting class rankings:

2015

Stanford -24
GT-44

2016

Stanford- 16
GT - 60

2017

Stanford - 14
GT - 48

2018

Stanford - 39
GT - 53

That gives Stanford an average of 23. I would say thats pretty good. We (with our 51 average) would kill for that. If we got the #14 and #16 classes in back to back years, this site would explode.
 
Architorture23 said:
Nobody has ever thought of this before.

Ps. Were better than stanford and northwestern over the last 20 years.
Click to expand...

Over the last 20 years you are probably right. But since 2011:

Stanford

73-22 Went to a bowl game every year.
3 Rose Bowls and 1 Fiesta (2-2)

GT

53-42 went bowling 5 out of 7 years
1 Orange bowl (we won)
 
00Burdell said:
In theory, yes. In practice, no.

First of all, we can't spend time, money and resources on fishing expeditions to Michigan, TX, CA, etc. when the odds of getting a commitment are against us and when we sometimes don't find out until close to signing day that a kid can't qualify academically;

Secondly, why leave a big pond full of big fish to fish in a pond where you are a fish out of water? We have a gold mine right here, right now - too many kids are getting away. And I don't mean the knuckle-draggers that flock to Uga who wouldn't make it past orientation at Tech - there are a lot of kids who could make it here who just choose not to short-list us.

Clemson has Six-Flags Over Andersonville, Bama has Niagara Falls in the locker room, UGa offers a curriculum less demanding than a McDonald's job application - those schools sell themselves. We need to do a better job selling Tech.

The US Marines are up front - they don't want everybody - they say as much - don't sign up unless you are ready to man-up. It works for them. They get good recruits. I just don't think we are getting the message out.
Click to expand...

First point is fair. Second point is the whole debate, we don't all agree on exactly how big the pond Tech is actually able to fish from is in Georgia. Just cause a recruit isn't a knuckle-dragger and can handle Tech doesn't mean they will want to. As for selling Tech, it can be better but again there is the debate over how much there actually is to sell and what recruits want to buy.

As for the other thing, enough with the fking Stanford comparisons. Georgia Tech is not Stanford. We aren't like Stanford athletically and we aren't like Stanford academically. There are partial overlaps that fit but they are different kinds of schools. I know it hasn't come up much in this thread but it's come up so often over the years, it triggered me.
 
travgt01 said:
This is just pathetic. I don't understand how it got so bad. The supply of in-state has increased yet we are still regressing. This really needs to change by whatever means necessary.
Click to expand...

The crux of the matter is that most of the people who might be able to change that do not agree with the bold.
 
I never thought the Stanford comparison was valid. That started when we lost a running back recruiting battle to them (JR Lemon) about 20 years ago and it stuck.
 
GTLiebs said:
First point is fair. Second point is the whole debate, we don't all agree on exactly how big the pond Tech is actually able to fish from is in Georgia. Just cause a recruit isn't a knuckle-dragger and can handle Tech doesn't mean they will want to. As for selling Tech, it can be better but again there is the debate over how much there actually is to sell and what recruits want to buy.

As for the other thing, enough with the fking Stanford comparisons. Georgia Tech is not Stanford. We aren't like Stanford athletically and we aren't like Stanford academically. There are partial overlaps that fit but they are different kinds of schools. I know it hasn't come up much in this thread but it's come up so often over the years, it triggered me.
Click to expand...

So who do we compare to? MIT? We probably have them beat.

According to Niche, we are the 3rd best ranked public college. They have Michigan ranked #1. Do we compare to them?

UCLA is ranked 4th. How about them?

All we do is bitch about how we cant get rectuits due to our high academic standards. All I'm saying is that other colleges do it.

Maybe I am the only one tired of the excuse.
 
$jacket$ said:
Maybe I am the only one tired of the excuse.
Click to expand...

I guess I should accept my destiny that I'm going to type this over and over until I'm dead.

Georgia Tech does NOT have the diverse curriculum offered by most large public or private universities. In addition, we don't have a safe harbor major to hide dumb football players.

Michigan and Stanford are damn hard to get into. Unless they offer you a football scholarship. Then, the real difference between GT, Michigan, UCLA and Stanford becomes apparent. The athletes at Michigan, UCLA and Stanford can study whatever the hell they want or take the "easy" path to graduation. This is not a slam on those very good schools. But at Tech, there is no easy way out. Athletes know this and most of them don't like it and choose to accept scholarship offers from schools that offer more choices.

This was not a problem in the 1950s. It is now. Times changed. Tech hasn't.
 
$jacket$ said:
So who do we compare to? MIT? We probably have them beat.

According to Niche, we are the 3rd best ranked public college. They have Michigan ranked #1. Do we compare to them?

UCLA is ranked 4th. How about them?

All we do is bitch about how we cant get rectuits due to our high academic standards. All I'm saying is that other colleges do it.

Maybe I am the only one tired of the excuse.
Click to expand...

The comparison isn't simply school rankings. The comparison is finding a school with Tech's ranking AND its narrow curriculum.

You're not going to find many, if at all, at the FBS level.
 
00Burdell said:
I guess I should accept my destiny that I'm going to type this over and over until I'm dead.

Georgia Tech does NOT have the diverse curriculum offered by most large public or private universities. In addition, we don't have a safe harbor major to hide dumb football players.

Michigan and Stanford are damn hard to get into. Unless they offer you a football scholarship. Then, the real difference between GT, Michigan, UCLA and Stanford becomes apparent. The athletes at Michigan, UCLA and Stanford can study whatever the hell they want or take the "easy" path to graduation. This is not a slam on those very good schools. But at Tech, there is no easy way out. Athletes know this and most of them don't like it and choose to accept scholarship offers from schools that offer more choices.

This was not a problem in the 1950s. It is now. Times changed. Tech hasn't.
Click to expand...
That's all true. And their academic rep hasn't taken a hit at all. So yes I'm willing for gt to incorporate a super cupcake major to compete and I have 100% confidence that my degree won't be worth less than it is now. I know the BOR probably will never allow this though so I guess it's a pipedream.
 
00Burdell said:
I guess I should accept my destiny that I'm going to type this over and over until I'm dead.

Georgia Tech does NOT have the diverse curriculum offered by most large public or private universities. In addition, we don't have a safe harbor major to hide dumb football players.

Michigan and Stanford are damn hard to get into. Unless they offer you a football scholarship. Then, the real difference between GT, Michigan, UCLA and Stanford becomes apparent. The athletes at Michigan, UCLA and Stanford can study whatever the hell they want or take the "easy" path to graduation. This is not a slam on those very good schools. But at Tech, there is no easy way out. Athletes know this and most of them don't like it and choose to accept scholarship offers from schools that offer more choices.

This was not a problem in the 1950s. It is now. Times changed. Tech hasn't.
Click to expand...
^^^^This ^^^^

GT recruiting success (sic) has been roughly the same over the past 25 years, regardless of who the coach is; you want recruiting to get better, change something besides the coach**.


**Note: we've added recruiting staff, brought Adidas on board, and are renovating the locker room; let's see if these changes help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top