Commit #3- Ryan King- 3*

pkkghfn said:
Amen!

I keep pointing to the Stanford model. They have not always recruited at the level they are now.

Now they are known nationwide as the de facto choice for elite academic & athletic kids.

The msg CGC is now trying to preach is from a technological perspective, GT rivals The Cardinal (and looks down on almost everybody else) on the elite academic scale.

We can (and should) be able to get a piece of that pie.

I don't know if even our old grads realize it (I sure didn't) but we're very likely the only P5 school to have EVERY engineering major ranked in the top-5 nationally.

WE ARE THE ELITE OF THE ELITE!

If a kid even thinks he wants to be an engineer GT should be on his mind (and his coach's mind).

Okay, I've calmed down now.

But I bet CGC, CBK and the rest of the staff are even more pumped than I am about our academics.

I'll add that the academic side is only one part of our appeal. We have a cultural side and a "hip" side that Palo Alto can't touch.
Click to expand...
Thank you. People get so polarized about the Stanford comparisons. Too much insecurity from our fanbase, and people's defeatist defense mechanisms. Stanford had been through a decade of losing seasons, much worse than us. Their recruiting classes in football were ranked right around where ours have been. Even Harbaugh's 1st year, their class was ranked like 50th. Then he got them down in the 20s. After they won 35 games in 3 years, they signed the #5 class in the nation. Now, even though they've dropped off, they're still pulling 5 stars nationally. If you build it, they will come. Stanford does not have more to sell as a football program than we do. Too many geeks getting caught up in USN&WR rankings need to realize football recruits care about football. If Stanford was going 3-9, the Hinton kid doesn't go there, guaranteed. He could go to Vandy or his dad's alma mater, Northwestern, and get the academics. Or Tech. Get rid of the crutch. Embrace what Coach Key and Collins are saying about what we are!
 
Stanford gets a nice check from Phil Knight too as it was his grad school.
 
sthorfinnr said:
Thank you. People get so polarized about the Stanford comparisons. Too much insecurity from our fanbase, and people's defeatist defense mechanisms. Stanford had been through a decade of losing seasons, much worse than us. Their recruiting classes in football were ranked right around where ours have been. Even Harbaugh's 1st year, their class was ranked like 50th. Then he got them down in the 20s. After they won 35 games in 3 years, they signed the #5 class in the nation. Now, even though they've dropped off, they're still pulling 5 stars nationally. If you build it, they will come. Stanford does not have more to sell as a football program than we do. Too many geeks getting caught up in USN&WR rankings need to realize football recruits care about football. If Stanford was going 3-9, the Hinton kid doesn't go there, guaranteed. He could go to Vandy or his dad's alma mater, Northwestern, and get the academics. Or Tech. Get rid of the crutch. Embrace what Coach Key and Collins are saying about what we are!
Click to expand...
But how many recruits narrow down their decision to Tech or Stanford? I don't think we are in competition for players with a school in California, regardless of the similarities. Maybe one or two at most. Success will be based on a good recruiting pitch that sells our positives and winning on a consistent basis. Like Stanford. To be successful like Stanford, we will need to win like Stanford. They've won 102 games in the last ten seasons.
 
Last edited:
pkkghfn said:
Amen!

I keep pointing to the Stanford model. They have not always recruited at the level they are now.

Now they are known nationwide as the de facto choice for elite academic & athletic kids.

The msg CGC is now trying to preach is from a technological perspective, GT rivals The Cardinal (and looks down on almost everybody else) on the elite academic scale.

We can (and should) be able to get a piece of that pie.

I don't know if even our old grads realize it (I sure didn't) but we're very likely the only P5 school to have EVERY engineering major ranked in the top-5 nationally.

WE ARE THE ELITE OF THE ELITE!

If a kid even thinks he wants to be an engineer GT should be on his mind (and his coach's mind).

Okay, I've calmed down now.

But I bet CGC, CBK and the rest of the staff are even more pumped than I am about our academics.

I'll add that the academic side is only one part of our appeal. We have a cultural side and a "hip" side that Palo Alto can't touch.
Click to expand...


Well said, pfffffksh!
 
sthorfinnr said:
Thank you. People get so polarized about the Stanford comparisons. Too much insecurity from our fanbase, and people's defeatist defense mechanisms. Stanford had been through a decade of losing seasons, much worse than us. Their recruiting classes in football were ranked right around where ours have been. Even Harbaugh's 1st year, their class was ranked like 50th. Then he got them down in the 20s. After they won 35 games in 3 years, they signed the #5 class in the nation. Now, even though they've dropped off, they're still pulling 5 stars nationally. If you build it, they will come. Stanford does not have more to sell as a football program than we do. Too many geeks getting caught up in USN&WR rankings need to realize football recruits care about football. If Stanford was going 3-9, the Hinton kid doesn't go there, guaranteed. He could go to Vandy or his dad's alma mater, Northwestern, and get the academics. Or Tech. Get rid of the crutch. Embrace what Coach Key and Collins are saying about what we are!
Click to expand...

It's not imo a zero sum game in that one must choose between a "crutch" and a position of: "there's no prob here with academics and winning football". The tension between academics and athletics has existed, well.....forever. The following link gives a good view of Stanford's recovery from a losing decade in football.

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/02/22/the-price-of-athletics-at-stanford/
 
GoldZ said:
It's not imo a zero sum game in that one must choose between a "crutch" and a position of: "there's no prob here with academics and winning football". The tension between academics and athletics has existed, well.....forever. The following link gives a good view of Stanford's recovery from a losing decade in football.

https://www.stanforddaily.com/2015/02/22/the-price-of-athletics-at-stanford/
Click to expand...
Thanks, but I'm not talking academics. I'm talking football. We can build football success at the level Stanford has had. Anyone who says we can't, is using a crutch of some sort. I've heard all the arguments. They're cancelled out by factors in our favor, or they can be overcome. So, yes, "crutch" is a term I'm comfortable using. Somebody up above dragged out 'Phil Knight'. So, what do we do? Go get Waffle House support and bring our former SAs back into the fold. It's like people are throwing out excuses just to say it can't be done, and not even looking for solutions. I can't stand that. It's easy to bring up problems. Find and implement solutions. I think we're already down the right path to doing this.

And please, please, don't give me the "you're not understanding the problems" speech. I've been on Tech sports message boards for 20 years. These 'problems' have been discussed AD NAUSEUM by our fans. Whenever somebody says, "Why can't we have that?" there are always 10 crutch replies in return and rarely ever a solution offered. I don't need to read a Stanford article on their problems. I need to know how we are going to address ours, if we are so 'apples to oranges' from them.
 
Last edited:
Out of curiosity, I checked out the Stanford roster, expecting to see a lot of athlete-friendly majors that GT doesnt have despite the sterling Stanford reputation for student athletes. Nope, all are legit, even the couple of communications majors sprinkled in there (Stanford communication major is not the same as a State U. communication major). Most seem to focus upon science and technology. Doesnt GT have a Science, Technology and Society major too? There does seem to be a lot of kids from the mid west to the west coast, though, so there is a geographic footprint that kids prefer to be reasonably close to home, thus not sure we can be direct competition to Stanford anyway.

https://gostanford.com/roster.aspx?roster=673&path=football
 
I wonder if Stanford has any other appealing features to attract athletes, besides the academics.

11-stanford-life-photos-02.jpg
 
TampaBayJacket said:
Out of curiosity, I checked out the Stanford roster, expecting to see a lot of athlete-friendly majors that GT doesnt have despite the sterling Stanford reputation for student athletes. Nope, all are legit, even the couple of communications majors sprinkled in there (Stanford communication major is not the same as a State U. communication major). Most seem to focus upon science and technology. Doesnt GT have a Science, Technology and Society major too? There does seem to be a lot of kids from the mid west to the west coast, though, so there is a geographic footprint that kids prefer to be reasonably close to home, thus not sure we can be direct competition to Stanford anyway.

https://gostanford.com/roster.aspx?roster=673&path=football
Click to expand...

Nick Wilson is a 2 time academic all Pac 12 ME major and former 4 * recruit out of Milton HS. Seems like the kind of guy we should be having success with going forward. Stanford also seems have more athletes majoring in their technology focused liberal arts majors, I've always wondered why we don't do this more.
 
I don’t like the Stanford model simply because it’s a private university. If they want you, they can bring you in without disclosing admission.

Cal is a better comparison.

@Yukonwreck to piggyback off your post, the goal should be to fence off the Dukes, UofSC, VT, Louisville, etc. that have poached the 4*/ High 3* talent that would’ve made us 8-9win avg team.

Realistically, Clemson, Bama, UGA, Auburn has a strong footprint in metro Atlanta that will be hard to uproot, BUT we must compete with them! So far, so good with our 3 commits based on the offer list
 
sthorfinnr said:
Thanks, but I'm not talking academics. I'm talking football. We can build football success at the level Stanford has had. Anyone who says we can't, is using a crutch of some sort. I've heard all the arguments. They're cancelled out by factors in our favor, or they can be overcome. So, yes, "crutch" is a term I'm comfortable using. Somebody up above dragged out 'Phil Knight'. So, what do we do? Go get Waffle House support and bring our former SAs back into the fold. It's like people are throwing out excuses just to say it can't be done, and not even looking for solutions. I can't stand that. It's easy to bring up problems. Find and implement solutions. I think we're already down the right path to doing this.

And please, please, don't give me the "you're not understanding the problems" speech. I've been on Tech sports message boards for 20 years. These 'problems' have been discussed AD NAUSEUM by our fans. Whenever somebody says, "Why can't we have that?" there are always 10 crutch replies in return and rarely ever a solution offered. I don't need to read a Stanford article on their problems. I need to know how we are going to address ours, if we are so 'apples to oranges' from them.
Click to expand...
We aren't like Stanford, and we shouldn't want to be like Stanford. We live at the epicenter of the greatest college football universe that has ever existed or will ever exist. Having grown up in Atlanta, but also lived in California, I know the difference. There is no total immersion for Cal vs Stanford vs UCLA vs Oregon. We have been a part of, and had a hand in creating, the best region for college football ever. We may not rise to the heights of bygone years, but we can participate, and we can be successful. The 2014 Orange Bowl is proof. Without the five star players, with no defense, with a non-traditional offense, we dominated a team that many thought was the best in the land. Give it time.
 
ibeeballin said:
..
.@Yukonwreck to piggyback off your post, the goal should be to fence off the Dukes, UofSC, VT, Louisville, etc. that have poached the 4*/ High 3* talent that would’ve made us 8-9win avg team.

Realistically, Clemson, Bama, UGA, Auburn has a strong footprint in metro Atlanta that will be hard to uproot, BUT we must compete with them! So far, so good with our 3 commits based on the offer list
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree.

There was a time when we could get who we wanted over a good portion of the SEC (Vandy, UK, Ole Miss, MSSt, SCar...) & a lot of the ACC (UVA, Duke, BC, Syr, Pitt, NCSt, Wake, Louis).

I know CGC believes we have the potential to get back to that level within a couple of years and surpass VT & UNC not long after.

Pick up a couple of breaks on the field and a Tony Hargrove or Vance Walker on the recruiting trail along the way and we'll get there even faster.
 
Surpass VT & UNC? Football or recruiting? Bc Football wise, the past 5 seasons suggest we have already surpassed VT and still a better program despite being 2-3 the past 5
 
ibeeballin said:
I don’t like the Stanford model simply because it’s a private university. If they want you, they can bring you in without disclosing admission.

Cal is a better comparison.

@Yukonwreck to piggyback off your post, the goal should be to fence off the Dukes, UofSC, VT, Louisville, etc. that have poached the 4*/ High 3* talent that would’ve made us 8-9win avg team.

Realistically, Clemson, Bama, UGA, Auburn has a strong footprint in metro Atlanta that will be hard to uproot, BUT we must compete with them! So far, so good with our 3 commits based on the offer list
Click to expand...

Tucker Gleason is the type of QB that Cutcliffe would love to get his hands on.
 
There was a time, granted before most on here were born, when we owned city of greater Atlanta in recruiting. We can own it again. It will take an "it can be done" attitude with people in charge that believe and go forward believing. The communist used to believe you tell something long enough even though it's not true the people will believe it. I was told for many years we could not do it and they almost had me convinced. Our biggest overcome will be our own people. The recruits and coaches will believe long before we do IMO.
 
sthorfinnr said:
Thanks, but I'm not talking academics. I'm talking football. We can build football success at the level Stanford has had. Anyone who says we can't, is using a crutch of some sort. I've heard all the arguments. They're cancelled out by factors in our favor, or they can be overcome. So, yes, "crutch" is a term I'm comfortable using. Somebody up above dragged out 'Phil Knight'. So, what do we do? Go get Waffle House support and bring our former SAs back into the fold. It's like people are throwing out excuses just to say it can't be done, and not even looking for solutions. I can't stand that. It's easy to bring up problems. Find and implement solutions. I think we're already down the right path to doing this.

And please, please, don't give me the "you're not understanding the problems" speech. I've been on Tech sports message boards for 20 years. These 'problems' have been discussed AD NAUSEUM by our fans. Whenever somebody says, "Why can't we have that?" there are always 10 crutch replies in return and rarely ever a solution offered. I don't need to read a Stanford article on their problems. I need to know how we are going to address ours, if we are so 'apples to oranges' from them.
Click to expand...
Actually, we are not so apples to oranges to Stanford, except for the privatization issue which is significant, along with the education is soooo much more sound in their primary recruiting area than ours, as to not be comparable. It's good that you have been on Tech msg beds for 20 years, but I have been in attendance at Tech football games for 52 years, ok? It says volumes that you did not read the article. Cliff notes---Stanford's Administration made a commitment to stop the losing, including academic standards (although not to the degree that we do or CFB at large does).
 
TampaBayJacket said:
Out of curiosity, I checked out the Stanford roster, expecting to see a lot of athlete-friendly majors that GT doesnt have despite the sterling Stanford reputation for student athletes. Nope, all are legit, even the couple of communications majors sprinkled in there (Stanford communication major is not the same as a State U. communication major). Most seem to focus upon science and technology. Doesnt GT have a Science, Technology and Society major too? There does seem to be a lot of kids from the mid west to the west coast, though, so there is a geographic footprint that kids prefer to be reasonably close to home, thus not sure we can be direct competition to Stanford anyway.

https://gostanford.com/roster.aspx?roster=673&path=football
Click to expand...
Hi Tampa, now check out the actual courses within the majors the football players are concentrated in. When an Institute is a BS only college, it's meaningful.
 
ibeeballin said:
I don’t like the Stanford model simply because it’s a private university. If they want you, they can bring you in without disclosing admission.

Cal is a better comparison.

@Yukonwreck to piggyback off your post, the goal should be to fence off the Dukes, UofSC, VT, Louisville, etc. that have poached the 4*/ High 3* talent that would’ve made us 8-9win avg team.

Realistically, Clemson, Bama, UGA, Auburn has a strong footprint in metro Atlanta that will be hard to uproot, BUT we must compete with them! So far, so good with our 3 commits based on the offer list
Click to expand...
Good post--Auburn and ugag have more fans than we do....in Atlanta. They will not defect (of course who among us would want em!?).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top