In-State Recruiting analysis

[18in32]

GT has *always* been at a recruiting challenge relative to our competitors. If you think Heisman or Alec or Dodd or any previous coach did not, you're just haven't looked into it very carefully.

 

[coit]

GT has *always* been at a recruiting challenge relative to our competitors. If you think Heisman or Alec or Dodd or any previous coach did not, you're just haven't looked into it very carefully.

So they had to meet APR?

I'm not talking about recruiting competition. I'm talking about our lack of easy degree programs relative to other schools.

 

[GTRules]

So they had to meet APR?

I'm not talking about recruiting competition. I'm talking about our lack of easy degree programs relative to other schools.

Who is in control of the degree programs GT offers?

 

[18in32]

So they had to meet APR?

I'm not talking about recruiting competition. I'm talking about our lack of easy degree programs relative to other schools.

I don't understand what you're talking about. Whatever difficulties the relationship between academics and athletics currently poses for GT relative to its competitors, there has been some similar disadvantage for GT relative to its competitors in previous years. Even in 1950 a history degree was considered less rigorous than an engineering degree if you were trying to earn a "gentleman's C." (I actually don't think history is one bit easier than engineering at the top of the curve. But at the bottom of the curve, maybe so.)

 

[coit]

Who is in control of the degree programs GT offers?

UGA grads.

I don't understand what you're talking about. Whatever difficulties the relationship between academics and athletics currently poses for GT relative to its competitors, there has been some similar disadvantage for GT relative to its competitors in previous years. Even in 1950 a history degree was considered less rigorous than an engineering degree if you were trying to earn a "gentleman's C." (I actually don't think history is one bit easier than engineering at the top of the curve. But at the bottom of the curve, maybe so.)

APR, are you familiar with it? You are a thorough person, so I would assume so.

Dodd didn't have to worry about some of his "boys" flunking out of school and causing the entire team to be penalized as a result.

 

[18in32]

APR, are you familiar with it? You are a thorough person, so I would assume so.

Dodd didn't have to worry about some of his "boys" flunking out of school and causing the entire team to be penalized as a result.

And neither did any other school...?

(And for that matter, do you have some reason to believe that Dodd's players became academically ineligible at a higher rate than subsequent coaches' players? I've never heard that, and my own personal knowledge of Dodd and his players doesn't fit that narrative.)

 

[coit]

And neither did any other school...?

(And for that matter, do you have some reason to believe that Dodd's players became academically ineligible at a higher rate than subsequent coaches' players? I've never heard that, and my own personal knowledge of Dodd and his players doesn't fit that narrative.)

If no school had to worry about kids flunking out, then that would make the playing field even, wouldn't you say? We are talking about kids that we simply won't go after because of the need to maintain standards. The types of kids that go non-P5 schools and then get drafted in the NFL.

 

[smokey_wasp]

I don't understand what you're talking about. Whatever difficulties the relationship between academics and athletics currently poses for GT relative to its competitors, there has been some similar disadvantage for GT relative to its competitors in previous years. Even in 1950 a history degree was considered less rigorous than an engineering degree if you were trying to earn a "gentleman's C." (I actually don't think history is one bit easier than engineering at the top of the curve. But at the bottom of the curve, maybe so.)

I have a BA and MA in History (I made extremely poor decisions in life). It's rigorous in the sense that there is a ton of reading, long term papers, all essay tests in which you are expected to write pages of content for each question. But there isn't a lick of math required and a lot of folks are scared of math. I don't know that this is relevant to anything, just thought I'd throw it in there as a resident expert.

 

[18in32]

If no school had to worry about kids flunking out, then that would make the playing field even, wouldn't you say? We are talking about kids that we simply won't go after because of the need to maintain standards. The types of kids that go non-P5 schools and then get drafted in the NFL.

Schools and kids in the 1950's were plenty worried about players flunking out. Why wouldn't they be? Those players are needed for the team, just like today. And there was only modest money to made in the NFL — so kids that played college ball did so not as a pathway to the NFL, but because they loved playing football and wanted the free education. An awful lot of Tech stars from the 1950's played only a little pro ball because there was better money to be made doing something else with their degrees.

The "types of kids that go to non-P5 schools and then get drafted in the NFL" are also known as the "types of kids whose talent is not obvious."

 

[18in32]

I have a BA and MA in History (I made extremely poor decisions in life). It's rigorous in the sense that there is a ton of reading, long term papers, all essay tests in which you are expecting to write pages of content for each question. But there isn't a lick of math required and a lot of folks are scared of math. I don't know that this is relevant to anything, just thought I'd throw it in there as a resident expert.

All comments are welcome

 

[coit]

Schools and kids in the 1950's were plenty worried about players flunking out. Why wouldn't they be? Those players are needed for the team, just like today. And there was only modest money to made in the NFL — so kids that played college ball did so not as a pathway to the NFL, but because they loved playing football and wanted the free education. An awful lot of Tech stars from the 1950's played only a little pro ball because there was better money to be made doing something else with their degrees.

The "types of kids that go to non-P5 schools and then get drafted in the NFL" are also known as the "types of kids whose talent is not obvious."

The fact that there was only modest money to be made in the NFL again makes the field more level. Kids weren't playing highly organized rec football in the 1950s or earlier, and weren't doing all sorts of off-season workouts intended to make them as desirable as possible to colleges and ultimately the NFL. Recruiting was regional, not national, for the most part.

The fact that the even the best players needed a solid education to provide for their future played in our favor, not against it. Now the best players can choose a school with easy classwork so that they can maximize their time perfecting their craft.

 

[18in32]

The fact that there was only modest money to be made in the NFL again makes the field more level. Kids weren't playing highly organized rec football in the 1950s or earlier, and weren't doing all sorts of off-season workouts intended to make them as desirable as possible to colleges and ultimately the NFL. Recruiting was regional, not national, for the most part.

The fact that the even the best players needed a solid education to provide for their future played in our favor, not against it. Now the best players can choose a school with easy classwork so that they can maximize their time perfecting their craft.

The best I can say about those arguments is: "Life's complicated." The ratio of kids being thoughtful about their futures to those being unmindful of their futures in 1950 is the same as 2018, IMHO.

I do agree that recruiting was more regional in 1950 — but Atlanta was also way, way smaller in 1950.

I also think that we vastly overestimate how NFL-focused the non-elite talent is. The Deion Sanders and Herschel Walkers of the world always knew they'd be playing in the NFL. The Shaq Masons did not. All these kids *want* to play in the NFL, but relatively few of them let that single fact obscure the millions of other reasons that shape where you play (such as geography, friends, liking coaches, enjoying the big stage, etc.).

 

[coit]

The best I can say about those arguments is: "Life's complicated." The ratio of kids being thoughtful about their futures to those being unmindful of their futures in 1950 is the same as 2018, IMHO.

This is the 3rd time that you've said something that would mean that the playing field would be more equal in the 50s than now.

If kids are thoughtful about their futures and that future shows that they can make more money as an engineer than playing in the NFL, then we will stand a better chance of getting a player over a school that does not offer our brand of engineering education.

I fully believe that to be the case, and the reason we were able to draw the talent we used to get. I know from having a mom that went to Rossville HS in the 50s that those boys wanted to go to GT to get an education and play football. None of them were thinking of playing football as a career.

 

[yellowbritchies]

It's not up for debate. We're only talking about it because retards like you don't understand the landscape of college football. Tech is not on par with Duke and Northwestern, as those links show.

Ed,Ed,Ed, so what you're saying is Tech is below both? You're post makes no sense in the context that was being debated by others.

 

[donsue]

And neither did any other school...?

(And for that matter, do you have some reason to believe that Dodd's players became academically ineligible at a higher rate than subsequent coaches' players? I've never heard that, and my own personal knowledge of Dodd and his players doesn't fit that narrative.)

They didn’t

 

[18in32]

This is the 3rd time that you've said something that would mean that the playing field would be more equal in the 50s than now.

If kids are thoughtful about their futures and that future shows that they can make more money as an engineer than playing in the NFL, then we will stand a better chance of getting a player over a school that does not offer our brand of engineering education.

I fully believe that to be the case, and the reason we were able to draw the talent we used to get. I know from having a mom that went to Rossville HS in the 50s that those boys wanted to go to GT to get an education and play football. None of them were thinking of playing football as a career.

Then this must be the 3d time that you've misread me! Are you under the impression I think nothing has changed in 60 years? What hasn't changed is the profile of GT academics relative to its peers. What has changed is the demographics of college football athletes. (Oh, and there was also a period of years when GT wasn't sure it wanted to make the compromises that competing requires. That set us back a good long way.) Does that make it clearer what my view is?

 

[coit]

Then this must be the 3d time that you've misread me! Are you under the impression I think nothing has changed in 60 years? What hasn't changed is the profile of GT academics relative to its peers. What has changed is the demographics of college football athletes. (Oh, and there was also a period of years when GT wasn't sure it wanted to make the compromises that competing requires. That set us back a good long way.) Does that make it clearer what my view is?

Not really. You started by saying that we’ve always had recruiting disadvantages, with the implication that it is’t a valid excuse now because we managed just fine in the 50s. My point is that you are talking apples and oranges. I’m not sure what your ultimate point is.

 

[18in32]

Not really. You started by saying that we’ve always had recruiting disadvantages, with the implication that it is’t a valid excuse now because we managed just fine in the 50s. My point is that you are talking apples and oranges. I’m not sure what your ultimate point is.

It's a reason but it's not an excuse. The difference between a 'reason' and 'excuse' — at least for present purposes — is that while both explain the shortcoming, characterizing the reason as an excuse acknowledges that the actor couldn't do much to fix the problem.

Recruiting is definitely an issue for us, and our academic profile is obviously a key factor in that disadvantage. But I don't accept that the problem can't be overcome or solved. And I do think the comparisons with prior eras highlight this — without pretending the solutions won't be easy.

Hiring a bunch more recruiting staff so we're not at a disadvantage in evaluating talent is a great place to start. If that pays dividends... it'll be evidence that the 'reason' was not an 'excuse.'

 

[Yukonwreck]

I have a BA and MA in History (I made extremely poor decisions in life). It's rigorous in the sense that there is a ton of reading, long term papers, all essay tests in which you are expected to write pages of content for each question. But there isn't a lick of math required and a lot of folks are scared of math. I don't know that this is relevant to anything, just thought I'd throw it in there as a resident expert.

What was your time in the 40 yard dash?

 

[Yukonwreck]

The best I can say about those arguments is: "Life's complicated." The ratio of kids being thoughtful about their futures to those being unmindful of their futures in 1950 is the same as 2018, IMHO.

I do agree that recruiting was more regional in 1950 — but Atlanta was also way, way smaller in 1950.

I also think that we vastly overestimate how NFL-focused the non-elite talent is. The Deion Sanders and Herschel Walkers of the world always knew they'd be playing in the NFL. The Shaq Masons did not. All these kids *want* to play in the NFL, but relatively few of them let that single fact obscure the millions of other reasons that shape where you play (such as geography, friends, liking coaches, enjoying the big stage, etc.).

I would say a college degree from anywhere in 1955 was more special than a degree today. Not that many people were going to college back then, even with the GI bill.