Recruiting..

Re: the #\'s back me up...

I heard somewhere today that ND is expecting to sign a top 5 class. Is there truth to this? (Even if it's not top 5, it's way up there)

I know most believe that ND is easier because of its liberal arts, but its still a hard school.
When it comes to Tech recruiting, the grooves on the record that plays.."We can't even recruit those kids" are worn out.

Our academics are not a reason that we can't recruit, they are an excuse for why we don't recruit well.

Tying in the modern success of ND recruiting, give me a break when people resort to the catholic thing. That's just another excuse as to why we don't recruit on the same level as Notre Dame.
Take a look at the ND roster and new recruits, and see what school their second choice was. Very rarely is religion the driving force behind ND signing great football players.
They recruit nationally, and do it very well. Ga. Tech, with its national and international prescence recruits like its a Miss. State! What is completely embarrassing is that freaking uga is getting publicity for national recruiting, while our country bumpkin moans about not being able to recruit the in-state non qualifiers.

It's BS.

For the people that don't agree with this, don't worry. The way this AD hire stall is progressing, you will get to see it all over again next year.
 
Re: the #\'s back me up...

[ QUOTE ]
Our academics are not a reason that we can't recruit, they are an excuse for why we don't recruit well.


[/ QUOTE ]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/greenclap.gif

You are so right with your post above. So tired of the excuses used by some GT fans...especially when it comes to defending certain people.
 
Re: the #\'s back me up...

It's the math. You can believe it or not as you will, but ND does not require high school students to take as many math courses as Tech does. If you don't believe me look it up. That isn't an excuse for poor recruiting, but it does limit the pool we can choose from and the majors available make it easier for kids to find courses of study that they are more comfortable taking. Again, you can ignore that if you like.

Don't understand your reference to the AD stall though. They have a search firm findin candidates and will then intereview. Are you in a big hurry? Why? What would a new AD do for recruiting now, when we already have an AD on staff?
 
Re: the #\'s back me up...

In comparing us to ND, I agree they are an academic institution with high standards that uses its national reputation to recruit well. We ought to do the same.

But, is it completely fair to hold our coach to comparison with Notre Dame? No! I say let NBC cover all of our home games at 2:30 on Saturday afternoon with ABC putting at least two or three of our road games on at 3:30, and then we'll see if Chan Gailey will find recruiting a bit easier.
 
Re: the #\'s back me up...

[ QUOTE ]
It's the math.

[/ QUOTE ]

I recently read that the RB recruit that Ugag and Florida are battling over, Moreno, cut his number 3 school, Virginia Tech, because they require an extra math class. If that's the case, VT must have the same standards that we do, yet, they have fielded some of the best teams in the country in recent years. This "it's the math" excuse is lame and worn out. VT has obviously found out math is no excuse or hurdle. Why do we continue to use it as our crutch? How much lower are we willing to let GT football fall before we finally have the guts to address our real problems and correct them?
 
Re: the #\'s back me up...

[ QUOTE ]
Our academics are not a reason that we can't recruit, they are an excuse for why we don't recruit well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Believe what you like if it helps you sleep at night or makes you feel more justified in the criticisms you need to bring against our team and our coaches and athletic department.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not happy with where we are as a program and I don't see improvement and won't make excuses for why this team plays the way it does. This team seems to have more personalities than Sybil.

But saying that our academics aren't an impediment to recruiting and just an excuse just shows a complete lack of understanding of what's going on. There are so many barriers to our recruiting that are academics based that it isn't even funny. Is this the single reason we aren't recruiting better? Of course not. I believe the single biggest reason we aren't recruiting better is because we aren't winning more. But there are several facets of the academic issue that have significant impact on WHO we can recruit:

1) We have to look at the grades a kid has by the end of junior year, NOT senior year or half way through senior year like lots of other programs. This is how it is determined who can visit and who can't. Most other programs aren't restricting kids from visiting who haven't shown they are going to qualify by the end of junior year. This restricts who we can even bring onto campus.

2) Our narrow list of degree programs. Compared to many other schools we compete with we have precious few options and there are just some kids who aren't interested in our degree programs whether they are smart enough or not. Assuming a kid we want to recruit has the grades we still have to get past the fact that he may just not want to study anything we offer. This is another REAL impediment. Although you can say that this has no impact on kids decisions if you like.

3) It is hard to get into GT. This isn't an opinion. This is a plain fact. And it is hard to stay at GT. Very few people have it EASY at GT even with tutoring.

These are valid datapoints whether you like them or not. They are hurdles over which our program has to climb in order to get kids and some of these are hurdles other programs do not have in their way. They aren't the only things that are standing in the way of better recruiting but to discount them as "excuses" is just plain naive and mean spirited.

Now that I've said all of that let me add something you may be surprised to hear ME of all people say. I think that DESPITE the very REAL impediment of GT academics I believe our coaching staff SHOULD be doing a better job recruiting. The academics ARE an impediment but that's all they should be, NOT complete roadblocks that put a stopper on recruiting success.

So what am I saying? I'm saying that academics are NOT to be used as an excuse for failures in recruiting. But they are very real issues that our coaches have to deal with that makes recruiting at GT harder than at many other schools, but not an insurmountable obstacle (at least not in my opinion).
 
Re: the #\'s back me up...

[ QUOTE ]
Since the NCAA has limited how many we can sign our ranking is lower than it would be otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since we have 18 schollys to give in this class and we have only been able to come up with 15 commitments, how can we claim that the NCAA scholarship limitations have hurt us?
 
Re: the #\'s back me up...

[quote
Since we have 18 schollys to give in this class and we have only been able to come up with 15 commitments, how can we claim that the NCAA scholarship limitations have hurt us?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't throw reason into this. Some people wouldn't be able to defend the status quo and Gailey, otherwise. So, now our recruiting is at the bottom of the ACC, and we continually hear things like "we'll never have classes like GOL had" or we cannot fill our allotment or recruit top athletes...because of a "math class". puh-lease.

So many on this board will point to every excuse in the book except the giant elephant standing in the middle of the room. You know who I am talking about. The funniest excuse I think I've read on this board was blaming it on the lack of GT apparel, the AJC coverage is a close second...and I think the extra math class gets the third place award.

What is sad is that this is one of the busier topics ON NATIONAL SIGNING DAY. That speaks volumes.
 
Re: the #\'s back me up...

[ QUOTE ]
Since we have 18 schollys to give in this class and we have only been able to come up with 15 commitments, how can we claim that the NCAA scholarship limitations have hurt us?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you have your football factories like UGA and USC that actually get MORE commits than available schollys because they know that some will not qualify....but all coaches hold back a couple of 'ships (whether not offering like Gailey or via attrition like Richt) for walkons or a special case like Choice was. If we had the full allotment of 22 availble, most likely we'd sign 19 plus or minus.


[ QUOTE ]
So many on this board will point to every excuse in the book except the giant elephant standing in the middle of the room.

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling our academic situation an excuse and saying it's the same as every other school is either just ignorance, or an yet another irrational way to lay more blame Gailey for our troubles.

You missed my point on the numbers I made above: with the current admissions policy around 40 is about the best we can reasonably expect no matter who the coach is!

This is not an excuse it is reality and whoever is the coach HAS to deal with it. Denying it is simply wearing blinders.

There's plenty of other things you can legitmately blame Gailey for. But this situation really isn't one of them.

Don't throw reason into this.
 
Re: the #\'s back me up...

Of course academics are an issue for us, but my problems is that they have always been a problem, and yet we've been able to recruit at least in the middle tier of acc schools. now we are at the bottom - consistantly at the bottom.

Unless i wrong the minimum SAT requirments may of changed when gailey arrived but the rest of is the same - 4 years of math, junior year crap (by the way if the recruit has a horrible senior year do we ignore that as well:)).

if the admission standards are the true problem, then maybe gailey and company need to fight for more exceptions. at least publically, he has embraced them. They hurt us certainly, but we also have plenty of advantages. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect to be at least recruit in the middle of hte pack in the acc. And there is certainly no excuse for consistantly undersigning, especially while on probation.

i think gailey is the bigger problem. He is very unorthodox when it comes to recruiting.
 
Re: the #\'s back me up...

[ QUOTE ]
Don't understand your reference to the AD stall though. They have a search firm findin candidates and will then intereview. Are you in a big hurry? Why? What would a new AD do for recruiting now, when we already have an AD on staff?

[/ QUOTE ]

R u kidding? There are some good athletes still considering and we sit here with a lame duck AD with the infamous quotee several months ago. You can't convince me that a new, dynamic, charismatic AD spouting our story in the media announcements would not improve our recruiting class.
 
Re: the #\'s back me up...

[ QUOTE ]
the minimum SAT requirments may of changed when gailey arrived but the rest of is the same - 4 years of math, junior year crap

[/ QUOTE ]

This is correct, AFAIK, but what's really changed are exceptions granted for borderline cases. Daryl Smith would not be at GT under todays standards.
[ QUOTE ]

if the admission standards are the true problem, then maybe gailey and company need to fight for more exceptions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agree. Hopefully the new AD will address the situation.

[ QUOTE ]
i think gailey is the bigger problem. He is very unorthodox when it comes to recruiting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think any coach at GT is gonna have to be unorthodox. This is a unique place. Is Gailey the bigger problem? Perhaps, but I think he's done an exceptional job at finding players who aren't recognized as quality recruits by other schools. But I think he's also done a poor job at getting top recruits, but a lot of that isn't his doing. Still, not to excuse it, he needs to find a way.
 
Re: the #\'s back me up...

I just wanted to add that Notre Dame agreed to allow lower qualifiers in this year. They used to be tough like Tech is. But considering the money brought in by football, ND chose to keep the pipe of players open. They are a notch below Tech now and I believe I read where they will take a few at the lowest allowed NCAA level.
 
Re: the #\'s back me up...

Regarding recruiting, I question Gailey on one thing: His ability, in the end, to fully stock the team. I think Gailey is so straight up that he is scared to death of overbooking. Every year he has been a few players short and folks that adds up big time later.

Compare that to every other team in the country. They know there is going to be losses but at least they stock there teams completely full. Then when there are losses, walkons can fight for those spots.

We build in walk on spots and then have losses too. I believe he is a poor manager of the numbers.
 
Re: the #\'s back me up...

[ QUOTE ]

We build in walk on spots and then have losses too. I believe he is a poor manager of the numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could be right - but I wonder how much of the blame actually lies with Wilson? Not to say it isn't Gailey's responsibility, but maybe things will change with the new RC.
 
Re: the #\'s back me up...

[ QUOTE ]

But saying that our academics aren't an impediment to recruiting and just an excuse just shows a complete lack of understanding of what's going on. There are so many barriers to our recruiting that are academics based that it isn't even funny.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't say I don't understand athletics and academics at Tech.
Without the boring details, lets just say I fully understand. That doesn't make me the expert on the subject, but I do have my own experience to draw on.

Even though you came around to agree with my position somewhat, there is a bigger point to be made.

Even IF it is true that Tech is doing all it can because of restrictions from the hill, the Hill has to be changed.
If Gailey's hands are tied, the AD position has to be looked at. If the new AD's hands are tied, the president needs to be looked at.

If the president is truly at blame for us recruiting the 50th rated class, and nothing can be done about it, there is no use to expect better.
 
Re: the #\'s back me up...

The biggest difference since O'Leary left is the new NCAA requirements that will penalize schools who have kids flunk out or leave in poor standing. You can lose up to 10% of scholarships in a sport. We've seen with the O'Leary classes quite a high attrition rate. If that were to continue we'd be in the high 70s for available 'ships every year. Oh, and we are in the middle of the pack in ACC recruiting.
 
Re: the #\'s back me up...

That's a pretty huge leap from something that a recruit said to "everyone is the same as us". We don't know what math clsss he's talking about for one thing. Simple put, YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE CALCULUS AT VA TECH. I don't care what a recruit supposedly said, for all we know he is wrong. The math requirement is a hindrance for us.

What we need to do is figure out what majors we have in the more liberal arts areas that calculus doens't really make sense or where there is another way to address the math requirement. But if you don't think it matters for some kids you're simply dreaming.
 
Re: the #\'s back me up...

Hypothetically, if our math requirements were suddenly the same as say uga, how much difference would it make in recruiting, keeping everything else the same?

I have been reminded recently that the engineering types don't like to think in what if terms, but please give it a shot. It may be fun!
 
Re: the #\'s back me up...

I do think that its time to drop the 4 year math requirement, I think its rediculous that all HS's dont make kids take 4 maths, even if lower level, but I digress. The math requirement should vary according to major. While I agree that calculus can open up whole new ways of thinking and have you realize some important things about the way the world works, I never understood a damn bit of it and I got through alright.

Lets be honest, there is no reason that anyone in the Ivan Allen College, outside of Econ, needs to take calculus, and as for management, I can understand certain tracts within it needing it, but by and large they don't "need" it either. But, thats Tech, and its probably not going to change, just one more of the things that make us who we are. But a kid can be quite successful at Tech with a not so great math background.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top