Test of the Clough Hypothesis

ramblinwise1

ramblinwise1

beware the zealot
Joined
Dec 17, 2001
Messages
18,349
From what I've read, many feel that Clough is supportive of the crackdown on academics and has a form of Stanford worship.

Having just lost a tons of footballers to academics lets see if we leverage the academic elitism and attract some brainy talent in this years recruiting. For example, there is an all-star OL candidate at Washington County this year who has a huge SAT score and who has been offered by Stanford, GT, and UGAg. Lets see how serious we are about recruiting the true SA... if we lose this kid in our backyard to Stanford or to UGAg then we don't ain't walking the talk!
 
I agree. Unfortunately, actions always speak louder than words and Clough's words regarding Athletics are usually pretty sound. BUT his actions have proven hypocritical to the point where it seems comedic sometimes. I would much rather be compared to and look like Stanford than MIT any day any year. But the actions of our President are not there and never will be therefore I have given up worrying about it. The only thing we can do is hire a coach who can win at Tech despite the odds and there arent many out there, much less those who want that challenge. The school is about academics and that's basically what Clough's actions are all about. That's fine if only he undertood that have a phenomenal athletic program can only help the reputation of the school.
 
I agree that the kid sounds like just the type of athlete we want. But to peg our success or how well we walk the talk on the decision of one athlete is silly. The kid will make his decision on a lot of factors, including the majors offered, what he thinks of the coaching staffs and whether he wants to go away to school or not. I'd say look at the overall class, not a particular player.
 
nc, good point. How would you "peg our success"? Let's talk about a measuring stick that doesn't allow any "spin" room. THWG
 
GoldZ, good question, and I don't have a good answer off the bat. I guess my point is that if the measure of our class comes down to one kid we're screwed anyway. Unfortunately it seems like that happens to us a lot, you know one or two signees makes all the difference. I guess long run it's all about how many stay in school and contribute. Short term it's about filling immediate needs. I suppose it really boils down to how we feel about our signees, are they the kind of kids who can succeed at Tech on and off the field and help us win. If somebody can come up with a solid way of measuring that I'm all ears.
 
NCJ, supposedly this has been our recruiting protocol from time eternal. Every coach we have hired since 67 has been saying these same things. I can only go by what I see, not by "we have to start doing it this way or that way." It HAS been done in those fashions forever. And before the season has even started Pena is gone. Yes, like you have said, can not go by one or two players, but sooner, not later, the talk has to be walked.
 
Originally posted by ncjacket:
GoldZ, good question, and I don't have a good answer off the bat. I guess my point is that if the measure of our class comes down to one kid we're screwed anyway.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Y'all need to come back off of that tangent. I wasn't saying that one kid (especially an OL) is the key to success in recruiting this year, the point was that it is an indicator, an example, a sample of one that if indicative of the whole population does tell us a lot about our recruiting.

To be more specific, its sounds as if Clough's plan is:

1) We will not compromise our academics to be successful athletically

2) Therefore we should actually go out of our way to WIN the athletes who are good students and who will respond to our value proposition of superior academics.

Lets say there are 2 running backs out there in the Atlanta area: One is 6'3" 230 pounds and runs a 4.3 forty, but made 900 on his SAT. The second is 6'0" 200#, runs 4.4 in the forty and made 1200 in the SAT. The coaches should spend more time recruiting the second kid if they are serious about Clough's plan.

My cynical guess is they will continue to go for the first kid who ends up at UGAg and the second kid goes to Stanford based on the pitch he received from them and the cold shoulder he received from us. If we are serious about this approach we have to recruit that way or we are left with nobody...

By the way, I'm not advocating the Clough plan, I just think you have to make a decision and go one way or the other... not freeze in the middle.
 
Unfortunately, the kid with the 900 SAT will not likely get "over the Hill". THIS is what we better come to grips with if we are to compete at a high level. THWG
 
Originally posted by ramblinwise1:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">To be more specific, its sounds as if Clough's plan is:

1) We will not compromise our academics to be successful athletically

2) Therefore we should actually go out of our way to WIN the athletes who are good students and who will respond to our value proposition of superior academics.

Lets say there are 2 running backs out there in the Atlanta area: One is 6'3" 230 pounds and runs a 4.3 forty, but made 900 on his SAT. The second is 6'0" 200#, runs 4.4 in the forty and made 1200 in the SAT. The coaches should spend more time recruiting the second kid if they are serious about Clough's plan.
QB]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">What do you think the ratio is, 5 kids with 900 or lower for every 1 with 1200 or higher; 10 to 1?

Can we staff a competitive team with only high academic athletics?
 
I'm guessing 5:1 would be about right. Still Stanford is famous for finding them nationwide. Northwestern was successful at it for a few years. Reality is you would end up with a mixture of both, but you'd have to FOCUS recruiting on the the good students to win a higher percentage of those.

Remember, the assumption is that the Hill is not going to cut SA's any slack and the new NCAA rules are going to start taking a toll so most of the 900 SAT kids will have a high flunk out rate.
 
Originally posted by ramblinwise1:
I'm guessing 5:1 would be about right. Still Stanford is famous for finding them nationwide. Northwestern was successful at it for a few years. Reality is you would end up with a mixture of both, but you'd have to FOCUS recruiting on the the good students to win a higher percentage of those.

Remember, the assumption is that the Hill is not going to cut SA's any slack and the new NCAA rules are going to start taking a toll so most of the 900 SAT kids will have a high flunk out rate.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I don't see much way to argue with ramblin's logic. And it sure seems his presuppositions are accurate, at least right now.
 
I don't remember hearing anyone say anything about comprimising academics. What I have heard is people say that we should have had someone riding heard on and getting help (tutoring) for some of these kids - and I do mean kids. Personally, during my 5 yrs. at Tech I made every deans list on campus. However I was on the s... list a lot more than the other one. Occassionally I needed someone to kick me in the butt, and occassionally I needed some help outside of the class room. Fortunately I had people around who helped. Not someone like "Dr. Moore" who obviously could care less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top