Sunday Evening Recruitment Mess
by LilBroey700 on Jan 29, 2012 6:21 PM EST
in Georgia Tech Recruiting
Email
PrintWe had multiple verbal commitments make visits this weekend, as OL Will Adams visited Auburn and CB Antonio Crawford visited Miami. After those visits, sources are saying that Crawford called the GT coaches to let them know that he's committed to Miami now. This is very disappointing for the staff and a lot of people around the program.
As for Adams, he's now said to be a "coin flip" between us and Auburn by Kelly Quinlan of JacketsOnline.com. We're not sure whether or not he actually has an offer from them, but apparently Auburn is still waiting to hear from 3 highly-touted O-Linemen, whose responses could have something to do with whether or not Adams has a spot at Auburn. He said he's done doing interviews, but will make his decision on Wednesday.
This recruitment class has had a disappointing home stretch for as promising as it once seemed. With the decommitment of Crawford, the pulled scholarship of Gnonkonde, and non-decisiveness of Adams and Dalvin Tomlinson, the class has lost a bit of its luster. There's still an awful lot to be excited about though, and this is recognized as what is likely CPJ's best recruiting class yet.
I just want to take a moment here to voice my displeasure with the same thing CPJ has publicly campaigned against in recruiting, where kids will commit and then visit and commit elsewhere. Especially after the guy has made comments like Crawford did after his visit in mid-January: "'My visit was amazing,' Crawford said early Sunday. 'Georgia Tech is just amazing. There is no other place in the country I would rather go. I'm solid to Georgia Tech and I will not be visiting anyone else. Recruiting for me is over, I'm a future yellow jacket!'" Saying things like that and then going back on it is like the kid lied to our faces, something I'm not OK with. Instead, he's now signed on to be Miami's 32nd commitment, with 7-8 other guys he'll compete for playing time with and a storm of NCAA trouble brewing. I really, really do not understand what makes a guy want to put himself in that situation, but at the end of the day, what goes around comes around, and he'll get his.
It just sucks for me, seeing how good of a job Tech did recruiting this class, only to lose guys to other teams at the last minute, even though those guys are like the other teams' third and fourth options, while they were our first. I'd love to see an early-signing period added, as is present with baseball and basketball, to cut down on all of the poaching surrounding recruitment.
How do you feel about how this class is shaping up?
85 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
sources are saying that Crawford called the GT coaches to let them know that he’s committed to Miami now
And people wonder why CPJ has the Commitment Policy that he does…
"If you're looking around...then we're looking around" - Coach Paul Johnson
According to the AJC, Tech has held Crawford's spot.
by first and thom on Jan 30, 2012 9:38 AM EST up reply actions
Crawford said he talked with Georgia Tech assistant Charles Kelly on Sunday and was assured that he still had a scholarship offer waiting for him after returning from Miami. Before the visit, Crawford told the AJC that it was his understanding that making the last-minute trip could jeopardize his Georgia Tech scholarship offer
I believe this is the passage you are referring to. In the previous cases of Tre Jackson (FSU) and Dontae Aycock (Auburn), the scholarship offer was immediately rescinded because OVs were taken to other schools without first informing CPJ.
In the cases of Antonio Crawford and Will Adams, advance notice was given. In both cases, those spots were in jeopardy and would have been given to recruits if another DB or OL prospect had accepted an offer. That still might happen before NSD.
The one question nobody wants to seem to answer is…why is it too much to ask a recruit to De-commit first if he wants to take additional visits?
"If you're looking around...then we're looking around" - Coach Paul Johnson
Why
Is it so hard to understand Coach Johnson’s policies and practices? I’ve always thought they made perfect sense, but the rest of the CFB world seems to view him as some kind of evil supervillain. In fact, doesn’t it always seem like people inexplicably love to see Tech as deceitful and somehow treacherous? No one seems to think CPJ is doing the right thing by these kids except us and Heather Dinich. Is it the cut-blocking and austere persona that puts people off? Does a football coach also need to be an electable public figure? It kills me. Why is it so hard to see Tech and CPJ for the integrity they’re trying to have?
I met her on the campus, sir, cheering the Brave and Bold.
Balance of power.
Schools have overwhelming advantages over athletes once they sign a LOI. The player can’t transfer without sitting out a year, and the school does not have to issue a release. Signing up locks a player in for multiple years. Schools, on the other hand, have complete freedom to drop a player’s scholarship at any point. It is a huge risk for a kid – he has to look 5 years in the future to hazard a guess. For most 17-year-olds, it’s complicated.
I can respect Coach Johnson’s position,* but it puts even more pressure on the recruits. Part of recruiting is getting a kid who has been offered to sign. The school does not have to leave the offer open, and the offer is not binding. Recruits often commit immediately.
I don’t think Coach Johnson’s position is immoral, but it seems both draconian and a little foolish. Draconian because it penalizes a kid for looking around. I want players who want to play for my school, and that conclusion should be based on mutual understanding and full information. Part of getting all the information is getting information from other schools – in fact, getting their best shot. If your school is selling a great team and a great education, there is nothing to fear from other schools making their pitch. Plus, if the kid is going to get swayed by a weekend trip to a rival school, it’s reasonable to question how well he will respond to adversity otherwise.
Which leads me to why I think this policy is foolish: it makes it look like Tech doesn’t think it can compete with other schools. A kid who commits early when he has few other offers may suddenly find himself getting attention from a lot of schools. Right now, Tech tells that kid that he can’t visit elsewhere. Tech treats the arrangement like a marriage. It’s not a marriage. It’s a business relationship. The kid is accepting a scholarship to get an education and a chance to play and develop his talents. The kid makes his decision by balancing the value of the scholarship against his goals. A new offer, or new interest from another school, may change that balance. It’s not immoral for the kid to make sure that he’s making the right choice before signing up.
How many of us would think this policy made sense if we were being interviewed for a job? At the interview, the employer extends an offer that he can’t promise will last more than a couple of days. He wants to know right now. But, if we accept, we don’t start for a year and can’t leave the job without paying a pretty steep penalty. And, if we interview elsewhere before our start date, the offer is gone. The economist in me looks at that arrangement and says that, in the long run, you’ll get the kids who don’t think they can get the other jobs.
*I say that, but I am not at all clear on what Coach Johnson’s position actually is.
by first and thom on Jan 30, 2012 10:51 AM EST up reply actions
CPJ's position
The essence of the position is that once a recruit commits to GT, he needs to stop the recruitment process. This mostly means don’t visit other schools and definitely do not take an Official Visit without first discussing it with CPJ, particularly if said Official Visit happens close to signing day. It is possible to visit other schools, and possibly take Official Visits, but those need to be discussed with CPJ in advance.
CPJ’s rationale is that once you commit, there is no reason to keep looking. It’s kind of like why would keep shopping for a set of golf clubs once you’ve bought a new set? Your offer is secure because GT isn’t going to offer your scholarship to anyone else. This is GT’s commitment to the recruit. GT won’t shop his scholarship around. This works because CPJ has a reputation for honoring the offers. Should he start pulling offers without just cause then the process will break and he’ll have to play the recruiting game like everyone else with soft commitments and everything else.
There is a counter-argument that says the Official Visits are like perks for the recruits and why should they give up a perk just because they have committed to GT. No other recruit has too. Continuing the golf club analogy, why should I stop shopping for clubs just because I bought a set – I don’t have to buy the other sets I’m looking at. I think the concern by CPJ is that recruits who take Official Visits have tendency to change commitments. So by discouraging Official Visits, he is better able to protect his recruits from being taken by another school. In other words, if you keep shopping, you’re more likely to breakdown and buy that other set of clubs whereas the temptation isn’t there if you stop shopping.
The rebuttal is that a recruit can keep shopping and can take all the Official Visits he wants, provided that he has not committed to GT. He doesn’t have to commit to GT as soon as he gets the offer (though a lot of them do). However, once he commits CPJ expects that the recruit will stop the recruitment process (a hard thing for a 17 year old to do).
I think where the confusion comes into is with regards to how CPJ treats other schools’ recruits. The argument is that if a recruit is committed to another school, CPJ shouldn’t be talking to him. CPJ’s argument is that if the recruit was really committed to that school, the recruit would not be talking to CPJ and would not be visting GT. The complaints of hypocricy arise from a lack of understanding of that sentence. So let me rephrase it. If a recruit is truly committed to a school – any school – CPJ thinks the recruit should stop talking to the other teams and stop visiting other teams. If the recruit keeps talking and visting, then it wasn’t a real commitment, it was a commit-until-something-better-comes-along commitment.
by Dive Keep and Pitch on Jan 30, 2012 11:38 AM EST up reply actions
Thanks for the thoughtful reply...
…and here’s my response. In your golf club analogy, the time scale is compressed between deciding on a set of clubs and actually buying them. if we want to mirror recruiting, you have to insert a time at which you can be “committed” to the clubs first. Perhaps like putting them in your shopping cart. If you’re not going to buy them, the store wants you to put them back so somebody else can. If you are going to buy them, the store will sell them to you. The problem is you can’t buy them until February. You have to walk around with them until then. What happens if you look at other clubs?
In the end, a recruit becoming a “commit” is a meaningless distinction in the eyes of the NCAA. There is no consequence to committing. Most schools treat committments more like RSVPs and less like marriages: the school wants to manage its class and get the best players it can. It will press for committments, but understands if things happen. Above all, the recruit should provide information so that the school can protect itself.
A philosophy of treating the committment as a seminal event with lots of consequences is out of the mainstream, and carries with it the risks I identified above. I understand that Coach Johnson heavily emphasizes committment as the main event in recruitment, but it runs the risk of creating a profound disconnect with recruits. Tech would benefit from recruiting players who want to do a little bit more looking.
by first and thom on Jan 30, 2012 2:24 PM EST up reply actions
Allow me to spin this analogy somewhat...
Imagine that set of golf clubs (schollies) is being sold by a store in anticipation of an influx of customers before this scheduled February scramble (NSD). You have only so much money you can spend (as a recruit, this is your ranking/potential). You also want some time to practice on these clubs and get better acquainted with how they hit…so the sooner you get the clubs the easier this is.
You can afford yourself a pretty decent set of golf clubs you think, but you do your shopping around. 1) You could get a cheap set and have some spending cash leftover to get a better tee time (get your schollie from an FCS or mid-major and start earlier). 2) You can get a set of golf clubs within your price range (an AQ conference schollie with a normal shot of PT within 1-2 years). Or, you could 3) wait until the really nice Titleist set goes on sale, although they are a bit tougher to hit (your dream school or Championship caliber school with a 3-4 year shot of PT).
What in essence the recruitment process is, as practiced by Will Adams and Antonio Crawford, is that these guys bought the clubs that they could afford. They played a few rounds with these clubs, but kept the receipt and kept shopping. Before the February scramble the really nice Titleist set went on sale. So they took their receipt and their used clubs, demanded they get a full refund, and took the really nice golf clubs on sale.
The store cannot sell the returned set because its too close to scramble, so they store has to either eat the loss or give the clubs away…
"If you're looking around...then we're looking around" - Coach Paul Johnson
Freakonomics III - the Economics of CFB
Wow!
Senative n. the destruction of one's political career by meme: [fr: middle Intrazweb Eynglush (2009-2020) note: post ASCII], see entry under "Craig James allegedly killed 5 hookers while enrolled at SMU".
by DressHerInWhiteAndGold on Jan 30, 2012 6:07 PM EST up reply actions
Where we disagree...
…is whether they actually “bought the clubs.” Committing isn’t, in the eyes of other schools, final and binding until the LOI is signed. A spot is mututally reserved, but the deal is not closed.
by first and thom on Jan 31, 2012 10:13 AM EST up reply actions
They may not of bought the clubs...
but they made a promise to buy to the store and the store didn’t sell the clubs to anyone else.
"If you're looking around...then we're looking around" - Coach Paul Johnson
by TBuzz on Jan 31, 2012 11:11 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
CPJ's own analogy
Dating to Marry.
CPJ says each scholarship is a little like its own dating relationship where Tech is the pursuant/initiator (the man, if you’re old-fashioned.) If it’s exclusive, it is exclusive on both sides. If it’s open, then it’s open on both sides.
Tech “asks you out” and you think about it. If you “like” Tech but are not “in love with” Tech yet then keep looking around, but Tech will too. You might say yes but find Tech in a relationship with another lady. If you verbally commit to Tech, then it becomes an exclusive relationship on both sides which is openly expected by both parties to become a marriage. Call it “going steady” or call it “engagement.” When that LOI is signed it is the only legally binding step, so that’s more like the marriage. Now, in these early stages where you and Tech are committed to each other, NEITHER party wants to find out the other is still looking around. If it’s going to happen there must be an agreement to open the relationship to other options again. That can be with hard feelings like a bad breakup or with understanding like a mutual “backing off.” If this man who is Tech and are in public together (like a party) and that corn field priest named Notre Dame comes around to make a pass at Tech’s lady, Tech will expect her to say “No, thanks. I’m spoken for. Oh, and Rudy was offsides.” And Tech will smile and say something like “Stings, don’t it? Your frozen fish is showing.”
Now, will this single gentleman (he’s single now, because this is a different scholarship offer) named Georgia Tech be talking to ALL the ladies at the party even if they’re “with” somebody? Yes, but if that somebody were a real man whose lady was truly “with” him then she wouldn’t be blushing so much when Tech is kissing her hand and chatting her up at the party, now would she? No, because who can resist his charm, brains, finely sewn jacket of weathered gold and the aroma of rum and clear whiskey on his breath? No one. This lady is not committed at all. She clearly wants this attention, now. “Middle Tennessee, who?” she says. “Oh him? We’re totally in an open relationship, and he’s not as smart and rich as you. Oh is that your car?” There will come a time Tech will tell her to call MTSU and let him down easy so she can be exclusive with Tech.
Does that cover most of it? It’s the analogy CPJ has used in interviews off and on. I just applied everywhere I could think of.
I met her on the campus, sir, cheering the Brave and Bold.
I get the analogy, but I think it is mistaken.
Recruiting is much more like a business transaction (in my mind) than a relationship. Artificial deadlines, myriad regulations, and lots of suitors are all working against the relationship analogy. Put another way, a school is dating 25 dudes at a time, and taking them all out at once. When it pops the question, it uses lots of high pressure tactics. Plus, there is often very little distance between the first date (an OV) and the proposal.
Coach Johnson gets paid big bucks to sign talented recruits and promising student athletes. It is a business. An appeal to a relational analogy is, at most, a gloss on that unblinking reality.
by first and thom on Jan 31, 2012 1:03 PM EST up reply actions
True Enough
And it is for that reason I say it needs to be allowed to follow business recruitment a little more closely. Namely, letting people sign on the dotted line when they agree to a deal. When I got a job offer I didn’t have to wait six months or a year to make it final…that would’ve been risky for me and the company. I thought about it a little and looked around a little, but when I said “I’m in” that’s when I signed.
I met her on the campus, sir, cheering the Brave and Bold.
CPJ's Policy (As Best I Can Explain)
Step One – Do all your looking around. Consider Tech, and consider everyone else you’d like to consider. We obviously encourage you to come play at Tech, but we tell you not to commit until you’ve made your decision fully and are ready to end your recruiting process. This all gets explained when you get a Tech offer.
Step 1.5: Keep looking around if you desire (Tech is looking around too) or proceed to Step Two if you have decided to.
Step Two – Commit. Upon committing, you end your recruitment process. Tech commits your scholarship spot to you for 5 years at that point. Anything that happens to you (injury, for example) will not take it away. Tech will not shop your scholarship spot around to lure in anyone else. It is taken when you commit, and Tech is committed to you.
OTHER If you begin looking around again (by taking an Official Recruitment Visit to another school) there are three options we’ve observed from CPJ:
Option One is to tell CPJ you are no longer committed to Tech and are re-opening your recruitment or de-commit outright.
Option Two is to tell CPJ you’d like to come to Tech but are visiting another school for recruitment.
Option Three is not to tell CPJ about your visit to another school and risk him finding out another way.
Options One and Two result in your scholarship with Tech becoming “reopened” or negotiable again as if you were never committed. It is now an “offer” again, and Tech reserves the right to “look around” as you are “looking around.” If you are a key target Tech may continue to offer you a scholarship spot and recruit, but they reserve the right to go get someone else to fill that spot.
Option Three often results in CPJ retracting your scholarship outright and deciding we will take someone else regardless the circumstances. Basically, Option Three says you lack respect for coaches.
If you sign with Tech and are injured. Tech keeps you on your athletic scholarship and keeps you in school as long as you can be. If you’re still interested in pursuing a career in football you can help train or coach the team, host recruits, etc. If you’re not, then CPJ and the GTAA will let you keep going to Tech for free and living with the athletes since that’s what you were promised at the start.
New for this year we learned that if you don’t get into Tech or look as if you won’t get in, CPJ tells you as soon as he knows and sets you free to go elsewhere instead of letting you pass signing day and then find out you have to transfer and lose a year. The one example we have of this is happily signing with UNC now.
In conclusion (and these are my personal thoughts), this seems very straightforward to me.
I met her on the campus, sir, cheering the Brave and Bold.
Job interview analogy
Remember, this company has a desirable job. Like any other company and any other job, it isn’t one that everyone wants (I don’t want to be a doctor even though it is a well paid and prestigious job). Since the job is desirable, there are a lot of applicants that are well qualified and could work at a different company and in a different job. There are also a lot of applicants that are not qualified.
The trick then, is for the company to correctly assess which applicants are the best ones and only extend job offers to those applicants. As you point out, there is a risk to the job applicant since he can’t explore potentially better opportunities. However, there is also a risk to the company. Since the offers are honored, the company must ensure that any offers it makes are only to applicants it is willing to hire. If the company misjudges the applicants, it’ll come back to bite them for the next four years. So there is a lot of risk on the company’s side as well.
by Dive Keep and Pitch on Jan 30, 2012 11:51 AM EST up reply actions
I understand the counterpoint...
But the school has to protect itself as well. GT can’t hold an offer for a player they think is committing while other interested players are told there are no slots open. CPJ is almost the victim of his own recruiting efforts. When the offers are made to Adams and Crawford, they are fringe 2-star prospects, and haven’t been given the time of day by bigger schools. If these recruits can’t see past the fact that they are last-minute considerations because their new suitors did a terrible job of locking up other commitments…that’s their problem. I would love to make a 5-year bet on how many games Will Adams will actually get to play on the Plains as an OL…as with Crawford as a DB.
I need to reiterate my original point. If the kid wants to look around, why can’t he De-commit first? Why shouldn’t the recruit be expected to give up his slot and assume the risk of his decision? Why does the system operate where the schools assume all of the risk?
Schools, on the other hand, have complete freedom to drop a player’s scholarship at any point. It is a huge risk for a kid – he has to look 5 years in the future to hazard a guess.
It really sucks that this expectation has become a sort of twisted normality. It’s kind of like saying “The school is gonna get theirs…so I gotta get mine”. CPJ to his credit honors his end of the commitments he makes. The whole idea is to get kids who really want to go to your school so that the LOI isn’t a noose, but a fair contract.
We’re on the short end of the twisted reality of what the recruiting system has become…
"If you're looking around...then we're looking around" - Coach Paul Johnson
Absolutely
Coach Johnson has never “drop[ped] a player’s scholarship at any point.” That’s part of the deal both sides make when the player commits.
Another concept that’s misunderstood frequently is the “if you’re looking, we’re looking” concept. Just looking around doesn’t result in a rescinded offer. If the player wants to reopen his recruiting, then the team will do so as well. Of course, they would rather have an open recruiting all along so that they can stay on other players that may have already committed to another school by late January.
He could
I don’t see any reason why the recruit could not de-commit and continue to look around. Also, the recruit could hold off on his initial commitment until he was sure.
I think what happens is that the kids get scared. They are told that if they don’t commit, the offer will be shopped around to other recruits. This is true for every school and every recruit. The kid quickly realizes that if he does not commit, there is a possibility that he may miss out on his chance for a scholarship. So some of the commitments are probably emotional reactions more than anything else.
by Dive Keep and Pitch on Jan 30, 2012 1:28 PM EST up reply actions
He can't de-commit first because he is protecting himself.
The interests of the school and the recruit are at loggerheads. The school wants to lock in the best recruits, and the recruit wants to lock in the best school he can. The school has limited scholarships, and the recruit can only sign one LOI. On balance, however, the school is in a better position: one kid represents about 4% of a recruiting class, and the school can get out of a bad situation. The kid cannot. If a coach (head coach, coordinator, or position coach) leaves for another school, the kid is still stuck. If life changes make another school a better fit, too bad. If another great player at the same position comes along, there’s nothing that can be done. He loses a year of eligibility to leave. That’s a lot of considerations, especially for a kid who is yet to vote for the first time (if he’s even old enough).
It’s very good of Coach Johnson to honor his offers. But the fact that he does not exercise a right that he has does not mean that a player can simply ignore the possibility. It’s a risk he must consider.
by first and thom on Jan 30, 2012 2:32 PM EST up reply actions
I suspect there is some deeper cultural issue going on here . . . but just a thought.
There is so little trust left in our social interactions these days. I suspect this is a symptom of the loss of social capital that sociologists and political scientists are always referring to.
Coach Johnson may be an anachronism but I would hate it if that is the case. He doesn’t mind prospective students looking all they want, for as long as they want. He just wants to be clear that once they commit he cannot guarantee his end of the bargain either. That seems simple enough to me.
Where all of this breaks down apparently is that we are fast approaching a stage of development in this country in which every interaction is based on personal self interest, trust is a non-player, and the assumption is that we are all part of a larger game in which some people are going to get screwed and some are not and therefore I will do any unethical thing I have to in making sure that I not victimized by the system.
Some these kids, not all, just a few, really scare me. I hate to think what they will be like when they have power over someone and are making decisions that impact the well being of others.
by Atlanta's original team on Jan 30, 2012 3:16 PM EST up reply actions
I certainly don't mean to say anything bad about Coach Johnson's character...
…but I have my doubts about how low-key getting an offer from Georgia Tech is. I imagine (without any information) that the pressure to commit quickly is pretty intense. Recruiters are salesmen, and they are in the business of closing deals.
Also, the unbalance between the bargaining position of the schools and the players is not the kind of thing that requires a lack of trust in order to break down. Bad rules create bad situations, even if the people involved do not intend to do ill.
I think the LOI system sucks.
by first and thom on Jan 30, 2012 3:51 PM EST up reply actions
pressure to commit
I agree that it is probably intense, regardless if the offer is from GT or somewhere else. I assume that the higher ranked (i.e. more stars) you are, the more intense it is. When a coach tells you he has a dozen offers out to fill two spots and it’s first come first serve, it’s hard to say, “I’ll sleep on it.”
by Dive Keep and Pitch on Jan 30, 2012 4:07 PM EST up reply actions
I think we agree the system lacks something to be desired...
I also agree it is hard to tell who is abusing the rules and increasing the pressure. I hate to think all recruiters are salesmen today. If that is true it is one more reason why I have become a stranger in this world.
When I was part of a recruiting team (very small potatoes by comparison) we were only concerned with doing right by the recruit. Sure we liked good players, but if we were more concerned with it being a good match. Retention was the key goal. Good retention in a school, especially if you small and private, leads to overall institutional strength. I guess I was hoping Tech was similar in wanting to attract the right students to its program.
I read recently that the retention rate for Auburn’s recruits was abysmal. Over 40% leave the program. That hurts a school in the long run.
by Atlanta's original team on Jan 30, 2012 4:38 PM EST up reply actions
Therein lies the problem...
The recruit is allowed to protect themselves at the expense of the institution. I think it’s 99.999999999% certain Will Adams is choosing Auburn…rarely do last-minute flirtations favor the incumbent. Even his language in the AJC pieces has changed from…
- “still committed to Tech, not visiting Auburn” to
- “still committed to Tech, thinking about it” to
- “still committed to Tech, making the OV to Auburn to compare with GT” to
- “still committed to Tech, thinking really hard about it” to
- “Undecided”
In this series of events…how can you tell me that his scholarship doesn’t deserve to be rescinded? De-committing and allowing Tech to openly shop that spot is the fair thing to do, since the actual chain of events that occurred plainly demonstrated that he isn’t committed.
"If you're looking around...then we're looking around" - Coach Paul Johnson
"Word on the street" seems to be that it is Auburn
The nagging question is whether he was playing Tech all along or whether he was suffering the agonies of Hamlet trying to decide.
Crawford is more disturbing because he was so emphatic in his statements, which clearly in hindsight were bogus.
by Atlanta's original team on Jan 30, 2012 5:48 PM EST up reply actions
I'm of the reverse opinion...
Having lived in Florida, and sharing very similar surroundings here in central FL as Mr. Crawford…I knew he was as good as gone when I heard the other school was “Da U”. Kids care quite a bit, as it turns out, about “gettin’ they SWAG on”…even if it means enduring the insurmountable odds it seems he will be facing at UM.
What honestly surprised me more was Adams. In no such way did I ever get from him that GT was just placeholder for him. I read about him, and how he rooted for UGA growing up. But, I figured a HS that had a relationship with Tech and recently sent us Calvin Johnson, Andrew Gardner, and Isaiah Johnson would have given us a good enough heads up at how fickle Adams’ recruitment was going to be once thrown desperate and last-ditch scholarship offers without caring about how little UGA and Auburn gave him any serious consideration. Almost morbid given how it publicly played out. It went from “really” to “Really?” to “REALLY???” in a very slow and agnonizing sequence.
I feel for the kid, but this almost smacks of someone other than him (parents maybe?) calling the shots…
(my opinion of course, take it with a grain of salt)
"If you're looking around...then we're looking around" - Coach Paul Johnson
Auburn's one and only chip to bargain with
is the same as Vandy’s and Missy State’s – The SEC. There’s your swag.
Even though in plenty of ways Georgia Tech and its football program are comparable to Auburn or even better, some people will not see it that way “because Ess Eee CEE!”
I met her on the campus, sir, cheering the Brave and Bold.
And before anyone challenges that, consider the following:
Auburn vs. Georgia Tech
Peer Group Stats
Total Enrollment: 24.6k vs. 21k
Undergrad Enrollment: 20k vs. 14k
% Female: 51% vs. 32%
Location Stats
Campus Size: 1,800 acres vs. 420 acres
Location Type: rural vs. urban
Campus Type: suburban in small town vs. suburban in large city
Academic Stats
Overall Avg SAT: 1300 vs. 1420
Overall Academic Rank: 82nd vs. 35th
Public Academic Rank: 38th vs. 7th
Most Athletes Major In: Social/Behavioral Sciences vs. Business
Rank of SA Clustering Major: Not Ranked vs. 16th
Football Program Stats
Claimed National Titles: 2 vs. 4
Conference Titles: 11 vs. 16
Bowl Seasons: 37 vs. 40
Conference: SEC vs. ACC
Stadium Size: 87k vs. 55k
All Time Win % : 63.5% vs. 59.6%
Current HC Win % : 75% vs. 64.2%
Head to Head Record 47 vs. 41 (4 Ties)
Current Streak Head to Head: 3 GT
To me, this is a tale of a rural football factory versus a football program that is not too far behind it but is at a much more serious academic school in a conference with little street cred. One you’ll have to work harder to get onto the field and play, while the other you’ll have to work harder in the classroom. Both schools can be fun (give Tech credit for being in the ATL and having girls galore flocking to campus from KSU, Spelman, State, etc, on the weekends to fill that void), but only one of them is going to fill a big stadium of people who will scream “SEC” when you win a game. That’s really about all Auburn has to offer over Tech, the way I see it.
I met her on the campus, sir, cheering the Brave and Bold.
Honestly, that doesn't matter...
Auburn just has to show up, suck in their chest, and say…“we’re Auburn”. They don’t need to explain shit.
The SEC brand and Auburn brand is pretty damn strong right now.
"If you're looking around...then we're looking around" - Coach Paul Johnson
That...
and the NCAA allows Auburn to sign kids at the following rate…
2006 – 25
2007 – 30
2008 – 28
2009 – 29
2010 – 32
2011 – 26
2012 – 15 (currently, they will add more but limited to 25)
Now, I’m not an astro-physicist or mathmetician…but I know that 4-year running combined average is greater than 85 per year. This will change with added scrutiny, and you’ll hear some stories (soon, hopefully) of kids getting put through the SEC meat grinder and the damage it causes.
"If you're looking around...then we're looking around" - Coach Paul Johnson
As I said earlier . . .
Auburn has a very low retention rate for its football players. They churn through them, over 40% don’t make the cut for one reason or another, and then Auburn ends up with their core group of players each year. No wonder they get away with offering so many scholarships. I was astounded at how many they offered this year. They seem to be counting on a high attrition rate along the way between offers, verbals, signing and actually making it on the field.
by Atlanta's original team on Jan 31, 2012 7:45 AM EST up reply actions
119 players signed between 2007-2010...
and that’s not counting preferred walk-ons, regular walk-ons, and any other kid who might have earned a schollie.
That’s, at a minimum, 34 players above what they’re allowed to keep. WHY ISN’T THIS A BIGGER NEWS STORY?? This is freaking ridiculous. The NCAA wants to “make a point” by vacating Tech’s 2009 ACC Title because of $312 of STILL-TAGGED and RETURNED sports apparel…yet has no issue with certain schools making a mockery of their educational universities by taking kid’s schollies away.
"If you're looking around...then we're looking around" - Coach Paul Johnson
If I were even more paranoid . . .
I would think that the NCAA wants to protect its brand by not causing too much trouble for its marque teams and conferences. We all know that the SEC contains some of the most egregious transgressors but that is not the conference that ends up on the news year after year when it comes to “serious” investigations.
by Atlanta's original team on Jan 31, 2012 9:15 AM EST up reply actions
Far be it from me to defend Auburn (which I hate)...
… but there is at least a little story to be told here. When you say “34 players above what they’re allowed to keep,” what you mean is 34 player-seasons. A JUCO player who only comes for 1-2 years (like Cam Newton or Nick Fairely) reduces the number of extra player-seasons by 2-3 each. A kid who doesn’t qualify reduces that number by 4-5. Auburn also booted 4 players off the team (for armed robbery), and they were a young bunch. Add in normal attrition, and you’re no longer talking about 35 kids getting run off. I think it’s probably more like 2 or 3. That’s still too many, but it’s good to keep the scale of the problem in perspective.
Last year, despite its rather amazing oversigning, Auburn had the youngest roster in all of the NCAA. They were short on scholarship players.
by first and thom on Jan 31, 2012 10:22 AM EST up reply actions
What the math would suggest is that by 2010, they would have had 34 players, at minimum, above the requirement.
The other thing its telling me is that Auburn, like the rest of its SEC West oversigning bretheren, are bringing in a significant number of kids that have absolutely no business is a college environment.
"If you're looking around...then we're looking around" - Coach Paul Johnson
So you are admitting that Auburn has a terrible retention rate . . .
which indicates to me there is a serious institutional problem.
by Atlanta's original team on Jan 31, 2012 2:00 PM EST up reply actions
That's actually not what I said.
The football program has a lot of attrition, but that’s different than student attrition. A guy who transfers or quits football (or gets cancer, in the case of one 5* OL recruit) counts as a lost player, but has not necessarily had an adverse academic experience. Likewise, a guy leaving early for the NFL should not count as a retention problem. Players who transfer out because the coaches that recruited them left are also not a retention problem in the normal sense.
Auburn has had football turnover, both in players and coaches.
Auburn has oversigned egregriously, but not to the tune of 34 players.
by first and thom on Jan 31, 2012 2:27 PM EST up reply actions
I guess what I and some others are trying to figure out
is what is “egregious” over-signing by your standards? And what would be a normal percentage of recruits that you would expect to see the field of play from those you sign over the course of two or three years?
I ask the last question because Auburn coaches have said for public record that losing 43% of their players over three years is too high.
by Atlanta's original team on Jan 31, 2012 2:40 PM EST up reply actions
I'd hate to give the Potter Stewart answer, but I can't give you a number.
Oversigning is signing more players than you can place on scholarship. Auburn is guilty of that, but, because it has had such high player departures, using the number of signed LOIs alone is an insufficient metric and overestimates the scale of their oversigning.
You can’t just take the number of commitments over 4 years and subtract 85 to find the number of oversigned players. You have to account for people leaving early, non-qualifiers, transfers, and those guys who just give up the game. Some of those guys that get subtracted have been pushed out (and one of those is one too many), but not all of them can be attributed to bad actions. For example, a JUCO signee (of which Auburn had 8 from 2007-2010), can only stay 3 years and usually only stays 2.
Oversigning is more than just math. That’s all I’m saying.
by first and thom on Jan 31, 2012 3:50 PM EST up reply actions
O.K., I was not trying to be argumenative
Just trying to figure out if you thought Auburn was doing things right or if you thought there was a problem. I am hearing you say there might be a problem but at this point you don’t think there is enough evidence yet to say it is a big problem, that there may be extenuating circumstances which keep this from being too serious. If I have fairly characterized your response then that is all there is left to say.
by Atlanta's original team on Jan 31, 2012 4:20 PM EST up reply actions
/hand shake
I hate Auburn and think they’re doing things the wrong way. But I also think that the problem is not as big as it was portrayed to be. A problem can be bad without being ALL THE BADZ.
by first and thom on Jan 31, 2012 5:40 PM EST up reply actions
A recruit is not out to protect the institution.
The institution can do that, but a recruit’s interests are adverse. Just like any other transaction, it’s on the parties to negotiate a deal that both are willing to affirm, and that requires mutual benefit. If Tech is going to protect itself at the expense of the recruit’s interests, expect recruits with other choices to look elsewhere. It’s economics, baby.
by first and thom on Jan 31, 2012 10:24 AM EST up reply actions
A recruit is not out to protect the institution but . . .
if the recruit wants to be protected BY the institution then the recruit should tell the truth, keep promises and not be high handed. Anything less than that may sound like economics but it is not the economic theory I am familiar with.
We say “buyer beware” today but most people misunderstand the original intention of the phrase. Terms and conditions are supposed to be transparent. When both parties are clear about the exchange and have the same information then you are at fault if you make a deal that you suddenly want to renege on. You had all of the information up front, both parties had equal access to the benefits and risks involved, and you knew what you were getting into, so you can’t really say after the fact that you didn’t know.
I understand that there are many young people today (and apparently many adults who encourage them) who are saying that making a verbal commitment is not really a binding deal. We are just pretending and playing a game until I can gain an “economic” advantage in the negotiation. That is a bad omen for our society.
by Atlanta's original team on Jan 31, 2012 2:15 PM EST up reply actions
Hate kowtowing to 18 year old punk bunnies
Senative n. the destruction of one's political career by meme: [fr: middle Intrazweb Eynglush (2009-2020) note: post ASCII], see entry under "Craig James allegedly killed 5 hookers while enrolled at SMU".
by DressHerInWhiteAndGold on Jan 29, 2012 9:25 PM EST reply actions
Adams is a silent commit to Auburn
Will and his dad played us well.
Source?
The Church of Paul Johnson - There's not much to it outside of whooping ass and giving haters the finger. To HELL With georgie!
by LilBroey700 on Jan 29, 2012 11:37 PM EST up reply actions
Losing Crawford and Adams are not that big a deal...
In fact it opens up spots for guys that honestly do want to be here. Guys like PWOs such as Xzavier Ward and Timmy Byerly.
These guys weren’t our best recruits anyway…in areas we have a lot of depth in.
Tomlinson, however, is what either makes this class great with a LOI…or average if his spot opens up at Alabama.
"If you're looking around...then we're looking around" - Coach Paul Johnson
by TBuzz on Jan 29, 2012 11:00 PM EST via mobile reply actions
That is the question and that is the answer.
Tomlinson is not the difference between a good class and a great class.
by Atlanta's original team on Jan 30, 2012 7:32 AM EST up reply actions
Well, a 4-star prospect in arguably our biggest area of need. The fact that he would rather be the 3rd or 4th DL recruit in this year’s Bama class (even as they are currently oversigned) instead of the best DL recruit in this year’s GT class (and most likely get PT next year and beyond) is really telling.
For all the overtures kids make about wanting to find a schools that gives them academic opportunities as well as athletic, and consider he’s been to pretty much every Tech home game in 2011…the fact he jumps on the first tangible Bama offer is also pretty telling.
The comparison I can draw is like that of having two job offers. The first is with a fairly successful midsize company where you’ll have lots of responsibility and a quicker path to leadership. The second is with a very successful and popular large, multi-national company where he comes into a lot of competition from the outset…and while the path to leadership is tougher and less likely, the reward is that much greater.
"If you're looking around...then we're looking around" - Coach Paul Johnson
You're over-explaining because . . .
I just looked at my post and saw that for some reason I typed in “not” when I did not mean to. I meant to say Tomlinson is the difference between a good class and a great class. Still, sort of glad I typed it that way so I could see your excellent answer. :-)
by Atlanta's original team on Jan 30, 2012 8:21 AM EST up reply actions
What did you expect?
We’re talking about 18 year old kids. And you can’t blame the coaches. They’ll lose their jobs if they don’t go out and recruit all the kids they can.
I take no issue with the coaches.
Our coaches, Miami’s coaches, Auburn’s coaches, uga’s coaches, everyone does a phenomenal job at recruiting when they can pull off this sort of stuff. I don’t hate them for it at all. I take issue with the players, saying things and not meaning them. I deal with the same stuff as recruitment chair at my fraternity, where kids tell me we’re the #1 house for them and they just need to call their parents, and then for the next 3 days refuse to answer their phone or let me know about anything that’s going on. If you want to go play for Miami, that’s fine, but don’t do it after telling me that there’s no chance you’re playing anywhere else but my school. That’s what I’m offended by.
The Church of Paul Johnson - There's not much to it outside of whooping ass and giving haters the finger. To HELL With georgie!
by LilBroey700 on Jan 29, 2012 11:40 PM EST up reply actions
This whole Greek/NCAA recruitment metaphor reminded me
of this one time a guy didn’t quite seem like he had the grades to get into my fraternity, and I’m pretty sure we actually grayshirted him. Just the thought that I might have anything in common with Nick Saban made me go take a shower and read my Bible a little extra…
I met her on the campus, sir, cheering the Brave and Bold.
Going to get a little Holy Water, BRB
The Church of Paul Johnson - There's not much to it outside of whooping ass and giving haters the finger. To HELL With georgie!
by LilBroey700 on Jan 30, 2012 12:27 AM EST up reply actions
My issue is this...
If you’re committed to Tech, and you want to take an OV to another school…do the honorable thing and De-commit first.
"If you're looking around...then we're looking around" - Coach Paul Johnson
by TBuzz on Jan 30, 2012 6:24 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
The metaphor reminded me.......
of this one time where this girl was all over me and she wanted to go out with me. So I get her digits and then doesn’t answer her phone. Its the world we live in. Remember these are 18 year old kids and parenting sucks these days. You can’t even get Congress to tell you the truth why would you expect these kids to keep their word?
It all comes down to...
Character! If a player is just using GT to show other BCS programs that he has a legitimate offer in order to garner more, specifically his dream school which didn’t think enough of him to offer a scholarship in the first place, then talent aside, he isn’t the type of player CPJ wants on his team.
As CPJ likes to tell HS kids; make sure you are done looking around before you tell me that you are giving an oral commitment to attend GT. Unfortunately, the kids and their parents are all at fault in this process. But here is what is so difficult to understand; why would you even consider taking a trip or attending your dream school when it is only because several other players turned them down?
That is a pity offer! In fact that is not even plan B, it’s Plan Z! So if a kid has so little self-respect for himself and wants to attend a school on that basis, go ahead!
Early Signing Period...
Anything written on a napkin?
Have to take the Coach to your Church?
Senative n. the destruction of one's political career by meme: [fr: middle Intrazweb Eynglush (2009-2020) note: post ASCII], see entry under "Craig James allegedly killed 5 hookers while enrolled at SMU".
by DressHerInWhiteAndGold on Jan 30, 2012 7:35 AM EST reply actions
Gnonkonde got in at UNC
I find that fascinating. Sort of. His scores were not good enough for Tech but he sweeps into Chapel Hill with no problem. I guess there is elite and then there is elite.
by Atlanta's original team on Jan 30, 2012 7:41 AM EST reply actions
I think there is a lot of light yet to be shone on this story.
Because it involves Tech firing an assistant, for what I alone presume to be Spencer’s communications with JG’s guardian that “everything was OK” with his test scores when in fact the weren’t…and subsequently dropped the ball and gave the Institution bad PR.
I think Tech’s policy is not to accept partial qualifiers (maybe because far too few of them actually qualify) and hope they successfully retake whatever test they need before Fall semester. Looks like to me, CPJ delegated this communication loop to Spencer (as the assistant is usually the point person in contact with the recruit and their parents/guardian) and by the time the situation could have been remedied it was too late. Which is why I’m sure CPJ started calling other schools for JG.
It’s not that we’re more elite…we just fucked up. Simple as that I think.
"If you're looking around...then we're looking around" - Coach Paul Johnson
Looks like more elite and more effed up.
Handled poorly but still interesting that Tech’s policy would be more strict than UNC.
by Atlanta's original team on Jan 30, 2012 8:23 AM EST up reply actions
These are the minimums for UNC Chapel Hill:
The minimum combined SAT score (on mathematics and critical reading) for admission is 750 (or a composite ACT of 16.)
The minimum high school GPA requirement will increase to 2.3 for students entering in Fall 2012.
I think the NCAA minimums are higher than this.
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Seneca
"We have to distrust each other. It is our only defense against betrayal." - Tennessee Williams
750 SAT?
Using the new 2100 scoring system or the old 1600 one?
"If you're looking around...then we're looking around" - Coach Paul Johnson
1600
Which is still decently pathetic. Needing to average less than half credit on the SAT to be able to play major college football while other students tend to need another 400-500 points just to be admitted in a lot of places is a bit of a joke.
Then again, I’m probably biased. My score was close to double that requirement, which put me at about average for the incoming class at the Institute.
The Church of Paul Johnson - There's not much to it outside of whooping ass and giving haters the finger. To HELL With georgie!
I've never thought of you as average.
by Atlanta's original team on Jan 30, 2012 9:13 AM EST up reply actions
I feel like such an arrogant asshole....
The Church of Paul Johnson - There's not much to it outside of whooping ass and giving haters the finger. To HELL With georgie!
As long as you remember that once you walk across that stage with your placeholder degree (unlike the REAL one us older folks got to walk with)…what you got on your SAT don’t mean squat anymore ;-)
In fact, the GPA you got at Tech will probably lose it own relevance within 5 years (if not sooner).
"If you're looking around...then we're looking around" - Coach Paul Johnson
2 years in to college...
Mines is already entirely irrelevant
by tdot6 on Jan 30, 2012 10:10 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I actually had to put it on a job application yesterday
It was a very strange feeling, I haven’t listed it anywhere since I applied to college and for scholarships…
The Church of Paul Johnson - There's not much to it outside of whooping ass and giving haters the finger. To HELL With georgie!
by LilBroey700 on Jan 30, 2012 12:53 PM EST up reply actions
Wow! Those numbers are worthless to an employer.
Unless, of course, he thinks you were an NCAA football player who was accepted to school because you can pass for 400 yards per game in spite of being dumber than a fence post. But that’s not listed on your FTRS profile, so I bet you would be lucky to pass for 400 yards per season. So, maybe we should have asked to see your middle school grades and boy scout merit badges, as well.
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Seneca
"We have to distrust each other. It is our only defense against betrayal." - Tennessee Williams
Let it be known...
I haven’t known of an Eagle Scout that wasn’t a habitual marijuana user…
"If you're looking around...then we're looking around" - Coach Paul Johnson
I am one but not the other
The vagueness will let you argue over which is which.
Funny, that has been my experience also . . .
whereas acedarney here only scouts for marijuana and never uses.
by Atlanta's original team on Jan 30, 2012 4:40 PM EST up reply actions
I would be lucky to pass for upwards of 40 yards and sub-40 interceptions per season.
The Church of Paul Johnson - There's not much to it outside of whooping ass and giving haters the finger. To HELL With georgie!
Someone posted this on a fan site and thought I would share.
Taylor King wrote this garbage article.
http://dev.chuckoliver.net/2012/01/from-one-techie-to-another-stop-with-the-excuses-already/
When just 7 days prior he wrote in another post:
“I am personally proud to have Paul Johnson as the coach of my favorite team and think that he truly believes in the student-athlete experience as well as doing the right thing. And for that, I have just one thing to say: Go Jackets!!!”
http://dev.chuckoliver.net/2012/01/paul-johnsons-scholarship-pull-should-inspire/
Not sure how you pull the 180 after 7 days?
As for Auburn’s scholarship / football players….ESPN recently published an article about how many of their players had “disappeared”. I tried finding the article, but no luck. Considering they will have a new O & D coordinator for 2012, you think that would have caused concern amongst their recruits.
A perspective on a commitment analogy
When you commit to GT, that means you are engaged. The actual marriage takes place on signing day. Being a bit of an old school coach, CPJ demands that during the engagement the recruit doesn’t go looking at other potential spouses and GT agrees that on signing day, the recruit will not be stood up at the altar. In a perverse twist on this tortured analogy, GT is a polygamist and thus can continue to look at other potential spouses while still honoring the agreement marry the previous recruits who have become engaged to GT.
At other schools, the commitment is just an agreement to date on a routine basis – going steady as they say (do people still use that term?). Therefore, the school and recruits continue to see other potential spouses even though they are seeing each other with the potential of getting married on signing day. There is a risk to both the school and the recruit that they may be abandoned on the day of their supposed marriage. In some cases, the school will tell a recruit the day before the wedding that can get married except that it will be next year, not this year.
by Dive Keep and Pitch on Jan 31, 2012 12:28 PM EST reply actions
But add one thing to your analogy.
Tech wants to marry the bride and thus says that no matter what happens “We are married. Even though I wanted children by you, if it turns out you can’t have children I will still keep my commitment. Even though I might like to have intimate relations with you, if it turns out you are totally frigid after we get married I will still love and support you. I am giving you an iron clad agreement that if you make a promise to me I will not only spend my inheritance continuing to woo you, I will give you everything you need for the four or five years our marriage lasts and even then after that I will work to get you settled in the future. All you have to do is show up at the altar at the time you promised.”
by Atlanta's original team on Jan 31, 2012 2:24 PM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanShots on From The Rumble Seat
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
SHOP THE FROM THE RUMBLE SEAT STORE
