Rules Changes by NCAA oversight committee.

[ThisIsAtlanta]

But we play Duke every year too, losing 3 of the last 4 (badly) to them and their staff size is smaller than ours.

Georgia and Clemson both lose people to Alabama's smaller-sized staff on an annual basis.

Recruiting staff size is just another excuse. Hill restrictions and the scheme combine to make it difficult for a 20-man staff to get 4* and up talent in here.

You seem to be saying here that because recruiting staff doesn't explain the entire performance difference between us and every other team that it's not a factor at all.

But that's not true. It's not as though Alabama could keep stealing people from Georgia and Clemson without any people recruiting at all. Saban built his multi-million dollar lake house on recruiting. Investment in the activity does clearly make a difference, and right now we aren't even as invested in it as Vanderbilt. Yes, there are other factors, like you say, but changing the scheme and dropping the grade requirements down to tard levels isn't going to get us 4* and up talent here on the regular in a vacuum either, because there are a zillion pieces to the puzzle of doing that. Recruiting staff size absolutely is one of them.

And having addressed that, you should take a look at a different column of that spreadsheet. Total number of staff is another indicator of what we can accomplish in recruiting compared to others than the number of purely recruiting focused staff. We're dead last in the ACC there, with 19 (Duke has 30!), and indeed, dead last in the P5, and Georgia is more than double us. We're actually behind most teams in the G5, and we're tied with Army. Now, the recruiting focused staff do a lot of the leg work in identifying guys and coordinating and, hell, probably even flying around and recruiting, but every coach on every staff in college football recruits. When the other guys have double your manpower and only have to fill the same number of slots, you get what you've got. When you've got a staff the size of the very smallest schools in the game, you get exactly what you've got.

The truth of the matter is, we're behind in pretty much every way that counts. You can single out every single factor as an excuse, but that just makes you disconnected from reality. The reality is we've got problems, real problems, in recruiting that have nothing to do with who is coach or what kind of ball we're playing.

 

[RamblinWreck92]

I will join in the cherry picking. We have 5 fewer staff members than any ACC school. Any way you slice it, we are near the bottom of Power 5 and below quite a lot of G5 schools, too. Our staff is half the size of Syracuse's.

Our # of "On Field Coaches" (10) is the same as the mutts and Clemson (and almost every other team in Div-1).

We lack in "Strength and Conditioning" coaching, with only 1 and we have "N/A" graduate assistants, which also lowers our Overall #. We also have a low # of "Football Operations" staff. I don't know what their role in recruiting is nor the role the S&C guy plays.

But our recruiting staff size is comparable to other schools and more than a few in the ACC. It's lame to think it has an effect on our recruiting, esp. given the numerous other schools with smaller-or-similar-sized staffs that always out-recruit us.

 

[RamblinWreck92]

You seem to be saying here that because recruiting staff doesn't explain the entire performance difference between us and every other team that it's not a factor at all.

But that's not true. It's not as though Alabama could keep stealing people from Georgia and Clemson without any people recruiting at all. Saban built his multi-million dollar lake house on recruiting. Investment in the activity does clearly make a difference, and right now we aren't even as invested in it as Vanderbilt. Yes, there are other factors, like you say, but changing the scheme and dropping the grade requirements down to tard levels isn't going to get us 4* and up talent here on the regular in a vacuum either, because there are a zillion pieces to the puzzle of doing that. Recruiting staff size absolutely is one of them.

And having addressed that, you should take a look at a different column of that spreadsheet. Total number of staff is another indicator of what we can accomplish in recruiting compared to others than the number of purely recruiting focused staff. We're dead last in the ACC there, with 19 (Duke has 30!), and indeed, dead last in the P5, and Georgia is more than double us. We're actually behind most teams in the G5, and we're tied with Army. Now, the recruiting focused staff do a lot of the leg work in identifying guys and coordinating and, hell, probably even flying around and recruiting, but every coach on every staff in college football recruits. When the other guys have double your manpower and only have to fill the same number of slots, you get what you've got. When you've got a staff the size of the very smallest schools in the game, you get exactly what you've got.

The truth of the matter is, we're behind in pretty much every way that counts. You can single out every single factor as an excuse, but that just makes you disconnected from reality. The reality is we've got problems, real problems, in recruiting that have nothing to do with who is coach or what kind of ball we're playing.

I broke down the #s in my above response. We only really lag in "Strength & Conditioning" and "Football Operations" and I don't know what effect that has on recruiting (nor do you). Having "N/A" Graduate Assistants just means CBS couldn't find that # when they made that table of data. We certainly have some of those so our overall total isn't as low as you think at first glance.

I agree we have other problems, that's why I listed Hill restrictions. Maybe you didn't read it or chose to ignore that when you formulated your response? But you're disconnected from reality if you think the scheme doesn't also hinder us. It certainly doesn't help, as you pointed out earlier with your factual claim that our recruiting under CPJ is no different than our recruiting before him.

 

[BuzzLaw]

both of whom have bigger recruiting staffs than any other school in college football.

now who's cherry picking?

Recruiting-staff-size is just another excuse.

I read a Bill Murray quote recently. Maybe it was on ST. Anyways, it reminds me of this conversation.

I really don’t think you’re stupid, but you’re giving people that think you are a lot of ammunition.

 

[RamblinWreck92]

I really don’t think you’re stupid, but you’re giving people that think you are a lot of ammunition.

By showing that the "Recruiting Staff Size" argument is a lame one? Or by typing my belief that "Hill restrictions hurt us", only to have it completely ignored?

The first sign of a lost argument is resorting to personal insults. Not once have TIAtlanta & I resorted to that. No need for that sort of nonsense here - we're having a stat-based discussion. If the 'Recruiting Staff Size' argument is so obvious, an extremely-poor job of presenting its side is being done here because the numbers don't remotely support the idea that it hampers us.

Is our staff size under CPJ higher or lower than previous coaches? As has already been discussed, recruiting hasn't improved during the past 10 years. So the staff size of Gailey's group had no effect either, whether it was larger or smaller (though he did manage one miracle class that CPJ hasn't come close to matching). Show me that a larger staff size translates to better recruiting, else it's a lame excuse. The large #s of mutt and Clemson recruiters are doing about the same job as the much-smaller staffs at UF and OSU and the entire Syracuse staff should be fired for incompetence, along with Vandy's!

 

[BuzzLaw]

By showing that the "Recruiting Staff Size" argument is a lame one? Or by typing my belief that "Hill restrictions hurt us", only to have it completely ignored?

The first sign of a lost argument is resorting to personal insults. No need for that sort of nonsense here - we're having a stat-based discussion. If the 'Recruiting Staff Size' argument is so obvious, an extremely-poor job of presenting its side is being done here because the numbers don't remotely support the idea that it hampers us.

Is our staff size under CPJ higher or lower than previous coaches? As has already been discussed, recruiting hasn't improved during the past 10 years. So the staff size of Gailey's group had no effect either, whether it was larger or smaller (though he did manage one miracle class that CPJ hasn't come close to matching). Show me that a larger staff size translates to better recruiting, else it's a lame excuse.

It was a good quote. Don’t take it too personally. But you keep moving the mark. First it was real football teams don’t cut block. Then it was we have the same number of staff members. Then you somehow think Clemson’s strength and conditioning coaches have nothing to do with recruiting, breaking down film or anything else that helps win football games.

So, in fairness, the first sign of a lost argument is making assertions that are completely wrong.

But we can agree that you’re a GT fan and you want us to win. So do I. So we are on the same team. But I’m done with this conversation. You aren’t going to change your mind, and I really don’t care to try and change it. Likewise, you haven’t changed my mind either.

All the best to you. Go Jackets!

 

[smokey_wasp]

By showing that the "Recruiting Staff Size" argument is a lame one? Or by typing my belief that "Hill restrictions hurt us", only to have it completely ignored?

The first sign of a lost argument is resorting to personal insults. Not once have TIAtlanta & I resorted to that. No need for that sort of nonsense here - we're having a stat-based discussion. If the 'Recruiting Staff Size' argument is so obvious, an extremely-poor job of presenting its side is being done here because the numbers don't remotely support the idea that it hampers us.

Is our staff size under CPJ higher or lower than previous coaches? As has already been discussed, recruiting hasn't improved during the past 10 years. So the staff size of Gailey's group had no effect either, whether it was larger or smaller (though he did manage one miracle class that CPJ hasn't come close to matching). Show me that a larger staff size translates to better recruiting, else it's a lame excuse. The large #s of mutt and Clemson recruiters are doing about the same job as the much-smaller staffs at UF and OSU and the entire Syracuse staff should be fired for incompetence, along with Vandy's!

Your point about Hill restrictions is ignored because it's an obvious one that everyone takes as a given, and it's also something that nothing can be done about, short of going private. It doesn't do a lot of good to bring it up.

However you want to parse it, we have the smallest football staff in P5. Also note that the Recruiting/Off Field section includes things like academic counselors, which we likely need more of than other schools to keep kids eligible in a challenging academic environment. Nobody is saying that recruiting staff is the only area that we have challenges. We have lagged behind in facilities improvements, as well, along with being saddled with a very lame apparel provider for way too long, in addition to having some of the lowest athletic department revenue in P5 overall. If the scheme is hurting us in recruiting, we really have no evidence of it.

I think it's perfectly valid to just subjectively not like CPJ and his offense. I don't share the sentiment, but it's a valid opinion, not a demonstrable, objective reality.

 

[ThisIsAtlanta]

I broke down the #s in my above response. We only really lag in "Strength & Conditioning" and "Football Operations" and I don't know what effect that has on recruiting (nor do you). Having "N/A" Graduate Assistants just means CBS couldn't find that # when they made that table of data. We certainly have some of those so our overall total isn't as low as you think at first glance.

I agree we have other problems, that's why I listed Hill restrictions. Maybe you didn't read it or chose to ignore that when you formulated your response? But you're disconnected from reality if you think the scheme doesn't also hinder us. It certainly doesn't help, as you pointed out earlier with your factual claim that our recruiting under CPJ is no different than our recruiting before him.

I didn't point that out, actually, that must have been someone else. I don't even really believe it's true.

I also agree that scheme is a factor. The difference in our positions is mainly how much of a factor we each think scheme vs staff numbers are. I think scheme is a pretty small part, and staff numbers are really killing us. You seem to think staff numbers are a pretty small part, and scheme is killing us. We both seem to think academics puts a ceiling on it.

At the end of the day, 18 year old kids are what's killing us, and who knows why any particular 18 year old makes any particular life decision. Maybe we shouldn't all be so certain we know the best answer here, and stop campaigning across every thread on the board for a dramatic 'fix'.

 

[RamblinWreck92]

It was a good quote. Don’t take it too personally. But you keep moving the mark. First it was real football teams don’t cut block. Then it was we have the same number of staff members. Then you somehow think Clemson’s strength and conditioning coaches have nothing to do with recruiting, breaking down film or anything else that helps win football games.

No, the conversation moved that way. Blocking led to a linemen discussion, where the myth that our OL is outsized was exposed. An agreement that we're out-recruited was reached, which led to the Recruiting discussion that you & I touched on. No one talked about 'breaking down film' though - that's moving the goalposts to another conversation.

But we can agree that you’re a GT fan and you want us to win. So do I. So we are on the same team. But I’m done with this conversation. You aren’t going to change your mind, and I really don’t care to try and change it. Likewise, you haven’t changed my mind either.

All the best to you. Go Jackets!

Likewise- have a great weekend!

 

[RamblinWreck92]

I think it's perfectly valid to just subjectively not like CPJ and his offense. I don't share the sentiment, but it's a valid opinion, not a demonstrable, objective reality.

How about disliking his defense? That's pretty demonstrable.

have a good one.

 

[RamblinWreck92]

I didn't point that out, actually, that must have been someone else. I don't even really believe it's true.

I also agree that scheme is a factor. The difference in our positions is mainly how much of a factor we each think scheme vs staff numbers are. I think scheme is a pretty small part, and staff numbers are really killing us. You seem to think staff numbers are a pretty small part, and scheme is killing us. We both seem to think academics puts a ceiling on it.

At the end of the day, 18 year old kids are what's killing us, and who knows why any particular 18 year old makes any particular life decision. Maybe we shouldn't all be so certain we know the best answer here, and stop campaigning across every thread on the board for a dramatic 'fix'.

fair enough - the boredom of the offseason has a lot to do with threads like this.

It's been an interesting discussion though - thanks for having it.

 

[GTRules]

EABOD, loser. You ain't öööö.

Yes he is. He’s the most bigly öööö on the board, and he’ll kick your ass to prove it.

 

[RamblinWreck92]

Yes he is. He’s the most bigly öööö on the board, and he’ll kick your ass to prove it.

 

[Diseqc]

The reality is we've got problems, real problems, in recruiting that have nothing to do with who is coach or what kind of ball we're playing.

100% truth. Lots of our problems have zero to do with Johnson.

He doesn’t improve it though. He makes things worse than they already are. With our disadvantages, we should have a head coach that’s outgoing, kids want to play for, and runs an offense that kids want to play in. Not the exact opposite in all three.

 

[SGA_Jacket]

100% truth. Lots of our problems have zero to do with Johnson.

He doesn’t improve it though. He makes things worse than they already are. With our disadvantages, we should have a head coach that’s outgoing, kids want to play for, and runs an offense that kids want to play in. Not the exact opposite in all three.

If Paul Johnson is such an asshole and players don’t want to play in this offense then Paul Johnson is the best damn recruiter in the country.

 

[GSUsTALON]

If Paul Johnson is such an asshole and players don’t want to play in this offense then Paul Johnson is the best damn recruiter in the country.

WOW
SGA your post is to the point and hard core!

 

[Diseqc]

If Paul Johnson is such an asshole and players don’t want to play in this offense then Paul Johnson is the best damn recruiter in the country.

Yep. He’s recruited us right to less talent than Duke and UVA.

 

[SGA_Jacket]

WOW
SGA your post is to the point and hard core!

All I’m saying is these idiots are talking out of their ass. If GT has so many restrictions (which they’ve acknowledged and is true) and Paul Johnson is such a grumpy, asshole that is not personable (which they’ve stated) and runs a scheme that players don’t want to play in, then Paul Johnson is an absolutely incredible recruiter. I mean, he’s been able to reel in 4 star RB’s and WR’s or 3 star guys that have offers from other major P5 programs. How the hell does he do it?

Either Paul Johnson is an amazing coach or he’s an amazing recruiter. These douche bags try to have it both ways. One day they say that he’s an awful recruiter and no one wants to play in his system, yet we’ve had a fairly successful ten year run with PJ (I swear to god if one of you say I “accept mediocrity”). So if our talent is so ööööty, how the hell have we had success? OR, if we have so many restrictions and he’s such an asshole and the system sucks and it deters players from coming here, then he’s an absolutely amazing recruiter. These assholes want to have it both ways.

 

[SGA_Jacket]

Yep. He’s recruited us right to less talent than Duke and UVA.

I don’t think he’s an amazing recruiter. You’re the one saying he’s a great recruiter. If he’s such an asshole and his system is such a deterrent, it’s absolutely amazing that we’ve been able to sign guys like Dedrick Mills, who could’ve gone wherever he wanted, to come play for an asshole in a ööööty system. There are countless other examples of RB’s and WR’s we’ve signed that had a lot of big time offers.

And we’ve owned UVA and Duke for the last ten years. A couple of games doesn’t change that fact. UVA and Duke would trade their results of the last ten years with us in a heartbeat.

 

[Diseqc]

I don’t think he’s an amazing recruiter. You’re the one saying he’s a great recruiter. If he’s such an asshole and his system is such a deterrent, it’s absolutely amazing that we’ve been able to sign guys like Dedrick Mills, who could’ve gone wherever he wanted, to come play for an asshole in a ööööty system. There are countless other examples of RB’s and WR’s we’ve signed that had a lot of big time offers.

And we’ve owned UVA and Duke for the last ten years. A couple of games doesn’t change that fact. UVA and Duke would trade their results of the last ten years with us in a heartbeat.

One guy who is not even on the team anymore. That’s your Paul Johnson recruiting success. Hallelujah