Is It a Bad Idea for Georgia to Recruit Nationally as Well as Locally?

by T Kyle King on Feb 15, 2007 11:25 PM EST in Football

As all of you know, I typically don't cover recruiting, preferring to leave that to folks like MaconDawg and Paul Westerdawg, who know whereof they speak.

S.E.C. recruiting, however, has been much discussed in the blogosphere of late, thanks largely to Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany's recent remarks, which have provoked some strong reactions. For my part, I did what I could to defend the Southeastern Conference, offering the following rejoinder in a comment thread at MGoBlog:

I'm not so sure that a player is being done such a terrible disservice by being offered a scholarship that is contingent upon his qualifying academically, however. That seems to me no different from making a contract to purchase a new house contingent on the seller producing a termite letter.

If the house doesn't pass the termite inspection and the would-be buyer refuses to close the sale, the purchaser didn't do anything that called his honor, his integrity, or his manhood into question; the seller didn't hold up his end of the bargain by meeting the minimum standard required of him to earn the benefit of the offer extended to him.

I can't speak for other schools, but, generally, Georgia's non-qualifiers spend a year at Hargrave Military Academy, where they go to improve their academic standing.

I cannot recall any instance where a kid who got his grades up at Hargrave didn't have a scholarship offer waiting on him at the end of that year, although some of those recruits have opted to sign letters of intent to other institutions, which they are entitled to do if they so choose. That hardly qualifies as being an indentured servant, much less being allowed to fall off the carnival ride.

Most of Jim Delaney's remarks, while smacking a bit of desperation to ward off criticism, merely consisted of regurgitating numbers that show the Big Ten is competitive with the S.E.C., a fact which no one denies.

The part I found troubling was his conflation of "speed" with academic inferiority. Given the common use of "speed" as a euphemism, Delaney's statement was one that undoubtedly would have generated cries of racism had an S.E.C. commissioner uttered it . . . yet Delaney seems to have been given a free pass for what was, at best, a poor word choice in a written document that, presumably, went through several drafts and ought to have been proofread more carefully.

One of Brian's readers, believing I "misse[d] the point," responded like so:

Offering to 25 kids with the expectation that 20% won't hack it is not, as you imply, an act of generosity on the part of the coach--its [sic.] a reflection of the priorities of the program, which in this case is the single-minded pursuit of the finest athletic talent available. At the college level, we at least pay lip service to the idea that these are student-athletes--not just athletes. Coaches who build a high-failure rate into their recruiting strategy simply aren't acting in the best interests of the athletes they're recruiting, plain and simple.

Admittedly, there is a degree of shrinkage that even programs that do a good job of recruiting athletes that can succeed academically have to account for. I think its safe to say, however, given the wide disparity between programs on the amount of "shrinkage" that occurs, that some programs are offering to kids that they know only have a slim chance at making it academically. For the school, this is no problem--cut the kid and move on. But what about the student?

To this, I answered:

It seems to me that the student is in precisely the same position he was in before.

If he had neither academic nor athletic ability, he would have no shot at attending college. Because he has athletic ability, he is given the opportunity to earn a scholarship, provided he meets the admissions requirements. (As you say, Daniel, these are student-athletes.)

If he fails to meet those requirements, he doesn't get in and he doesn't get the opportunity, but it's on him to meet the standards, which are hardly a state secret.

If schools refuse to take chances on kids who are academically borderline, then those young men will go from having a slim chance to having no chance.

I think most of those young men would take the view that bad odds are better than no odds and it seems to me to be far more cynical for Jim Delany to write off any marginal kid as being undeserving of any chance than it is for S.E.C. coaches to give opportunities to several borderline young men, knowing that some of them won't pan out . . . but also knowing that some of them will.

At the end of the day, the borderline kid who makes it is better off and the borderline kid who doesn't is right back where he started. In Jim Delany's world, though, neither kid would get a shot and both would be doomed to stay right where they were.

Maybe the willingness to take a chance on kids who are at risk is one of the factors that attracts these young men to programs that will allow them to succeed or fail on their own merits rather than to a place where the conference commissioner has already written them off because he assumes that fast kids don't have what it takes to cut it in the classroom.

Daniel, you may be right that "[c]oaches who build a high-failure rate into their recruiting strategy simply aren't acting in the best interests of the athletes they're recruiting," but Jim Delany is advocating a recruiting strategy that builds in an absolute assumption of failure and won't even allow marginal qualifiers the chance to prove themselves. How is that in their best interests?

That discussion thread has continued thereafter, but, as it has gotten a tad too "holier than thou" for me (and because I don't want to run afoul of what I am assured are negative attitudes towards the South harbored by some in that region), I am steering clear of the rest of that conversation, lest I lose the respectful tone with which I have endeavored to respond to prior Big Ten broadsides while I answer charges of recruiting improprieties from the conference that is proud to count Illinois and Ohio State among its member institutions. Thankfully, The M Zone is there to provide reasonable perspective and good-natured humor while the two conferences are squabbling.

This examination of divergent recruiting strategies has, however, put me in mind of a diary posted by 34hawk back in November. While 34hawk's piece on the commercialization of intercollegiate athletics failed to garner as much attention as it deserved, NCT raised an interesting point upon the subject:

Those of us who are alumni (or even not alumni but are interested in our state's flagship university) and sports fans have a strong attachment to the school and how its teams do on the field (court, diamond, whatever). Sadly, we have more invested than most of the actual players, in a sense. Recruiting from other parts of the country is nothing new, to be sure (just ask Joe T III's grandfather), but is something lost? I suspect the Tereshinskis are a bit of an exception. But is someone from Texas or California or New Jersey as likely to have the kind of team/school identification that, say, David Pollack had?

How important is the impact of national recruiting upon a state university? NCT is right about the personal investment most of us have in our alma mater, so it is worth wondering whether something crucial is being sacrificed by stocking the football team with student-athletes from other parts of the country.

I make no secret of my provincialism and I take pride in having graduated from a law school into whose stone central plaza are etched these words of Governor Carl Sanders:

The people of Georgia want and deserve nothing short of the best. The University of Georgia School of Law is, therefore, to be one of such excellence that no citizen of Georgia need ever leave the state because a superior legal education is available elsewhere.

In light of that explicit objective, it is unsurprising that the members of the Joseph Henry Lumpkin School of Law class of 2009 claim as their four most common undergraduate institutions the University of Georgia, the Georgia Institute of Technology, Emory University, and Georgia State University. Still, admission to the law school is not limited to native Georgians, nor should it be, so the question remains.

The recent transition in the character of the Georgia football team from local to national is evident at the quarterback position. For the first five years and change of the Mark Richt era, the Bulldogs were led by Snellville's David Greene, College Park's D.J. Shockley, and Athens's Joe Tereshinski III; heading into next autumn, the Red and Black's field generals are Texas's Matthew Stafford, North Carolina's Joe Cox, and Missouri's Logan Gray.

As NCT noted, though, out-of-state recruiting is nothing new for the 'Dawgs. Joe Tereshinski III is a third-generation Georgia football player but a first-generation native Georgian. In 1913, Lexington, Ga.'s Bob McWhorter became the Red and Black's first all-American; in 1914, Brooklyn, N.Y.'s David Paddock became Georgia's second all-American. The university student body circulated a petition requesting that Paddock play for the Classic City Canines, making him the only football player in school history to have been so honored.

As prominent as Georgians have been in shaping the history of Bulldog football, it is worrisome to think where the program would have been had no Keystone State natives ever donned the red and black.

Joe Tereshinski, Sr., grew up near Wilkes-Barre, Pa. McKees Rock, Pa.'s Frank Sinkwich and Pittstown, Pa.'s Charley Trippi wore two of the four jersey numbers retired by the 'Dawgs. John Rauch, who started 45 consecutive games at quarterback for Wally Butts in the 1940s, hailed from Philadelphia. Both all-American tackles on Vince Dooley's inaugural Bulldog squad in 1964 were Pennsylvanians, as was Musa Smith.

When Wrightsville native Herschel Walker guided Georgia to renewed national prominence in the early 1980s, he elevated the Bulldog tailback position to marquee status, enabling Coach Dooley to recruit top-flight running backs such as Indiana's Lars Tate and North Carolina's Tim Worley. The Bulldogs' success during that period also wasn't harmed by the presence of Huntsville, Tex.'s Terry Hoage in the defensive backfield.

Perhaps some of those student-athletes were using the University of Georgia as opportunistically as some would accuse the Bulldogs of using them, acquiring no school spirit in the process of building a resume for the N.F.L. draft. Has any alumnus ever spoken more glowingly or gratefully of his University of Georgia education than Charley Trippi, though?

Here are Trippi's words, as quoted in What It Means to be a Bulldog:

Growing up in Pennsylvania, I basically had two choices in life. I could find a way to go to college or I could work in the coal mines like my dad.

I saw what the coal mines did to my dad as he tried to support five children. Some days when he got home he would have to lay on the couch for an hour before he could eat dinner. I decided that was never going to happen to me.

The University of Georgia gave me the opportunity to play football and get an education, and it completely changed my life. . . .

[W]hen my [professional football] playing days were over I came back to Athens, where I had always had a home, and I was able to enjoy some success in real estate.

It's simple, really. My time at Georgia was the best thing that ever happened to me. That's why I'm still here.

I don't care where he grew up; those are the words of a man who loves and appreciates the University of Georgia.

Likewise, Terry Hoage may have come from the Lone Star State and he may live in the Golden State, but his continued devotion to his alma mater is evident in the fact that Terry Hoage Vineyards features wines called The Hedge and The Bulladoir.

Should we be worried that Georgia is casting the recruiting net too far and wide? I don't think so, not any more than we should be worried that the Bulldogs are scheduling games in overly distant locales.

While I would not want the nation's oldest state-chartered university to lose its identity as the flagship institution of higher learning in the Empire State of the South, the sprinkling of a few additional Floridians, Pennsylvanians, and Texans throughout the depth chart is not apt to alter the fundamental character of the school. Besides, if we can hire an Auburn graduate to coach our football team, surely we can sign a player or two from South Carolina, can't we?

If a fellow is willing to pledge his loyalty to the University of Georgia, he's O.K. by me. If he happens to hail from someplace else, well, the Lewis Grizzard rules still apply; he can live and work in Georgia and he can marry one of our women, just as long as he doesn't tell us how they did it back in Cleveland.

Go 'Dawgs!

0 recs | Comment 8 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Good discussion

Of course, I never meant to suggest that someone from another region is incapable of embracing school spirit, and I don't want our coaches to eschew the Midwest or West Coast, for example, to focus exclusively on homegrown talent.

I will add that perhaps there is a cyclical phenomenon possible: as the Dogs continue to have success on a national scale, the chances that someone from Missouri will be more readily capable of adapting to a Bulldog sense of loyalty will improve -- that is, if one assumes that one of the reasons a young man from Lincolnton might be predisposed to the kind of affection for UGA that I have is his familiarity with the program, then national success will continue to foster increasing familiarity with the program among young men in Enid (raising again the importance of interregional scheduling).

When I was 9, I'd never set foot in Minnesota. But it didn't stop me from wearing purple sneakers with yellow laces -- geography is no impediment when there is a decent excuse to become a fan of a distant team. Damn. I wonder where my little no. 10 jersey went?

by NCT on Feb 16, 2007 9:49 AM EST 0 recs

Casting a wide net

If Georgia feels like they can get talent outside the Peach State, why not? What I have noticed since Richt took over is that alot of out-of-state recruits from areas UGA would generally never venture in to have been inquiring about the program on their own volition. Naderris Ward, the redshirt freshman TE from California, apparently contacted UGA first. I'm sure there are many others currently on the roster.

Richt has generally done a pretty good job of keeping the best-of-the-best from the Peach State. This year, we frankly whiffed on some real good (potential) talent. Many folks feel that if we lock down our own border, we'll be fine. I just don't think that's realistic every year. Aggressive schools, like Tennessee and Notre Dame, will continue to raid the state if they can. So, casting a wide net is probably necessary at times, especially if the talent pool is down at positions of "need."

Why not go global? Where is the next Richard Tardits?

by DavetheDawg on Feb 16, 2007 11:59 AM EST 0 recs

Net widening of the recruiting variety

I just want to point out to Kyle that Edmund Burke was certainly not a proponent of net widening.

One interesting note is that many out of state players take an interest in Georgia because of ties to the state. Matt Stafford's father for example attended graduate school in Athens. Also (and Kyle, as a history buff you'll find this interesting) a lot of families who migrated out of the South in the first half of the twentieth century looking for better opportunities still maintain ties here. You'd be surprised how many players make their first visit to Athens or Auburn or Oxford while visiting nearby family over the summer. This also works in reverse unfortunately, as players who live in state but have few ties here often go to schools near where their families came from (exhibit A: Cam Heyward to Ohio State).

Another thing to consider is that no one is more invested in an athletic program than the athletes themselves. I saw this when my wife worked at [insert small but proud private university located in Macon here] and had some coaching duties with the athletic dept. Many of those kids came from Brazil, Montana and all other points on the globe. While they couldn't tell you who Herman Talmadge was (not unlike many student body members from Camak,Cochran and Commerce), they absolutely bled for their school and teammates. That's why guys like Musa Smith, Michael Johnson and Verron Haynes have given their all. When you're the one doing the Mat Drills, you can't help but care. If you don't care, you won't last.

I have heard the argument that some high school coaches in the state might not like this outward turn, and that this could hurt UGA recruiting in the long run. I don't think this is likely. Most high school coaches I know take a very honest assessment of their players and understand that if the #1 qb in the country is in Ohio, Georgia will go after him first. So will Tennessee, Auburn and a variety of others. It's nothing personal. I think the key is to maintain the relationships with coaches in the state so that when the potential #1 high school tailback in the country according to Rivals.com plays at, say, Cass High in Cartersville, you may get an early commitment.

by MaconDawg on Feb 16, 2007 1:29 PM EST 0 recs

Overoffering Recruits

I posted this in the mgoblog thread, but I'll certainly agree the discussion there had grown a bit "holier than thou," and as such I've toned my post back some. Nonetheless, I'm curious as to your response.

Kyle, your argument seems to be (my apologies if I'm putting words in your mouth): Giving academically borderline recruits a chance justifies signing more than 85 to letters of intent.

While a laudable sentiment, if they all qualify the school is nonetheless required to revoke someone's scholarship.

I get the impression that when schools that stick to 85 recruits offer someone a scholarship, they're guaranteeing 4 years, no matter the recruit's later athletic performance (serious academic or criminal issues aside). Schools with more than 85 recruits simply cannot make this guarantee.

by TheMile on Feb 16, 2007 2:41 PM EST 0 recs

The key is the "if"

First of all, I believe we have taken this discussion off on a tangent. While one commenter asked me why I assumed we were talking about academics, the fact is that Jim Delany framed this as a discussion about academics. That fact has been overlooked, probably because that would require some confrontation of the Big Ten commissioner's insulting equating of "speed" with poor academic performance.

Secondly, as another commenter at the MGoBlog thread pointed out, the overoffering is overestimated by Rivals, which counts non-qualifying signees twice . . . once when they sign the first time and do not qualify, then again the following year when then have gotten their grades up and sign again.

Because of this completely misleading double-counting, the averages quoted by Brian---28 (which already was inflated by the arbitrary and inexplicable exclusion of one of the S.E.C.'s charter members) to 20---portray the gap as being larger than it actually is, which matters when we are talking about what one MGoBlog commenter called the acceptable rate of "shrinkage."

Thirdly, it's a calculated gamble for both parties. Schools don't want to let scholarships go to waste. There are two ways to avoid this: by never recruiting anyone who is a borderline qualifier or by recruiting some marginal students and playing the percentages.

You have offered a sincere criticism of the latter approach, but we should not forget that, if everyone adopted the former approach, no borderline kids would ever be given a chance to play Division I-A football, which would do far more athletes at least as large a disservice as the approach you disdain.

Once again, these kids aren't stupid; they follow recruiting on the internet as closely as many fans do, so they know what other players are being recruited by the schools that are recruiting them.

I don't follow recruiting closely, so I can't say for certain that it hasn't happened, but, offhand, I can't recall a situation where more borderline guys qualified than there were scholarships available. Of course, the risk of the downside for the school---fewer guys qualifying than there were scholarships available to give out---probably is greater than the risk of the downside for the athlete, so the school is making a calculated gamble, too.

If some schools choose not to pursue borderline guys, that is their choice. I don't see anything wrong with both parties making an informed decision to incur a risk, though. Rather than adopt a paternalistic attitude toward recruits---who are or soon will be high school graduates and legal adults---I think we should treat them like what they are: men . . . without the scare quotes, which I thank you for choosing to eschew.

I hope that answers your question and I thank you for bringing the discussion here in a civil and respectful manner. I have always endeavored to approach such subjects with a reasonable tone and I thank you for doing likewise.

by T Kyle King on Feb 16, 2007 3:19 PM EST up 0 recs

re

Regarding #1, I've no intention of defending Delany. Indeed, I've intentionally phrased my point such as to avoid this whole unconstructive Big 10 - SEC shouting match.

Regarding #2, that's a very strong point.

Regarding #3, I'll merely point out that kids who don't get a scholarship always have the junior college option, and would still get a chance to play D1A football.

I must admit I'm quite curious what the numbers adjusted for reenrollment look like; it could make this entire discussion moot.

by TheMile on Feb 16, 2007 7:29 PM EST up 0 recs

These are all fair points

One other possibility . . . and I can't say how often this is done . . . is to put any extra guys on scholarship in another sport and allow them to walk on in football.

Granted, it isn't the same as getting a football scholarship, but, if a guy was a two-sport athlete in high school (as many top prospects were) or if he could run track, that option would be open to him and, quite often, he would receive a football scholarship the following year. In the interim, he'd still be in school, on scholarship, and playing football.

Obviously, every fan of every school would like to think his program is doing right by every kid with whom it comes into contact, and, just as obviously, all of our teams have failed to live up to that goal as well as they might have, although some are worse than others.

Some of Terrell Davis's comments after leaving Georgia indicate that Ray Goff may not have done right by him and Jim Donnan's misjudgments regarding personnel could be the subject of a full posting, if not a book, but Mark Richt doesn't strike me as the sort of guy who would throw a kid under the bus.

We're talking about the coach who implemented mandatory character education classes for incoming freshman football players, adopted two Ukrainian orphans through his church, and gave Tony Milton the opportunity to become the feel good football story of the year. I just don't see him stringing a kid along and cutting him loose.

by T Kyle King on Feb 16, 2007 9:41 PM EST up 0 recs

School vs Athletic Department

I think this debate boils down to this at its core: do you consider the University of Gerogia(or SC or Fla or Mich or whatever)'s academic reputation to be welded at the hip to its athletic department or not? While in some extreme cases they are(I'm looking at you Auburn), I see them as tangential--at best. You can't tell me with a straight face that a Big 10 school won't take a borderline guy and the SEC will. They BOTH will. So in summation: the Big 10 commish wanted to pick on the SEC's recruiter's academic standards. This was a cheap shot directed at an institution(SEC football programs/recruiters) that cares some-but not much-about academic potential. However you could not convince me that the Big 10 fooball programs do not act the same.

As far as recruiting nationally as well as locally, I think that UGa has a great base in their home state. The city of Atlanta has a large population and they play some great high school football there and throughout the rest of the state. Meanwhile, the whole state of SC is roughly the same population of Greater Atlanta. They also have some great talent, but not as much as Georgia. The large(both population and football talent) gives state schools in Texas, Florida, Georgia and others a decided advantage in both school funding and football recruiting. But then again, it wouldn't hurt to sign a player from South Carolina, but let's just hope you steal him from Clemson instead of USC.

--Robert

by a gamecock fan on Feb 16, 2007 6:01 PM EST 0 recs