“He said I’d be a perfect fit at an ACC school.”

Georgia Tech just offered a quarterback who (1) doesn’t have a rating from any of the recruiting services; (2) has one other offer from Tennessee Tech, an FCS team that hasn’t had a winning season since 2011; and (3) plays at a program that in 12 years of existence has yet to see one of its kids play at either the FBS or FCS level.

Either this turns out to be one of the greatest recruiting underdog stories of all time, or the perfect encapsulation of Paul Johnson’s mad recruiting skillz.

Advertisements

36 Comments

Filed under Georgia Tech Football, Recruiting

36 responses to ““He said I’d be a perfect fit at an ACC school.”

  1. Dolly Llama

    A year or two from now, there will be mass regret among the remaining Tech diehards (all two dozen of them) that they extended the Johnson’s contract, and they’ll wish they’d have dug as deep as they could into their shallow-ass coffers to buy him out, get someone else, and bite the bullet for three or four years while the new guy rebuilt the team and the scheme from the ground up. As it is, they’ll look at that contract extension as the beginning of the end (or the end of the end?) of GT as a legitimate Division I football entity.

    I myself couldn’t be happier, of course. I’d love to drive the chop-blocking sons of bitches out of the FBS altogether.

    Like

    • Hogbody Spradlin

      Now just a minute miniature camel breath! They need to be kept in FBS, in the zombie like life support mediocre way they are now. It’s a win a year.

      I don’t care how bad they get. HATE TECH!

      Like

    • All of this can happen … after the Drought is thrown on the ash heap of college football history.

      Regarding tech’s eventual head coaching change, who is going to want to come in and take that roster knowing they have to compete with Georgia and Kirby?

      I still can’t believe they extended Fish Fry’s contract after last season.

      Like

  2. Derek

    It makes me sad that all this kid will probably ever get is an opportunity at a free education instead of what the market would bear.

    He’s got to be worth dozens of dollars in an open market.

    Like

    • I do not think free market means what you think it means.

      Like

      • Derek

        Ok. I think market means that you get what you’re worth as perceived by the buyer. The vast majority of college athletes are well over-compensated.

        The scout team left guard at Indiana is not worth a full ride on an open market. Neither is the captain of the ladies volleyball team. They are getting one hell of a deal and in most cases they worked the asses off to get it.

        Todd Gurley and Marcus Lattimore are the exceptions, not the norm.

        Your idea of the market appears to be to over pay for most of your scholly athletes and then pay some more for the few special ones because the professional leagues refuse to participate in the market and because after all the colleges are awash with tv money.

        The distortions that would be created by professionalizing college sports are ignored and minimized because an elite few aren’t fully rewarded. An injustice not caused or asked for by the colleges but rather is matter of the pro leagues “leaching” off an available amateur training ground, nursery of talent and a venue for auditions.

        Title 9 pretty much mandates that college sports can not be exclusively “for profit.” How do you tell the schools that your football team must be run like the Dallas cowboys and your women’s soccer team is an expense you must carry whether you like it or not?

        Seems very inconsistent to me.

        Encourage the pro leagues to end the minimum age for being drafted.

        Encourage the talented kids to opt out, get an agent and wait.

        Encourage the talented kids to go to Europe or Canada.

        These are all fine solutions and I’d be happy to see those few elite kids do just that. Some of that is already starting.

        The fault of this lies with the pro leagues and while the colleges get some windfall effect I’m sure, the solution isn’t to professionalize college sports.

        Wouldn’t the next step be to professionalize HS sports? Do you think bigger crowds show up to watch Justin Fields play at Harrison High than to see whoever is their qb for 2018? Does Justin deserve his piece of the gate? Where does it end?
        Waive my kids fee to play pop warner because he’s better than the rest?
        Does the Hollywood child actor model achieve better results?

        Like

        • My view of the free market, contrary to all the straw man construction in your comment is very simple : don’t present kids with a take it or leave it scenario that is ripe for exploitation.

          If you can’t play straight, I see no reason to discuss this further.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Derek

            What does that mean though in practice?

            As far as choices, aren’t there options? There are how many schools are there in the country?

            If the nfl and the ncaa conspired in this, I’m with you. That would be horrific. I don’t think that’s what happened. Everyone from the the players union to the owners to the colleges have made decisions in their own interest and that has left a few uber talented kids exposed to their detriment. Like Lattimore. He’s the poster child for complaints as far as I’m concerned.

            Maybe it was in Lattimore’sn interest to sit out his third year. Did someone take that option away?

            Kids can go to Europe. They can go to Canada. They can go to JUCO, sign with an agent, train and then declare.

            There are numerous choices. The one perceived to be the best for them as illustrated by the choices made is to sign with a high profile college program than puts people’s eyes on them and provides the best path to improve their own value. That everyone chooses the best program they can get into isn’t a reflection of a lack of choices. It’s a reflection that it’s the best available choice. Either that or they’re stupid.

            Like

            • Choice, my ass. If you want to play collegiate football at a major program, you sign a NLI or become bound by its terms at enrollment.

              Like

              • Derek

                Roquan didn’t sign.

                Like

                • Read the full comment.

                  I thought you were sharper than this.

                  Like

                  • Derek

                    I have zero problems dealing constructively with any power differentials and/or injustices. I am completely anti-authoritarian and have little faith or regard for groups of people, especially those with power over others.

                    Just don’t change the fundamental nature of the endeavor:

                    College students playing college sports.

                    As long as we maintain that, I’m pro-reform. I’m glad they got a stipend. I’m glad they got food 7 days a week. I’m for transfers at will and immediate eligibility. Reform is working.

                    Let’s just not get to “professional” and applying market forces and considering the players as “labor” or “employees.” They are students who choose to represent their schools in competition. You don’t need many rules and regulations and contracts of adhesion to make that work. On that we are in accord.

                    Like

                    • If you’ve got a real problem with what might be coming, don’t blame the NFL or the NBA. Blame the NCAA for taking a maximalist position and refusing to settle for something reasonable.

                      Like

                    • Derek

                      No doubt the ncaa deserves a lot of blame for a lot of things. I’m not defending the ncaa, just the thing they are supposed to be guarding and protecting. Similar to my attitude about country. I’m up for defending it, but I loathe who is in charge of it. Bunch of malicious idiots.

                      Like

          • ASEF

            Serious question for both of you:

            Why can’t Side A admit that the college education is a valuable thing?

            Why can’t Side B admit that some athletes are worth way more than the value of the education?

            Why can’t both sides agree that the value of the education would be baseline for a majority of athletes, while personal marketing would go a long way towards reconciling the issue of the exceptional athlete on the right platform?

            Because Randy Moss in a Marshall uniform isn’t the same thing as Randy Moss in a FSU uniform. Both Randy. One is worth far more than the other.

            Just like our politics, things fall apart when no one can acknowledge merit anywhere in different viewpoints.

            Like

            • One more time: nobody is saying that there isn’t value to an athletic scholarship; the question is whether student-athletes are fairly compensated for what they bring to the table.

              People who argue strongly against what they fear a free market would bring make the case that these kids aren’t fairly compensated.

              Like

              • ASEF

                Some student athletes are fairly compensated. Some are over-compensated. Some are badly undercompensated.

                There are a lot of overlapping hierarchies in that mix – program, conference, position. Starting QB at Alabama under Mike Dubose is a different value than starting QB under Nick Saban. Back-up guard at a program in Conference USA being heavily subsidized by student fees is different than back-up guard at Vanderbilt. And back-up guard at Vanderbilt is different than back-up guard at Clemson. And all of those values are somewhat warped by a one-size-fits-all 85 counter rule. A rising junior right tackle has a different value on an 85 man roster than he does a 120 man roster. I don’t mind some temporary economic chaos as a market approach figures out the asnwers, but I don’t see how you do it half-way.

                It’s a fair question, but people try to game the answer by oversimplifying the issue. And yes, plenty of people do scoff at the value of the scholarship. In fact, I would say it’s almost a default position in most reform quarters.

                Like

                • I don’t mind some temporary economic chaos as a market approach figures out the asnwers, but I don’t see how you do it half-way.

                  Maybe I’m misreading you here, but you seem to be making an assumption as to what a market approach will be that I can’t buy into. It’s certainly possible that we get a wild west outcome, but I doubt it.

                  Like

                  • ASEF

                    Any change in rules that substantial is going to involve some upheaval. Established brands with a lot to lose will move slowly and cautiously. Startups with nothing to lose will move aggressively. The Georgias and Alabamas will let the Coastal Carolinas sift through the learning curves and adapt accordingly. Ya know,,, market stuff. 🙂 And in that window will be some chaos. Wild West levels? Probably not, but hopefully we would get some Blazing Saddles level of comedic anarchy out of the deal.

                    Like

            • Derek

              I see both sides of it.

              I don’t have a problem with the windfall for really good players, what concerns me is fraud.

              What’s to prevent every business in Alabama sponsoring every football player on the roster? Whose to say the money even comes from the business or that the businesses products have anything to do with the sponsorship?

              I don’t know how you police that.

              So few could sign a legit contract with Nike at 19 I don’t know why we have to risk the whole thing to iron out a minor flaw like the few kids who are worth more than a 4/5 year education/training program.

              Like

              • ASEF

                If a tractor dealership wants to sponsor a spot on the offensive line, is that fraud?

                I had a good friend who ended up on a tennis scholarship at Tech. Actually played at Wimbledon, got to the quarterfinals one year after he graduated. I’m pretty sure he stopped paying for rackets, clothes, and shoes by age 12, gear provided by Prince and whatever shoe company he preferred. I have no idea how that’s allowable under NCAA rules, but it was, or it wasn’t and no one raised a stink about it.

                Point being, he was a heck of a student and good person, and his semi-professional status prior to Tech graduation wasn’t a threat to anything.

                Alabama would probably be willing and able to badly overpay for things. That’s part of any market. But look on the bright side – plenty of professional teams emotionally throw money at problems and go nowhere.

                Like

              • … a minor flaw like the few kids who are worth more than a 4/5 year education/training program.

                I doubt those kids share your enlightened perspective.

                Like

        • Hobnail_Boot

          This needs to be framed.

          Like

    • Jack Burton

      Nicely done, Derek!

      Like

  3. Go Dawgs!

    Well, I guess that’s one way to make sure your players stay for all four years of their eligibility.

    Like

  4. Russ

    He’s a solid commit, too. He said he wasn’t flipping for Tennessee Tech, Austin Peay, or Weak Sisters of the Poor.

    I hope the kid studies and makes good use of the scholarship.

    Like

  5. AusDawg85

    He passed the most critical of Tech QB tests…count to 4. “One…Two…Three…Three again…Four!”

    Like

  6. lu

    I think CPJ is just drawing a paycheck at this point.

    Like

  7. Doug

    Cue Mark Bradley column lauding CPJ’s outside-the-box-thinking and ability to play chess while other coaches are merely playing checkers in 3, 2…

    Like

  8. pcpup

    Good luck to the kid. Except one Saturday per year.

    Like

  9. DawgPhan

    I like that Derek can see schools assigning values to players based on some sort of market and can deem with ultimate certainty that a free-er market would never assign such a price to that player.

    Like

  10. PTC DAWG

    And some wonder why this Power 5 game is a no win situation.

    Like

  11. UGA '97

    Sometime’s private school FB programs recruit kids & help them get attention needed that they might not otherwise get at a public school riding the bench. The kid also may have a better shot at getting through the admissions depts.with a school like that on the app. Diamonds in the rough are rare though, so if that’s how Tech chose to risk/waste a scholly, then they can roll their own dice. PJ is gone in 4 years or less so it aint gonna matter to him anyway!

    Like

  12. Uglydawg

    PJ will probably be able to mold this kid into his offense. We’ve seen him do it before..the problem is, it’s still his offense. I watched the film of the kid we signed (out of Hattiesburg) the other day. What a heck of a triple option QB he would make…and the same with Stetson…he would have done well at a triple option school.
    In the meantime, CPJ’s offense will continue to be problematic for any team that has to play them after a short week. But it’s getting tougher for him every year. What R did to them last year still has me smiling!

    Like