2022 Recruiting

The juice wasn't pasteurized and now the brand is suffering loss of sales.
 
BrentwoodJacket said:
I am surprised that we did not get a TE in this class. Seems like we lost recruits but did not flip any our way.
Click to expand...

We flipped a CB and a good RB. Signed a transfer TE.

FWIW, I agree we could/should have done better. We likely lost out on 2-4 players because the season was so bad.

We can make up for it in the portal but I’m worried the same bad mojo is going to be against us.

Simple truth is we will need to over perform next season so that helps us close in recruiting.
 
Walton said:
We flipped a CB and a good RB. Signed a transfer TE.

FWIW, I agree we could/should have done better. We likely lost out on 2-4 players because the season was so bad.

We can make up for it in the portal but I’m worried the same bad mojo is going to be against us.

Simple truth is we will need to over perform next season so that helps us close in recruiting.
Click to expand...
We need the games like BC and Miami to flip the other way. We were in most games. The final two games are likely what really did us in. We really needed Sims out there and for the OL and defense to step up. It didn't happen. The UGA game had a lot of quit in it that started late in the first quarter against ND

I was impressed with Mason, Griffin, and Smith still running hard in the 4th against UGA even though our OL was phoning it in at that point
 
Walton said:
We flipped a CB and a good RB. Signed a transfer TE.

FWIW, I agree we could/should have done better. We likely lost out on 2-4 players because the season was so bad.

We can make up for it in the portal but I’m worried the same bad mojo is going to be against us.

Simple truth is we will need to over perform next season so that helps us close in recruiting.
Click to expand...
Now is the time to coach these players up. This will be the telling year.
 
BranMart said:
1639618518178.png
Click to expand...
These rankings have always been an odd metric. So much is driven by class size and it seems only tangentially by quality. If you don't need, or have scholarships for, a large class, you are going to fall down the ranking. Granted they show the Avg. Rating of the class members too, but that isn't the direct number they use for the metric to determine the rank.

For instance, our top recruit has a 0.90+ average rating, but his metric for the ranking is 20 something (what's the formula?). Our Ranking number is 189.2, based on 16 commits, to get us to 41. But if you take that 189.2 and divide by the number of commits, you have each commit delivering an average of 11.825 to the ranking score. By comparison, UGA(g) has 311.96 from 26 commits - an average commit score of 11.998 - to get ranked 3rd.

Our kicker (the lowest contributing calculation, next is Shelley at 4.1) contributes 2.65 to our score. UGA(g) has eight commits rated below our kicker, but they contribute 9.53 points to their rank (there are 2 more below Shelley's score with a cumulative 7.31 contribution). So, our bottom two recruits contribute 6.75 points, while their bottom 10, who are rated worse, add 16.84 points. Granted, their top recruits still push their rank very high, but half their class would be in the bottom quarter of ours.

Reranking the Top 50 standings based on average commit contribution moves GT (11.825) to 21st; UGA(g) drops from 3 to 20. Florida (moves from 50 to 1!!!), Clemson, LSU and Oregon (all small classes, 10-13) leap into the top 4. The only schools who remain close to the same spot near the top in both rankings are Ohio State (4/5), UNC (8/8), Mizzou! (12/9), and F$U (13/10). The biggest drop? Texas (5/33, 10.443), followed by Michigan (9/30) and Stanford (15/35). The largest jump outside of Florida is UCLA (46 to 7).
 
clapper said:
These rankings have always been an odd metric. So much is driven by class size and it seems only tangentially by quality. If you don't need, or have scholarships for, a large class, you are going to fall down the ranking. Granted they show the Avg. Rating of the class members too, but that isn't the direct number they use for the metric to determine the rank.

For instance, our top recruit has a 0.90+ average rating, but his metric for the ranking is 20 something (what's the formula?). Our Ranking number is 189.2, based on 16 commits, to get us to 41. But if you take that 189.2 and divide by the number of commits, you have each commit delivering an average of 11.825 to the ranking score. By comparison, UGA(g) has 311.96 from 26 commits - an average commit score of 11.998 - to get rank
Click to expand...
each commit does not count equally
that's not how it works.
a #1 commit is weighted 10X more than the #14 commit
and #1 is weighted about 20X more than the #16 commit..total points come mostly from your top 14 recruits
the last 5 or 6 recruits count very little
>> the class size isn't as important as some people make it out to be
>> but yes not filling up your bucket(20) can move you a few spots in ranking
" You can see that the area under the curve gets smaller both as the rating for a commit decreases and as the number of total commits for a school increases. The y-axis in this graph represents the percentage weight of the score that gets applied to an overall team ranking. "
1639679608000.png
 
79tech said:
your r

you are right my bad - the 11th was 2021
Click to expand...
And again, that is only because of the number of HS commits. COVID year plus free transfers have really put a hurt on how many kids we can take in a cycle. If you go by their average rating for 2021 we would be 5th on Rivals and 6th on 247.
 
BuzzinWreck78 said:
>> the class size isn't as important as some people make it out to be
>> but yes not filling up your bucket(20) can move you a few spots in ranking
Click to expand...
Class size most certainly matters. You can't just assume that if we add more, they will all be on the lower end of the spectrum. If we only add guys that are around the average ranking of what our class is, that puts them in the middle where it is weighted more, and moves the lower rated guys down where it is rated less. For instance, you can go on the class calculator on 247, I added 4 guys to our class rated just below our average rating of .8652 - Elijah Zollicoffer (0.8627), Daequan Wright (0.8615), Nathan Vail (0.8614), and Jaden Harris (0.8577). This moves our point total up to 201.82 and we would be in 31st, up 10 spots. Take one of those guys away and add one 4* guy the caliber of Jaron Willis and we're back in the top 25. It matters even more on the Rivals team rankings because each recruit is given a point value based on his rating, and the team score is just a cumulative total of the top 20 recruits. So anything less than 20 is at a disadvantage to teams with more recruits.
 
GoGATech said:
Class size most certainly matters. You can't just assume that if we add more, they will all be on the lower end of the spectrum. If we only add guys that are around the average ranking of what our class is, that puts them in the middle where it is weighted more, and moves the lower rated guys down where it is rated less. For instance, you can go on the class calculator on 247, I added 4 guys to our class rated just below our average rating of .8652 - Elijah Zollicoffer (0.8627), Daequan Wright (0.8615), Nathan Vail (0.8614), and Jaden Harris (0.8577). This moves our point total up to 201.82 and we would be in 31st, up 10 spots. Take one of those guys away and add one 4* guy the caliber of Jaron Willis and we're back in the top 25. It matters even more on the Rivals team rankings because each recruit is given a point value based on his rating, and the team score is just a cumulative total of the top 20 recruits. So anything less than 20 is at a disadvantage to teams with more recruits.
Click to expand...
Good points
I didn't say size doesn't matter, just not as much as is often suggested.
yes,its biased for 20+ advantage
(Okla ranks 10th with 15 recruits,Clem/LSU rank 17/18 with only 13 recruits)
I didn't make any assumptions of where additional recruits could rank, (as you suggest,that's important)
but agree with your assessment of how the average guys fit.
A Willis type is a huge difference maker. look what Gibbs did to our 2020.
.
Another thing is when using the class calculator adjustments to say that we jump 10 or 20 spots, that only works if we are the only ones who can add hypothetical additions.(which is fine in some what if scenarios)... To say that we could be up 10 spots by filling with avg guys(up to 20) is only a valid comparison if you also fill for the teams we would be jumping over.
.
Your excel in the other thread was great.thanks
 
A n overlooked point on our 2 DefTackles that makes this class a liitle iffy is --neither one actually played at DT last yr. The guy from NJ was injured and Lockett was moved to Off tackle .Whether they get back to playing at a high level at DT might be in question.
 
AlaGold said:
A n overlooked point on our 2 DefTackles that makes this class a liitle iffy is --neither one actually played at DT last yr. The guy from NJ was injured and Lockett was moved to Off tackle .Whether they get back to playing at a high level at DT might be in question.
Click to expand...
Collins seems to recruit a lot of project players. It’s challenging enough for his staff to develop players at their natural positions. Project players don’t stand a chance with Collins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top