Coffee is for Closers Paul!

QuadF said:
we'll see. it could cause problems for next year, but then again CPJ has said from the beginning they only planned on taking 15 this year, so maybe there are guys they're waiting on next year. I don't want to speculate too much... let's see what happens for next year's recruiting class before we get excited and / or distraught. :)
Click to expand...


interesting I looked on scout and we have over 50 offers out for 2014.. hope they don't all accept!
 
gt2690b said:
interesting I looked on scout and we have over 50 offers out for 2014.. hope they don't all accept!
Click to expand...

with all the flash mob organizing out there, I'm surprised this kind of thing hasn't happened yet.
 
non-gineer said:
That's a really interesting stat, and someone should ask Sports Radio where they got it. Depending on where you look, only 2 - 2.5% of all college football players make it to the NFL. That means 89% of all the kids who signed are deceived, or smoking something funny, or both. That's a lot of guys who'll be wishing they were in the 9%.
Click to expand...

Well, that's no surprise. Kids at that age always think they're the best thing to happen to football, or that they'll be the one in that tiny percentage. Reality hits hard when it comes, though. In football and everywhere else.
 
gt2690b said:
interesting I looked on scout and we have over 50 offers out for 2014.. hope they don't all accept!
Click to expand...

Offers are different than LOIs. Plus, offers are conditional and typically 'first come, first serve.' E.g., they may give out 5 offers to LBs telling each that they will only take the first 3 to commit.
 
I don't think GT is as easy a "sell" as some think it is. Perhaps we should take off the gold-colored glasses and look at our program objectively.

Let's assume there are only 25 teams recruiting the top 250 players (HA!). An even distribution (unlikely) would mean that we should get 10 of those players. Not bad. Now we all know that GT, unlike virtually everyone else, requires 4 years of math and science, so now if one of these top 250 kids want to come to Tech they have to go above and beyond what's required for 95% of other programs. That probably knocks out at least half of our pool, which means we'd only get 5 of the top 250. Still, not a bad class. Of course throw in the other 50 AQ teams recruiting these kids and our lot gets diluted even more, maybe 1 or 2 guys.

Without exceptions from the Hill, I don't see how we can reasonably expect to get more than 1 or 2 four star players every year. The top 250 are already heavily sought after by programs with far more lenient entrance requirements and easier coursework.

Also, our uniforms are made by Russell. That has to account for a couple of elite guys not giving us the time of day.
 
QuadF said:
regarding empty slots, i'm not sure that we would've done much better had we used more. 2-3 guys who are low 3* - high 2* doesn't get me terribly excited.
Click to expand...

That's the problem. Based on how we handled recruiting we were put into that situation. Fill the slots with crap or just leave them vacant. We handle recruiting better and we don't put ourselves in a bad position at the end. Not a hard concept. :frown:



regarding rank, our star average is right where it has been. only about 10 teams above us took less than 20 guys, so of course we're not going to have a high ranking.
Click to expand...

Again, worst ranking since they started rankings and by two services. You can play with the numbers all you want, but over a 14 year period of evaluating classes with the same weighted system, this one stacks up worse than the others. Not saying their method is perfect, only that here are two methods, and they both are telling you the same thing.
 
You know it's a horrible recruiting class when BOR gets on here and says so. Why? In case you hadn't noticed he's been on here the last 4 years defending CPJ's recruiting...a LOT.
 
QuadF said:
we'll see. it could cause problems for next year, but then again CPJ has said from the beginning they only planned on taking 15 this year, so maybe there are guys they're waiting on next year. I don't want to speculate too much... let's see what happens for next year's recruiting class before we get excited and / or distraught. :)
Click to expand...

Having a lot of spots next year could be a good thing, because it will force the staff to cast a much wider net. I got the impression that they were being picky this year with the limited number of spots, trying to fill needs only. With 20+ spots available, and their new vision of expanding geographically, they might be willing to take more gambles without the fear of oversigning.
 
TechPreacher said:
Having a lot of spots next year could be a good thing, because it will force the staff to cast a much wider net. I got the impression that they were being picky this year with the limited number of spots, trying to fill needs only. With 20+ spots available, and their new vision of expanding geographically, they might be willing to take more gambles without the fear of oversigning.
Click to expand...

It could be, but it looks like we'll have 25. 19 + 4 unused + 2 from attrition. Past history tells me we'll have a hard time filling that.
 
GT1992 said:
It could be, but it looks like we'll have 25. 19 + 4 unused + 2 from attrition. Past history tells me we'll have a hard time filling that.
Click to expand...

Our largest class that I can remember was 23 guys. And because of this year, you are forced into immediate playing guys so you can make up for the small class the year before. That puts a lot of pressure on us to not only fulfill those 25 spots, but also find some immediate play makers. Tall task. And if we don't fill up 25 spots, that means we've basically put ourselves on a two year penalty that the NCAA didn't even impose for recruiting restrictions.

Its poor recruiting period. I don't know how you guys can sit and argue against this.
 
BarrelORum said:
Our largest class that I can remember was 23 guys. And because of this year, you are forced into immediate playing guys so you can make up for the small class the year before. That puts a lot of pressure on us to not only fulfill those 25 spots, but also find some immediate play makers. Tall task. And if we don't fill up 25 spots, that means we've basically put ourselves on a two year penalty that the NCAA didn't even impose for recruiting restrictions.

Its poor recruiting period. I don't know how you guys can sit and argue against this.
Click to expand...

agree it sucked but its not THAT bad... we have 4 schollys open.. assuming we fill two of them with the transfer from Maryland and Corn Elder then we only left 2 schollys open.. I would hope we could make up 2 schollys in a class
 
BarrelORum said:
sold rather than recruited? Maybe you need to explain that.

My whiney rant is based on two observations both of which can be taken at face value for what they are.
1.) We had 18 ships to give and we came up short by a whopping 4! That's not positive in anyway and with the small size of this class puts tremendous pressure to stock the cabinets next year.
2.) According to both services that are available to the public to rate recruits (Rivals and Scout), our team ranking is the WORST EVER according to both services since they have been ranking team's efforts from 2002 to this point.

Both of these are reason to be concerned. I like PJ. I want the guy to succeed. Recruiting hasn't been his forte in 5 years and he's still tripping over his own dick to get it right. Our failures over the past 3 seasons have been directly related to talent issues, NOT coaching.

A head coach has two responsibilities: recruiting and coaching. He has to do both decent and we aren't doing that. When you see the signs of another class failure, its not going to magically transform itself from a McDonald's cheeseburger to a Prime Rib.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you get the number 18. All I've heard was CPJ saying that he was willing to take two more (up to 16). As it is, the average star rating is about where it's been the last several years.

I have a serious question for you. As I understand it, one of the things we do promote when we recruit is the GT degree and a committment to support players as long as they're working. Would you prefer that we not renew scholarships for the weaker players so that we can take closer to 25 each year?

Because, if you want to look at the overall ranking rather than average stars, it seems that you want us to oversign or drive guys away like the big boys.
 
BarrelORum said:
Again, worst ranking since they started rankings and by two services. You can play with the numbers all you want, but over a 14 year period of evaluating classes with the same weighted system, this one stacks up worse than the others. Not saying their method is perfect, only that here are two methods, and they both are telling you the same thing.
Click to expand...

it's still an issue with volume. if we signed 20 1* 2*guys, knowing they we never play and would be cut during spring, we would have a higher rank but only because of recruits who would never see our field.

gt2690b said:
agree it sucked but its not THAT bad... we have 4 schollys open.. assuming we fill two of them with the transfer from Maryland and Corn Elder then we only left 2 schollys open.. I would hope we could make up 2 schollys in a class
Click to expand...

should we have left an open spot for corn?
 
gtmg said:
Like I said before he is doing the right things in the eyes of the hill at Tech. He is going no where for those that think he will be fired quickly.

If you want to look at what will happen to Tech football if Paul leaves all you have to do is look back at what happened after we decided to get rid of Pepper.
Click to expand...

Two things:
1) while the Hill might control entrance requirements, they don't have dick to say about who the football coach is...and if the big $ donors aren't happy (and they won't be if we have another .500 season), then CPJ will be fired. You can bank on that.

2) Look at what happened after we got rid of Pepper? You mean the national championship we won in 1990?
 
AE 87 said:
I don't know where you get the number 18. All I've heard was CPJ saying that he was willing to take two more (up to 16). As it is, the average star rating is about where it's been the last several years.

I have a serious question for you. As I understand it, one of the things we do promote when we recruit is the GT degree and a committment to support players as long as they're working. Would you prefer that we not renew scholarships for the weaker players so that we can take closer to 25 each year?

Because, if you want to look at the overall ranking rather than average stars, it seems that you want us to oversign or drive guys away like the big boys.
Click to expand...

16 was the number of scholarships available until we had two guys graduate early, making 18 available. It isn't a total numbers game, it's about balancing the numbers in the classes and on a year when we're short on scholarships, using them wisely and not banking them for a year when we don't need them. BOR's not advocating oversigning, just signing what we have, right now we're 4 short.
 
GT1992 said:
16 was the number of scholarships available until we had two guys graduate early, making 18 available. It isn't a total numbers game, it's about balancing the numbers in the classes and on a year when we're short on scholarships, using them wisely and not banking them for a year when we don't need them. BOR's not advocating oversigning, just signing what we have, right now we're 4 short.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I wasn't disputing the 18 number just saying I hadn't heard it. Regardless, even if we signed 18, we'd be ranked significantly worse than those that signed 25. So, my question still stands with respect to the use of the absolute ranking as the point of comparison.
 
AE 87 said:
Fair enough, I wasn't disputing the 18 number just saying I hadn't heard it. Regardless, even if we signed 18, we'd be ranked significantly worse than those that signed 25. So, my question still stands with respect to the use of the absolute ranking as the point of comparison.
Click to expand...

I get that the national rankings really don't apply when you're short scholarships. You just have to fill them when you are and right now we're two short of that number (16) even. We should have had some more that we stayed in contact with instead of showing up Sunday to offer someone we hadn't contacted since August.
 
Total stars, not average stars, are the correct way to look at this class. Presumably we took the best first to fill up 16 and if we had 25 slots, we would have had to have done worse. It was a tough year with a lot of turnover in coaches and still somewhat mediocre results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top