GT up in the recruiting rankings.

beej67 said:
Put in those terms, this is the second best recruiting class we have on record. And there are several guys in this class that we know definitively were under ranked.

You could also say, "GT has now had their two best recruiting classes on record, back to back."

I'm cool with that.
Click to expand...

Easily 2nd best, and I think the development will be a huge difference from the last regime.
 
gtmg said:
Not so fast Beej

GOL had consistent top 25 classes using Scouts rankings.
Click to expand...

Not so fast yourself. GOL might have had 2 (maybe 3? I don't think so) top 25 classes out of 7, but that doesn't qualify as "consistent."

If you have facts, please use them properly.
 
BeerNutts said:
Not so fast yourself. GOL might have had 2 (maybe 3? I don't think so) top 25 classes out of 7, but that doesn't qualify as "consistent."

If you have facts, please use them properly.
Click to expand...

This is a bit closer to the way I remember it as well. I'm pretty sure 2 is the number.
 
GTKyle said:
#47 on Rivals. Nobody really respects scout's rankings.
Click to expand...

"Nobody" being fans of big programs? Or "nobody" being nobody?

Rivals probably gets more respect than Scout because they have a lot more subscribers. That doesn't mean they're better. It might in fact mean they're worse, because they have all the more reason to skew rankings towards the big programs whose fans buy their subscriptions. The fact that many of Scout's primary boards are the smaller schools will tend to skew recruiting rankings back from their natural gravitation towards the commits to big names.

Most of the big Southern schools, besides Florida, have their primary boards and recruiting reporters on Rivals.

OTOH I think the only two "Rivals schools" in the ACC are FSU and BC. The rest are either "Scout schools" or basically neutral, as TSL makes Virginia Tech.

Last year on signing day Rivals gave the SEC 8 of the top 10 classes. No doubt that on average the SEC is the best league, but that's a little outlandish. Scout strikes me as better.

To the degree they're legitimate, I tend to think of the average between the two as Dem suggests.
 
ContactBuzz said:
This is a bit closer to the way I remember it as well. I'm pretty sure 2 is the number.
Click to expand...

Probably the two you are thinking of are 1996 (Ed Wilder, Jon Muyres, Chris Edwards, and initially Quincy Carter) and 2000 (D. Smith, Fox, Hobie Holiday). Those may have been the only two that were "consensus" top 25.

I have these listed top-25 rankings for us, but I don't have the original sources:

1996: #12 (Tom Lemming)
1999: #16 (SuperPrep)
2000: #18 (SuperPrep)
2001: #20 (SuperPrep)
 
GOL had consistent top 25 classes using Scouts rankings.
Click to expand...

I should have clarified that "On Record" in this context means "in the Scout Database," which currently goes back to 02. I will not deny that George had some great recruiting classes.

"Two best classes since 2002, back to back," still sounds good to me.
 
gtmg said:
We have a great city, great facilities and a tough but great school that gets you a job with a degree.
Click to expand...

A great city?
Maybe a nice city but definitely not a college town like most recruits are looking for.

Great facilities?
that's a stretch when you compair them to top notch schools.

A great degree... of course but most of the top recruits feel like they won't need a great degree because they think they will be playing pro ball.
 
Ty Statham said:
A great degree... of course but most of the top recruits feel like they won't need a great degree because they think they will be playing pro ball.
Click to expand...

this statement may be true, but it is sooo wrong

a) most will never play in the NFL, even the "top prospects"
b) what will they do AFTER the NFL? uh, life doesnt stop at 40, even if you are Vinnie Testaverde, what will they do after the (on average) 2 years that they spend in the league?
c) getting a degree is all about discipline and committment, getting one will only help you get drafted HIGHER in the NFL if you already have one. teams see that you can put yourself to a task, even a not fun one, and succeed.
 
Speaking of recruiting rankings, here's an interesting article on the dominate level of recruiting in the south. The south has the warm weather for year-round conditioning and a disproportionate amount of the country's best talent. How in the world we could be right in the middle of this kind of talent base and not consistently attract top athletes is beyond me.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/stewart_mandel/02/04/sec.recruiting/index.html
 
We do attract good athletes, don't let recruiting rankings alone cloud your judgement. Also, our athletes have to actually want to go to class, so that puts us at a distinct disadvantage.
 
manjano mdudu said:
I'd like to think you're right, but the stats cited in the article don't quite bear that out.
Click to expand...
What stats? Did you happen to see CFNs reranking of the 2004 class by the way? Tech was ranked something like 35 by Scout on signing day 2004, but reranked at 15 based on results.
 
ParkinJacket said:
Are you saying that we don't attract good athletes, or that the "recruiting rankings" are hard statistics?
Click to expand...

I'm just saying that this article shows there's a direct correlation between schools that consistently have their classes getting ranked in the top ten and those same teams getting ranked in the top ten of the football polls. We haven't done either, something I hope one day to see change. We were just starting to see movement in that direction last year.
The only recent exceptions to that rule seem to be our ACC brethren (FSU and Miami); though I would say that over the long haul their superior recruiting and on-field results would back up the article's conclusions. The concept of taking lightly recruited players and “coaching them up” just doesn’t work over the long haul.
We live in the hotbed of recruiting talent. It's time to do better.
 
ncjacket said:
What stats? Did you happen to see CFNs reranking of the 2004 class by the way? Tech was ranked something like 35 by Scout on signing day 2004, but reranked at 15 based on results.
Click to expand...


And what were those "results?" A truly fine group of players, but I'd rather not discuss their bowls games or what happened to the coach that recruited them. I guess the point is that we need to find a way to consistently have classes like that.
 
Classes like what? The 2004 group? The results was what the individual players developed into, not wins and losses per se. If you read the article they talk aobut Gardner for example being considered too small when the class was signed, and growing and developeing into a pro prospect. What you're really saying is that you want us to get the recruits that everyone is talking about so you can feel better about who we recruit.
 
What the article clearly shows is that the schools that recruit top tier talent win much more than than those that don't. Pretty basic stuff! :laugher: Absent a randomly decent class every now and then, we haven't done that. I'm hoping that PJ can help us change that.
 
manjano mdudu said:
I'm just saying that this article shows there's a direct correlation between schools that consistently have their classes getting ranked in the top ten and those same teams getting ranked in the top ten of the football polls. We haven't done either, something I hope one day to see change. We were just starting to see movement in that direction last year.
The only recent exceptions to that rule seem to be our ACC brethren (FSU and Miami); though I would say that over the long haul their superior recruiting and on-field results would back up the article's conclusions. The concept of taking lightly recruited players and “coaching them up” just doesn’t work over the long haul.
We live in the hotbed of recruiting talent. It's time to do better.
Click to expand...

There are many more exceptions than you're giving credit for. Here's probably the best post relating recruiting rankings and on-the-field results.

http://www.sundaymorningqb.com/story/2008/1/21/1614/43228

I'm especially in the teams with the top 10 average rankings over the past five years. Only about 5 or so of them ended up being top teams last year, while many teams in the basement of the rankings finished in the top 20 last year.

There is a correlation, but it's much looser than the services want us to believe. As PJ recruits more option talent as opposed to pro talent, GT will also have one of the biggest discrepancies between recruiting rankings and results.

I'm also interested in how Bama is second in the Rivals rankings. Methinks they've milked those star ratings to capitalize the most on the Saban lovefest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top