techjacket
Jolly Good Fellow
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2001
- Messages
- 1,624
This was written by Scott on the GT Sports Blog. Very well said!
RECRUITING RANKINGS - THINK AGAIN
The ACC Sports Journal just published part I of their annual series looking back on ACC football recruiting classes of 4 years ago. Why? Well, because it's a lot more relavent than last year's recruiting classes. The class 4 years ago has now been on the field. They are THE upperclassmen. In Georgia Tech's case it was Chan Gailey's first REAL class. It was the players HE brought in for the first time. So how did the ACC Sports Journal rank the ACC? Well, our Jackets finished #1 in the ACC based on the contributions of the class of 2003......................... Let that sink in for a moment................. #1 in the ACC..................... think about it a little longer..................... this was the "disappointing" class............................. the "well, it's only his first year" class................. the class not ranked in the top ........................... the class generally ranked as the #6 out of 9 teams in the ACC................. that same year, Scout.com ranked NCST's class tied for 9th best in the nation, FSU's 12th best, UNC's 13th best, Maryland's 22nd............ and little old Georgia Tech 34th best.
So who were the standouts? Of course there was Reggie Ball. There was Kenny Scott, Joe Anaoi, KaMichael Hall, Chris Dunlap, Rashaun Grant, Matt Rhodes, Avery Roberson, Mansfield Wrotto, Phillip Wheeler, Adamm Oliver, Kevin Tuminello. You are talking about a major list of contributors right there. For a complete list - go here.
So let's talk recruiting rankings. Phillip Wheeler 2 star.............. Matt Rhodes 2 star................ Mansfield Wrotto 2 star................... Adamm Oliver 2 star. Well alrighty then. Folks this class was looked at as mediocre by the recruiting services. Average. Now looking back, the Georgia Tech senior class is contributing more than ANY other 2003 class in the ACC. Folks, it's not about stars, it's about evaluations. The rub.......... the problem is that us regular fans don't have the REAL evaluations - the coach's evaluations. We can only rely on a staff of about 5 people ranking hundred, ney, thousands of players around the country based on a few clips of film, some measurables and if they're lucky some camp film. It's just such an in-exact science............................ and speaking of science, Steve Logan put it great on his radio show this week - recruiting services are hogwash (paraphrased). He said "I am going to start a website called farmer.com, and I'm going to market my service to corn farmers. I'll come to your farm, examine your seeds in the spring before you plant them, then tell you which seeds are going to truly be the best - which seeds are going to grow the best corn ever. Of course I will have to discount what happens after you plant it - like watering, rainfall, care, heat, fertilizer doses. I'm just going to look at it in your hand and tell you............ Now what kind of farmer is going to pay me to do that - NONE".................... Sorry, but his radio show is THE BEST sports show on radio right now, and you can actually listen to it via podcast or the archives of their website here. .................... Bottom line is that so much of a program's success depends on the development of kids when they get to college - strength programs, gameplanning, academics, learning, scheme's, etc, and what matters most is a staff's ability to evaluate talent. Just take it to the bank that Chan Gailey and his staff are as good at evaluating talent as any coach in the ACC and are as good as anyone at "coaching up". He has taken "poor" and "mediocre" recruiting classes and consistently won ballgames. He has now even improved his closing ability to land the more mainstream "top" recruits. It's all good folks. Don't sweat the stars.
RECRUITING RANKINGS - THINK AGAIN
The ACC Sports Journal just published part I of their annual series looking back on ACC football recruiting classes of 4 years ago. Why? Well, because it's a lot more relavent than last year's recruiting classes. The class 4 years ago has now been on the field. They are THE upperclassmen. In Georgia Tech's case it was Chan Gailey's first REAL class. It was the players HE brought in for the first time. So how did the ACC Sports Journal rank the ACC? Well, our Jackets finished #1 in the ACC based on the contributions of the class of 2003......................... Let that sink in for a moment................. #1 in the ACC..................... think about it a little longer..................... this was the "disappointing" class............................. the "well, it's only his first year" class................. the class not ranked in the top ........................... the class generally ranked as the #6 out of 9 teams in the ACC................. that same year, Scout.com ranked NCST's class tied for 9th best in the nation, FSU's 12th best, UNC's 13th best, Maryland's 22nd............ and little old Georgia Tech 34th best.
So who were the standouts? Of course there was Reggie Ball. There was Kenny Scott, Joe Anaoi, KaMichael Hall, Chris Dunlap, Rashaun Grant, Matt Rhodes, Avery Roberson, Mansfield Wrotto, Phillip Wheeler, Adamm Oliver, Kevin Tuminello. You are talking about a major list of contributors right there. For a complete list - go here.
So let's talk recruiting rankings. Phillip Wheeler 2 star.............. Matt Rhodes 2 star................ Mansfield Wrotto 2 star................... Adamm Oliver 2 star. Well alrighty then. Folks this class was looked at as mediocre by the recruiting services. Average. Now looking back, the Georgia Tech senior class is contributing more than ANY other 2003 class in the ACC. Folks, it's not about stars, it's about evaluations. The rub.......... the problem is that us regular fans don't have the REAL evaluations - the coach's evaluations. We can only rely on a staff of about 5 people ranking hundred, ney, thousands of players around the country based on a few clips of film, some measurables and if they're lucky some camp film. It's just such an in-exact science............................ and speaking of science, Steve Logan put it great on his radio show this week - recruiting services are hogwash (paraphrased). He said "I am going to start a website called farmer.com, and I'm going to market my service to corn farmers. I'll come to your farm, examine your seeds in the spring before you plant them, then tell you which seeds are going to truly be the best - which seeds are going to grow the best corn ever. Of course I will have to discount what happens after you plant it - like watering, rainfall, care, heat, fertilizer doses. I'm just going to look at it in your hand and tell you............ Now what kind of farmer is going to pay me to do that - NONE".................... Sorry, but his radio show is THE BEST sports show on radio right now, and you can actually listen to it via podcast or the archives of their website here. .................... Bottom line is that so much of a program's success depends on the development of kids when they get to college - strength programs, gameplanning, academics, learning, scheme's, etc, and what matters most is a staff's ability to evaluate talent. Just take it to the bank that Chan Gailey and his staff are as good at evaluating talent as any coach in the ACC and are as good as anyone at "coaching up". He has taken "poor" and "mediocre" recruiting classes and consistently won ballgames. He has now even improved his closing ability to land the more mainstream "top" recruits. It's all good folks. Don't sweat the stars.
