Recruiting rankings and such...

GoldZ said:
Correct, plus a lot of Moms of recruits who organized and made an impact.
Click to expand...

No matter what the topic of discussion, it always comes down to the Moms here, amirite?
 
B said:
No matter what the topic of discussion, it always comes down to the Moms here, amirite?
Click to expand...
Not really B, this one is a fact vs juvenile posting, but I get your reference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B
I posted this elsewhere as well, but it's worth putting here:
Georgia Tech Recruiting Rankings.jpg


Basically, recruiting for Tech has been range bound. For the last 10+ years the recruiting ranking has been between 40th thru 60th with one exception of 2019/20.

CPJ did a lot more with slightly worse recruiting rankings.

Here are some other programs for comparison over the last 5 years:
Comparitive College Football Rankings.jpg


Events of 2020 skews the data a bit for everything, but still provides some insights. Wake Forest and K-State have worse recruiting rankings than Tech but have been over achievers relative to expectations. Iowa and Utah are often considered over achievers relative to the power house programs yet you can see that both programs have considerably better recruiting than Tech, Wake or K-State and their win/lose records support those rankings.

I'm optimistic about what CBK and his staff are going to do and I expect the recruiting to improve significantly in the coming years. I would say that Tech, with good coaching, can make an immediate improvement in record in line with what CPJ did and what Wake and K-State are currently doing without much improvement in recruiting. In other words, being range bound from #40-60 ranked classes as Tech has been. I think we've already seen evidence of improved coaching.

With just a little improvement in recruiting coupled with good coaching Tech may be able to produce results more in line with what Utah and Iowa have done. That should be the goal. Tech should aim to recruit classes consistently ranked in the #35-#45 range. I think it can be done and I think the results can be quite dramatic.
 
I don’t think there is a big difference in the quality of athletes from a 35 - 45 ranking. Also the ranking of our 3 previous clssses before the 11-3 season in 2014 was in the 45-55 range … same for the 9-4 squad in 2016. Of course those two teams had Justin Thomas at QB and very good backfields and WR’s for the TO offense.
 
GoldenIsle said:
I don’t think there is a big difference in the quality of athletes from a 35 - 45 ranking. Also the ranking of our 3 previous clssses before the 11-3 season in 2014 was in the 45-55 range … same for the 9-4 squad in 2016. Of course those two teams had Justin Thomas at QB and very good backfields and WR’s for the TO offense.
Click to expand...
I think in any given single season you would be correct in saying that there isn't much difference between 35-45 vs 45-55, but over time it has a measurable impact on consistency from year to year. We went 3-9 after the 11-3 season. We went 5-6 after the 9-4 season. Using the Iowa and Utah sample size for comparison, both programs had multiple 9+ win seasons over the last 5 years with consistent recruiting averaging in the mid 30's for ranking. Also using the K-State and Wake Forest data set, both programs had a really good season with over 10 wins once in the last 5 years. Their coaching has been good enough to make them competitive over the last 5 seasons, but not consistently 8-9+ win seasons.

If Tech can improve it's year to year recruiting rankings by 20%, averaging a #40 ranking, I think Tech can get into a position where they can average 7-8 wins a year with some really good seasons having 10+ wins and contending for a playoff spot. I think it's an attainable, realistic goal given the challenges at Tech and would make most reasonable Tech fans very happy.
 
Playing in the ACC, with our rankings, we should at least be 6-6 every year. And I think Key will get us better in all categories.
 
I really wish our administration and influential alumni would find a way to fix “the challenges of Tech” for our athletes. I’ve been hearing that crap since Dodd retired and it gets old.
 
GoldenIsle said:
I really wish our administration and influential alumni would find a way to fix “the challenges of Tech” for our athletes. I’ve been hearing that crap since Dodd retired and it gets old.
Click to expand...

Our administration and influential alumni are the ones creating the challenges of Tech, for the most part.
 
Buzzilla said:
I think in any given single season you would be correct in saying that there isn't much difference between 35-45 vs 45-55, but over time it has a measurable impact on consistency from year to year. We went 3-9 after the 11-3 season. We went 5-6 after the 9-4 season. Using the Iowa and Utah sample size for comparison, both programs had multiple 9+ win seasons over the last 5 years with consistent recruiting averaging in the mid 30's for ranking. Also using the K-State and Wake Forest data set, both programs had a really good season with over 10 wins once in the last 5 years. Their coaching has been good enough to make them competitive over the last 5 seasons, but not consistently 8-9+ win seasons.

If Tech can improve it's year to year recruiting rankings by 20%, averaging a #40 ranking, I think Tech can get into a position where they can average 7-8 wins a year with some really good seasons having 10+ wins and contending for a playoff spot. I think it's an attainable, realistic goal given the challenges at Tech and would make most reasonable Tech fans very happy.
Click to expand...
It proves that coaching matters.
If you really want to look at team talent from recruit rankings you'd have average it out over a 4 year period.
Luckily 247 has already done that for us with the team talent composite.
Last year we were 5th ACC and 30th nationally...Talent is No excuse for the last 4 years performance.
We'll decline some when it's updated about Aug of next year but not drastically.
Unlike transfer and overall composite rankings(which use a transfer rating), the talent composite uses the original HS ratings!
so GT has already been better than your suggested #40 ranking for the last 3 years 30,33,34.
for next year we'll probably be in the 34-40 range
247sports.com

2022 College Football Team Talent Composite

In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.
247sports.com 247sports.com
 
I think all of us GT grads know that more stars = better players and winning over time. I think if we were to get into the top 25-30 we could field consistently competitive teams. With the NIL, increased transfer portal that just adds more variables to the mix unfortunately to complicate the landscape. We've seen that it takes a 'blue chip whisperer' in order to get classes 30 and below here at GT. It's only happened ONCE in almost 20 years. Time will tell how this staff does but the first thing to do is win next year and at minimum be bowl eligible. We've got to show kids from hs we're heading in right direction (continuing from the 2nd half of the season).
 
As GOL said years ago. GT fans want to be Harvard M-F and FSU (or a factory type school) on Saturdays. In my mind only ND has come close to that blue print and even they have had rough spells every so often but they have name recognition and history which helps them immensely. We are an engineering school which limits us with majors, etc. We've argued/debated over this ever since the inception of message boards.
 
gt9589 said:
I think all of us GT grads know that more stars = better players and winning over time. I think if we were to get into the top 25-30 we could field consistently competitive teams. With the NIL, increased transfer portal that just adds more variables to the mix unfortunately to complicate the landscape. We've seen that it takes a 'blue chip whisperer' in order to get classes 30 and below here at GT. It's only happened ONCE in almost 20 years. Time will tell how this staff does but the first thing to do is win next year and at minimum be bowl eligible. We've got to show kids from hs we're heading in right direction (continuing from the 2nd half of the season).
Click to expand...

I think what I was trying to demonstrate was that programs like Iowa and Utah have been able to consistently recruit very good players and top 40 classes and with those classes consistently win. Can Tech recruit on the level of Iowa and Utah? If not, why not? If so, what needs to change to start getting their results? I'm sure there are other programs that have cracked the recruiting code that Tech can compete with and start getting better results.

I think the transfer portal is going to be a net positive for Tech, getting kids that have an academic record and are able to contribute right away. It should also be carefully considered when recruiting HS athletes as to whether they are a long term prospect. Losing productive players after 1 or 2 seasons repeatedly is unsustainable. I wouldn't want to not recruit a 5 star because he may leave, but resources may be better focused on players that can and will stay at Tech for 4 or 5 years and through to graduation.
 
Buzzilla said:
It should also be carefully considered when recruiting HS athletes as to whether they are a long term prospect. Losing productive players after 1 or 2 seasons repeatedly is unsustainable. I wouldn't want to not recruit a 5 star because he may leave, but resources may be better focused on players that can and will stay at Tech for 4 or 5 years and through to graduation.
Click to expand...

What further conflates the recruiting dilemma, especially in regards to the "diamond in the rough" types, is the fact that kids seem to be able to get their degrees a lot faster than in the past for whatever reason(s). The kid that needs three years of S & C plus development can be gone on to the work force now before they ever pan out on the field. Seems like we have a lot of guys now leave as grads without ever being a factor for the FB team. Maybe I am not recalling this correctly but don't remember this being an issue back in the day. So, do you recruit guys like this or not? We have seen a lot of the under the radar guys or even walkons really grow and develop on the Flats but that mght be a thing of the past??????
 
GoldenIsle said:
I really wish our administration and influential alumni would find a way to fix “the challenges of Tech” for our athletes. I’ve been hearing that crap since Dodd retired and it gets old.
Click to expand...
It was going on before Dodd retired and is part of the DNA of GA Tech. Early in Dodd's career, there was a broad premise in college football of recruiting students who were also good enough academically to complete a difficult college curriculum. That began to slip as colleges responded to the mandates of the mid-1960's. At that time, the talent gap between Tech and others was relatively small. As the new thinking crept along, the gap has become huge. It was evidenced beginning in the 1970's as players were surreptitiously paid under the table and gained team in the 1980's with cases like SMU, Jan Kemp (UGA), and Dexter Manley (OSU). The NCAA tried to apply oversight, but schools like UNCHeat contrived fraudulent programs that circumvented the NCAA, even taking them to court - and winning. The result is the NCAA has been reduced to a sham and many (if not most) schools now recruit whoever they want/need with only a veil of academic oversight.
 
stinger78 said:
It was going on before Dodd retired and is part of the DNA of GA Tech. Early in Dodd's career, there was a broad premise in college football of recruiting students who were also good enough academically to complete a difficult college curriculum. That began to slip as colleges responded to the mandates of the mid-1960's. At that time, the talent gap between Tech and others was relatively small. As the new thinking crept along, the gap has become huge. It was evidenced beginning in the 1970's as players were surreptitiously paid under the table and gained team in the 1980's with cases like SMU, Jan Kemp (UGA), and Dexter Manley (OSU). The NCAA tried to apply oversight, but schools like UNCHeat contrived fraudulent programs that circumvented the NCAA, even taking them to court - and winning. The result is the NCAA has been reduced to a sham and many (if not most) schools now recruit whoever they want/need with only a veil of academic oversight.
Click to expand...
A microcosm for a pretty much everything else we are witnessing in Clown World 2022. The circus is in town and it's here to stay.
 
The early graduations aren't really earlier. Players got the extra COVID year and that will settle down. It seems to me that to push into the higher levels of recruiting rankings a coach needs to be able to churn the players to open more roster spots every year for better players. That doesn't necessarily mean a higher ranked player, just replace one that isn't cutting it with one that might turnout. Bringing 4-5 extra players with stars each year moves you up the rankings quicker than just finding better players. That's the game the factories play. The over-recruit and replace by 'encouraging' others to enter the portal. We've mostly honored a players scholarship regardless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top