G
Geetee
Guest
scout.com currently has our class ranked #35. Ahead of us are FSU, NC, Clemson, VT, and Maryland. Ugag is ranked #3.
And we are supposed to care about Scout? I'm glad we are ranked well, but don't think it means much at all.
There are three measures of how well you recruit and it takes time to measure each of them.
#1) Do the kids graduate with a meaningful degree w/o committing misdemeanors or being convicted of other crimes.
#2) What is their contribution to the team on the field and in practice?
#3) What is the W-L record?
I'm sorry, but, you recruiting services don't accurately measure that. Andrew Gardner would be just one case in point. Until Chan's contract extension I was pretty much a detractor during this past season. But I think that he has put a very talented team on the field (look at the D-line, the secondary, running backs etc.) There are some weak spots in terms of depth (O-Line, QB) but I those things appear to be getting better. Tech, during our 9 year bowl streak, has never been deep at every position. Next year will be our peak of depth. That's good recruiting and the W-L should reflect that. After sitting on this season thus far, I'm glad Gailey is at Tech b/c it appears his recruits are doing very well in the above three criteria (note, we are doing well in the NCAA progress requirement at #6 in the ACC with upward momentum).
ok. enough procrastinating. Back to work.
There are three measures of how well you recruit and it takes time to measure each of them.
#1) Do the kids graduate with a meaningful degree w/o committing misdemeanors or being convicted of other crimes.
#2) What is their contribution to the team on the field and in practice?
#3) What is the W-L record?
I'm sorry, but, you recruiting services don't accurately measure that. Andrew Gardner would be just one case in point. Until Chan's contract extension I was pretty much a detractor during this past season. But I think that he has put a very talented team on the field (look at the D-line, the secondary, running backs etc.) There are some weak spots in terms of depth (O-Line, QB) but I those things appear to be getting better. Tech, during our 9 year bowl streak, has never been deep at every position. Next year will be our peak of depth. That's good recruiting and the W-L should reflect that. After sitting on this season thus far, I'm glad Gailey is at Tech b/c it appears his recruits are doing very well in the above three criteria (note, we are doing well in the NCAA progress requirement at #6 in the ACC with upward momentum).
ok. enough procrastinating. Back to work.
pocket_watch
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,953
I think you have made a very good point SBP. While the original post was most likely critical of Tech's football program, the stability gained by keeping most of our kids in the program has probably been the main reason for the 5-3, and the 2 monster wins.
That is hard to fathom with flunkgate still in our rearview mirror.
Either the used car salesmen of rivals and scout don't know jack about incoming football talent, or CG has done a remarkable job of finding great players that fit what he is trying to do. I happen to think it's a healthy combination of both.
If he can keep this going for the next few years without another internal earthquake, these recruiting gurus will either start handing out a bunch of stars to CG's recruits, or they will be out of jobs.
That is hard to fathom with flunkgate still in our rearview mirror.
Either the used car salesmen of rivals and scout don't know jack about incoming football talent, or CG has done a remarkable job of finding great players that fit what he is trying to do. I happen to think it's a healthy combination of both.
If he can keep this going for the next few years without another internal earthquake, these recruiting gurus will either start handing out a bunch of stars to CG's recruits, or they will be out of jobs.
G
Geetee
Guest
the scout ranking is right off the front page of The Hive at www.gojackets.com. Are you telling me since rankings don't matter that you wouldn't be thrilled to have GT showing there in the top 5 vs the top 40 bc rankings don't matter? Many play both sides of the coin here...downplaying stars and rankings, but getting really excited and touting that ranking when we get a player with such. It matters on the field, yes, but talent coming in on the front end is important, too, for a winning program.
buzztheirazz
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2005
- Messages
- 2,768
Wow, I think I may have agreed with GeeTee for a second there. I think people may play both sides of the coin, but I think most are trying to remain positive while pulling in the 2&3 stars(because of previous good results) and do get excited when we get the 4 stars. I don't think there is a total discounting of the "Scout" services, but realistically some players are busts and some players are overlooked.
pocket_watch
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,953
Let me try to respond to you without quoting your statements to you. I think it will be quicker and just as thorough.
The recruiting "rankings" are what they are. If they were accurate, there would be no sleeper teams out there. The star bearers should have already forseen the good from the bad teams. (Did any of the recruiting gurus foreshadow a "bowl" season for Rutgers a few years back?)
I think so called services like rivals and scout are 100% pure BS. Blue chip prospects have been talked about for decades before the gurus started cashing in on the rest of the kids that go on to play major college football. If you don't believe this has always been my opinion, you can look it up.
I have only been a fan of one team my entire life, and that has been Tech. Because of that, I have no idea how fans of other schools react, but I believe that too many Tech fans wait to see what other schools do or think before figuring out what is right for this program.
Maybe this describes you regarding recruiting at least.
As long as this football program continues to improve, I will continue to trust the judgement of Chan Gailey and most, if not all of his staff over slick salesmen that have zero experience coaching kids making the transition from high school to a very tough school in a very tough league.
If I personally lose this trust in Chan Gailey, I can guarantee that I won't turn to Scott Kennedy, et al for recruiting info expertise.
The recruiting "rankings" are what they are. If they were accurate, there would be no sleeper teams out there. The star bearers should have already forseen the good from the bad teams. (Did any of the recruiting gurus foreshadow a "bowl" season for Rutgers a few years back?)
I think so called services like rivals and scout are 100% pure BS. Blue chip prospects have been talked about for decades before the gurus started cashing in on the rest of the kids that go on to play major college football. If you don't believe this has always been my opinion, you can look it up.
I have only been a fan of one team my entire life, and that has been Tech. Because of that, I have no idea how fans of other schools react, but I believe that too many Tech fans wait to see what other schools do or think before figuring out what is right for this program.
Maybe this describes you regarding recruiting at least.
As long as this football program continues to improve, I will continue to trust the judgement of Chan Gailey and most, if not all of his staff over slick salesmen that have zero experience coaching kids making the transition from high school to a very tough school in a very tough league.
If I personally lose this trust in Chan Gailey, I can guarantee that I won't turn to Scott Kennedy, et al for recruiting info expertise.
G
Geetee
Guest
ok...so simply put, you'd just as rather be ranked 35 vs 1 or 2 bc it really woudn't matter in this scout (or rivals)ranking?
hiveredtech
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2002
- Messages
- 5,889
GeeTee...everyone is sick of your game. Please stir up trouble elsewhere. Woof woof
pocket_watch
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2005
- Messages
- 2,953
[ QUOTE ]
ok...so simply put, you'd just as rather be ranked 35 vs 1 or 2 bc it really woudn't matter in this scout (or rivals)ranking?
[/ QUOTE ]
Now I will quote you, but I hope my answer will be my final. You can have the final word, as they say on TV.
Of course I would like it if Tech was ranked #1 or 2 in recruiting every year. If we were, it would mean that we would have signed several of the virtual "no-brainer" blue chip prospects that I commented on in my last post.
You know it's a fact that we can't talk to but a portion of the prospects that are coming out. I believe it's also a fact that many of the can't miss future NFL guys don't want to be bothered with going to a real school. That removes another chunk of the high school "blue-chippers".
What is left is the majority of guys that make up college football.
This is the arena that both of these things occur, imo: 1) The gurus do a horrible job on these guys, and add stars to them based on where they sign.
2) This is where teams like Tech live, and where coaches like Gailey earn their money. Every year or so, Chan should commit a guy or two that is a profound blue chip guy, but the rest will be very good players that can and will stay in the program. This is reality in my world.
ok...so simply put, you'd just as rather be ranked 35 vs 1 or 2 bc it really woudn't matter in this scout (or rivals)ranking?
[/ QUOTE ]
Now I will quote you, but I hope my answer will be my final. You can have the final word, as they say on TV.
Of course I would like it if Tech was ranked #1 or 2 in recruiting every year. If we were, it would mean that we would have signed several of the virtual "no-brainer" blue chip prospects that I commented on in my last post.
You know it's a fact that we can't talk to but a portion of the prospects that are coming out. I believe it's also a fact that many of the can't miss future NFL guys don't want to be bothered with going to a real school. That removes another chunk of the high school "blue-chippers".
What is left is the majority of guys that make up college football.
This is the arena that both of these things occur, imo: 1) The gurus do a horrible job on these guys, and add stars to them based on where they sign.
2) This is where teams like Tech live, and where coaches like Gailey earn their money. Every year or so, Chan should commit a guy or two that is a profound blue chip guy, but the rest will be very good players that can and will stay in the program. This is reality in my world.
G
Geetee
Guest
people don't like realistic observations, I guess.
G
Geetee
Guest
define football factory... is it a school that can beat a top ten team? has potential to field a good team and win consistently? a school that has won a national championship? hmmm... sounds alot like our school. So, we should never ever expect to do really well in recruiting and win more than six or seven games a year because by your definition, we aren't in that factory league?... interesting. I'll set the bar a little lower for GT and should fall in line with many and be happy. consider it done here and now. no more bantering about the pitfalls of mediocrity. Let's beat those 6-5 Utes!!!!!
hiveredtech
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2002
- Messages
- 5,889
[ QUOTE ]
people don't like realistic observations, I guess.
[/ QUOTE ]
The most evident "realistic observation" is that you are trouble. I am sorry you are so miserable...it must be rough.
people don't like realistic observations, I guess.
[/ QUOTE ]
The most evident "realistic observation" is that you are trouble. I am sorry you are so miserable...it must be rough.
mm42
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2002
- Messages
- 4,030
[ QUOTE ]
define football factory...
[/ QUOTE ]
A football factory is a school like UGAy, where there are special majors like "Leisure Studies" and "Recreation and Sports" designed to make life easy for football players, where they take classes from instructors as challenging as Jim Harrick, Jr., where staying eligible requires little more than a pulse, where admission standards are the bare NCAA minimum, where Fork Onion Academy serves as a minor league training ground for the ones who can't even meet that bare minimum, and where 90,000 loons show up even for games against Louisiana-Monroe.
define football factory...
[/ QUOTE ]
A football factory is a school like UGAy, where there are special majors like "Leisure Studies" and "Recreation and Sports" designed to make life easy for football players, where they take classes from instructors as challenging as Jim Harrick, Jr., where staying eligible requires little more than a pulse, where admission standards are the bare NCAA minimum, where Fork Onion Academy serves as a minor league training ground for the ones who can't even meet that bare minimum, and where 90,000 loons show up even for games against Louisiana-Monroe.
Okay, at the risk of getting into another stupid argument with you, look over this and tell me how much sense it makes to you.
[ QUOTE ]
Talent - This category reflects the quality of players committed to that school. Teams must recruit difference-makers throughout their class to obtain a high ranking.
Need - This is analysis of whether the team needs are being met at each position. This value is capped per position type (i.e., a team does not receive extra credit for overloading at a position).
Balance - Teams must be represented at every position by players of each body type. Securing balance in every recruiting class is a necessity due to the injuries and attrition that are part of college football.
[/ QUOTE ]
See any problems there? That's how one service ranks teams. I can almost buy the first step, that they rate players. I don't believe they can be accurate on many, but at least it's reasonable that they can watch tape of a bunch of guys and make a judgement on where they stand.
The second point means that these "gurus" can determine what each team's needs are. That means that not only are they experts on every recruit out there but on what each team is trying to do, what players are returning, who is changing positions, etc. Then they decide how well each team meets those needs. Oh, and by the way, you can't "over-recruit". Doesn't matter that a kid and his college coach may decide that he's really a DB not a WR, if the services consider him a WR.
Finally, you have to get the right "body types" at every position? What?
As you may have gathered I don't worry much about team rankings. If a team like Sou Cal has a bunch of players that everyone else wants, it's pretty easy to say they have a great class. But when you start comparing the majority of teams it just doesn't make sense. You may have noticed in your review that UNC ranks higher than us. Did you also notice they have twice as many commitments (which adds points in the model described) but that their average stars (which is supposed to tell you how good a player is) is lower than Tech. So what does that tell you about our classes? I don't honestly know because the process simply doesn't make any kind of mathematical sense.
[ QUOTE ]
Talent - This category reflects the quality of players committed to that school. Teams must recruit difference-makers throughout their class to obtain a high ranking.
Need - This is analysis of whether the team needs are being met at each position. This value is capped per position type (i.e., a team does not receive extra credit for overloading at a position).
Balance - Teams must be represented at every position by players of each body type. Securing balance in every recruiting class is a necessity due to the injuries and attrition that are part of college football.
[/ QUOTE ]
See any problems there? That's how one service ranks teams. I can almost buy the first step, that they rate players. I don't believe they can be accurate on many, but at least it's reasonable that they can watch tape of a bunch of guys and make a judgement on where they stand.
The second point means that these "gurus" can determine what each team's needs are. That means that not only are they experts on every recruit out there but on what each team is trying to do, what players are returning, who is changing positions, etc. Then they decide how well each team meets those needs. Oh, and by the way, you can't "over-recruit". Doesn't matter that a kid and his college coach may decide that he's really a DB not a WR, if the services consider him a WR.
Finally, you have to get the right "body types" at every position? What?
As you may have gathered I don't worry much about team rankings. If a team like Sou Cal has a bunch of players that everyone else wants, it's pretty easy to say they have a great class. But when you start comparing the majority of teams it just doesn't make sense. You may have noticed in your review that UNC ranks higher than us. Did you also notice they have twice as many commitments (which adds points in the model described) but that their average stars (which is supposed to tell you how good a player is) is lower than Tech. So what does that tell you about our classes? I don't honestly know because the process simply doesn't make any kind of mathematical sense.
G
Geetee
Guest
ok..not saying that rankings are the end word on a class. However, are you saying that rankings matter so little that you see no difference in class being ranked #1 or #2 vs #35?