Welcome To Head Coaching, Brent Key

BigDanT said:
“This Interviewer”? Is the same guy who does the play by play and has interviewed key for every Wednesday show.
Click to expand...

I have not watched the show. Shows what I know.
 
gtchief said:
The system everyone looks at, yes. If you have a better metric on hand it sounds like a good business opportunity. In the meantime it’s more reliable than team homers trying to rationalize their low rankings
Click to expand...
That is doubtful, but to each his own.
 
gtchief said:
The system everyone looks at, yes. If you have a better metric on hand it sounds like a good business opportunity. In the meantime it’s more reliable than team homers trying to rationalize their low rankings
Click to expand...
League coaches didn’t think highly of our talent or ability to spot talent.

I trust their eyes over teenage jock sniffing journalists trying to drive clicks.
 
andrew said:
Did anyone else feel this interviewer had some weird energy? And CBK did not seem to be feeling it. Maybe partly to do with the music that was playing for the whole thing for some reason.
Click to expand...
He looks like he's trying to hold back joyful tears or just fired some people.
 
Akinji07 said:
I’ve identified the complainers as Tech fans who are also Cubs fans.
Click to expand...

There is definitely at least one of those!

Overall though i'm quite proud of the Stingtalk fanbase with the 90% approval rating on the hire.
 
gtchief said:
247sports.com

2018 College ACC 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

2018 Team Talent: Average 83.84, 11th in ACC


247sports.com

2022 College ACC 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

2022 Team Talent: Average 87.05, 5th in ACC

what-can-i-say-youre-welcome.gif
Click to expand...
So let me get this straight.

What you're telling me is in 2018 we had an average talent 83.84 and ACC class recruiting rank of 11th

Our record at the end of the year was...
7-6

In 2022 we "improved" or talent average to 87.05 and ACC class recruiting rank of 5th

Our record was... 5-7

I should really thank you actually. Really helping me prove my point here. LOL
 
Jacketzrus said:
So let me get this straight.

What you're telling me is in 2018 we had an average talent 83.84 and ACC class recruiting rank of 11th

Our record at the end of the year was...
7-6

In 2022 we "improved" or talent average to 87.05 and ACC class recruiting rank of 5th

Our record was... 5-7

I should really thank you actually. Really helping me prove my point here. LOL
Click to expand...
I already said you’re welcome :) Proof was provided as requested. You can be a rankings denier, laugh or cry all you want. Or go off moving the goalposts about W/L like recruiting is the only variable. Numbers are there as long as you can read.
 
I, like most, don't care for Bradley, but that was a fair and accurate article.
 
gtchief said:
The system everyone looks at, yes. If you have a better metric on hand it sounds like a good business opportunity. In the meantime it’s more reliable than team homers trying to rationalize their low rankings
Click to expand...
The better metric is minimalist. Four decimal places is ludicrous. No one, not even the most competent professional, can delineate that finely. Furthermore, the ones that make it big are pretty chancy, too, as there are too many variables. Ever notice how may transfers were HS 4* players? There are some blue-chip players who just get buried by better players, and there are some who were rated too highly. I believe the latter far outnumber the former. The rating systems, done by sports websites like Rivals and 247, are run by amateurs.

NB: I am not saying that more real blue-chip players don't translate into more wins. That's intuitive given a basic level of coaching, S&C, etc. I am saying how we determine who is blue-chip is questionable - and - that there aren't that many true blue-chips in each class.

Therefore, only the consistent top 10-15 programs are piling them up to the level where they become dominant. Beyond that level (say top 10/15) those teams move up and down and in and out with regularity. The ones that stay somewhere in the top 30 may only get 2-3 true blue-chip athletes per year and only have 8-10 on a team in any 4-year period. GA Tech, at its best, falls into this category. A program can be consistent top-40 recruiting team (based on the ludicrous metric we use) and nab a couple of true blue-chip athletes per year.

So then, what I am saying is close to what you're saying, I think. However, I see it as a game owned by the top 10/15 programs. Those programs are sucking up most of the blue-chips into their sorter and in a year or two are rejecting the ones that were misses. Those guys transfer to lesser programs. That is not to say they are not good players. Eley was a good player for us. He was a high-3 by the site rankings. Is that a blue-chip? Maybe not, but he developed into a good player for us. It's just not as black and white for most teams. The few, yes maybe, but most, no.
 
stinger78 said:
The better metric is minimalist. Four decimal places is ludicrous. No one, not even the most competent professional, can delineate that finely. Furthermore, the ones that make it big are pretty chancy, too, as there are too many variables. Ever notice how may transfers were HS 4* players? There are some blue-chip players who just get buried by better players, and there are some who were rated too highly. I believe the latter far outnumber the former. The rating systems, done by sports websites like Rivals and 247, are run by amateurs.

NB: I am not saying that more real blue-chip players don't translate into more wins. That's intuitive given a basic level of coaching, S&C, etc. I am saying how we determine who is blue-chip is questionable - and - that there aren't that many true blue-chips in each class.

Therefore, only the consistent top 10-15 programs are piling them up to the level where they become dominant. Beyond that level (say top 10/15) those teams move up and down and in and out with regularity. The ones that stay somewhere in the top 30 may only get 2-3 true blue-chip athletes per year and only have 8-10 on a team in any 4-year period. GA Tech, at its best, falls into this category. A program can be consistent top-40 recruiting team (based on the ludicrous metric we use) and nab a couple of true blue-chip athletes per year.

So then, what I am saying is close to what you're saying, I think. However, I see it as a game owned by the top 10/15 programs. Those programs are sucking up most of the blue-chips into their sorter and in a year or two are rejecting the ones that were misses. Those guys transfer to lesser programs. That is not to say they are not good players. Eley was a good player for us. He was a high-3 by the site rankings. Is that a blue-chip? Maybe not, but he developed into a good player for us. It's just not as black and white for most teams. The few, yes maybe, but most, no.
Click to expand...
Exactly
 
andrew said:
Did anyone else feel this interviewer had some weird energy? And CBK did not seem to be feeling it. Maybe partly to do with the music that was playing for the whole thing for some reason.
Click to expand...
Andy should consider toning it down a bit. Know who you are interviewing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top