2021 Recruiting Class & Transfers In

yrp

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
313
After 2 years he is 6-16, with bad losses to FCS Citadel, mediocre FBS teams, and several bad ACC teams. He brought in an excellent 2020 recruiting class but his 2021 class is 45th after early signing day, 11th in the ACC, 6th in the Coastal. His prospects for having GT in a bowl next year are low. I surely can't see it yet.

Now, do I believe he will correct this? Sure. I have faith in his approach and will support him, but he surely hasn't shown consistently yet that he's the one to take us to the promised land.

Either way, my original point stands: I wish EJ luck and even insinuating that he would be better off lying to get a medical scholarship is wrong. Doing the right thing is always the best thing, but you do you.
Not including transfers for this year's recruiting is arguing in bad faith imo
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,876
Location
North Shore, Chicago
The rankings don't include the other schools transfers either. We aren't the only school benefitting from transfers.
And?

Most of our transfers are freshmen who will have 4 years of eligibility after arriving. So, they're the equivalent of an incoming freshman, not a true transfer. This year, more than most, only looking at kids coming out of high school is misleading. I'm as happy with the group of young men coming in this year (HS + freshmen/RSFreshmen transfers) as I was with last year's class.
 

Augusta_Jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,957
Location
Augusta, Georgia
And?

Most of our transfers are freshmen who will have 4 years of eligibility after arriving. So, they're the equivalent of an incoming freshman, not a true transfer. This year, more than most, only looking at kids coming out of high school is misleading. I'm as happy with the group of young men coming in this year (HS + freshmen/RSFreshmen transfers) as I was with last year's class.

The point was that comparing rankings without using transfers is apropos since none of the schools were ranked use transfers in their equation.

To go back to the original post I was replying to, CGC may well be the next Bobby Ross, and we might be rounding the corner on greatness, but that requires faith, not simply looking at the two year time frame as the original poster said. It's NOT an obvious observation at this point that we are clearly better than where we were two years ago. I support CGC and what he's doing, but facts are facts and we have to hope that after 3-4 years in the football wilderness we emerge as a serious perennial challenger for the Coastal Division. I think we will, but we've still got a ways to go.

And 3/7 transfers are FR, 3 are Srs. One So in the group as well.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,876
Location
North Shore, Chicago
The point was that comparing rankings without using transfers is apropos since none of the schools were ranked use transfers in their equation.

To go back to the original post I was replying to, CGC may well be the next Bobby Ross, and we might be rounding the corner on greatness, but that requires faith, not simply looking at the two year time frame as the original poster said. It's NOT an obvious observation at this point that we are clearly better than where we were two years ago. I support CGC and what he's doing, but facts are facts and we have to hope that after 3-4 years in the football wilderness we emerge as a serious perennial challenger for the Coastal Division. I think we will, but we've still got a ways to go.

And 3/7 transfers are FR, 3 are Srs. One So in the group as well.
Adding Harrs, Scott, Pendley, and Watson, who all have 4 years of eligibility left to our incoming freshman class would not leave us with a Team ranking of 45. So, yes, the transfers are VERY relevant and are not comparable to other schools because we currently only have 16 HS players coming in. Adding 4 average players (transfer or new recruit) would significantly change our recruiting ranking because it's based on a class size of 20.

So, no, I don't think you're right, THIS YEAR. Transfers matter, this year.
 

Augusta_Jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,957
Location
Augusta, Georgia
That doesn't make it apropos. It just makes it inaccurate.

No. When all teams are ranked by the same standard, whether you feel that standard is accurate or not, then comparing them using that standard is apropos. If you can find a ranking that includes transfers for all teams then factoring it in would be apropos as well.
 

Augusta_Jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,957
Location
Augusta, Georgia
Adding Harrs, Scott, Pendley, and Watson, who all have 4 years of eligibility left to our incoming freshman class would not leave us with a Team ranking of 45. So, yes, the transfers are VERY relevant and are not comparable to other schools because we currently only have 16 HS players coming in. Adding 4 average players (transfer or new recruit) would significantly change our recruiting ranking because it's based on a class size of 20.

So, no, I don't think you're right, THIS YEAR. Transfers matter, this year.

Fine, then you do the work and rerank all the teams based on their transfers as well.

I'll wait...
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,529
No. When all teams are ranked by the same standard, whether you feel that standard is accurate or not, then comparing them using that standard is apropos. If you can find a ranking that includes transfers for all teams then factoring it in would be apropos as well.

The mental gymnastics you are doing to try and avoid considering 7 additions is amazing.
 

Augusta_Jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,957
Location
Augusta, Georgia
The mental gymnastics you are doing to try and avoid considering 7 additions is amazing.

No. I asserted that I feel like CGC has us on the right path. I like the transfers we have, and yes, I do think that makes our class better than the 45th ranking we see. The problem with that is other schools also have transfers, and it would also make their classes better as well. The mental gymnastics is only factoring transfers into the GT ranking and not giving that same consideration to the other schools we are compared to. That's what you are attempting.

Also, the rankings aren't final either. In a couple of weeks it is likely that a couple or more schools will pass us as they sign players on NSD. Auburn is slightly behind us with 12 commits. I doubt they stay at 12 and a couple more will push them past us. I don't know that we will sign many more ourselves.

Again, none of this means that GT is in trouble. It's been a weird year. I just don't think you can make an argument that it's obvious that GT football is on the right track. I mean, I sure hope so, and I have faith in the process, but the results haven't shown up yet.
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,529
No. I asserted that I feel like CGC has us on the right path. I like the transfers we have, and yes, I do think that makes our class better than the 45th ranking we see. The problem with that is other schools also have transfers, and it would also make their classes better as well. The mental gymnastics is only factoring transfers into the GT ranking and not giving that same consideration to the other schools we are compared to. That's what you are attempting.

Nobody is saying just consider it for us. You made a statement trying to portray our current recruiting efforts in a certain light and when it was brought up that didn't include a significant portion of our class and have sense been trying to justify only looking at part of the equation. It's not an accurate representation of the situation and if you're too lazy to consider a a part that constitutes nearly a third of our additions then you probably shouldn't be talking about it.

But here is how the ACC teams, at least those ahead of us look when players ranked similar to the incoming transfers are added to their class using the 247 class calculator. I didn't bother with those ranked below .85 because the difference was by less than a point overall and most of them were going to fall outside the top 20 recruits used in the calculations anyways.

GT - 215.15
VT - 197.3
UL - 204.73
BC - 213.81
NCSU - 216.48
FSU - Not going to bother with the exact number. They were at 204 on 16 recruits and added 5 transfers who were .88 or higher. Needless to say they'd have ended significantly higher as just adding 4 .88s would net them well over our 215.
UVA - 205.72
Pitt - 218.02

UNC, Miami, and Clemson are so far ahead it really doesn't make sense to bother. Duke, Cuse, and Wake were already below us and added no more than 1 transfer that would have been factored in anyways so I didn't bother. None of the 3 added more than one transfer that would have been considered fwiw.

I'm not going to bother to do it nationally but hand waving away the transfers as "well nobody's transfers are being counted so it's fine" is to discount the fact that we did significantly better than the vast majority of schools in the transfer market. FSU is the only team in the ACC that did the as well. The top 4 teams are clearly Clemson, UNC, Miami, and FSU. After that though our class, with transfers included, is competitive with any in the conference and is right where we ended last year's class both in terms of the points and the placement.
 

Augusta_Jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,957
Location
Augusta, Georgia
You made a statement trying to portray our current recruiting efforts in a certain light and when it was brought up that didn't include a significant portion of our class and have sense been trying to justify only looking at part of the equation.

I don't have to justify the equation because I stated a fact. We currently have a recruiting class ranked in the 40's. Am I wrong? Those rankings don't include our transfers, just like they don't include anyone elses transfers. It seems you are overzealous to defend CGC, who I m not attacking, and refuse to admit you are wrong in this. I can post the link showing the exact recruiting ranking if you wish. If you want to make recruiting in the 40's an issue, that's on you. I simply stated a fact that you don't like.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,876
Location
North Shore, Chicago
I don't have to justify the equation because I stated a fact. We currently have a recruiting class ranked in the 40's. Am I wrong? Those rankings don't include our transfers, just like they don't include anyone elses transfers. It seems you are overzealous to defend CGC, who I m not attacking, and refuse to admit you are wrong in this. I can post the link showing the exact recruiting ranking if you wish. If you want to make recruiting in the 40's an issue, that's on you. I simply stated a fact that you don't like.
There are facts and then there are facts with extenuating circumstances. Talking about our recruiting rating being in the 40's with a class of 16 (because we've taken on 7 transfers, 4 of which have 4 years of eligibility left) is like saying Notre Dame was the best ACC team in the regular season because they beat Clemson head-to-head. While that did happen, the fact that Clemson lost so many players that week played a significant factor in the outcome of that game. You ignoring the unique circumstances associated with the 2021 recruiting class in your statements is why people are calling you out, not because they don't like your "facts." If we don't take 7 transfers, then we have 7 more spots for HS recruits, which means our team ranking would have been significantly higher. There is a difference between making excuses and understanding circumstances.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,876
Location
North Shore, Chicago
But, will our lack of enough difference makers at DT ever change? I really believe that could be the biggest pivot point on success vs. non-success for CGC in his “dream job”.
Do we need a difference-maker at DT or do we need four solid anchors? I'd posit the middle of our DL from 2008 weren't difference-makers, but solid anchors that allowed our DE's (difference-makers) to make differences. If the guys we have now, and those coming in, grow into solid anchors, I think the ends we have (with strong LB support) will buoy this defense. What we're grooming for the middle now has the potential to be as good, if not better, than anything we've had since 2008/2009.
 

Coloradojacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,571
Fine, then you do the work and rerank all the teams based on their transfers as well.

I'll wait...
Well, if you are adding transfers coming in then you need to subtract transfers going out. We lost several 4 star players as well as some other really good players. The portal works both ways so in my opinion....we are ranked 45. But that said, I have always thought player development was more important. As well as recruiting to your scheme.
 

yeti92

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
551
Do we need a difference-maker at DT or do we need four solid anchors? I'd posit the middle of our DL from 2008 weren't difference-makers, but solid anchors that allowed our DE's (difference-makers) to make differences. If the guys we have now, and those coming in, grow into solid anchors, I think the ends we have (with strong LB support) will buoy this defense. What we're grooming for the middle now has the potential to be as good, if not better, than anything we've had since 2008/2009.
Two DTs that were selected in the draft aren't considered difference makers?

Put down the pipe.
 

ncjacket79

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
961
Well, if you are adding transfers coming in then you need to subtract transfers going out. We lost several 4 star players as well as some other really good players. The portal works both ways so in my opinion....we are ranked 45. But that said, I have always thought player development was more important. As well as recruiting to your scheme.
We didn’t lose anyone who was being counted on to make a difference other than AB that I can think of and not sure about him. The others were primarily depth guys. Not to insult them or anything but they have already been replaced. Plus that doesn’t factor into recruiting, that may change the needs at certain position but recruiting rankings don’t factor that in.
 
Top