2021 Recruiting Class & Transfers In

[stech81]

I really don't care what our ranking is or isn't I just want to win more games next year.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

For example, I never said that White lead the nation in tackles.

then what Old Dominion transfer to GT did?

"These transfers are multiple 4-star guys, and even one who isn’t (from Old Dominion) led the nation in tackles for loss."

You did say it. Those are your words.

Edit to add: I see how you are moving the goalposts. You said tackles for loss. You were still wrong.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Yup, you said tackles for loss, which is incorrect. Of course that was included within a post that was almost totally full of incorrect information. You then proceeded to be obstinate. Lmao.

You guys are a piece of work. So I’m correct, and you can’t take your own medicine? Here’s a task for you - look up solo tackles for loss versus assists - both of which count on the total number. Here’s a hint - it’s not easy. Stop calling me a liar when you’re holding my statements against your own perceptions.

 

[TheTechGuy]

then what Old Dominion transfer to GT did?

"These transfers are multiple 4-star guys, and even one who isn’t (from Old Dominion) led the nation in tackles for loss."

You did say it. Those are your words.

Edit to add: I see how you are moving the goalposts. You said tackles for loss. You were still wrong.

He’s noting tackles vs tackles for loss b/c I made a typo. He was wrong in his original statement about KW, then denied being wrong. He’s a troll. Don’t worry about it.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

You guys are a piece of work. So I’m correct, and you can’t take your own medicine? Here’s a task for you - look up solo tackles for loss versus assists - both of which count on the total number. Here’s a hint - it’s not easy. Stop calling me a liar when you’re holding my statements against your own perceptions.

LOL. Trot those goal posts further down the field...

Still wrong

NCAA College Football FBS current individual Stats | NCAA.com

Discover the current NCAA FBS Football leaders in every stats category, as well as historic leaders.

www.ncaa.com

 

[TheTechGuy]

You guys are a piece of work. So I’m correct, and you can’t take your own medicine? Here’s a task for you - look up solo tackles for loss versus assists - both of which count on the total number. Here’s a hint - it’s not easy. Stop calling me a liar when you’re holding my statements against your own perceptions.

Lol no. You’re wrong. KW didn’t lead the nation in tackles for loss. You were wrong. Your perception makes you think we’re calling you a liar. We haven’t. We’ve just said you were wrong. Though, I did call you a troll, and I’m correct.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

He’s noting tackles vs tackles for loss b/c I made a typo. He was wrong in his original statement about KW, then denied being wrong. He’s a troll. Don’t worry about it.

I’m embarrassed that some of you are on this site. The lengths that some people go though to insist our incoming class isn’t that great is just sad.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I don't want to wade into all the mud being slung. I think you guys aren't understanding what I was trying to point out.

THIS year is different than most normal years (at least historically). For a myriad of reasons (CoViD19, free transfer year, free play year, etc.), younger kids are transferring. I don't know how prevalent it is across the board, but GT has added at least 4 transfers this year that will have immediate eligibility next year and will have 4 years of eligibility left. That means these guys are equivalent to our incoming freshman class in terms of eligibility but will already have 1-2 years in college programs. This will help tremendously with the biggest transition from HS to college, the speed of the game. These are kids that aren't transferring because they've hit a dead-end at their current school, they're either true freshmen or RS freshmen.

Our coaches have chosen to bring in these seven transfers (4 freshmen) because they believe they'll help our program. They brought them in over getting 4 additional HS players. So, we only have 16-17 HS players that are counted towards our recruiting ranking, which is based on a minimum of 20 recruits. So, we are 3-4 players shy of the minimum, which negatively affects our rating. These other schools that also have transfers have a ranking based on 20 recruits, so it's not really apples to apples.

These are the extenuating circumstances that are valid when discussing recruiting class rank THIS year. I'm very happy with the 16-17 HS students we picked up and the 4 transfers with 4 years of eligibility for a freshman class of 20-21 students. I believe this class is better than the 45th rank position. That was the point I was making. Anything else is dumb.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

Sorry to the rest of the board. But I just blocked those ******* so this conversation has ended.

 

[TheTechGuy]

Sorry to the rest of the board. But I just blocked those ******* so this conversation has ended.

Dude just couldn’t take the L for being incorrect.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I’m embarrassed that some of you are on this site. The lengths that some people go though to insist our incoming class isn’t that great is just sad.

I, for one, have never said it wasn't a great class. I am pleased with the class as a whole, including the transfers, but I will also readily admit that it probably falls a bit short of what we need on a yearly basis in order to compete with our schedule. I simply said it was rated in the 40's which is true. You and others have mentioned the transfers. I readily admit that we have some excellent prospects transferring in. That does not make the recruiting rankings wrong, though. You continued by posting several provably false assertions. I am sorry if you feel embarrassed, but I promise you, I will be in the stadium for every game next year. My ticket money this year was donated to the GTAA and I cut them a another couple of checks in addition. I am not worried about my status as a fan. Maybe you can meet up with me at a tailgate next year. I am always with @Supersizethatorder-mutt on gameday (last year excepted).

Sometimes, you just need to admit when you are wrong and move on. I've done it several times on this site. No one is perfect.

 

[lv20gt]

You missed Chico for UVA, which 247 hasn’t updated. Also, your .85 methodology, while moving goal posts, also proves the point I noted from reps of recruiting sites. According to your method, guys like Mclellion, who started 2 years at Arkansas but was rated below .85, wouldn’t count for FSU. Obviously, Mclellion is a .85 or higher recruit. It’s one of many reasons why the sites don’t include transfers in recruiting rankings when evaluating recruiting classes. This is commonly noted by those reps on Twitter.

The .85 isn't moving the goal posts at all and I explained why. If we're talking about recruiting rankings the transfers who were ranked below a .85 are almost certainly not going to be in the top 20 recruits of the classes and so wouldn't be counted. I could have easily said that I did that for every recruit, not have included the .85 or belows, and it would have almost certainly remained the same and any change would be by such a small amount that it wouldn't be significant. I didn't because I'm upfront with what I'm actually presenting.

As far as Chico goes, he would change UVA's numbers. FWIW his rankings was .8519 and would be, I think the 19th rated recruit in the class bumping out a .8443. Recruiting rankings wise it wouldn't have much of an impact. Also, my numbers also didn't include Cochran for us who is basically in the same situation.

And yes, using the highschool rankings for transfers is a flawed for any number of reasons. That hurts us with guys like White and McGowan as well. One could also argue that one year transfers are serving a purpose entirely different than the guys with 3 or 4 years of eligibility left, which essentially mimic high school recruits, and so shouldn't really be considered when talking about recruiting rankings as those are usually more based on potential than expectation of immediate production. I didn't personally take that view because that brings a level of subjectivity on my part that I didn't want to deal with.

Sites don't include transfers because it's not worth their time to go back, re-evaluate, and re-rank the classes. It's a business decision, but it doesn't mean you just toss out all transfers and pretend that they don't exist. Especially in a year that is clearly different than most for a variety of reason with the effect of having a lot more transfers that mimic traditional recruits. Anyone that is evaluating our class based on the 17, or 16, recruits we have alone and making no attempt to consider the transfers just isn't even trying to provide an accurate depiction of the situation. My post before going over the re ranking of ALL ACC teams considering transfers is by no means perfect but it at least gets things to a somewhat comprehensive look. And that's that the ACC has a clear top 4 in Clemson, Miami, UNC, and FSU (although I didn't bother to look at how many of FSU's were one year transfers and the like). After that we are right there in the argument for the 5 spot.

To summarize that again for those that missed, if you include just our 4 freshman transfers, and not include Sagar, using their highschool rankings, we would have 212.54. This can be done by using the class calculator on 247's site and adding recruits with a similar ranking. This is still leaving out Eley fwiw which is why the number is different than the one I posted before. To put that into context, that point amount would have put us 29th and 5th in the ACC last year (or 6th behind our own class). Again, that's just including the freshman transfers who aren't functionally different than recruits.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

The .85 isn't moving the goal posts at all and I explained why. If we're talking about recruiting rankings the transfers who were ranked below a .85 are almost certainly not going to be in the top 20 recruits of the classes and so wouldn't be counted. I could have easily said that I did that for every recruit, not have included the .85 or belows, and it would have almost certainly remained the same and any change would be by such a small amount that it wouldn't be significant. I didn't because I'm upfront with what I'm actually presenting.

As far as Chico goes, he would change UVA's numbers. FWIW his rankings was .8519 and would be, I think the 19th rated recruit in the class bumping out a .8443. Recruiting rankings wise it wouldn't have much of an impact. Also, my numbers also didn't include Cochran for us who is basically in the same situation.

And yes, using the highschool rankings for transfers is a flawed for any number of reasons. That hurts us with guys like White and McGowan as well. One could also argue that one year transfers are serving a purpose entirely different than the guys with 3 or 4 years of eligibility left, which essentially mimic high school recruits, and so shouldn't really be considered when talking about recruiting rankings as those are usually more based on potential than expectation of immediate production. I didn't personally take that view because that brings a level of subjectivity on my part that I didn't want to deal with.

Sites don't include transfers because it's not worth their time to go back, re-evaluate, and re-rank the classes. It's a business decision, but it doesn't mean you just toss out all transfers and pretend that they don't exist. Especially in a year that is clearly different than most for a variety of reason with the effect of having a lot more transfers that mimic traditional recruits. Anyone that is evaluating our class based on the 17, or 16, recruits we have alone and making no attempt to consider the transfers just isn't even trying to provide an accurate depiction of the situation. My post before going over the re ranking of ALL ACC teams considering transfers is by no means perfect but it at least gets things to a somewhat comprehensive look. And that's that the ACC has a clear top 4 in Clemson, Miami, UNC, and FSU (although I didn't bother to look at how many of FSU's were one year transfers and the like). After that we are right there in the argument for the 5 spot.

To summarize that again for those that missed, if you include just our 4 freshman transfers, and not include Sagar, using their highschool rankings, we would have 212.54. This can be done by using the class calculator on 247's site and adding recruits with a similar ranking. This is still leaving out Eley fwiw which is why the number is different than the one I posted before. To put that into context, that point amount would have put us 29th and 5th in the ACC last year (or 6th behind our own class). Again, that's just including the freshman transfers who aren't functionally different than recruits.

I tend to agree with everything you posted here. My only sticking point is that when you ranked us 29th, I don't think you included every other teams transfers.

That being said, this year with COVID has disrupted recruiting rankings a good bit. I am willing to throw this year out and not count it against CGC regardless of where the ranking ends up.

 

[TheTechGuy]

The .85 isn't moving the goal posts at all and I explained why. If we're talking about recruiting rankings the transfers who were ranked below a .85 are almost certainly not going to be in the top 20 recruits of the classes and so wouldn't be counted. I could have easily said that I did that for every recruit, not have included the .85 or belows, and it would have almost certainly remained the same and any change would be by such a small amount that it wouldn't be significant. I didn't because I'm upfront with what I'm actually presenting.

As far as Chico goes, he would change UVA's numbers. FWIW his rankings was .8519 and would be, I think the 19th rated recruit in the class bumping out a .8443. Recruiting rankings wise it wouldn't have much of an impact. Also, my numbers also didn't include Cochran for us who is basically in the same situation.

And yes, using the highschool rankings for transfers is a flawed for any number of reasons. That hurts us with guys like White and McGowan as well. One could also argue that one year transfers are serving a purpose entirely different than the guys with 3 or 4 years of eligibility left, which essentially mimic high school recruits, and so shouldn't really be considered when talking about recruiting rankings as those are usually more based on potential than expectation of immediate production. I didn't personally take that view because that brings a level of subjectivity on my part that I didn't want to deal with.

Sites don't include transfers because it's not worth their time to go back, re-evaluate, and re-rank the classes. It's a business decision, but it doesn't mean you just toss out all transfers and pretend that they don't exist. Especially in a year that is clearly different than most for a variety of reason with the effect of having a lot more transfers that mimic traditional recruits. Anyone that is evaluating our class based on the 17, or 16, recruits we have alone and making no attempt to consider the transfers just isn't even trying to provide an accurate depiction of the situation. My post before going over the re ranking of ALL ACC teams considering transfers is by no means perfect but it at least gets things to a somewhat comprehensive look. And that's that the ACC has a clear top 4 in Clemson, Miami, UNC, and FSU (although I didn't bother to look at how many of FSU's were one year transfers and the like). After that we are right there in the argument for the 5 spot.

To summarize that again for those that missed, if you include just our 4 freshman transfers, and not include Sagar, using their highschool rankings, we would have 212.54. This can be done by using the class calculator on 247's site and adding recruits with a similar ranking. This is still leaving out Eley fwiw which is why the number is different than the one I posted before. To put that into context, that point amount would have put us 29th and 5th in the ACC last year (or 6th behind our own class). Again, that's just including the freshman transfers who aren't functionally different than recruits.

My moving goal posts statement referred to you bringing up the .85 metric when my original post called out Bwelbo for his incorrect statement about the number of transfers for other teams. I agree with a lot of what you’ve posted here. My argument was with the guy who likes to make incorrect statements and hates to be called out for it, not with you.

 

[SteamWhistle]

Our class is pretty average. 2022 we will find out if the staff has it or not.
* Hard and Unfair to gauge during a pandemic year where Techs #1 sell to players. (visiting Atlanta) couldn’t be used *
As far as The transfers we have gotten most were solid not standouts. Scott and Harris didn’t play, White was a legit player but he’s from CUSA. Not sure why we are expecting this class to matter much next season though. 2020 was best class in over a decade and only 6-7 guys played meaningful roles and some of those do to injury. 2021 is about our development not recruiting. Those who have stayed, or been here a year and how good they play. I admit I was big on Collins early now I’m in show me mode. I really wanted Tony Elliot, but here we are. Next year we find out who we have as head coach, no excuse.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Our class is pretty average. 2022 we will find out if the staff has it or not.
* Hard and Unfair to gauge during a pandemic year where Techs #1 sell to players. (visiting Atlanta) couldn’t be used *
As far as The transfers we have gotten most were solid not standouts. Scott and Harris didn’t play, White was a legit player but he’s from CUSA. Not sure why we are expecting this class to matter much next season though. 2020 was best class in over a decade and only 6-7 guys played meaningful roles and some of those do to injury. 2021 is about our development not recruiting. Those who have stayed, or been here a year and how good they play. I admit I was big on Collins early now I’m in show me mode. I really wanted Tony Elliot, but here we are. Next year we find out who we have as head coach, no excuse.

I agree with most of what you say, but I think we need to wait until at least 2022 results to start to judge CGC.

 

[SWATlien]

Next year is a make or break year.

For who?

 

[lv20gt]

I tend to agree with everything you posted here. My only sticking point is that when you ranked us 29th, I don't think you included every other teams transfers.

29th was compared to last year's results which were a more standard year and so the impact of transfers across the board was likely much lower. Its by no means a perfect comparison but it's a good rough estimate.

As far as your sticking point goes, when you asked for it before, I did exactly that for every ACC team and you then proceeded to ignore it anyways.

FWIW here are the transfers and transfers above .85 for those ranked ahead of us nationally. I'm not going bother with ACC teams since I already did them. These are according to 247 so there could be those missing as pointed out before.

Bama - 0
OSU - 0
UGA - 0
LSU - 0
Oregon - 0
TAMU - 0
USC - 2 (2)
ND - 1 (1)
OU - 0
UF - 3 (2)
Mich - 1 (1)
Tenn - 1 (1)
Wisc - 0
Texas - 2 (0)
Maryland - 1 (1)
Miss - 1 (0)
Nebraska - 4 (2)
Ark - 2 (2)
PSU - 4 (2)
Minn - 5 (2)
Iowa - 1 (0)
Cal - 1 (1)
Mizz - 2 (2)
Utah - 4 (4)
Washington - 1 (1)
Miss St - 5 (1)
OkieSt - 4 (0)
WVU - 1 (1)
Kentucky - 1 (1)
MSU - 5 (3)
Rutgers - 4 (1)
Baylor - 3 (2)
Cinci - 2 (1)
Kansas - 1 (0)

Compared to GT - 7 (5) or 8(6) with Cochran although he isn't listed on 247.

The top 20, Nebraska and above, would be ranked higher anyways so it's not really that big a deal. But consider ones like Minnesota who is currently 24th adds half the points that we do. Same with Mizzou who is currently at 27th. Both of them are also adding high rated transfers that are likely to make a big impact. So likely any team below Utah adding 1 or 2 would almost certainly be passed as would cal and iowa above them. Iowa adds no transfer to note and I did it for Cal myself. I also checked MSU and they would be at about 210.

So that would put us at 33 behind NCSU based on the current rankings, but also passing Cal and Iowa puts us at 31. I also checked PSU just to see but they end up at 218 so slightly ahead. That ends us at 31. And that's without making any distinction between grad transfers and ones that function more like traditional recruits. Doing so would likely benefit us as most of our higher rated transfers aren't of grad transfer variety.

But regardless, at this point any sticking point is about things that aren't likely to make a significant impact in the overall picture. Even a basic attempt to factor in the transfers leads to pretty much the same conclusion. A fringe top 30 class that is at the top of the second tier in conference standings, slightly worse than last year.

 

[SWATlien]

The only reason GT recruiting rankings are at 45 is due to the staff only taking 16 high school players. If they take 1 or 2 more just mid tier 3*’s they’d rank in the 30’s. The staff is seems content with where they at it and have moved to 22’ cycle.

 

[Ibeeballin]

It appears some keep missing the fact that only the top 20 recruits factor into the ranking equation. So adding in transfer to other teams that already have 20 and that transfer is not better than any current team top 20 then he doesn’t get counted to the equation

@SteamWhistle KW comes with high expectations bc his most productive games were against UVA & VT. A VT team whose tackle is projected to be a 1st rd pick

The TFL argument are y’all looking 2020 or 2019 bc ODU opted out the 2020
Season