Ceiling of the Program

[GTonFowlerSt]

This recruiting class has me super excited for the future, but it also has me thinking about the ceiling of our program compared to other teams that recruit well. When you look at UF, Texas, Tennessee, South Carolina, Michigan, Miami, and FSU, all these teams usually perform really well in the recruiting process, but never seem to get over the hump from “good” to “elite” on the field. I’d like to hear from some of you what you think our realistic ceiling is as a program, and what it will take to get our program over the hump and not get stuck like the aforementioned programs.

 

[SecretAgentBuzz]

Funny that you should call those programs "stuck." Many programs could only dream of having their resources and opportunities.

We would all love to be Clemson right now--pulling in elite talent and competing for Championships every year, but it would take the perfect storm of talent, coaching, and resources that is pretty far-fetched right now. I think we all know and except that. It's not impossible, but far-fetching and not realistic anytime soon.

However, I think we should be in the discussion for conference championships every year. I think we can get to the place where we are winning 7-11 games annually and occasionally, when everything falls right, peaking our head up to compete for a national championship. (think VT in the late 90's maybe? or perhaps even Auburn?). It will take a lot of effort, and the right coaches, but that is where I see our "ceiling as a program." Time will tell if we have the right coaches and resources in place!

Win or lose I will keep cheering, though! Go Jackets!

 

[Lawyer mark]

If the staff can truly sell the academic part, we could be like Clemson success wise. Looking forward to see if this staff can continue to improve recruiting. To think the first full class is around top 20 is incredibly encouraging.

 

[Milwaukee]

Weird thread. Florida Texas and FSU have all been elite in the past 15 years. They currently are down but it has nothing to do with a “ceiling”.
Dabo nailed it when he said you can win national titles with good recruits and bad coaching but you’ll never win national titles with bad recruits and great coaching. Everything starts with recruiting better players. If that’s not the focus of your program then you’re doing everything wrong. The magic elixir is recruiting well and also coaching well, that’s what most programs can’t nail. There is no reason or ceiling preventing Tech from doing that on both fronts.

 

[TruckStick]

I would be completely satisfied staying in the top 15 annually at least for the next 5-7 years. It takes 5-10 years of that continued success to get elite top 4.

One benchmark is the ability to lose a game and not drop out of the top 15 and finish in the top 15.

Not top 25, top 15. I don’t trust teams 15-25 because too much shuffling in and out.

 

[LibertyTurns]

I would be completely satisfied staying in the top 15 annually at least for the next 5-7 years. It takes 5-10 years of that continued success to get elite top 4.

One benchmark is the ability to lose a game and not drop out of the top 15 and finish in the top 15.

Not top 25, top 15. I don’t trust teams 15-25 because too much shuffling in and out.

If that happens I’ll gladly help fund the bronze statue.

Edit: by myself

 

[BCJacket]

Given our budget and fanbase, Tech is on par with Wake, Syracuse, Maryland. We should expect to be a mostly losing program. However, we have a history of outperforming. TStan and CGC seem to 'get' that, and I see them making real efforts to change the 'givens'. All the hype and marketing is directed at increasing the interest and support in our program. Dabo and DRad have done that at Clemson, elevated that program from a Tier 2 to Elite. It is doable, but it requires time and commitment from many stakeholders.

I did two data dives last year on this question. I probably need to update these numbers (public data lags by a couple years), but it's indicative of what I'm trying to argue.

First dive was creating a model to predict recruiting rankings based on other factors of a school TL/DR: football budget and home game attendance were strongly correlated with recruiting rank. Model was surprisingly effective for a spare time goof of a project. Full thread: https://gtswarm.com/threads/how-should-tech-do-in-recruiting-rank-analysis.16594/

Based on Tech's 'factors' we'd be predicted to rank 57th in recruiting, were actually 55th.

GT Football Budget compared to ACC, history: (Colors don't match schools because Excel stinks at custom colors for chart):

Clemson: Blue is Budget, Red is Wins

 

[stech81]

Well with a 12 game schedule an ACC championship game and then 2 games to win the championship I would have to put our ceiling at 15-0 .

 

[TruckStick]

I look at it this way.. Need a consistent catalyst above our norm for our “cycle” to rank higher.

Revenue->Recruiting->Coaching->Wins->Revenue->......
One of those items needs a significant change above the norm for the cycle to move to a higher level.

I would look primarily for 3 top 25 classes in a row to consider that a significant increase in that sector. That would open my eyes more than the other sectors.

 

[Backstreetbuzz]

I think the top 12-15 teams have significantly separated themselves from everyone else over the past few years. They have great exposure and fan support and basically have the money available to buy the best facilities, coaches and maybe even players. This advantage will only grow as players begin to get paid. It is probably unrealistic for GT to break into this group.

GT’s biggest advantage is its location. High school football is great in Georgia , Florida and Alabama. If we can get 8-10 of the top 100 players in Georgia and 6-8 from these surrounding states, we will be pretty good. To do this, we must play the type of football that allows the very top players to showcase for the pros. Our Education is a plus for the high 3*, low 4*s that know the pros is a long shot. We need individual stars to capture the imagination of the fans.

I can see GT becoming a consistent top 25 team in the top 1/3 of the ACC.

 

[GTFLETCH]

I to am excited about recruiting... But the truth is that while rankings can help motivate the fan base all that matters is the record.

We are one of two programs to win a Natty with a stadium that he's less than 85K... Can we do it again sure, can we be like Clemson.... probably not... That would take some serious changes...

So the question is with the approved recruiting ranking and a new coaching staff will Georgia Tech be able to accomplish more that Coach Johnson.. ( two OB appreances and an ACC Title)

I sure hope we can get over the 7 win avg ND win the ACC Title...

 

[Coloradojacket]

Our Ceiling, win all of our games in a season. Realistically, after 50 years of Tech football we have not done that in my lifetime. You have to have some pretty good players and really good coaching. And luck as we did in 1990. Looks like we will have a nice recruiting class. But don't get excited because we need to see what this current coaching staff can do. It is said on here CPJ inherited a good class. Well it was a 7 win team that he took to a 9 and then 11 win team. Gailey would have never achieved that.

In the end I would like to see us go from a 7-5 average, that we have been for the past 25 years to 8-4. How we get that it can be 11-3 to 5-7.

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

I would be completely satisfied staying in the top 15 annually at least for the next 5-7 years. It takes 5-10 years of that continued success to get elite top 4.

One benchmark is the ability to lose a game and not drop out of the top 15 and finish in the top 15.

Not top 25, top 15. I don’t trust teams 15-25 because too much shuffling in and out.

Satisfied? The odds are SO stacked against us to reach that goal without fundamental changes its laughable. If we average 7 wins a year and go to a bowl game, I will be surprised. An uptick in recruiting to do what other teams are doing is not going to cut it, we will still be undermanned . Plus from what we have seen from the OC and head coaching skills from this first year it will negate the recruiting uptake.

Coach has a small window to pull off a mini-Dabo. But he MUST have the correct coaches like Dabo did, otherwise he will look like just another clown. To be clear, i do like the defensive coaching staff and the O-line coach and running back coach.

 

[True2GT]

The ceiling is as high or low as we want it. Right now we have a pretty good recruiter at head coach, which I hope leads to more recruiting resources. In order to be a dominant and successful program and a consistent contender, we need either high level recruiting constantly, low attrition (get old, stay old), or a mix of both. Tech needs more AA funding either way to sustain this model. This is why I think the ceiling is up to us.

Once we get that squared away, then we can move on to better in game coaching if that shows to be the cause of holding the program back. After reviewing and thinking about this past season, I think it's foolish to not factor all the injuries as a major result in how many games we lost. The next couple years will determine if we need better in game coaching.

I think we can all agree that if we can get Tech more resources, we can consistently recruit even better than the current class. This should be priority number one. I don't want it to be like when CPJ was here. The success on field led to reduction in funding with the thought that it was not necessary. I hope this does not happen to CGC in regards to recruiting as the class he's putting together seems to be more and more solid. We in fact need to strike while the fire is hot and keep the train rolling.

 

[True2GT]

Given our budget and fanbase, Tech is on par with Wake, Syracuse, Maryland. We should expect to be a mostly losing program. However, we have a history of outperforming. TStan and CGC seem to 'get' that, and I see them making real efforts to change the 'givens'. All the hype and marketing is directed at increasing the interest and support in our program. Dabo and DRad have done that at Clemson, elevated that program from a Tier 2 to Elite. It is doable, but it requires time and commitment from many stakeholders.

I did two data dives last year on this question. I probably need to update these numbers (public data lags by a couple years), but it's indicative of what I'm trying to argue.

First dive was creating a model to predict recruiting rankings based on other factors of a school TL/DR: football budget and home game attendance were strongly correlated with recruiting rank. Model was surprisingly effective for a spare time goof of a project. Full thread: https://gtswarm.com/threads/how-should-tech-do-in-recruiting-rank-analysis.16594/

Based on Tech's 'factors' we'd be predicted to rank 57th in recruiting, were actually 55th.

View attachment 7446


GT Football Budget compared to ACC, history: (Colors don't match schools because Excel stinks at custom colors for chart):

View attachment 7444

Clemson: Blue is Budget, Red is Wins

View attachment 7445

Wish we could sticky this post!

Edit: I think most coaches also understand this and so does CGC. If we do not change the trend and increase funding, yet he sees some early success, there is a much greater chance of him being hired away. Or he can't get over that bump in the road and we get bad results.

 

[TruckStick]

Satisfied? The odds are SO stacked against us to reach that goal without fundamental changes its laughable. If we average 7 wins a year and go to a bowl game, I will be surprised. An uptick in recruiting to do what other teams are doing is not going to cut it, we will still be undermanned . Plus from what we have seen from the OC and head coaching skills from this first year it will negate the recruiting uptake.

Coach has a small window to pull off a mini-Dabo. But he MUST have the correct coaches like Dabo did, otherwise he will look like just another clown. To be clear, i do like the defensive coaching staff and the O-line coach and running back coach.

I honestly think you have to put an above average amount of work to improve the program as a whole.

Not only for one year but for 3 years straight. I believe that is how Clemson raised its level.

You can make adjustments to coaching staff but the head coach must have the energy to push his staff to exceed the norm. For example.. pushing recruits down to the last second instead of accepting defeat early if they say they aren’t as interested in GT as Auburn or FSU.

As for coaching on offense, I look for innovation and spacing for offenses.. not running into the pile.

For defense.. push up the middle sounds good to me.

 

[ChristoGT]

Given our budget and fanbase, Tech is on par with Wake, Syracuse, Maryland. We should expect to be a mostly losing program. However, we have a history of outperforming. TStan and CGC seem to 'get' that, and I see them making real efforts to change the 'givens'. All the hype and marketing is directed at increasing the interest and support in our program. Dabo and DRad have done that at Clemson, elevated that program from a Tier 2 to Elite. It is doable, but it requires time and commitment from many stakeholders.

I did two data dives last year on this question. I probably need to update these numbers (public data lags by a couple years), but it's indicative of what I'm trying to argue.

First dive was creating a model to predict recruiting rankings based on other factors of a school TL/DR: football budget and home game attendance were strongly correlated with recruiting rank. Model was surprisingly effective for a spare time goof of a project. Full thread: https://gtswarm.com/threads/how-should-tech-do-in-recruiting-rank-analysis.16594/

Based on Tech's 'factors' we'd be predicted to rank 57th in recruiting, were actually 55th.

View attachment 7446


GT Football Budget compared to ACC, history: (Colors don't match schools because Excel stinks at custom colors for chart):

View attachment 7444

Clemson: Blue is Budget, Red is Wins

View attachment 7445

I was wondering where the 26,000+ enrollment number was coming from. Looked up and we are actually at 36,000 now with more than 20,000 grad students and most of those on-line. 15k undergrads is still bigger than I thought.

 

[HouseDivided]

Our ceiling will be better once we build from the inside out on both sides of the ball. We have got a long way to go regarding size, strength, quality and athleticism on both LOS. Our front 7 on D needs to be a lot better and hopefully recruiting will address that moving forward. We need another playmaker or 2 on the perimeter that will free up AB more in the slot. Our secondary has length and athleticism but we are lacking a true shut down corner and FS that has range to cover the field. We got lots to look forward too but this was year 1. Growing pains are expected.

 

[Vespidae]

There’s really no reason Tech can’t go 12-0 every year. If we can get in the Top 5 recruiting, get lucky on injuries and schedule, and put in winning schemes with a $300 million football budget ... we should be in the CFB playoffs every year.

Delusional. We will be fortunate to go 8-4 and a decent bowl. We are basically a break even program, with a small fanbase and limited resources. To increase our spend even 10% would Herculean.

8-4 is Top 30. If we can be consistent at that level, that’s an accomplishment.

 

[Gtswifty81]

I think we can be a perennial top 25 team with an occasional top 10. We had a stretch under O’Leary where we were ranked AP top 25 for 5 years in a row. There is no reason we can’t get back to that point with the local high school football talent and good recruiting.