Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
CPJ's Comment on no Top-10 Recruiting Classes at Tech
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bruce Wayne" data-source="post: 9325" data-attributes="member: 231"><p>SoCal, </p><p></p><p>I agree with your conclusion that it will always be difficult for Tech to be ranked in the Top 25 in recruiting but not so much due to any given list of who is a factory and who is not that we can make. I think the rankings themselves reward <em>any </em>school/team that can either allow oversigning, or handle a high rate of attrition or even both; maybe those who do both are the true factories?</p><p></p><p>This fact is not a complaint against the rankings or the recruiting services, I can see why they choose to do it that way and I also see why that method can <em>roughly </em>coincide with who the top teams are when the actual games are played. A school like Tech is just an oddity, an exception to the manner in which these recruiting rankings are determined. </p><p></p><p>That is why I am interested in how I as a Tech fan can attempt to evaluate the success or failure of our recruiting on a yearly basis? I think I have shown why the recruiting class rankings don't help me that much. I like something more like what ATL1 wrote where I say "ok, this year we want to take 17-20 commits, so if that number breaks down as 3-4 4/5-stars and the rest 3-stars then that is a <em>good </em>Tech class." So basically, it seems to me that we do not have any very objective way to try and <em>compare </em>our recruiting to most everyone else. And that is ok, even if frustrating. It just means I have to settle for a general "feel" and is also why I downplay recruiting overall when I evaluate a Tech head football coach. On that level I have more objective data/facts to base the evaluation on (wins losses, competitiveness, academic issues, etc.). So ultimately I am in part judging recruiting success when I judge a head coach by wins and losses on the field and secondarily the signs of health of the program (retention, graduation, character issues, etc).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bruce Wayne, post: 9325, member: 231"] SoCal, I agree with your conclusion that it will always be difficult for Tech to be ranked in the Top 25 in recruiting but not so much due to any given list of who is a factory and who is not that we can make. I think the rankings themselves reward [I]any [/I]school/team that can either allow oversigning, or handle a high rate of attrition or even both; maybe those who do both are the true factories? This fact is not a complaint against the rankings or the recruiting services, I can see why they choose to do it that way and I also see why that method can [I]roughly [/I]coincide with who the top teams are when the actual games are played. A school like Tech is just an oddity, an exception to the manner in which these recruiting rankings are determined. That is why I am interested in how I as a Tech fan can attempt to evaluate the success or failure of our recruiting on a yearly basis? I think I have shown why the recruiting class rankings don't help me that much. I like something more like what ATL1 wrote where I say "ok, this year we want to take 17-20 commits, so if that number breaks down as 3-4 4/5-stars and the rest 3-stars then that is a [I]good [/I]Tech class." So basically, it seems to me that we do not have any very objective way to try and [I]compare [/I]our recruiting to most everyone else. And that is ok, even if frustrating. It just means I have to settle for a general "feel" and is also why I downplay recruiting overall when I evaluate a Tech head football coach. On that level I have more objective data/facts to base the evaluation on (wins losses, competitiveness, academic issues, etc.). So ultimately I am in part judging recruiting success when I judge a head coach by wins and losses on the field and secondarily the signs of health of the program (retention, graduation, character issues, etc). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What is the name of Georgia Tech's mascot?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
CPJ's Comment on no Top-10 Recruiting Classes at Tech
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top