Since it appears that some people didn't see it, here's table I put together comparing Tech, VT, Rice, Purdue, and, since everybody was so upset (they weren't really; they were looking for an excuse to change coaches), Duke and Pitt. This uses the average stars for each team as rated by 247 (Rivals was almost identical). The ratings cited at the top of this thread are the composite overall ratings. Since these are so heavily influenced by how many slots you have open each year, I've always found them specious. As I do the "team ratings" used by both 27 and Rivals; these almost define giving noise priority over signal. Btw, da U, Clemson, UNC, and FSU recruit better then the rest of the ACC. I'm sure you're shocked.
As can be seen, Tech has been out-recuited by VT and (slightly) by Pitt, but not by Duke. They have been doing better since Mbob decided to starve the football program, however, and in recent years have narrowed the gap. I might also mention that there have been several analyzes like this in the last few years and all have found pretty much the same thing: Tech has actually recruited pretty well.
However, our problem, as the Slug noted in the other thread, has been attrition. Tech has lost a ton of players with great potential over the last 6 years, especially in skill positions (QB and BB) where their lose was particularly felt.
The point made above about the
kind of player recruited, however, is well taken. One reason people here have disparaged our recruiting is because of the "low rankings" of the players. This is largely because they were recruited for the spread option, not the
real high school offense, the shotgun spread. It is certainly true that this has caused problems with adjustment this year on O. I expect us to get better as the year goes on, but we do have to get some more game experience before we can actually see what our talent deficiencies are. And there is no doubt that there are some.
