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
Everybody wants to hold the baby. Nobody wants to go through labor.
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="slugboy" data-source="post: 844439" data-attributes="member: 282"><p>There’s the science part of the experiment, and the engineering part of the experiment. There’s also a question whether there is more than one hypothesis going:</p><p>1. Recruiting is the largest component of NCAA football success, and GT has underemphasized it</p><p>2. There is a new wave of players today, and they respond to training differently. Practices need to be updated to fit a new culture</p><p></p><p>1 and 2 are correlated in Collins’ mind—you have to update what training is to attract the next generation of stars. We should think about how correlated they are.</p><p></p><p>Let’s look at the first hypothesis. For the science part, the question might be “how big a percentage of team success is occupied recruiting success?”</p><p></p><p>THESE ARE NUMBERS, AND THEY’RE FAKE, but I’m just breaking down the ideas. <em>I also just wrote down some numbers and saw what I got—there wasn’t a plan. </em></p><p></p><p>Let’s say we have the following breakdown of components</p><p></p><table style='width: 100%'><tr><td>Component</td><td>Weight</td></tr><tr><td>Recruiting</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>S&C</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>Practice</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>Gameday coaching</td><td>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>Scheme</td><td>0.1</td></tr></table><p></p><p>Recruiting isn’t the majority in this breakdown, but it’s the biggest single component. How much can you skimp on the other components to build up recruiting?</p><p></p><p>Let’s plug in some numbers and see what happens. Let’s say this is Collins over the last three years</p><p></p><table style='width: 100%'><tr><td>Component</td><td>Weight</td><td>Score</td><td>Weighted Grade</td></tr><tr><td>Recruiting</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.8</td><td>0.32</td></tr><tr><td>S&C</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.15</td></tr><tr><td>Practice</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>Gameday coaching</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.01</td></tr><tr><td>Scheme</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.63</td></tr></table><p></p><p>Let’s say this is Johnson (we could do Gailey too):</p><p></p><p></p><table style='width: 100%'><tr><td>Component</td><td>Weight</td><td>Score</td><td>Weighted Grade</td></tr><tr><td>Recruiting</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.6</td><td>0.24</td></tr><tr><td>S&C</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>Practice</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.15</td></tr><tr><td>Gameday coaching</td><td>0.1</td><td>1</td><td>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>Scheme</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.9</td><td>0.09</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.68</td></tr></table><p></p><p>In this one, Scheme comes out ahead. I rated recruiting an 0.6 for Johnson because “he recruited to his scheme”. I could have moved it lower. I also think the low grade in recruiting isn’t a zero. I gave Collins an 80% because he’s recruited really well for GT, but he’s not getting us in the top 20-top 15 range, and that’s where the 90’s are.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, from a science perspective, we can simultaneously prove that recruiting matters more than anything.</p><p>From an engineering perspective, we need to boost recruiting at Tech, while also we can’t neglect the other components.</p><p></p><p>If you look at the same idea, the “throw all your weight behind scheme” can turn out even worse.</p><p></p><p>=================</p><p></p><p>The second hypothesis—have a flashy practice and an cool culture, and players will come—hasn’t been proven out yet. For that, I’d say we need to get the top 20 classes. We’ve gotten close, but no cigar.</p><p>Even if I count the transfers, we’ve gotten a 5* transfer, but we haven’t gotten gamechangers on the field. (I like McGowan, but Athens got a game changing CB and a game changing TE just last year. We’re not in the big leagues in the transfer portal, either)</p><p></p><p>=================</p><p></p><p>This doesn’t even mean it’s a bad experiment. It can also mean that Collins hasn’t set it up as well as he needed to. He had a level to hit in recruiting—but did he hit it?</p><p></p><p>Also, if he were to bring his "low grades" up, he'd be ahead, even without scheme.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="slugboy, post: 844439, member: 282"] There’s the science part of the experiment, and the engineering part of the experiment. There’s also a question whether there is more than one hypothesis going: 1. Recruiting is the largest component of NCAA football success, and GT has underemphasized it 2. There is a new wave of players today, and they respond to training differently. Practices need to be updated to fit a new culture 1 and 2 are correlated in Collins’ mind—you have to update what training is to attract the next generation of stars. We should think about how correlated they are. Let’s look at the first hypothesis. For the science part, the question might be “how big a percentage of team success is occupied recruiting success?” THESE ARE NUMBERS, AND THEY’RE FAKE, but I’m just breaking down the ideas. [I]I also just wrote down some numbers and saw what I got—there wasn’t a plan. [/I] Let’s say we have the following breakdown of components [TABLE] [TR] [TD]Component[/TD] [TD]Weight[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Recruiting[/TD] [TD]0.4[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]S&C[/TD] [TD]0.2[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Practice[/TD] [TD]0.2[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Gameday coaching[/TD] [TD]0.1[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Scheme[/TD] [TD]0.1[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Recruiting isn’t the majority in this breakdown, but it’s the biggest single component. How much can you skimp on the other components to build up recruiting? Let’s plug in some numbers and see what happens. Let’s say this is Collins over the last three years [TABLE] [TR] [TD]Component[/TD] [TD]Weight[/TD] [TD]Score[/TD] [TD]Weighted Grade[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Recruiting[/TD] [TD]0.4[/TD] [TD]0.8[/TD] [TD]0.32[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]S&C[/TD] [TD]0.2[/TD] [TD]0.75[/TD] [TD]0.15[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Practice[/TD] [TD]0.2[/TD] [TD]0.5[/TD] [TD]0.1[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Gameday coaching[/TD] [TD]0.1[/TD] [TD]0.1[/TD] [TD]0.01[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Scheme[/TD] [TD]0.1[/TD] [TD]0.5[/TD] [TD]0.05[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Total[/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD]0.63[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Let’s say this is Johnson (we could do Gailey too): [TABLE] [TR] [TD]Component[/TD] [TD]Weight[/TD] [TD]Score[/TD] [TD]Weighted Grade[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Recruiting[/TD] [TD]0.4[/TD] [TD]0.6[/TD] [TD]0.24[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]S&C[/TD] [TD]0.2[/TD] [TD]0.5[/TD] [TD]0.1[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Practice[/TD] [TD]0.2[/TD] [TD]0.75[/TD] [TD]0.15[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Gameday coaching[/TD] [TD]0.1[/TD] [TD]1[/TD] [TD]0.1[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Scheme[/TD] [TD]0.1[/TD] [TD]0.9[/TD] [TD]0.09[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Total[/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD][/TD] [TD]0.68[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] In this one, Scheme comes out ahead. I rated recruiting an 0.6 for Johnson because “he recruited to his scheme”. I could have moved it lower. I also think the low grade in recruiting isn’t a zero. I gave Collins an 80% because he’s recruited really well for GT, but he’s not getting us in the top 20-top 15 range, and that’s where the 90’s are. Anyway, from a science perspective, we can simultaneously prove that recruiting matters more than anything. From an engineering perspective, we need to boost recruiting at Tech, while also we can’t neglect the other components. If you look at the same idea, the “throw all your weight behind scheme” can turn out even worse. ================= The second hypothesis—have a flashy practice and an cool culture, and players will come—hasn’t been proven out yet. For that, I’d say we need to get the top 20 classes. We’ve gotten close, but no cigar. Even if I count the transfers, we’ve gotten a 5* transfer, but we haven’t gotten gamechangers on the field. (I like McGowan, but Athens got a game changing CB and a game changing TE just last year. We’re not in the big leagues in the transfer portal, either) ================= This doesn’t even mean it’s a bad experiment. It can also mean that Collins hasn’t set it up as well as he needed to. He had a level to hit in recruiting—but did he hit it? Also, if he were to bring his "low grades" up, he'd be ahead, even without scheme. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What is the last name of the current Head Football Coach?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Everybody wants to hold the baby. Nobody wants to go through labor.
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