GT ranks #33 in football program monetary value

[Techster]

What am I missing here? Out of habit, I generally look at Scout's rankings. According to Scout, we are pretty much exactly where we have been the last 5 years (high 40s in the team rankings with all 3* recruits and one 2* recruit). While we may be getting more commitments early (showing we are doing a better job targeting kids we want), we are still not getting enough (or any) of the 4* and 5* recruits that the top teams in the ACC and the country get. I do see some progress, but nothing that suggests to me that we are narrowing our recruiting gap with the factories, just that we seem to be doing maybe a better job targeting 3* kids that fit in our system.

I think it's generally understood that Scout is a little behind with their rating of kids and teams.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/footba...015/all/all;_ylt=AgRqOCVNmkZZqZ.kb8XoN_RJPZB4

BTW, Jalen Ratliffe is an ESPN 4 Star and national level player, Christian Philpott is also ranked a 4 star recruit by some services.

 

[GTRX7]

I think it's generally understood that Scout is a little behind with their rating of kids and teams.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/footba...015/all/all;_ylt=AgRqOCVNmkZZqZ.kb8XoN_RJPZB4

BTW, Jalen Ratliffe is an ESPN 4 Star and national level player, Christian Philpott is also ranked a 4 star recruit by some services.

The team ranking is certainly higher on Rivals, but they still say the same thing -- all 3*s with one 2*. I suspect we will get one or two 4*s before it is all said and done, but that is similar to the last five years. Again, from what I have read and seen, I think the biggest improvement has been getting the 3* kids we really want and believe fit our system to commit earlier. This is a big difference and I do believe will translate to the field. However, it does nothing to make me believe that Tech's recruiting disadvantage for elite players is some sort of myth or that the gap is significantly narrowing.

 

[Techster]

The team ranking is certainly higher on Rivals, but they still say the same thing -- all 3*s with one 2*. I suspect we will get one or two 4*s before it is all said and done, but that is similar to the last five years. Again, from what I have read and seen, I think the biggest improvement has been getting the 3* kids we really want and believe fit our system to commit earlier. This is a big difference and I do believe will translate to the field. However, it does nothing to make me believe that Tech's recruiting disadvantage for elite players is some sort of myth or that the gap is significantly narrowing.

BTW, 247 ranks us as the #31 class so far. So two of the big 3 services rates us in or close to top 30. When was the last time that happened at this stage of the cycle?

Not all 3 stars are the same. Someone like Will Bryan (one of the top 20 OLs for his position), Jaylend Ratliffe (4 star for ESPN, and ESPN top 300 player), Christian Philpott (ESPN 4 Star, #1 Ranked recruit for his area according to the regional newspaper), Tyler Cooksey (Top 30 player for his position), Brant Mitchell (One of the top LBs in the nation according to the Butkus Foundation), Mikell Lands-Davis (4 star according to 247) are on the higher end of the 3 star spectrum (some like Ratliffe, Lands-Davis, and Philpott are already 4 stars depending on the service). So that's 6 potential 4 stars in this class already, 3 already designated 4 stars by various services.

If you look at the tape, those are guys that exhibit elite skillsets for their positions. I'm not a recruiting expert, but I do watch a lot of film...and it's my opinion based on their film and rankings by various services that we are indeed doing a lot better than we have in the past. A lot of the teams ranked ahead of us (like BC and Syracuse) have like 20+ commits compared to our 14 so they have more points. At the end of the day it will all be determined on the field, but I think a consensus is building that GT is definitely doing a lot better than we have in the past with higher level of players.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

BTW, 247 ranks us as the #31 class so far. So two of the big 3 services rates us in or close to top 30. When was the last time that happened at this stage of the cycle?

Not all 3 stars are the same. Someone like Will Bryan (one of the top 20 OLs for his position), Jaylend Ratliffe (4 star for ESPN, and ESPN top 300 player), Christian Philpott (ESPN 4 Star, #1 Ranked recruit for his area according to the regional newspaper), Tyler Cooksey (Top 30 player for his position), Brant Mitchell (One of the top LBs in the nation according to the Butkus Foundation), Mikell Lands-Davis (4 star according to 247) are on the higher end of the 3 star spectrum (some like Ratliffe, Lands-Davis, and Philpott are already 4 stars depending on the service). So that's 6 potential 4 stars in this class already, 3 already designated 4 stars by various services.

If you look at the tape, those are guys that exhibit elite skillsets for their positions. I'm not a recruiting expert, but I do watch a lot of film...and it's my opinion based on their film and rankings by various services that we are indeed doing a lot better than we have in the past. A lot of the teams ranked ahead of us (like BC and Syracuse) have like 20+ commits compared to our 14 so they have more points. At the end of the day it will all be determined on the field, but I think a consensus is building that GT is definitely doing a lot better than we have in the past with higher level of players.

Sounds like you are basically saying what I've always said, our coaches know better than the service gurus. It'll be interesting to see how we stand in the rankings when it's all said and done, when other schools catch up to and pass us in numbers. We're under 3 in average star rating. All that said, I give no credence to rankings. If we get our A list players, I'm a happy camper. We're 2/3 of the way done now and we haven't left our A list yet.

 

[Techster]

Sounds like you are basically saying what I've always said, our coaches know better than the service gurus. It'll be interesting to see how we stand in the rankings when it's all said and done, when other schools catch up to and pass us in numbers. We're under 3 in average star rating. All that said, I give no credence to rankings. If we get our A list players, I'm a happy camper. We're 2/3 of the way done now and we haven't left our A list yet.

That's absolutely NOT what I'm saying. Please don't try to shoehorn this conversation to fit your narrative.

Recruiting gurus are ranking our class #29 (Rivals) and #31 (247). The six guys I mentioned are one of the best players for their positions in the nation according to various sources. 3/7ths (or over 40%) of our current class is made of highly regarded players (credentials listed previously). So by "recruiting guru" measures, they're saying the opposite of what you've been saying.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

That's absolutely NOT what I'm saying. Please don't try to shoehorn this conversation to fit your narrative.

Recruiting gurus are ranking our class #29 (Rivals) and #31 (247). The six guys I mentioned are one of the best players for their positions in the nation according to various sources. 3/7ths (or over 40%) of our current class is made of highly regarded players (credentials listed previously). So by "recruiting guru" measures, they're saying the opposite of what you've been saying.

Then please explain to me how 6 guys who are "one of the best players for their positions in the nation" are so under ranked. Forget about 5 stars, they're not even 4's. That says precisely to me that our coaches value them higher than the service gurus. Maybe "one of the best" means something completely different to you than it does me?

 

[Techster]

Then please explain to me how 6 guys who are "one of the best players for their positions in the nation" are so under ranked. Forget about 5 stars, they're not even 4's. That says precisely to me that our coaches value them higher than the service gurus. Maybe "one of the best" means something completely different to you than it does me?

See my previous post #63. Those 6 commits are not under ranked by any means.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

See my previous post #63. Those 6 commits are not under ranked by any means.

According to both rivals and scout, two of the oldest and most respected services in the nation, every player you mentioned is a 3 star. Then you claim they are "one of the best in the nation at their position." That does not compute. To me, "one of the best in the nation" says 5 star. Hell, they're not even 4's.

 

[Techster]

According to both rivals and scout, two of the oldest and most respected services in the nation, every player you mentioned is a 3 star. Then you claim they are "one of the best in the nation at their position." That does not compute. To me, "one of the best in the nation" says 5 star. Hell, they're not even 4's.

247 and ESPN rank 3 of those guys 4stars. Wait, you're only going to use the recruiting services that favor your narrow argument, and ignore all the other honors these guys have? Geez, why am I not surprised...

 

[dressedcheeseside]

247 and ESPN rank 3 of those guys 4stars. Wait, you're only going to use the recruiting services that favor your narrow argument, and ignore all the other honors these guys have? Geez, why am I not surprised...

And you're doing the same exact thing, only my two have been in the field longer or are more respected. Most everybody takes ESPN's ratings with a tractor trailer load of salt. 247's only been around a handful of years. On top of that, you're only talking about 3 guys, we have 14 recruits.

The mere fact that there's no consensus and wide disparity among the 4 says the services are full of bull.

 

[Techster]

And you're doing the same exact thing, only my two have been in the field longer or are more respected. Most everybody takes ESPN's ratings with a tractor trailer load of salt. 247's only been around a handful of years. On top of that, you're only talking about 3 guys, we have 14 recruits.

The mere fact that there's no consensus and wide disparity among the 4 says the services are full of bull.

Do you realize you're starting to sound like a hypocrite? In one post you're mocking the services for not seeing what the coaches see, and now you're trying to prop them up because you're trying to disprove another poster?

Sorry, but I'm going to end my discussion with you here. It's insanity trying to discuss something with someone who keeps changing their opinion to suit their point.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Do you realize you're starting to sound like a hypocrite? In one post you're mocking the services for not seeing what the coaches see, and now you're trying to prop them up because you're trying to disprove another poster?

Sorry, but I'm going to end my discussion with you here. It's insanity trying to discuss something with someone who keeps changing their opinion to suit their point.

No sir, my point is and has always been very consistent. I was trying to figure out what you were saying because it made no sense to me. I've always made fun of the services. I was using the service data that you put so much stock in to disprove your assertions, that doesn't mean I endorse them in any way.