#GTCamp15

AE 87

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,030
33jacket said:
i think you are misreading that second post totally. I was interpreting what another poster said, that 3 FR will play sp teams and the rest play both backup roles and sp teams. That was me interpreting ANOTHER post for ANOTHER poster...not what I am saying.

I did say I hope we play as few FR as possible. So I stick by that. And so for me playing as few true freshman as possible means playing only 3-4. And if we RS the rest then that leaves us with 22 or 23 RS Fr. Of which historically we will lose a few to attrition 3-4 over the next 5 years...maybe more...which means that graduating class will be around 18 or 19. So that is my math...and so as such, I still hope we play as few true fr as possible...again, I would love to see only 4 true freshman play.

Is that doable? Probably not. AJ Gray will play. So will Brad. So will one of the DTs. And I am thinking a LB And AB may sneak in on top of 1-2 others we can't totally predict right now (maybe Meiko). So its a moot point. But I would love it if that number was 4...with this classes talent maturing it would be nice to have extra years.
Click to expand...

No worries. I interpreted your post correctly. We agree that we should make good use of the red shirt year meaning that we have 5 classes if SAs on campus. The scholarship limit is 85. That means class sizes cannot average more than 17.

We still seem to disagree on the benefit of having classes that start at 23 with the expectation it'll end at 19. To me, that means other classes will end up being too small. However, it's not clear to me that you're considering that. So, if you could explain what you see as ideal class sizes over 5 years, it would help.
 
dressedcheeseside

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,247
33jacket said:
I did say I hope we play as few FR as possible. So I stick by that. And so for me playing as few true freshman as possible means playing only 3-4. And if we RS the rest then that leaves us with 22 or 23 RS Fr. Of which historically we will lose a few to attrition 3-4 over the next 5 years...maybe more...which means that graduating class will be around 18 or 19. So that is my math...and so as such, I still hope we play as few true fr as possible...again, I would love to see only 4 true freshman play.
Click to expand...
I think we'll lose fewer, percentagewise, in this class than in past classes. Imo, a concerted effort was made to raise the bar on academics and character. It already paid dividends with fewer late flips. (Did we even have any?) Iirc we didn't have any academic casualties to the commit list either.

Just curious, was anybody in the last class considered an academic exception?
 
Northeast Stinger

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
11,185
dressedcheeseside said:
Just curious, was anybody in the last class considered an academic exception?
Click to expand...
That is an interesting question. CPJ has supposedly "earned the right" from the administration to offer more and more of these due to his excellent APR record . But what part of this information is confidential? Is it just the names of the students or would it also involve the number offered?
 
OldJacketFan

OldJacketFan

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,348
Location
Nashville, TN
dressedcheeseside said:
I think we'll lose fewer, percentagewise, in this class than in past classes. Imo, a concerted effort was made to raise the bar on academics and character. It already paid dividends with fewer late flips. (Did we even have any?) Iirc we didn't have any academic casualties to the commit list either.

Just curious, was anybody in the last class considered an academic exception?
Click to expand...

I don't recall seeing anything even mentioned about any of the '15 class.
 

33jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,699
Location
Georgia
AE 87 said:
No worries. I interpreted your post correctly. We agree that we should make good use of the red shirt year meaning that we have 5 classes if SAs on campus. The scholarship limit is 85. That means class sizes cannot average more than 17.

We still seem to disagree on the benefit of having classes that start at 23 with the expectation it'll end at 19. To me, that means other classes will end up being too small. However, it's not clear to me that you're considering that. So, if you could explain what you see as ideal class sizes over 5 years, it would help.
Click to expand...

We lose about 15 over 5 years for attrition. If you wanted to be perfect you could say 100 (85+15) divided by 5 so 20 a class. The problem is positions arent balanced. Ie 5 OL. 4 DL. vs 1 qb. So having classes every two to three years that are larger but hold higher numbers in the high number positions like the OL is really ok. What you want to focus on more than class size is a good spread amongst positions. Sometimes that means you may have a few more at one spot etc. so for me if getting the correct position balance means a class at 25 plus some rs then a class of 17 so be it. I am far more concerned about position by position pipeline. One way to manage that is RS. The other is who you recruit each class vs attrition. But it is all dependant on your year over year attrition you cant predict years out. So the class size is tough to balance.
 
AE 87

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,030
33jacket said:
We lose about 15 over 5 years for attrition. If you wanted to be perfect you could say 100 (85+15) divided by 5 so 20 a class. The problem is positions arent balanced. Ie 5 OL. 4 DL. vs 1 qb. So having classes every two to three years that are larger but hold higher numbers in the high number positions like the OL is really ok. What you want to focus on more than class size is a good spread amongst positions. Sometimes that means you may have a few more at one spot etc. so for me if getting the correct position balance means a class at 25 plus some rs then a class of 17 so be it. I am far more concerned about position by position pipeline. One way to manage that is RS. The other is who you recruit each class vs attrition. But it is all dependant on your year over year attrition you cant predict years out. So the class size is tough to balance.
Click to expand...

I agree with you about position, but that's a different topic. Let's accept the 2 numbers you've provided, 22 RS FR and 18 RS SRs. That's 40 scholarships. How do divide the other 45? 15 each? I still think you want to balance class sizes too, within reason.
 

33jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,699
Location
Georgia
AE 87 said:
I agree with you about position, but that's a different topic. Let's accept the 2 numbers you've provided, 22 RS FR and 18 RS SRs. That's 40 scholarships. How do divide the other 45? 15 each? I still think you want to balance class sizes too, within reason.
Click to expand...

but that assumes no attrition...kids will leave...but in that case its too far out to predict...if I had 18 RS Srs...and looking at the mix of what I need by position balancing...and what attrition I may hit...then that next class could be anywhere from 15 to 18+ if attrition on the RS Jr or Jr class then I may take 20. Or I may take just 15 and roll over the bigger numbers next class due to position balancing and more attrition...I mean clearly most schools want to hit 18-20 guys a class each year with no attrition or very little...but fact is you have some Jr NFL guys. Some leave etc...so it just depends...no crystal ball for me....so its just so variant...
 
AE 87

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,030
33jacket said:
but that assumes no attrition...kids will leave...but in that case its too far out to predict...if I had 18 RS Srs...and looking at the mix of what I need by position balancing...and what attrition I may hit...then that next class could be anywhere from 15 to 18+ if attrition on the RS Jr or Jr class then I may take 20. Or I may take just 15 and roll over the bigger numbers next class due to position balancing and more attrition...I mean clearly most schools want to hit 18-20 guys a class each year with no attrition or very little...but fact is you have some Jr NFL guys. Some leave etc...so it just depends...no crystal ball for me....so its just so variant...
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with attrition. Smh.
I'm not asking about recruiting class size. I'm asking about the distribution of 85 scholarships across 5 classes in August.

If you try to hit 85 every year, then the way you propose would get us some years where we only have 12 spots available. I disagree with that strategy.
 
dressedcheeseside

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,247
AE 87 said:
It has nothing to do with attrition. Smh.
I'm not asking about recruiting class size. I'm asking about the distribution of 85 scholarships across 5 classes in August.

If you try to hit 85 every year, then the way you propose would get us some years where we only have 12 spots available. I disagree with that strategy.
Click to expand...
I think you both have points, but why would only needing 12 guys be bad necessarily if the distribution among classes and positions was near perfect?
 

danny daniel

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,621
33jacket said:
but that assumes no attrition...kids will leave...but in that case its too far out to predict...if I had 18 RS Srs...and looking at the mix of what I need by position balancing...and what attrition I may hit...then that next class could be anywhere from 15 to 18+ if attrition on the RS Jr or Jr class then I may take 20. Or I may take just 15 and roll over the bigger numbers next class due to position balancing and more attrition...I mean clearly most schools want to hit 18-20 guys a class each year with no attrition or very little...but fact is you have some Jr NFL guys. Some leave etc...so it just depends...no crystal ball for me....so its just so variant...
Click to expand...

My plan, as a first guide, would be to look at the position depth 3 years out. Big guys and the QB typically take 3 years in the system to become a contributor, with obvious exceptions. So for 2016 recruits I would look at who is eligible and who I expect to contribute by position in the 2018 season. When you do this you will see that the numbers/positions projected by ERIC for 2016 recruits are very close to this 3 year out plan. (it shows for example our biggest need is WDE and center and it gives you a good idea for the numbers you need at the other positions....obviously balanced against the 85 scholly limit). This balancing analysis needs to be made on a frequent and continuing basis.
 
AE 87

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,030
dressedcheeseside said:
I think you both have points, but why would only needing 12 guys be bad necessarily if the distribution among classes and positions was near perfect?
Click to expand...

Because it makes it more difficult to balance positions. Attrition will continue to make that class smaller while other classes get bigger, leading to years where you might have to sign 25, which typically for Tech requires taking reaches. Of course, you can do it. I just disagree with that strategy.
 
Top