HC Candidate/Rumors/Info Thread

FlatsLander

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
913
g0lftime said:
Has Sanders been a HC long enough to judge his actual coaching abilities. Has big appeal for recruiting but we just had a good recruiter that couldn't function as a head coach. Salesman and idea guy.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see him at Tech, but I'd say no. Jackson State has dominated all their games, but I'm not sure if that's just an indicator of the quality of coaches at SWAC schools plus getting a highly rated classes compared to the competition.
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,092
JacketFan137 said:
again, until people stop with this bad argument i will keep saying this.

if collins was so bad of a coach how did he pull a top 25 class? follow up, what would a good coach be able to do if they can coach and recruit?

giving up on recruiting because collins was a bad coach is like a bad faith argument but it’s different cause it’s bad faith surrendering. tucking tail and running would be even worse than letting the collins show run longer. hire the best coach we can that can bring in the best players we can bring in.

play. to. win.
Click to expand...
Now this post is just plain flying in the face of facts. No one is suggesting that we "give up on recruiting". What is being suggested is that we are probably already doing the best we can and need to combine that with good coaching. Look at it this way. A font above suggested that we are in a great recruiting area and should be able to draw in several "high star" recruits every year. Sure enough, we have. Geoff's best class (2020) had 4 4 stars; so did Paul's best (2010). (These are 247 ratings.) We are, imho, getting the players who want to come to Tech already. The difference comes with what we do with them. And the the last 4 years show conclusively that unless you have a coach with a scheme - O or D - that attracts players who fit it and a determined scheme for player development, you won't succeed at Tech.

Suggesting that we face reality about our recruiting ceiling and get somebody who can develop the players we can get is simply a matter of disenthralling ourselves from those visions of sugarplums I keep referring to. I should think everybody is ready for that now.
 
Vespidae

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,325
Location
Auburn, AL
takethepoints said:
Now this post is just plain flying in the face of facts. No one is suggesting that we "give up on recruiting". What is being suggested is that we are probably already doing the best we can and need to combine that with good coaching. Look at it this way. A font above suggested that we are in a great recruiting area and should be able to draw in several "high star" recruits every year. Sure enough, we have. Geoff's best class (2020) had 4 4 stars; so did Paul's best (2010). (These are 247 ratings.) We are, imho, getting the players who want to come to Tech already. The difference comes with what we do with them. And the the last 4 years show conclusively that unless you have a coach with a scheme - O or D - that attracts players who fit it and a determined scheme for player development, you won't succeed at Tech.

Suggesting that we face reality about our recruiting ceiling and get somebody who can develop the players we can get is simply a matter of disenthralling ourselves from those visions of sugarplums I keep referring to. I should think everybody is ready for that now.
Click to expand...
This is somewhat dated, but useful:

"In the last 10 years, a mere 287 players have emerged from high school as five-star recruits — the best of the best. That’s fewer than 30 players per season regardless of position.

By our best judgments, just 97 of those have lived up to the hype and become a star equal to expectations. That’s just 33.8 percent, or barely more than one in three."

Development is far more important than recruiting.
 

JacketFan137

Banned
Messages
2,536
Vespidae said:
This is somewhat dated, but useful:

"In the last 10 years, a mere 287 players have emerged from high school as five-star recruits — the best of the best. That’s fewer than 30 players per season regardless of position.

By our best judgments, just 97 of those have lived up to the hype and become a star equal to expectations. That’s just 33.8 percent, or barely more than one in three."

Development is far more important than recruiting.
Click to expand...
two sides of the same coin. you recruit because statistically the higher recruits do end up being better more often than the lower rated recruits. you then increase your odds and increase your margin of error for your development to be succesful.

no one ever said that development wasn’t important.
 
bobongo

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,557
Vespidae said:
This is somewhat dated, but useful:

"In the last 10 years, a mere 287 players have emerged from high school as five-star recruits — the best of the best. That’s fewer than 30 players per season regardless of position.

By our best judgments, just 97 of those have lived up to the hype and become a star equal to expectations. That’s just 33.8 percent, or barely more than one in three."

Development is far more important than recruiting.
Click to expand...
That would probably be true of any star classification. It's simple - we need recruiting and development. Does this mean we should pass on a 5-star, or what?
 
Last edited:

JacketFan137

Banned
Messages
2,536
Vespidae said:
Not to rain on your parade, but ...

Jackson State has an acceptance rate of 69%, is classed as below average, average SAT of 930 and average ACT of 17. Tech has an acceptance rate of 23%, is classed as very selective/highly competitive, average SAT of 1465 and average ACT of 33.

How many JSU SA's do you think could cut it at Tech?
Click to expand...
don’t pretend like the standard for athlete is the same for non student athletes. techs is higher than the average school probably but it’s definitely not the same
 
Top