How GT can be consistent Top 25 in recruiting

buzzed

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
334
Once in a blue moon maybe......even getting into the top 30 on any sort of regularity is going to be tough.
Getting into the top twenty means beating out all the teams below the line and one above. People need to get a dose of reality.
(As you can see, I only have 3 ACC teams on the entire list. I think we can competitively recruit with almost all of the ACC)
Alabama
UGA
LSU
Clemson
FSU
Miami
Michigan
Ohio State
ND
Texas
Oregon
Auburn
MSU (south)
MSU (north)
Wisconsin
Penn State
Iowa
Oklahoma
Texas AM
Tennessee
____________
West Virginia
Nebraska
Stanford
USC
Arkansas
USCe
Northwestern
Oklahoma St
Tech Tech
Arizona St
Washington
California
UCF
Cinncinati
I don’t think consistent top 20 classes is that far-fetched. Recruiting with Iowa or either of the MSUs should be well within reach. Under CPJ (who I am a huge fan of) I didn’t care about the rankings because he was successful recruiting certain types of players that didn’t necessarily fit other offenses. I’m curious to see where the current staff, which is built largely around recruiting, can take us. These recruiting services are very biased toward programs that sell a lot of subscriptions, so that might keep our official ranking down somewhat, but If the institute continues to increase their support of the football program (that is a big “if”), I do think we can put together classes that compete with quality of some of those top 20 teams consistently. In my 20+ years as a GT fan, it feels like we’ve spent a lot of time sitting just outside the top 25 looking in (in terms of actual results on the field). I don’t think we’re that far off and I do think the GT brand is stronger nationally than our local media has conditioned us to believe.
 

Animal02

Banned
Messages
6,269
Location
Southeastern Michigan
I don’t think consistent top 20 classes is that far-fetched. Recruiting with Iowa or either of the MSUs should be well within reach. Under CPJ (who I am a huge fan of) I didn’t care about the rankings because he was successful recruiting certain types of players that didn’t necessarily fit other offenses. I’m curious to see where the current staff, which is built largely around recruiting, can take us. These recruiting services are very biased toward programs that sell a lot of subscriptions, so that might keep our official ranking down somewhat, but If the institute continues to increase their support of the football program (that is a big “if”), I do think we can put together classes that compete with quality of some of those top 20 teams consistently. In my 20+ years as a GT fan, it feels like we’ve spent a lot of time sitting just outside the top 25 looking in (in terms of actual results on the field). I don’t think we’re that far off and I do think the GT brand is stronger nationally than our local media has conditioned us to believe.
I don't see us ever being consistently in the top 20....ever....without vast structural changes to the curriculum. I do think we could consistently be in the low 30' with multiple years in the 20-30 range, if the $$$$ continue to flow and we can catch up in the arms race.
 

buzzed

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
334
I don't see us ever being consistently in the top 20....ever....without vast structural changes to the curriculum. I do think we could consistently be in the low 30' with multiple years in the 20-30 range, if the $$$$ continue to flow and we can catch up in the arms race.
That might turn out to be true. The extent to which we can build our brand nationally, and recruit nationally to find players who want to do school at a high level along with football will be a factor. Of course that will take $$$$, we’ll see if the institute really wants to support that. I also think some of us have an impression about how things are based on the experience of non-athlete students. The athletes, especially football and basketball receive an enormous amount of support. If they’re willing to put in some work, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist. Also, things have changed in recent decades. It’s not as difficult to stay in school as it was for a lot of us. And GT does offer coursework in areas that were not there before, such as a minor in music technology. It seems like a program like that might appeal to a player who sees themself as a future music producer. I also think we have really failed to take advantage of being in middle of the ATL with the music scene and now the exploding film industry.
 

Whiskey_Clear

Banned
Messages
10,486
I don't see us ever being consistently in the top 20....ever....without vast structural changes to the curriculum. I do think we could consistently be in the low 30' with multiple years in the 20-30 range, if the $$$$ continue to flow and we can catch up in the arms race.

I think this is the most likely range we will reach also. In part because of institutional obstacles, in part because of who we are perceived to be. Guys we sign don’t get star bumps. They get star dips.

Maybe the new staff has ties or “perceptions” with the services that will change that dynamic. Maybe we will focus less on the more “unknown” players and focus more on guys that go to a bunch of camps to allow services to appraise them more.

So these things could change our class rankings but I’m doubtful and not really worried about it. What matters more is how many of our guys make all conference during their careers and how they stack up against the best competition.
 

Animal02

Banned
Messages
6,269
Location
Southeastern Michigan
That might turn out to be true. The extent to which we can build our brand nationally, and recruit nationally to find players who want to do school at a high level along with football will be a factor. Of course that will take $$$$, we’ll see if the institute really wants to support that. I also think some of us have an impression about how things are based on the experience of non-athlete students. The athletes, especially football and basketball receive an enormous amount of support. If they’re willing to put in some work, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist. Also, things have changed in recent decades. It’s not as difficult to stay in school as it was for a lot of us. And GT does offer coursework in areas that were not there before, such as a minor in music technology. It seems like a program like that might appeal to a player who sees themself as a future music producer. I also think we have really failed to take advantage of being in middle of the ATL with the music scene and now the exploding film industry.
I have no argument with the support that Tech offers it's athletes and while Tech has expanded it's offerings....adding one or two more options may seem huge when you only have 40 majors.....it is nothing when compared to a school that offers over 150 degree majors. Tech needs to get creative WRT showing alternate paths to the end result.....like math as a undergrad major for someone looking toward med school.
 

croberts

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
864
I have no argument with the support that Tech offers it's athletes and while Tech has expanded it's offerings....adding one or two more options may seem huge when you only have 40 majors.....it is nothing when compared to a school that offers over 150 degree majors. Tech needs to get creative WRT showing alternate paths to the end result.....like math as a undergrad major for someone looking toward med school.
Actually was listening to radio and ran across an add from the University of Arizona saying they offer 155 different degree programs. Like many, I would love to see us add a couple of programs with less STEM focus. We just need to be creative. I remember a friend that sent his son to Coastal Carolina for a Management program specific to golf course resorts. One requirement was a 5 handicap on the course. Hell, I want a Athletic Management degree with a 4.5 40 yard dash requirement!:)
 

Animal02

Banned
Messages
6,269
Location
Southeastern Michigan
Actually was listening to radio and ran across an add from the University of Arizona saying they offer 155 different degree programs. Like many, I would love to see us add a couple of programs with less STEM focus. We just need to be creative. I remember a friend that sent his son to Coastal Carolina for a Management program specific to golf course resorts. One requirement was a 5 handicap on the course. Hell, I want a Athletic Management degree with a 4.5 40 yard dash requirement!:)
Don't get me started on golf. Lived on a golf course growing up. Would shoot in the low 80's using my dad's old wood shafted clubs, never had any lessons.. I never thought I was any good so never I never pursued it. :banghead:
 

boger2337

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,331
Read a great article this morning.

Screenshot_20190209-095245_Chrome.jpg

The rest can be read here...


https://www.macon.com/sports/college/university-of-georgia/bulldogs-beat/article225951860.html
 

Animal02

Banned
Messages
6,269
Location
Southeastern Michigan
What the article fails to note.......spending during that time of Bama's renewed success.
As a comparison.
Football spending (not including scholly $$$) per player from 2006-2015 (2015 the last figures available)
UGA $173,710 to $238,040
Alabama $166,480 to $385,198
GT $80,941 to $169,097

Clearly the spending that Bama did showed results going 95% of what UGA was to 160%
 

herb

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,036
What the article fails to note.......spending during that time of Bama's renewed success.
As a comparison.
Football spending (not including scholly $$$) per player from 2006-2015 (2015 the last figures available)
UGA $173,710 to $238,040
Alabama $166,480 to $385,198
GT $80,941 to $169,097

Clearly the spending that Bama did showed results going 95% of what UGA was to 160%

Under Kirby I will bet that the uga spending is much closer to Alabama.
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,880
The first article is the reason why, when I did my recruiting analysis, I used average stars per class. Total rankings are skewed by the number of scholarships available to a school to offer each year. Schools who cycle their players - you know who you are - always sign the max every year and get a bonus for it. Tech doesn't. When you look at the average stars per class, we have done pretty well, especially in the last three years. Also, given the way these things work, I'd much rather field a recruiting class with high average star rankings then high total rank. The first is a decent - I didn't say good, mind - indicator of the talent of the young men involved; the second is more about coaching choices.

That said, I agree that Tech can get to a higher star average. We have had 2 4 star recruits in each of the last two years (three this year if you count Ezzard). We might get 4 - 5 a year with a bit more effort. To consistently get into the 20s we would need 7 - 8 consistently. That might be a bridge too far, but we'll have to see. The problem is that the competition for 4 - 5 star athletes is extremely intense; the more you recruit them, the harder it gets to succeed. Coach seems to think we can pull it off. Let's give him more resources and see if he can.
 

GT_EE78

Banned
Messages
3,605
thanks for posting that . I knew there was a reason why i don't read rivals (beyond the paywall) so i read their formula again today (first time in many years) and now i remember that one has to be careful when reading those team rankings. Sure looks like they traded the system validity to gain some measure of accuracy when comparing the teams at the top end. (wow - what a headache - it still looks to me that the team ranking system must have been designed by a liberal arts major)
 

boger2337

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,331
The first article is the reason why, when I did my recruiting analysis, I used average stars per class. Total rankings are skewed by the number of scholarships available to a school to offer each year. Schools who cycle their players - you know who you are - always sign the max every year and get a bonus for it. Tech doesn't. When you look at the average stars per class, we have done pretty well, especially in the last three years. Also, given the way these things work, I'd much rather field a recruiting class with high average star rankings then high total rank. The first is a decent - I didn't say good, mind - indicator of the talent of the young men involved; the second is more about coaching choices.

That said, I agree that Tech can get to a higher star average. We have had 2 4 star recruits in each of the last two years (three this year if you count Ezzard). We might get 4 - 5 a year with a bit more effort. To consistently get into the 20s we would need 7 - 8 consistently. That might be a bridge too far, but we'll have to see. The problem is that the competition for 4 - 5 star athletes is extremely intense; the more you recruit them, the harder it gets to succeed. Coach seems to think we can pull it off. Let's give him more resources and see if he can.


I personally believe with an equal budget to uga we can pull 1 or 2 five star players and 5-8 4 star players.
 

DvilleJacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,674
To get a 5 star in, he is someone who has bled white and gold his whole life! Just not that many to go around. It's a hard school I know but how many four stars does the state produce yearly? Gotta start signing 5-6 of these a year.
 
Top