How 'Should' Tech Do in Recruiting Rank - Analysis

[ibeattetris]

Great find! That was exactly the data I was looking for. Much more strongly correlated (r=.7997) with the results than total athletics revenue (r = .6722)

Adding that data in lieu of revenue brought the total model correlation up to .8861. Which is ridiculously accurate. Changes things a bit. I also showed average star rating in addition to average ranking since @takethepoints asked about it:

View attachment 4651

Glad I could contribute. I didn’t expect that strong of a correlation.

 

[BCJacket]

@Madison Grant asked for this info over on the Coach thread. (Well he asked for top 25 recruiting classes relative to budgets) Put it here as to not be too far off topic. Recruiting history for the last 5 years sorted by Football Budget. Shaded cells are a top 25 class rank. Bottom line, there's a clear break around $26 million (and these numbers are climbing every year). Tech needs to increase our budget by 50% just to get in the ballgame for "blue chip" recruits. Only NikeU and Stanford are exceptions to that, and not by much.

 

[ibeattetris]

@Madison Grant asked for this info over on the Coach thread. (Well he asked for top 25 recruiting classes relative to budgets) Put it here as to not be too far off topic. Recruiting history for the last 5 years sorted by Football Budget. Shaded cells are a top 25 class rank. Bottom line, there's a clear break around $26 million (and these numbers are climbing every year). Tech needs to increase our budget by 50% just to get in the ballgame for "blue chip" recruits. Only NikeU and Stanford are exceptions to that, and not by much.

View attachment 4682

This is what I have been harping for a while. Thank for all the effort you've been doing to make charts and graphs to really put this on display.

 

[Jim Prather]

@Madison Grant asked for this info over on the Coach thread. (Well he asked for top 25 recruiting classes relative to budgets) Put it here as to not be too far off topic. Recruiting history for the last 5 years sorted by Football Budget. Shaded cells are a top 25 class rank. Bottom line, there's a clear break around $26 million (and these numbers are climbing every year). Tech needs to increase our budget by 50% just to get in the ballgame for "blue chip" recruits. Only NikeU and Stanford are exceptions to that, and not by much.

View attachment 4682

This analysis is incredible. It is why I love coming to this board. Have you considered putting this information into a Powerpoint, with a few of the conclusions that can be drawn, and sending it to the athletic department? Perhaps seeing such a black and white analysis will inspire them to invest more in analytics.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Agreed, Animal. Also, I believe a lot of parents still think of the ATL as a dangerous place to attend college, and that probably has impacted us over the years.

Funny you mention this. Friend’s of mine prevented a Top 25 female athlete from attending because they were scared of Atlanta. Get this, they went to Miami. Ok, she can drive home or they can go down on a moment’s notice which is a benefit to them, but safety was cited as the primary element causing them not to pick GT.

 

[BCJacket]

I do think some of the geographic difference gets smoothed out by adjusting for the conference differences. The SEC, PAC12 and ACC get a boost because they're largely in sunny football loving areas. The northern and midwestern Big 10 and Big 12 schools not so much. If someone wanted to do the work, they could probably rate each state by the quality of recruits in-state and adjacent and include this in the model for each school based on their state. I'm not that someone.

Nor am I BC. I appreciate your work and I am sure that you understand that my comment was more of an observation than a criticism. Again, thanks for taking the time. I always love those who interject facts, data and analysis into the mix here. Reminds me of a guy who was the plant engineer and maintenance manager in my previous life - his go to line was 'In God I trust - all others must bring data."

I hate myself some days.

So, here's what I did; I looked up the number of 4 and 5 star recruits for each state for the past five years. I compared that to the total population to get a blue chips per million population per year. which is interesting enough by itself to share. Really makes you wonder how much geographic bias is in the rankings. Are there really 10x more top talent kids relative to population in FL, GA, AL than MI and WI??

Using that, I listed out every state by the states that border it and their scores (that was a bear). The best info I could find indicated that, on average, P5 schools have about 50% of their roster in state. So I used 50% of the school's state's score and 50% the average of the bordering states. Matched each school with its state and viola: a regional recruiting power score for each school:

Plugged that data into my model. It has a Pearson correlation coefficient of .5182 with recruiting results. Which is a moderately strong correlation. It's basically the third best indicator behind spending and attendance. Plugging it into the model brought the overall correlation of my model to the real world rankings up to .8979. Which isn't much of an improvement. Doesn't change much boosts the expected rank of southern schools, hurts the northern schools. Makes GT look a little worse.

And you might ask, "Hey, BCJacket, don't you have more important things to be doing?"

Yes, yes, I do.

 

[ibeattetris]

I hate myself some days.

So, here's what I did; I looked up the number of 4 and 5 star recruits for each state for the past five years. I compared that to the total population to get a blue chips per million population per year. which is interesting enough by itself to share. Really makes you wonder how much geographic bias is in the rankings. Are there really 10x more top talent kids relative to population in FL, GA, AL than MI and WI??

View attachment 4686


Using that, I listed out every state by the states that border it and their scores (that was a bear). The best info I could find indicated that, on average, P5 schools have about 50% of their roster in state. So I used 50% of the school's state's score and 50% the average of the bordering states. Matched each school with its state and viola: a regional recruiting power score for each school:

Plugged that data into my model. It has a Pearson correlation coefficient of .5182 with recruiting results. Which is a moderately strong correlation. It's basically the third best indicator behind spending and attendance. Plugging it into the model brought the overall correlation of my model to the real world rankings up to .8979. Which isn't much of an improvement. Doesn't change much boosts the expected rank of southern schools, hurts the northern schools. Makes GT look a little worse.

View attachment 4687

And you might ask, "Hey, BCJacket, don't you have more important things to be doing?"

Yes, yes, I do.

So given this, when people say we could be doing better given the talent of the area, the answer is yes, BUT only by a small amount? Just want to make sure I am understanding.

 

[BCJacket]

So given this, when people say we could be doing better given the talent of the area, the answer is yes, BUT only by a small amount? Just want to make sure I am understanding.

It's accurate to say Georgia is enormously rich in football talent. Second only to Louisiana in "Blue chip" players per capita. (4 and 5 star rated players) and behind only Texas, Florida and California in raw numbers. Alabama and Florida are adjacent and strong as well. So, that could be an advantage to us.

But also, 7 of the top 11 schools in predicted recruiting strength are in our state or adjacent states. Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Florida State, Florida, Miami, Clemson. Their average football budget is more than double Tech's...

Eight of the top ten in actual recruiting are also in the top ten regional score for talent. But the two that aren't tOSU and ND are 27th and 39th in local talent. But they're 6th and 4th in budget...

There's no example of a school with a low budget in a rich recruiting ground that gets good results. Tech is the exemplar. We're 7th in available local talent, 61st in budget, 55th in recruiting. Miss St is 2nd in talent, 42nd in budget, 27th in recruiting...

So, "when people say we could be doing better given the talent of the area", my answer would be that having local talent doesn't hurt, but it doesn't determine anything. Spending does. With enough resources, you can get talent wherever it is. Without enough resources, you can't get talent no matter where it is.

 

[4shotB]

So, "when people say we could be doing better given the talent of the area", my answer would be that having local talent doesn't hurt, but it doesn't determine anything. Spending does. With enough resources, you can get talent wherever it is. Without enough resources, you can't get talent no matter where it is.

Great stuff and I agree with your conclusion. Look at your adjusted list for schools, the top dozen schools or so on it are relatively "Tech-ish" in terms of performance. For the pickers of nits, I included the word "relatively" for a reason. So, you don't move up in the pecking order by outperforming your predicted recruiting ranking....you move up by changing the factors that cause your predicted ranking to be high, and then performing close to that....notice where Clemson, Bama and Uga are on your list.

This is fascinating and maybe paradigm shifting for me personally. It does suggest a proactive 'build it and they will come" strategy vs. a "wait and see" mindset. Your work is fascinating. compelling and much appreciated. I don't know if somebody else mentioned this or not (and I'm too lazy to reread the thread) but this is one of the vvery few internet posts that I do think tshould be shared with TStan and the GTAA. Engineers need data, and you have done a great job of providing it. many thanks.

 

[SecretAgentBuzz]

@BCJacket , I don’t think I could “like” this enough, so I just thought I would comment and say, “Wow.” You did an amazing job creating and presenting a comprehensive analysis of our recruiting situation. Thank you. I agree with all those who say that you should send this on to TStan.

So, given our resources and situation, we have been achieving our expected result in recruiting. In order to compete in the ACC (not to mention the big boys that are around us), we need to both invest more resources and out-recruit those expectations and out-perform our recruiting. That’s a lot to ask of a new coach. But if anybody can do it, GT should be able to!

 

[BCJacket]

Great stuff and I agree with your conclusion. Look at your adjusted list for schools, the top dozen schools or so on it are relatively "Tech-ish" in terms of performance. For the pickers of nits, I included the word "relatively" for a reason. So, you don't move up in the pecking order by outperforming your predicted recruiting ranking....you move up by changing the factors that cause your predicted ranking to be high, and then performing close to that....notice where Clemson, Bama and Uga are on your list.

This is fascinating and maybe paradigm shifting for me personally. It does suggest a proactive 'build it and they will come" strategy vs. a "wait and see" mindset. Your work is fascinating. compelling and much appreciated. I don't know if somebody else mentioned this or not (and I'm too lazy to reread the thread) but this is one of the vvery few internet posts that I do think tshould be shared with TStan and the GTAA. Engineers need data, and you have done a great job of providing it. many thanks.

Yeah, it was a definite paradigm shift for me. I'm not suggesting my data/research/conclusions are definitive. This was a weekend(s) project. But having looked through all the background data as I compiled it. I've changed my thinking entirely and become convinced of some new conclusions.

I really thought previously that:

1. Our recruiting ranking was underrated under CPJ because we took a "different prototype". and our OFEI was consistently above our 'talent level'.
2. We under performed in recruiting relative to where we should have been. Which is taken as a given for many on this board and in the media. This is what I set out to show with data- That CPJ was a bad recruiter and the next coach should do better. (We're so close to the bottom in resources, it would have been hard to under perform)
3. Academics were a big hindrance.

What my 'research' has led me to conclude:

1. Our recruiting was spot on to where we'd expect, given the resources and support we gave the coaching staff. Which kinda makes me sad for CPJ. He didn't over perform. But his staff weren't bad recruiters, they were just outgunned. He fielded some great offenses with ~50th rank talent, what could he have done with top 30 talent?
2. There's no clear rhyme or reason to the schools that over perform or under perform. If there were, I'd factor it into the model.
3. Football Budget, Home Attendance (Which are strongly correlated) and (to a lesser extent) Location pretty much determine how you're going to recruit.
4. Academics neither hurt nor help recruiting ranking. (Money hires tutors.)

So, while I'd love for the next staff to over perform form our resources (and I think subjectively Tech is well suited to do that.) The reality is, all else equal, 'over performance' would be Top 45 recruiting. I see people saying "Coach __________ will get us top 25 recruiting classes and then..." But, we'd have to consistently over perform on par with Oregon [NikeU] for that to happen.

We need to get our budget up to ~$26 million*, and spend on resources appropriate to that budget level. We need to be regularly selling out BDS. I don't envy TStan for the job he has ahead of him, but that's why he makes the big bucks.

We also should be very efficient, innovative and Tech-y in our utilization of resources and technology in both revenue generation and spending to maximize our budget. Tech's alumni base is pretty spread out. We should innovatively use technology to generate revenue from the fans who live out of state.

(How about a VR "season ticket"? A fan with VR goggles can subscribe to a VR stream that puts you inside BDS for the games. Would anyone buy it? I don't know. But no one else is doing it as far as I know. Maybe if we develop it, we could license the technology to other schools...)

*This is a moving target. By the time we get there, the number will probably be $30M. TStan should be a vocal promoter of NCAA spending and staff caps for Football. Roughly 2/3 of schools are below $30 million in football spending. They could out-vote Bama and uGa to implement caps.

 

[BCJacket]

@BCJacketSo, given our resources and situation, we have been achieving our expected result in recruiting. In order to compete in the ACC (not to mention the big boys that are around us), we need to both invest more resources and out-recruit those expectations and out-perform our recruiting. That’s a lot to ask of a new coach. But if anybody can do it, GT should be able to!

TL/DR: What @SecretAgentBuzz said.

 

[biggtfan]

BC Jacket - thank you for this information. My question to the larger audience is whether NOT having CPJ or the TO offense are moving us toward improving the key underlying factors for recruiting and, by extension, performance? In other words, will donors now increase contributions? Will fans re-engage and buy more tickets? Since revenue is key, are we on the right path?

 

[BCJacket]

BC Jacket - thank you for this information. My question to the larger audience is whether NOT having CPJ or the TO offense are moving us toward improving the key underlying factors for recruiting and, by extension, performance? In other words, will donors now increase contributions? Will fans re-engage and buy more tickets? Since revenue is key, are we on the right path?

I'm interested to see this as well. I personally don't think "Not having CPJ" will improve us in this area in and of itself. He didn't ask for much from the fans/community and didn't get much.

However, from what I have seen from CGC. He is a natural promoter/motivator/organizer.

I look for CGC to be a CEO/HC first and foremost. I think he has the personality, temperament and motivation to engage the fans, community and media. That I believe will help.

 

[presjacket]

This is so cool. Informative and interesting.

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

Guys: My first response to those on here that believe GT can get top 30 classes every year is amusement.

With that said, I will be the first to scream, glory be to God, if it can happen (and admit publically that I was wrong with my paradigm thinking). In my years on earth as a GT fan, it has NEVER happened. Of course, prior to the early 2000's, the ratings were not very mature or did not exist at all. I do believe Dodd, prior to many changes in the landscape of CFB I will not mention, probably was able to get some "top 20" talent back in the day - a long time ago.

 

[BCJacket]

One of the big things people are saying about Coach Geoff Collins is he's a 'great recruiter'. I wanted to see if I could find any data to back that up. Since he's hopped around a bit, it's hard to find classes he was in-place for the entire recruiting process. But here's the years that he was a returning DC and how the defensive recruiting did. Used average stars, since I can't recreate the overall ranking just for defense.

At Miss St, the Defense recruiting was much better than the offense. And if you rank the average stars for the Defense against other schools (total average) he'd have over performed the predicted rank for the school. But only by 4 or 2 slots.

His one class at UF was not good for UF. But, there may have been other factors - McElwain era...

At Temple, his only class in-place was ranked 119th...

He may well be a great recruiter subjectively. But, objectively, I don't see evidence that we should expect him to outperform our 'natural rank' based on our spending, resources, facilities, by a wide margin.

 

[Madison Grant]

One of the big things people are saying about Coach Geoff Collins is he's a 'great recruiter'. I wanted to see if I could find any data to back that up. Since he's hopped around a bit, it's hard to find classes he was in-place for the entire recruiting process. But here's the years that he was a returning DC and how the defensive recruiting did. Used average stars, since I can't recreate the overall ranking just for defense.

View attachment 4703

At Miss St, the Defense recruiting was much better than the offense. And if you rank the average stars for the Defense against other schools (total average) he'd have over performed the predicted rank for the school. But only by 4 or 2 slots.

His one class at UF was not good for UF. But, there may have been other factors - McElwain era...

At Temple, his only class in-place was ranked 119th...

He may well be a great recruiter subjectively. But, objectively, I don't see evidence that we should expect him to outperform our 'natural rank' based on our spending, resources, facilities, by a wide margin.

Where are you getting the 119th ranking for Temple's 2018 class? Must be 247 because it was ranked 76th on Rivals, and his current class is ranked 56th (only 7 spots below us), which puts them at the 2nd highest rated class for 2019 for the AAC as of now. Only Memphis has a higher rated 2019 list of commits on Rivals, although UCF and USF are in a virtual tie with Temple at 57 and 58.

 

[BCJacket]

Where are you getting the 119th ranking for Temple's 2018 class? Must be 247 because it was ranked 76th on Rivals, and his current class is ranked 56th (only 7 spots below us), which puts them at the 2nd highest rated class for 2019 for the AAC as of now. Only Memphis has a higher rated 2019 list of commits on Rivals, although UCF and USF are in a virtual tie with Temple at 57 and 58.

Brain lapse: I was referring to the 2017 class. Which was incorrect. I had my years off. The 2017 was the class being recruited he arrived- no surprise it was terrible in short notice.

2018 was 82nd on 247, 76th on Rivals. That is a much better look. Still, not out of line with Temple's place in the world.

Not saying he is or isn't a great recruiter. But I can't find numbers that say: Oh here's evidence he raises recruiting by 'X' margin...

 

[Animal02]

Brain lapse: I was referring to the 2017 class. Which was incorrect. I had my years off. The 2017 was the class being recruited he arrived- no surprise it was terrible in short notice.

2018 was 82nd on 247, 76th on Rivals. That is a much better look. Still, not out of line with Temple's place in the world.

Not saying he is or isn't a great recruiter. But I can't find numbers that say: Oh here's evidence he raises recruiting by 'X' margin...

Lots of wishful thinking by those that hated CPJ