How 'Should' Tech Do in Recruiting Rank - Analysis

[Vespidae]

Money lines up better with recruiting better than it does performance on the field. BUT being perennial top performer seems to need top recruiting.

All this data indicates to me is if we want better recruiting we need to pay more.

Just playing devils advocate. Yes, you need good talent and whether that’s recruiting or development, you need it.

But you can spend $$$ and still get nothing. And let’s face it, we should spend less than our peers. Why? The available pool is smaller.

Assume 2500 kids entering D1 yearly. The candidate pool available to Tech is what, 10% of that based on grades? So while our peers are pursuing 2500, we are pursuing 250. Our spend per available target candidate should be higher even though total spend is less.

The goal imo is to increase the conversion rate of the candidates from Awareness to Consideration. T ch has the stats, it only takes data analysis to sort it out. Which we have in spades.

Fun discussion.

 

[Boaty1]

Just playing devils advocate. Yes, you need good talent and whether that’s recruiting or development, you need it.

But you can spend $$$ and still get nothing. And let’s face it, we should spend less than our peers. Why? The available pool is smaller.

Assume 2500 kids entering D1 yearly. The candidate pool available to Tech is what, 10% of that based on grades? So while our peers are pursuing 2500, we are pursuing 250. Our spend per available target candidate should be higher even though total spend is less.

The goal imo is to increase the conversion rate of the candidates from Awareness to Consideration. T ch has the stats, it only takes data analysis to sort it out. Which we have in spades.

Fun discussion.

I agree good discussion. I believe the amount of kids capable of getting into GT is FAR above 10%.

 

[Madison Grant]

I agree good discussion. I believe the amount of kids capable of getting into GT is FAR above 10%.

Lol, yeah. If only 10% of D1 recruits qualified for Tech, we'd be incapable of fielding a power 5 team.

 

[COJacket]

Just playing devils advocate. Yes, you need good talent and whether that’s recruiting or development, you need it.

But you can spend $$$ and still get nothing. And let’s face it, we should spend less than our peers. Why? The available pool is smaller.

Assume 2500 kids entering D1 yearly. The candidate pool available to Tech is what, 10% of that based on grades? So while our peers are pursuing 2500, we are pursuing 250. Our spend per available target candidate should be higher even though total spend is less.

The goal imo is to increase the conversion rate of the candidates from Awareness to Consideration. T ch has the stats, it only takes data analysis to sort it out. Which we have in spades.

Fun discussion.

Interesting thought I had not considered this

 

[GTBandit22]

I think we would only need a few more 4* to improve quickly. The DL that went to ND a few years ago was down to ND and GT. If we had gotten him, our D would have been transformed. He had the grades and potential to stay eligible here. Why did we lose him? We are in a better position now (IMHO) to win one of these duels every year or two since the offense will provide opportunities to improve your pass rushing skills in practice. This also true for DB and LB prospects.

He is also a starter for the Steelers and a good player. There are guys like him and Nigel Bowden(all sec freshman at Vandy before injuries ended his career) that Tech gets down to the final two with and don’t get. If GC can close those guys, good 4 stars that are also good students, we can jump up in talent. That’s not even including jumping on new 4/5 star guys, just getting the ones that are the rare ideal that everyone wants, but we need- true student athletes.
I like that GC spoke about not just recruiting but retaining talent. Everyone has transfer/grade problems but Tech seems to have it worse.

 

[ibeattetris]

Just playing devils advocate. Yes, you need good talent and whether that’s recruiting or development, you need it.

But you can spend $$$ and still get nothing. And let’s face it, we should spend less than our peers. Why? The available pool is smaller.

Assume 2500 kids entering D1 yearly. The candidate pool available to Tech is what, 10% of that based on grades? So while our peers are pursuing 2500, we are pursuing 250. Our spend per available target candidate should be higher even though total spend is less.

The goal imo is to increase the conversion rate of the candidates from Awareness to Consideration. T ch has the stats, it only takes data analysis to sort it out. Which we have in spades.

Fun discussion.

Definitely possible, but it’s also possible we need to spend more competitively because we could need to cast a wider net and spend more time on each individual recruit. As said, it isn’t 10% of recruits but it is some percent less than 100. Alabama doesn’t have to spend any amount of resources worried about academics. They just have to evaluate who are the top 25 recruits willing to come. We have to find the top 25 that are also eligible, so we have to spend additional time there where other programs don’t. Maybe that gets easier over time (certain schools may be easier to track than others for example or have coaches that suggest eligible players more), but I am not sure we have that yet.

 

[Vespidae]

Definitely possible, but it’s also possible we need to spend more competitively because we could need to cast a wider net and spend more time on each individual recruit. As said, it isn’t 10% of recruits but it is some percent less than 100. Alabama doesn’t have to spend any amount of resources worried about academics. They just have to evaluate who are the top 25 recruits willing to come. We have to find the top 25 that are also eligible, so we have to spend additional time there where other programs don’t. Maybe that gets easier over time (certain schools may be easier to track than others for example or have coaches that suggest eligible players more), but I am not sure we have that yet.

I think the goal is the opposite. That is, cast a narrower net. There’s data out that says 80% of 4-5 stars come from just 15 cities. Alabama May start with a database of 5,000 kids ... we could start with one far smaller. But more focused. One truism of manufacturing is “don’t add value to scrap” ... so the goal should be to maximize yield on good prospects. This means a more qualified, but smaller pool. Costs should drop when you do.

I still think the GTAA needs a Director of Quality. We teach this stuff ... but don’t apply it. What a missed opportunity.

 

[ibeattetris]

I think the goal is the opposite. That is, cast a narrower net. There’s data out that says 80% of 4-5 stars come from just 15 cities. Alabama May start with a database of 5,000 kids ... we could start with one far smaller. But more focused. One truism of manufacturing is “don’t add value to scrap” ... so the goal should be to maximize yield on good prospects. This means a more qualified, but smaller pool. Costs should drop when you do.

I still think the GTAA needs a Director of Quality. We teach this stuff ... but don’t apply it. What a missed opportunity.

I am interested in how we get to the smaller set for free. I am excited to see how Collins attacks this.

 

[okiemon]

NM


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Animal02]

I think the goal is the opposite. That is, cast a narrower net. There’s data out that says 80% of 4-5 stars come from just 15 cities. Alabama May start with a database of 5,000 kids ... we could start with one far smaller. But more focused. One truism of manufacturing is “don’t add value to scrap” ... so the goal should be to maximize yield on good prospects. This means a more qualified, but smaller pool. Costs should drop when you do.

I still think the GTAA needs a Director of Quality. We teach this stuff ... but don’t apply it. What a missed opportunity.

The difference is Bama and every other factory can do with seconds academically.....GT needs grade A prime.

 

[Vespidae]

The difference is Bama and every other factory can do with seconds academically.....GT needs grade A prime.

True. I read a stat that Bama tracks 5,000 kids. Amazing.

I think what separates Bama though, unlike a UGA, is they do make them study. Bama employs over 100 tutors for the football team. Saban makes them take diction classes too.

 

[tech_wreck47]

True. I read a stat that Bama tracks 5,000 kids. Amazing.

I think what separates Bama though, unlike a UGA, is they do make them study. Bama employs over 100 tutors for the football team. Saban makes them take diction classes too.

Well, UGA only graduates around 40 percent so that would make sense.

 

[Techster]

Some here ignore one simple fact: GT was getting 4 star players under CPJ. We were actually getting an OK amount of them as well. They were 90% on the defensive side.

Now imagine if the offense matched the defense with signing 4 star recruits. That's going to happen because the new offense will attract the 2-4+ 4 star (possibly 5 star?!) offensive recruits that wanted nothing to do with a pure option system.

If we do that we'll fall in the top 20's-30's in recruiting rankings. That is not wishful thinking, that's just an educated extrapolation of our offensive recruiting mirroring our defensive recruiting.

GT just isn't set up to be a top 10 recruiting school, nor are we set up to be school that can sign a 2007 class every year. But we can consistently sign top 20 to top 30 classes. IMO, recruiting classes in the 30's should be our floor. Once every 3-5 years maybe everything works out and we have another 2007 class.

The fun part is now we have a coach that thinks in the same vein, and sounds like he doesn't want to hear excuses. He wants results.

Time will tell if "GT historical patterns" that some like to box us in hold true, or if it was just a confluence of years where recruiting was just not good.

 

[Boaty1]

Some here ignore one simple fact: GT was getting 4 star players under CPJ. We were actually getting an OK amount of them as well. They were 90% on the defensive side.

Now imagine if the offense matched the defense with signing 4 star recruits. That's going to happen because the new offense will attract the 2-4+ 4 star (possibly 5 star?!) offensive recruits that wanted nothing to do with a pure option system.

If we do that we'll fall in the top 20's-30's in recruiting rankings. That is not wishful thinking, that's just an educated extrapolation of our offensive recruiting mirroring our defensive recruiting.

GT just isn't set up to be a top 10 recruiting school, nor are we set up to be school that can sign a 2007 class every year. But we can consistently sign top 20 to top 30 classes. IMO, recruiting classes in the 30's should be our floor. Once every 3-5 years maybe everything works out and we have another 2007 class.

The fun part is now we have a coach that thinks in the same vein, and sounds like he doesn't want to hear excuses. He wants results.

Time will tell if "GT historical patterns" that some like to box us in hold true, or if it was just a confluence of years where recruiting was just not good.

From 85-01 classes similar to 07 were every other year.

Under O’Leary 4 of his 6 classes were similar or better to 07.

 

[BCJacket]

Just playing devils advocate. Yes, you need good talent and whether that’s recruiting or development, you need it.

But you can spend $$$ and still get nothing. And let’s face it, we should spend less than our peers. Why? The available pool is smaller.

Assume 2500 kids entering D1 yearly. The candidate pool available to Tech is what, 10% of that based on grades? So while our peers are pursuing 2500, we are pursuing 250. Our spend per available target candidate should be higher even though total spend is less.

The goal imo is to increase the conversion rate of the candidates from Awareness to Consideration. T ch has the stats, it only takes data analysis to sort it out. Which we have in spades.

Fun discussion.

Tried to find some good data on minimum GPA/SAT scores for admittance vs overall D1 Football player pool. Couldn't find any data sets.

But there's a handful of reports that have been done using open records requests: This one from the AJC is a few years old, but very interesting http://investigations.myajc.com/football-admissions/

Can't find data, but from all my reading; I'm confident in saying that Tech Football can get in any student who meets the NCAA eligibility requirements. Per the AJC report, during CPJ's tenure, we once took a kid with a 590 SAT score... Our Football team has a GPA ~450 points below the general admissions. We need Presidential approval for special admits. But I think the idea that there's a huge number of kids that can't get in here is a misnomer. I'm open to other data/information contrary to this, but that's what I've found.

Now, are there kids who won't be successful once they get here? Absolutely. The recruiters have to try to identify that. But there's plenty of hardworking kids that might not have the raw IQ. But with enough tutoring they can get a C- in calculus and move on. That's where the $$$ matters. Having enough academic support, tutoring, resource, interventions, advising, to help those kids succeed.

 

[knoxjacket]

Well, UGA only graduates around 40 percent so that would make sense.

I hate to defend uga, but if everything was on the up and up graduation rates for athletes (who have well below the average SAT and GPA or the regular students) should be substantially lower than the average student.

The fact is schools are graduating inferior students at a greater clip and the shenanigans that schools engage in to make that happen range from questionable to unethical.

 

[Techster]

From 85-01 classes similar to 07 were every other year.

Under O’Leary 4 of his 6 classes were similar or better to 07.

As I've said quite a few times since CGC was hired: A lot of recruiting theories are going to be proven either correct or false over the next few years.

It will be interesting that's for sure.

 

[BCJacket]

Definitely possible, but it’s also possible we need to spend more competitively because we could need to cast a wider net and spend more time on each individual recruit. As said, it isn’t 10% of recruits but it is some percent less than 100.

I think the goal is the opposite. That is, cast a narrower net. There’s data out that says 80% of 4-5 stars come from just 15 cities. Alabama May start with a database of 5,000 kids ... we could start with one far smaller. But more focused.

Personally, in my opinion. I think you're both right. We need both a wider net and a narrower net. I think we need to start with a very wide net. I think we have to start with a very wide nation-wide and international net. But narrow it down quickly to a select pool and recruit those candidates heavily.

Vespidae is right that recruits are geographically concentrated. But those areas are also heavily saturated with competition. We don't want to focus on those areas and find ourselves in a situation where we're always in the right place, but Clemson, Bama and uGa were already there.

(Wide Net) We need a good number of assistants to call HS coaches in Texas, Louisiana, California, Chicago, Seattle, heck Australia... And ask about kids who have talent: "How are they academically? Smart? Hard worker? Value education? Willing to leave home? Interested in coming to the South? If the answers aren't straight "yes", cross them off the list. (HS coaches are going to talk up their kids, so we have to be savvier than that in reality.) We also need to have our network of coaches in Georgia and the Southeast.

(Narrow Net) Once we identify a manageable pool of kids that have the athletic ability and academic ability we recruit the ever loving **** out of them.

 

[Animal02]

True. I read a stat that Bama tracks 5,000 kids. Amazing.

I think what separates Bama though, unlike a UGA, is they do make them study. Bama employs over 100 tutors for the football team. Saban makes them take diction classes too.

I still believe that Tech needs a nationwide recruiting program. Target the private schools. Sell the uniqueness of Tech to northern kids. Their are a dozen or so private schools in the metro area that consistently place kids in D1 football. ( Did a tour a couple of weeks ago of one. I was dumbfounded by the size of their weight room). I had previously posted about years ago sitting next to a BYU recruiter on a plane in Ohio. That was his territory. Tech needs a similar plan....at least targeting the football hot spots around the country.

 

[Boaty1]

As I've said quite a few times since CGC was hired: A lot of recruiting theories are going to be proven either correct or false over the next few years.

It will be interesting that's for sure.

I agree with this but it is simply fact that O’Leary consistently brought in top 20 classes.