Is Collins nasty enough to be a HC ?

[Vespidae]

One more and I'm done...

So if this program becomes a top 25 year in and year out in recruiting, is ADTS gonna fire CGC because he is getting too many 4 and 5 star guys?

What a stupid and asinine comment. So people take you seriously?

Geoff will recruit up to the mean and not beyond. I have no expectations whatsoever that Tech is going to lead the nation in NFL talent. Is that yours? That ... is truly sad. It would be nice.... but not realistic.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Tech signed 4, 4 stars in 2020. In what world is 5-7 not possible? 10-12 might not be possible. But 5-7 is easily within range, and should be expected.

CPJ signed 5 4 stars in 2010.

 

[Vespidae]

I don’t think anyone is saying we are going to become a factory. I think most are saying it’s reasonable to think we should sign 5-7 4 stars a year. Clemson is the most recent example of a school to turn things around rapidly once the donations started flowing. Hell UGA has upped its financial game in the past 6 years too. We don’t spend 30 million on football and still are mediocre at worst in the ACC. Imagine what spending an extra 10-15 million would do? Also, NIL and one time transfer should help us moving forward

Fair enough. And a thoughtful comment. We don't have an extra 10-15 million a year. Our debt is staggering.

To be fair, I do think we will CONSISTENTLY recruit 4-5 stars per year. I do not think its sustainable and while we will have GREAT years, we will also sign ZERO.

So the prudent thing to do is to design a program that recognizes what we are capable of and build around that ... which is what TStan has said. We will recruit when we can but develop because we must.

Sadly, so many Tech fans refuse to believe this. I'm behind what he says because it's based on hard numbers ... not somebody's hoped for wish.

 

[Vespidae]

CPJ signed 5 4 stars in 2010.

One bird does not make the Spring. How many 4 stars do we sign, on average, every year? That's an answer you can plan a program around.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

One bird does not make the Spring. How many 4 stars do we sign, on average, every year? That's an answer you can plan a program around.

We averaged 2 a year under CPJ. Over the last 4 years under him we were trending up and had 2.5 per year with a high water mark of 4. The biggest flaw in your argument is distributing your "share" of blue chip players among all 127 schools. If you divided them among the P5 schools you get 6.3 per school, which is in the 5-7 I believe we should expect as our floor. Considering several P5 schools will not get their share (Wake, Vandy, etc) that should cover the few G5 schools able to successfully land blue chip players. The other argument is that the geographic distribution of blue chippers tilts in our favor, so we should have a better chance of convincing a few of them to play close to home.

 

[Vespidae]

We averaged 2 a year under CPJ. Over the last 4 years under him we were trending up and had 2.5 per year with a high water mark of 4. The biggest flaw in your argument is distributing your "share" of blue chip players among all 127 schools. If you divided them among the P5 schools you get 6.3 per school, which is in the 5-7 I believe we should expect as our floor. Considering several P5 schools will not get their share (Wake, Vandy, etc) that should cover the few G5 schools able to successfully land blue chip players. The other argument is that the geographic distribution of blue chippers tilts in our favor, so we should have a better chance of convincing a few of them to play close to home.

Fair enough. I don't disagree with that. Time will tell. The bigger issue I see is not so much as P5 or non-P5 but entrance requirements. Tech is damn tough to get into and stay in, even more so if you're into athletics or any endeavor that is a time suck.

Whether it's 4-5 (my guess) or 5-7 (yours), it is NOT ...10-12. I think that is a bridge too far. I ran plenty of organizations where we evaluated the talent we could get ... not the talent we hoped to get.

My views are jaded, I get it. They are jaded by 35 years of doing it. I always took advantage of getting good talent that was available. But I also look at the numbers to look at the talent we got. You are far better off going to war with the army you have vs. the army you hope to have. If fans are saying "Collins is GOD ... we are going to land the most NFL talent in the country!!!" ... I will probably just change the channel. It's not likely.

 

[forensicbuzz]

No. It's not possible. Look at the math. What you 're saying is that you're going to get an increasing number of 4-stars outside of your home zone. That takes money. Big money. Which we don't have.

No, sorry. It's not realistic. And it's another reason TStan said this. Three or four, sure. More ... no way.

I don't think you understand what the word "possible" means. We could get 5-7 4* players right here in our state. There are 3 5* and 25 4* players this year in Georgia according the 24/7. I didn't say it was realistic, just possible.

 

[Vespidae]

I don't think you understand what the word "possible" means. We could get 5-7 4* players right here in our state. There are 3 5* and 25 4* players this year in Georgia according the 24/7. I didn't say it was realistic, just possible.

I agree. It is possible. However, it is not likely.

Look at the 36 Blue Chips in the state. How many can get into Tech. That reduces the field significantly. How many can stay in? How many want to play for Tech vs. any SEC school?

You see my point? There's the market, then there's the addressable market. Which are two different things.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Fair enough. I don't disagree with that. Time will tell. The bigger issue I see is not so much as P5 or non-P5 but entrance requirements. Tech is damn tough to get into and stay in, even more so if you're into athletics or any endeavor that is a time suck.

Whether it's 4-5 (my guess) or 5-7 (yours), it is NOT ...10-12. I think that is a bridge too far. I ran plenty of organizations where we evaluated the talent we could get ... not the talent we hoped to get.

My views are jaded, I get it. They are jaded by 35 years of doing it. I always took advantage of getting good talent that was available. But I also look at the numbers to look at the talent we got. You are far better off going to war with the army you have vs. the army you hope to have. If fans are saying "Collins is GOD ... we are going to land the most NFL talent in the country!!!" ... I will probably just change the channel. It's not likely.

I think over time 5-7 is doable. I can't envision a scenario of 10-12. If we do that, then we're competing for a play-off birth every year.

How competitive we are also depends on the distribution of those quality players across the field.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I agree. It is possible. However, it is not likely.

Look at the 36 Blue Chips in the state. How many can get into Tech. That reduces the field significantly. How many can stay in? How many want to play for Tech vs. any SEC school?

You see my point? There's the market, then there's the addressable market. Which are two different things.

I agree with you. Today's narrative will not support a significant jump. Academics are not changing (in my opinion), but the branding is. It will be very interesting to see how well CGC and ADTS are able to maintain the trajectory they started this program on with more money and a fresh coat of paint.

 

[GT_EE78]

Sure there is.

The number of players in the NFL by college are Alabama (56), LSU (41), Florida (39), UGA (32) and Clemson (29). That's in our "neighborhood". So if you're a talent, you're likelihood of making it to the NFL with any of those teams is pretty high. Georgia Tech has 6. Six.

So the theory is ... Collins can change that! So let's see ... there's roughly 300,000 high school seniors playing football. There's roughly 40,000 NCAA football players split among FBS, FCS, DII and DIII. If we assume each FBS team (there are 127) has 85 scholarships and one-fourth of those are freshman, We can break it down as follows, (averages):

No of Five Star Recruits Available: 30
No of Four Star Recruits Available: 380
No of Three Star Recruits Available: 1328
No of Two Star Recruits Available: 1859 (but only 961 will be signed)

Now, Tech's equity "share" of blue chips is (30+380)/127 = 3.2 or 3 (or 4, whatever). If Tech is recruiting in GA, which produced 36 Blue Chips last year, that means Tech will sign 10% of the available talent. Really? How many can even get into Tech? And don't forget ... we're competing against Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Auburn, and Clemson for the same talent.

Oh ... and btw ... how many blue chips actually pan out? About 50%.

TStan was right. By sheer numbers, Tech CAN recruit the best 3 stars (the mere fact there are more of them suggests there are also more of them who could enroll and stay enrolled at Tech) ... and use Tech "science" in terms of the best S&C, nutrition, etc ... to develop them into five stars over time. He said that was the strategy, it is our strategy, and it's how he's looking to invest money to support that.

FWIW, I did an analysis of Clemson's team 2 years ago. The top degrees are a) Parks and Recreation, b) Undecided and c) Pre-business (that's a freshman program and I'm shocked at the number of Clemson seniors still in a freshman program. I guess neither Clemson nor the NCAA want to know.)

Long story short ... we may get the occasional 4-star and I'm happy to celebrate that. But to think we are going to dramatically change the percentage we get at the expense of factories is lunacy. Tech has a high bar (SAT scores for one), limited degrees, and a different culture.

If you think Collins is going to land 10 four-stars a year .... good luck with that. You're going to be very unhappy.

I have doubts that developing 3 star only will ever move the needle.
I think I'm more optimistic than you regarding achievability.
I also prefer using the 2020 talent composite for basis (linked below) rather than raw data and averaging.
talent isn't the only thing so we'll need to be above average at coaching,development and scouting the 3 stars.
I think the magic number to consistently be top 25 in talent is 5.5 per year(4 or 5 star talent is assumed)(analysis below)
Note - I'm just looking at % talent. It isn't rocket science.

UGA,Bama,OSU average 80% talent - that ain't gonna be us
Top 10 average 64% talent - thats difficult even for one year
11-25 average 40% talent (that's 8.5/yr assuming no redshirts) - further breakdown is needed
11-15 average 51% talent
16-20 average 42% talent
21-25 average 26% talent (this is where 5.5 is derived)

CGC got 27% talent last year (7 of 26) - and yes i counted transfers where 247 doesn't
21-25 aren't world beaters. It's SC,NC,Miss St,Az St,Neb
Our roster is currently at 16% (13 of 82) We just need to see this keep rising
this year recruiting isn't going as well as last year but there's time to turn it around.
think a recruit,transfer,flip and upgrade and you're there
FSU proves this method of forecasting isn't foolproof.
Bama and Clemson prove that it's pretty darn good.
CGC's hype is recruiting primarily. If he can't achieve this he won't last 7 years.
but we need to be patient.Patience is a Virtue. Virtue isn't always as much fun as the alternatives.

I collected data from the link below to tabulate those averages.forgive errors cuz i didn't use a calculator.

2020 College Football Team Talent Composite

In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.

247sports.com

 

[Vespidae]

I think over time 5-7 is doable. I can't envision a scenario of 10-12. If we do that, then we're competing for a play-off birth every year.

How competitive we are also depends on the distribution of those quality players across the field.

Maybe. Again, let's assume a 10 year NFL career. And We have 5-7 stars each year recruited, of which half turn out ... so 3. That means, over a ten year period, we will have more NFL players than Clemson. Does that sound reasonable to you? Because Clemson has 29.

 

[Vespidae]

I have doubts that developing 3 star only will ever move the needle.
I think I'm more optimistic than you regarding achievability.
I also prefer using the 2020 talent composite for basis (linked below) rather than raw data and averaging.
talent isn't the only thing so we'll need to be above average at coaching,development and scouting the 3 stars.
I think the magic number to consistently be top 25 in talent is 5.5 per year(4 or 5 star talent is assumed)(analysis below)
Note - I'm just looking at % talent. It isn't rocket science.

UGA,Bama,OSU average 80% talent - that ain't gonna be us
Top 10 average 64% talent - thats difficult even for one year
11-25 average 40% talent (that's 8.5/yr assuming no redshirts) - further breakdown is needed
11-15 average 51% talent
16-20 average 42% talent
21-25 average 26% talent (this is where 5.5 is derived)

CGC got 27% talent last year (7 of 26) - and yes i counted transfers where 247 doesn't
21-25 aren't world beaters. It's SC,NC,Miss St,Az St,Neb
Our roster is currently at 16% (13 of 82) We just need to see this keep rising
this year recruiting isn't going as well as last year but there's time to turn it around.
think a recruit,transfer,flip and upgrade and you're there
FSU proves this method of forecasting isn't foolproof.
Bama and Clemson prove that it's pretty darn good.
CGC's hype is recruiting primarily. If he can't achieve this he won't last 7 years.
but we need to be patient.Patience is a Virtue. Virtue isn't always as much fun as the alternatives.

I collected data from the link below to tabulate those averages.forgive errors cuz i didn't use a calculator.

2020 College Football Team Talent Composite

In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.

247sports.com

Congratulations on the first well thought out response to my nitpicking. Data is our friend and it is so surprising to me how many current Tech fans don't want to talk about facts. They just HOPE things work out ...

Data is what we do ...

 

[forensicbuzz]

Easy. There are 26,000 students at Tech. Fewer than 500 are athletes. The President (and the Hill) are not compensated on football wins. They are compensated on research dollars generated.

Understand now?

This is not necessarily true. Directly it is, but there are indirect connections between the performance of the school on the playing fields and the general reputation of the university. Anything that bolsters the reputation of the university affects the compensation of the President (and the Hill).

 

[forensicbuzz]

the Hill could not possible care less how many football games we win.

This is absolutely not true. I know first hand that two of the last three presidents very much cared about how the athletics teams were doing, and the third understood the benefit but took a very hands-off approach.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Fair enough. And a thoughtful comment. We don't have an extra 10-15 million a year. Our debt is staggering.

To be fair, I do think we will CONSISTENTLY recruit 4-5 stars per year. I do not think its sustainable and while we will have GREAT years, we will also sign ZERO.

So the prudent thing to do is to design a program that recognizes what we are capable of and build around that ... which is what TStan has said. We will recruit when we can but develop because we must.

Sadly, so many Tech fans refuse to believe this. I'm behind what he says because it's based on hard numbers ... not somebody's hoped for wish.

You've just described 112 or so FBS level teams' strategy.

 

[Milwaukee]

Totally disagree ... but in all fairness for anecdotal reasons.

I asked all my football player students if they considered Tech as an option for college. Answer: Zero. Was it the TO that held them back? No. What then? They wanted to play against their friends.

West GA and East Alabama used to be prime GA Tech recruiting country. And Tech has largely just abandoned it. It's a lot more expensive to recruit in Miami than it is in Newnan ... but then again, it's up to the Man in Charge.

Wtf are you even talking about? You’re obviously just mad at something, but you’re not making any sense.

 

[Vespidae]

This is not necessarily true. Directly it is, but there are indirect connections between the performance of the school on the playing fields and the general reputation of the university. Anything that bolsters the reputation of the university affects the compensation of the President (and the Hill).

Wrong. The Hill does not care about performance on the field. There is a reason why they have never integrated donor bases. There are many in the administration that would not object to eliminating sports entirely.

 

[takethepoints]

I have doubts that developing 3 star only will ever move the needle.
I think I'm more optimistic than you regarding achievability.
I also prefer using the 2020 talent composite for basis (linked below) rather than raw data and averaging.
talent isn't the only thing so we'll need to be above average at coaching,development and scouting the 3 stars.
I think the magic number to consistently be top 25 in talent is 5.5 per year(4 or 5 star talent is assumed)(analysis below)
Note - I'm just looking at % talent. It isn't rocket science.

UGA,Bama,OSU average 80% talent - that ain't gonna be us
Top 10 average 64% talent - thats difficult even for one year
11-25 average 40% talent (that's 8.5/yr assuming no redshirts) - further breakdown is needed
11-15 average 51% talent
16-20 average 42% talent
21-25 average 26% talent (this is where 5.5 is derived)

CGC got 27% talent last year (7 of 26) - and yes i counted transfers where 247 doesn't
21-25 aren't world beaters. It's SC,NC,Miss St,Az St,Neb
Our roster is currently at 16% (13 of 82) We just need to see this keep rising
this year recruiting isn't going as well as last year but there's time to turn it around.
think a recruit,transfer,flip and upgrade and you're there
FSU proves this method of forecasting isn't foolproof.
Bama and Clemson prove that it's pretty darn good.
CGC's hype is recruiting primarily. If he can't achieve this he won't last 7 years.
but we need to be patient.Patience is a Virtue. Virtue isn't always as much fun as the alternatives.

I collected data from the link below to tabulate those averages.forgive errors cuz i didn't use a calculator.

2020 College Football Team Talent Composite

In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.

247sports.com

I went to 247 and looked at VT for 2019 - 2016. (Btw, I picked those years because they were before the transfer rules changed; more realistic comparisons, imho.) Asking for 5 - 7 four star players puts Tech at their level of recruiting for that time period. I have to tell you that I don't think that's going to happen; I don't think there are enough 4/5 star players out there who could get into Tech and will choose to go there over time. We did well last year and - who knows? - maybe we'll see a late surge. However, I think our present class or a little better (mid-30s nationally) is what we can actually expect to be an average for long term recruiting at Tech.

But that doesn't mean the end of the world. Minnesota recruits at about this year's level and has had great success recently. If you have a coach who knows what he wants and goes after it, stars or no stars, you can be successful without absolutely oodles of talent. My favorite = Bill Snyder at KSU. They seldom broke the 40s in recruiting rankings at 247 while he was there and won 8 or better every year anyway.

Or, short TTP and imho, recruiting comparisons don't matter all that much unless you are Bama or Clemson.

 

[Vespidae]

You've just described 112 or so FBS level teams' strategy.

Probably. Given there's 127 teams in FBS and only 15-20 can compete at the ultra level ... yes.