National Signing Day Coverage

[takethepoints]

Except you haven't. The biggest argument isn't that the class size is small so the ranking isn't accurate, or that fit is more important, or the coaches know better. It's that a quarter of our class is not being accounted for by the ranking services because they are transfers rather than traditional recruits. And while sometimes that distinction matters, for several of our recruits it doesn't because they are coming in immediately eligible with 4 years left.

The arguments in years prior revolved around either reranking recruits or adding fictional recruits we didn't land through either direct addition of "we could have added another player ranked x if we wanted to" or taking our average star rating and extrapolating it out. That isn't the case with this class. We can use the ranking the services themselves have provided with the system the services themselves have provided and can calculate how many point we would have if the transfers were counted using their highschool rankings in the system the services themselves used. And if we do this just for the transfers that transfers who are going to be freshmen next year still, so excluding Cochran and White, the points we would have in the 247 would put us 21st in the country and 4th in conference.

Now you might have some issue with that argument but the argument itself is fundamentally different than the ones that have been used in the past.

1. Yes. I can understand why this is done; it levels the ranking to a single standard and, after all, the rankings for transfers are for high school, not their play in college. Still, it does affect the "class" rankings. Provided, that is, that you actually think those are anything close to accurate in the first place.

2. Well … no, we can't. Like I just said, the "rankings" are for play in high school, not in college. And you need to remember that, with some exceptions, players transfer because they can't see the field at their first choice. In some cases, that's no disgrace: Bammer and Texas have really good programs and they may have been buried in their positions or run afoul of the coaches. But a really good high school rating is no guarantee that you will be a really good college player. The only way to find out is to re-rank classes four years in based on how well their teams are doing. We'll have to see about that.

3. Some arguments are (you just made one); most of them aren't. The Stinger is right. But none of them matter. What matters is what the players do on the field. And, again, we'll have to see about that.

 

[forensicbuzz]

1. Yes. I can understand why this is done; it levels the ranking to a single standard and, after all, the rankings for transfers are for high school, not their play in college. Still, it does affect the "class" rankings. Provided, that is, that you actually think those are anything close to accurate in the first place.

2. Well … no, we can't. Like I just said, the "rankings" are for play in high school, not in college. And you need to remember that, with some exceptions, players transfer because they can't see the field at their first choice. In some cases, that's no disgrace: Bammer and Texas have really good programs and they may have been buried in their positions or run afoul of the coaches. But a really good high school rating is no guarantee that you will be a really good college player. The only way to find out is to re-rank classes four years in based on how well their teams are doing. We'll have to see about that.

3. Some arguments are (you just made one); most of them aren't. The Stinger is right. But none of them matter. What matters is what the players do on the field. And, again, we'll have to see about that.

What you say in #2 might be true in most years, but I don't think it's true this year. Too many of these transfers are too young to have expectations about being on the field and are too new to have been recruited over yet.

 

[takethepoints]

What you say in #2 might be true in most years, but I don't think it's true this year. Too many of these transfers are too young to have expectations about being on the field and are too new to have been recruited over yet.

There's a reason why they left. It could be for a variety of things, but their assessment of their chances to see the field has to have played a large part in the decision. Whether that means they won't see the field at Tech is another story, but every transfer has to fight the players the coaches choose off the field. And coaches tend to favor players they brought in themselves, for what should be obvious reasons. Like I said, we'll see how this works out, but I always look for the players the coaches recruited to start before transfers.

 

[augustabuzz]

There's a reason why they left. It could be for a variety of things, but their assessment of their chances to see the field has to have played a large part in the decision. Whether that means they won't see the field at Tech is another story, but every transfer has to fight the players the coaches choose off the field. And coaches tend to favor players they brought in themselves, for what should be obvious reasons. Like I said, we'll see how this works out, but I always look for the players the coaches recruited to start before transfers.

Most of the transfers are our recruits from last year that signed with another school and wanted to come back home.

 

[lv20gt]

1. Yes. I can understand why this is done; it levels the ranking to a single standard and, after all, the rankings for transfers are for high school, not their play in college. Still, it does affect the "class" rankings. Provided, that is, that you actually think those are anything close to accurate in the first place.

2. Well … no, we can't. Like I just said, the "rankings" are for play in high school, not in college. And you need to remember that, with some exceptions, players transfer because they can't see the field at their first choice. In some cases, that's no disgrace: Bammer and Texas have really good programs and they may have been buried in their positions or run afoul of the coaches. But a really good high school rating is no guarantee that you will be a really good college player. The only way to find out is to re-rank classes four years in based on how well their teams are doing. We'll have to see about that.

3. Some arguments are (you just made one); most of them aren't. The Stinger is right. But none of them matter. What matters is what the players do on the field. And, again, we'll have to see about that.

Everything about this post is the same tired, rehashed argument from the Johnson years that recruiting rankings don't matter because they aren't a perfect science. The argument was bunk then and it remains so now.

Also, yeah, guys like White and Cochran transferred because they couldn't see the field. You nailed that take.

Otherwise, to act like players transferred because they couldn't see the field is an argument that would hold water if they were transferring down a level after their junior year or something. That's not what has happened with any of our recruits. All 4 of our recruits I haven't already mentioned were either freshman or true freshmen this year and for the most part freshman aren't expected to play much. They also all happen to be from georgia. To ascribe a motivation of they couldn't see the field for being the reason they transferred back to their home state during a pandemic to a relatively new staff isn't just silly, it really lends me to believe you have an ulterior motive to the argument.

And stinger's entire argument isn't exactly subtle in it's motivation. It mischaracterized the arguments surrounding our current class in order to try and draw a parallel between it and an often criticized aspect of the previous staff first by ignoring about a quarter of our additions and then down playing the significance of them, although that second part is more your contribution which is beyond weird that a fan of GT would try to down play talent additions. Oh. Wait.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

For the record I have not commented one time on this thread or any other thread about the quality of this recruiting class. As a matter of fact, I have never commented on any CGC recruiting class on this site or any other site. I’ve never been that interested in recruiting rankings and I’m more than content to wait and see the results on the field in a couple of years,

But something about my very accurate description of how people have attacked or defended recruiting classes in the exact same way year after year really hits a nerve with you.

 

[Technut1990]

There is a kinda obvious point to all of this transferring And committing. It’s possible that kids transfer because they are just not feeling it, no matter why. When that happens it is wise to seek incoming transfers that will help us immediately replace them And improve as we do it. Tech can both honor their commitment to the first guy as they seek to improve when he leaves. There shouldn’t be any question but that the team improved with this years shuffle and both incoming and outgoing players are happier.

the controversy begins if and when we are advising kids to transfer in order to solicit or to make room for a better talent, even then probably about 50% would think that’s ok too, considering we are essentially talking about free college either way.

either way it works out Considering those leaving via transfer are transferring into another scholarship spot at the school they go to.

it’s like arguing about the size of your kingdom, one king stands by another and proclaims himself to be the ruler of all his kingdom with the most loyal subjects from sea to sea, the other says that’s good but I rule my kingdom from mountain to mountain and mountains are beautiful and My subjects are more loyal. A third king overhears and says to himself, pfff, that ain’t no better, I rule my kingdom from river to river and never have I heard any Subject complain.

none of these kids are kings but they are trading one blessing for another and in the end their blessings are more than most kids ever get, most are the loyal subjects within all the kingdoms.

both Tech and the kids are trying to improve their own prospects or kingdoms.

 

[lv20gt]

But something about my very accurate description of how people have attacked or defended recruiting classes in the exact same way year after year really hits a nerve with you.

Very accurate? I guess in your own mind.

The primary "defense" of this year's class is that it featured several high level, immediately eligible, 4 year transfers that weren't accounted for in the rankings. That isn't something that happened under Johnson almost ever, certainly not to the point that it was used as a defense for his class. You tried to paint this the same argument as those who pointed to class size alone as the reason for the poor rankings which is absurd because the issue this year isn't class size. It's that effectively a quarter of our class simply isn't accounted for.

The second "defense" is that because of COVID many players weren't able to participate in the summer before senior year camps, and in some cases senior year entirely, making it so the recruiting services across the board were going to be less accurate because they had significantly less material on which to judge the players. Needless to say that wasn't the case under Johnson, and is fundamentally different than the argument that Johnson knew better than the recruiting services because he was recruiting for "fit" and certainly has nothing to do with the argument about pandering to bigger universities.

As far as your statement about not commentating on the quality of the class, that's like if I say Sarah Jessica Parker has a horse face and then turn around and claim I'm not making a comment on the quality of her appearance only making a very accurate statement about how she shares the exact same features as a horse. If I have to add that caveat it's because I know that saying she has a horse face is implying something about the quality of her appearance and the caveat doesn't change that.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Very accurate? I guess in your own mind.

The primary "defense" of this year's class is that it featured several high level, immediately eligible, 4 year transfers that weren't accounted for in the rankings. That isn't something that happened under Johnson almost ever, certainly not to the point that it was used as a defense for his class. You tried to paint this the same argument as those who pointed to class size alone as the reason for the poor rankings which is absurd because the issue this year isn't class size. It's that effectively a quarter of our class simply isn't accounted for.

The second "defense" is that because of COVID many players weren't able to participate in the summer before senior year camps, and in some cases senior year entirely, making it so the recruiting services across the board were going to be less accurate because they had significantly less material on which to judge the players. Needless to say that wasn't the case under Johnson, and is fundamentally different than the argument that Johnson knew better than the recruiting services because he was recruiting for "fit" and certainly has nothing to do with the argument about pandering to bigger universities.

As far as your statement about not commentating on the quality of the class, that's like if I say Sarah Jessica Parker has a horse face and then turn around and claim I'm not making a comment on the quality of her appearance only making a very accurate statement about how she shares the exact same features as a horse. If I have to add that caveat it's because I know that saying she has a horse face is implying something about the quality of her appearance and the caveat doesn't change that.

1. Your first point is valid, in as much as this was the argument YOU were making and I did not address arguments that were unique. To repeat, I was talking about arguments that were the SAME. If you have a unique argument then you are clearly outside the sample group and not who I was talking about. I have said this repeatedly.

2. Yes, covid in and of itself is a unique argument, no question about it. Suggesting that ratings service, don’t get it right in a given year, for this reason or that reason, is as old as the hills. Please note, I never once suggested that a rating service getting it wrong in a given year is an invalid argument. It may be valid, it may not be, but THE PATTERN is the SAME. If people argue in a given year that recruiting service’s didn’t get it right and a class ranking is artificially high or low as a result, that is a pretty standard argument.

3. This is a total mischaracterization as I have stated repeatedly. Demonstrating how other people attack or defend class rankings year after year has nothing to do with what I think about the quality of the class. I actually have NO OPINION about this recruiting class. I hope it’s a good one but I am not going to live or die on what number you or anyone else thinks it should or should not get.

 

[orientalnc]

I hate it when the Swarm gets filled up with these arguments over the ratings service designations of stars or points on an arbitrary scale. Especially one with four decimal places. It's like arguing over which girl in a bar is prettiest. The debate is fun for a moment, but should not be the headline of your evening.

 

[lv20gt]

1. Your first point is valid, in as much as this was the argument YOU were making and I did not address arguments that were unique. To repeat, I was talking about arguments that were the SAME. If you have a unique argument then you are clearly outside the sample group and not who I was talking about. I have said this repeatedly.

You limited your sample group to exclude major parts of the conversation that has been happening and then used your limited sample group to draw a conclusion that the conversations that are happening now are the same as ever. The only reason to do that is because you had a conclusion that you wanted to reach and chose to only look at the parts that supported that conclusion.

2. Yes, covid in and of itself is a unique argument, no question about it. Suggesting that ratings service, don’t get it right in a given year, for this reason or that reason, is as old as the hills. Please note, I never once suggested that a rating service getting it wrong in a given year is an invalid argument. It may be valid, it may not be, but THE PATTERN is the SAME. If people argue in a given year that recruiting service’s didn’t get it right and a class ranking is artificially high or low as a result, that is a pretty standard argument.

That's not a pattern. Every defense of a recruiting class will center around the notion that the recruiting rankings are wrong because if that point isn't a part of the argument then you've accepted that the class is the quality that the only real metric that is used to evaluate it is correct. That's like saying there is a pattern in explaining why our offense struggles now and when it struggled under Johnson because they are both about not being able to score enough points.

3. This is a total mischaracterization as I have stated repeatedly. Demonstrating how other people attack or defend class rankings year after year has nothing to do with what I think about the quality of the class. I actually have NO OPINION about this recruiting class. I hope it’s a good one but I am not going to live or die on what number you or anyone else thinks it should or should not get.

So what other purpose is there to ignore major parts of the arguments going on or key characteristics of an argument if not to reach a certain conclusion that just happens to be comparing previous classes to the current one, excuse me defenses of previous classes to the defenses of the current one?

 

[forensicbuzz]

There's a reason why they left. It could be for a variety of things, but their assessment of their chances to see the field has to have played a large part in the decision. Whether that means they won't see the field at Tech is another story, but every transfer has to fight the players the coaches choose off the field. And coaches tend to favor players they brought in themselves, for what should be obvious reasons. Like I said, we'll see how this works out, but I always look for the players the coaches recruited to start before transfers.

Again, I would generally agree, but not this year. I think many of these kids want to get back closer to home. CoViD19 has probably wreaked havoc on these kids. Many realize that being so far from family isn't something they want.

 

[Sheboygan]

I hate it when the Swarm gets filled up with these arguments over the ratings service designations of stars or points on an arbitrary scale. Especially one with four decimal places. It's like arguing over which girl in a bar is prettiest. The debate is fun for a moment, but should not be the headline of your evening.

Amen !!

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Let’s just take more transfers on the Line of Scrimmage and call it a day.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

You limited your sample group to exclude major parts of the conversation that has been happening and then used your limited sample group to draw a conclusion that the conversations that are happening now are the same as ever. The only reason to do that is because you had a conclusion that you wanted to reach and chose to only look at the parts that supported that conclusion.



That's not a pattern. Every defense of a recruiting class will center around the notion that the recruiting rankings are wrong because if that point isn't a part of the argument then you've accepted that the class is the quality that the only real metric that is used to evaluate it is correct. That's like saying there is a pattern in explaining why our offense struggles now and when it struggled under Johnson because they are both about not being able to score enough points.



So what other purpose is there to ignore major parts of the arguments going on or key characteristics of an argument if not to reach a certain conclusion that just happens to be comparing previous classes to the current one, excuse me defenses of previous classes to the defenses of the current one?

Ok, I think we can agree on a few things. You are excited about this class and you think the recruiting services got it wrong this time. I also think I understand now why you are sensitive about having your argument that the recruiting services got it wrong lumped in with all the other times people have argued that the recruiting services got it wrong.

I think it is entirely possible the recruiting services got it wrong this time even if this has been a perennial argument at Tech for over a decade.

I also think it is a good thing if people are excited. To repeat what I said in an earlier post CPJ did not understand marketing the way CGC does, and selling yourself, or the program is a good thing. Your excitement about this class is a good thing.

 

[Jacketman99]

Wonder if people would be more excited if we added 2 more 4 stars and 2 more 3 stars to this year's class? That is exactly what we did with the 4 freshman transfers. Those guys did not become worse players during their 6 months on campus at other schools. If any of those guys would have signed with us last year we would have been ecstatic.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

These are ESPN rankings, so take them with a grain of salt. But according to them, Tech plays 5 of the top 10 recruiting classes next year.


Even according to Rivals we play 5 of the top 16, and on 247 it’s 5 of the top 14.
No matter which way you slice it up, Tech is going to play a bunch of talented teams next year, and in the future. We really need to have a good season in 2021 so we can build up for a potential monster 2022 recruiting class. If CGC doesn’t get a least a couple of the marquee guys in the 2022 class, I think the future of GT football will look bleak...

Clemson, I get, UGA, Alabama, the other usual suspects certainly but what struck me was Miami is looking more and more like the Miami of old. 11 four stars and what was it again? 2 five stars and almost all of them were within a 75 mile radius of the Gold Coast. Pretty impressive if you ask me. Clemson, Notre Dame, UNC, and Miami are all in the top ten of this year's recruiting class. This neighborhood is stating to get pretty rough.

 

[TromboneJacket]

Clemson, I get, UGA, Alabama, the other usual suspects certainly but what struck me was Miami is looking more and more like the Miami of old. 11 four stars and what was it again? 2 five stars and almost all of them were within a 75 mile radius of the Gold Coast. Pretty impressive if you ask me. Clemson, Notre Dame, UNC, and Miami are all in the top ten of this year's recruiting class. This neighborhood is stating to get pretty rough.

I agree. I think UNC will fall back down when Mack Brown retires again, but it’s looking like Miami is going to be a big problem for us for a while. I wonder if the state of FSU has anything to do with it.

 

[Pointer]

For the record I have not commented one time on this thread or any other thread about the quality of this recruiting class. As a matter of fact, I have never commented on any CGC recruiting class on this site or any other site. I’ve never been that interested in recruiting rankings and I’m more than content to wait and see the results on the field in a couple of years,

But something about my very accurate description of how people have attacked or defended recruiting classes in the exact same way year after year really hits a nerve with you.

Don't say anything that may in any shape or form come off as criticism of CGC or comparing to CPJ. Even when you're not doing any of that, this dude gets all fired up. He writes some long winded post which he rewords each time in defense of his coach and then accuses you of the same thing he's actually doing. It's quite comical.

BTW I think our OT transfer looks very promising and I'm excited to see him here. I wonder if how we are viewing many of the other transfers, however, the same way GSU may be viewing our QB going there. 4-star recruit, former starter, wanted to move closer to home...

In addition, we aren't the only team benefiting from the transfer exception this year. I'm sure many teams could argue their recruiting class is undervalued for the same reasons.

For all the guys who are excited about the "roster flipping", you can no longer use former coaches players as an excuse if we have another terrible season. I see two lines of scrimmage that have plenty of the type of guys y'all wanted there now.

Finally, if this really is the turning tide for CGC and we start seeing some real success on the field, CGC will look like a genius for his recruiting/marketing efforts. If not, this is all going to look pretty dumb in hind sight. And that's the part I don't look forward to. I think what he's doing is important, but we also need to get everything else up to par as well.

 

[Pointer]

Don't say anything that may in any shape or form come off as criticism of CGC or comparing to CPJ. Even when you're not doing any of that, this dude gets all fired up. He writes some long winded post which he rewords each time in defense of his coach and then accuses you of the same thing he's actually doing. It's quite comical.

BTW I think our OT transfer looks very promising and I'm excited to see him here. I wonder if how we are viewing many of the other transfers, however, the same way GSU may be viewing our QB going there. 4-star recruit, former starter, wanted to move closer to home...

In addition, we aren't the only team benefiting from the transfer exception this year. I'm sure many teams could argue their recruiting class is undervalued for the same reasons.

For all the guys who are excited about the "roster flipping", you can no longer use former coaches players as an excuse if we have another terrible season. I see two lines of scrimmage that have plenty of the type of guys y'all wanted there now.

Finally, if this really is the turning tide for CGC and we start seeing some real success on the field, CGC will look like a genius for his recruiting/marketing efforts. If not, this is all going to look pretty dumb in hind sight. And that's the part I don't look forward to. I think what he's doing is important, but we also need to get everything else up to par as well.

To clarify the last part, I meant I don't look forward to it if he fails. I actually think CGC has lots of potential and am hopeful he will end up being a pretty good coach here. Just not excited about what we've seen on the field so far.