National Signing Day Coverage

[cthenrys]

If you are recruiting in the neighborhood of 25th in the country then you aren't really competing for conference championships without significant luck and you aren't even in the stratosphere of a national championship.

Unless you either have something schematically that sets you apart or you are getting more out of the talent you have than anyone expects. CGC has neither of these assets to date.

the transfers make this class exciting in that there are no excuses this season. No more blaming the past. It’s time to just win baby or time to reconcile with what we really have.

 

[Lee]

Feeling a little deja vu on this thread. Seems ages ago that some on here were critical of CPJ’s recruiting rankings. Then followed the retorts....most CPJ classes were small, because he did not over recruit, so his classes were penalized in the ratings...then discussions of coaches knowing more than recruiting services that make money by pandering to larger fan bases....then coaching up....then “look closely and you will see diamonds in the rough”....then transfers will help....etc.

This is not a pro or anti comment on any coach, just an observation that after academic progress rules impacted Tech we seem to be forever rolling the boulder up the hill. I haven’t given up on the idea we might one day get it to the top of the hill and have it stick but meanwhile our conversations travel well worn circular paths.

You’re missing a huge piece of the puzzle. We brought in 5 transfers (6 if you include Cochran). That didn’t happen previously. The class as it stands is 21 I believe with room for more.

The ranking issue didn’t come up last year. If it did, not like now. Remember where Gibbs was rated when he committed and where he finished? No camps this summer, many guys didn’t get to play, the ones who did didn’t get seen by as many people.

So I disagree with your take. We also have the #1 TE in last years class seriously (by all counts) considering transferring here. Not even close to before.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

You’re missing a huge piece of the puzzle. We brought in 5 transfers (6 if you include Cochran). That didn’t happen previously. The class as it stands is 21 I believe with room for more.

The ranking issue didn’t come up last year. If it did, not like now. Remember where Gibbs was rated when he committed and where he finished? No camps this summer, many guys didn’t get to play, the ones who did didn’t get seen by as many people.

So I disagree with your take. We also have the #1 TE in last years class seriously (by all counts) considering transferring here. Not even close to before.

I actually wasn’t taking issue with the substance of the arguments, nor the quality of the class, just commenting on how many years I’ve heard these SAME arguments.

No doubt if you believe in a class you will always see the reasons why it is underrated. Likewise if you are not overly impressed with a class you will see any defense of it as over selling, at best, or excuse making, at worst.

But I dearly hope your positive assessment proves accurate on the field in a couple of years.

 

[chewybaka]

Ball and Mathews likely heading to Arkansas and Auburn, respectively. I think this is it for us today and we probably pursue one or two for February.

Very disappointing not to get either...over all ranking is more CPJ than 404 hype like...looked forward to an uptick consistent with last year's big gets... Auburn who coach was fired and Arkansas?...argh

 

[lv20gt]

I actually wasn’t taking issue with the substance of the arguments, nor the quality of the class, just commenting on how many years I’ve heard these SAME arguments.

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.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

I imagine most recruits want to play for a contender and want to see an upward trajectory.

 

[GCdaJuiceMan]

I imagine most recruits want to play for a contender and want to see an upward trajectory.

 

[SteamWhistle]

Class will move up when we take more kids. By the end of this class we should be mid 30s.

 

[SteamWhistle]

also the average recruit rating of this class per .247 is higher then any since at least 2014, and 2nd to only last years. I didn’t go back any further then that.

 

[MWBATL]

We'll know for sure in a couple of years how good this class is. Not really before...

 

[billga99]

If everyone on football scholarships gets a free transfer to one school in the future, there will be far more transfers going from one school to another than in previous years. If that becomes common place, not including transfers is not providing the true impact of new personnel coming into the system. Particularly if the players have 2+ years remaining of eligibility. I get ignoring transfers in the past since so many were graduate transfers with mostly 1 year remaining of eligibility. But I think with the new rules that your entire new class (high school signees plus transfers) should be the way to rank schools.

 

[Lee]

I actually wasn’t taking issue with the substance of the arguments, nor the quality of the class, just commenting on how many years I’ve heard these SAME arguments.

No doubt if you believe in a class you will always see the reasons why it is underrated. Likewise if you are not overly impressed with a class you will see any defense of it as over selling, at best, or excuse making, at worst.

But I dearly hope your positive assessment proves accurate on the field in a couple of years.

What @lv20gt said pretty much sums up how I feel and what I was trying to say.

Also, I’ll add to say that since the small 2013 class according to 247 (first one I looked at), we had 20+ commits every year but 2016 and we had 19 that year.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

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.

Well, your argument seems to be more nuanced and I am willing to be convinced, I assure you.

Another difference in arguments now vs then, in addition to what you have pointed out, is that in the past the argument was that some recruits had a reduction in ranking once they committed to Tech, born out in a few anecdotal cases. Now some argue that some recruits may actually get a bump up after committing to Tech. Both arguments are anecdotal in nature but show another difference in arguments now versus then.

Again, I am just identifying linguistic patterns I observe.

 

[DuckGT]

Class will move up when we take more kids. By the end of this class we should be mid 30s.

Who are these more kids that you speak of? Can you give possible names?

 

[forensicbuzz]

Who are these more kids that you speak of? Can you give possible names?

We only have 16 HS recruits right now. Class rankings are based on top 20 recruits. So, not having 4 more recruits means our ranking artificially is depressed. In addition, our bottom two players are ranked very low, so if we added two additional average players, our rankings would being even higher. Since transfers count against the 25/year limit, adding 6 transfers means we could only reach 19 new HS recruits anyway. So, our "ranking" is not representative of where we stand relative to our peers in this class.

Add to that that at least 4 of the 6 transfers will have 4 years of eligibility left, that's the equivalent of adding HS kids, but they don't count in our ranking. This is an odd year. Rankings truly mean less this year than most, and most years, rankings are at best a SWAG about how good these kids are.

 

[slugboy]

We only have 16 HS recruits right now. Class rankings are based on top 20 recruits. So, not having 4 more recruits means our ranking artificially is depressed. In addition, our bottom two players are ranked very low, so if we added two additional average players, our rankings would being even higher. Since transfers count against the 25/year limit, adding 6 transfers means we could only reach 19 new HS recruits anyway. So, our "ranking" is not representative of where we stand relative to our peers in this class.

Add to that that at least 4 of the 6 transfers will have 4 years of eligibility left, that's the equivalent of adding HS kids, but they don't count in our ranking. This is an odd year. Rankings truly mean less this year than most, and most years, rankings are at best a SWAG about how good these kids are.

Following up on that: in the 680 video, the analysts could have taken potshots at a low-ranked class. One view is that analysts are always going to puff up a class--but I don't think that's the case, and I don't think that was going on here. To me, it looked like people who follow recruiting for a living thought we had a good class. I didn't see any excuses for class size being made.

A couple of 4* players would move the numeric ranking much higher. Even the analysts were saying that they hadn't gotten a chance to really give ratings to players this year, though.

 

[GTRules]

Judging this class by star rankings is silly this year, for all the reasons presented before. This year's class for every school is an anomaly, and impossible to rank.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

It is and will always be a significant challenge recruiting to GT, a STEM school with limited majors. But, as many of you have pointed out, due to the success of obtaining some significant talent through the transfers, I believe CGC "saved" this year in a meaningful way. Honestly, if he can only recruit in the 30's or 40's, he and the other coaches will have to do miracles in "coaching them up". The recruiting rankings today are much more accurate than they were years ago - not as many "missed" that can stay under the radar, so development and game day coaching will be more important today than ever before. Will CGC and his staff be able to step up in the next year or so and prove they can significantly outcoach most of the other teams' coaches? That will be interesting to see. I can't see it right now, but I hope I am blind to it.

Yes he did and there has to be a reason for the factories to be complaining about the "Portal" to the NCAA. Well, shazam! A player arrives at UGA or Alabama who is a 4 star feeling good about himself and discovers the starter is a 5 star, the guy backing him up is a 5 star and damn if the the other guys in the room are 4 stars like him. He then finds out they are recruiting yet another 5 star in the next class. Well, by George, the smart thing to do is to opt out in the portal. Makes sense to me.

 

[JacketOff]

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...

 

[Techster]