Other football fans are clueless

[cuttysark]

Better recruiting; Recruiting Differences; Recruiting Guru's; Talent Differential. It all adds up to "Stars Recruiting" in my opinion. That's what I garnered from reading this thread. Just thought I'd add to the discussion.

Give me 85 more just like that NFL 2nd Round Draft Choice Adam Gotsis and his two stars ranking that was upgraded from zero stars and belly laughter from the recruiting Guru's at that Paul Johnson scholarship commitment. I bet they aren't laughing now.

 

[Milwaukee]

Let's make it even simpler: Whoever wins the final recruiting rankings ought to be immediately Crowned the National Championship Game Winner and given the Dr. Pepper Trophy. I love the "Stars Recruiting System!"

Then every team can just play the regular season games for fun since the rankings will have already established who gets to go to which Bowl game.

TIC, I get it, but if you don't acknowledge the recruiting rankings then I got nothing else for you. Recruiting rankings don't guarantee national titles, but the evidence is beyond clear that those programs are more successful due to the fact that they are playing with better percentages. It's not that difficult to comprehend, well, it shouldn't be, but some Tech fans hate it simply because we suck at recruiting.

Sorry, but fact.

 

[Milwaukee]

Better recruiting; Recruiting Differences; Recruiting Guru's; Talent Differential. It all adds up to "Stars Recruiting" in my opinion. That's what I garnered from reading this thread. Just thought I'd add to the discussion.

Give me 85 more just like that NFL 2nd Round Draft Choice Adam Gotsis and his two stars ranking that was upgraded from zero stars and belly laughter from the recruiting Guru's at that Paul Johnson scholarship commitment. I bet they aren't laughing now.

Good luck with that. We'd love to find 85 two star recruits that turn out to be Gotsis type talents. Not realistic, but fun to play the "what if I win the powerball" game.

 

[AE 87]

Better recruiting; Recruiting Differences; Recruiting Guru's; Talent Differential. It all adds up to "Stars Recruiting" in my opinion. That's what I garnered from reading this thread. Just thought I'd add to the discussion.

Give me 85 more just like that NFL 2nd Round Draft Choice Adam Gotsis and his two stars ranking that was upgraded from zero stars and belly laughter from the recruiting Guru's at that Paul Johnson scholarship commitment. I bet they aren't laughing now.

But, you missed the point. We agree that star rankings are inexact and that it's laughable to think they get every kid right.

However, it's also laughable to think that they get more wrong than right so badly that they are meaningless across whole classes. I also talked about NFL drafts. Surely, the two together suggest a legitimate talent differential, right?

 

[Northeast Stinger]

It's not that difficult to comprehend, well, it shouldn't be, but some Tech fans hate it simply because we suck at recruiting.

Well, by your definition Tech has always "sucked at recruiting." Perhaps it shows up, as some have suggested, in the lack of depth as a game wears on. Still does not explain why Tech loses to uga, even when Tech has the better team, and the reverse seems to almost never happen.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Surely, the two together suggest a legitimate talent differential, right?

"Suggest" is the right word here, since you have also suggested that being good in college and being good in the pros are not the same thing.

 

[Milwaukee]

Well, by your definition Tech has always "sucked at recruiting." Perhaps it shows up, as some have suggested, in the lack of depth as a game wears on. Still does not explain why Tech loses to uga, even when Tech has the better team, and the reverse seems to almost never happen.

Good point, but the only time I can remember that we lost when we had the better team was 2009.

I'm sure there are other instances before my time.

We have a great offensive mind as far as running game, and he can be wildly successful regardless of what "experts" think, but if we RAMP up the recruiting then Tech fans would be AMAZED at the difference. AMAZED.

 

[AE 87]

"Suggest" is the right word here, since you have also suggested that being good in college and being good in the pros are not the same thing.

What? When? What context?

 

[AE 87]

Well, by your definition Tech has always "sucked at recruiting." Perhaps it shows up, as some have suggested, in the lack of depth as a game wears on. Still does not explain why Tech loses to uga, even when Tech has the better team, and the reverse seems to almost never happen.

When did Tech have the better team and lost? Or have you gone back to assuming your opinion is fact?

 

[forensicbuzz]

When did Tech have the better team and lost? Or have you gone back to assuming your opinion is fact?

2009 [supposedly]

 

[cuttysark]

GT has to keep finding those type of kids that want to compete at a high level like Gotsis and Justin Thomas who can handle the academics too. These 4 and 5 stars kids for the most part don't have the desire or the right stuff to hang academically at GT.

Justin Thomas has already graduated and wanted to play QB as opposed to looking solely at the NFL. Shamire Devine came here for the computer science degree. IIRC correctly Marcus Allen is majoring in some type of biological design degree. "Stars" kids take courses designed to keep them eligible at most other schools. Not to succeed in life.

 

[AE 87]

2009 [supposedly]

Rivals Recruiting Ranking, 2005-2009
U[sic]GA: 10, 4, 10, 7, 6
Us: 65, 60, 19, 49, 52

Yeah, if we use the @cuttysark reasoning where every 2* is a 4* and vice versa, I can understand the logic that GT had more talent and were just psychologically weak that day.

 

[vamosjackets]

Rivals Recruiting Ranking, 2005-2009
U[sic]GA: 10, 4, 10, 7, 6
Us: 65, 60, 19, 49, 52

Yeah, if we use the @cuttysark reasoning where every 2* is a 4* and vice versa, I can understand the logic that GT had more talent and were just psychologically weak that day.

As you said, the rankings are an inexact science. It's right a little more than it's wrong, but that was one of the times it was wrong. Most would've said we had the better team that year. We had a better record, better stats, better ranking in the polls, etc. Plus, it was a year where we were playing with a lot of guys from the only year I can remember that we were actually ahead (or very close to) Ugag in the rankings (2007 class). Our QB was better, our RB's were better, our WR's were better just off the top of my head. A blowout on our part would not have been a surprise. I was expecting one. If we had any run defense, ANY, just keeping them from putting up RECORD numbers rushing ... OR if our QB doesn't get hurt, we win that game easily. If both of those reasonable things had occurred, it wouldn't have been a close game. But, because they both did, along with a couple other unfortunate plays (Bay Bay's drop, Stephen's wrong route), we lost when we clearly had the better squad.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Rivals Recruiting Ranking, 2005-2009
U[sic]GA: 10, 4, 10, 7, 6
Us: 65, 60, 19, 49, 52

Yeah, if we use the @cuttysark reasoning where every 2* is a 4* and vice versa, I can understand the logic that GT had more talent and were just psychologically weak that day.

We were favored to win that game. uga was the "underdog" and beat us on our own field. We were 10-1, ranked #7 in the Nation. They were 6-5, barely eligible for a bowl game. I'd say we lost a game we should have won.

What our recruiting rankings were are irrelevant.

 

[AE 87]

As you said, the rankings are an inexact science. It's right a little more than it's wrong, but that was one of the times it was wrong. Most would've said we had the better team that year. We had a better record, better stats, better ranking in the polls, etc. Plus, it was a year where we were playing with a lot of guys from the only year I can remember that we were actually ahead (or very close to) Ugag in the rankings (2007 class). Our QB was better, our RB's were better, our WR's were better just off the top of my head. A blowout on our part would not have been a surprise. I was expecting one. If we had any run defense, ANY, just keeping them from putting up RECORD numbers rushing ... OR if our QB doesn't get hurt, we win that game easily. If both of those reasonable things had occurred, it wouldn't have been a close game. But, because they both did, along with a couple other unfortunate plays (Bay Bay's drop, Stephen's wrong route), we lost when we clearly had the better squad.

We were favored to win that game. uga was the "underdog" and beat us on our own field. We were 10-1, ranked #7 in the Nation. They were 6-5, barely eligible for a bowl game. I'd say we lost a game we should have won.

What our recruiting rankings were are irrelevant.

LOL. I asserted that better talent overall has been the driving issue, and one genius responds recruiting rankings are irrelevant.

Let's be clear, because it seems some geniuses are confused: two teams play in each game. You can't hold one team constant, and act like GTs psychology is the only variable.

A talented team which craps bricks all season can get psyched up for a rivalry game. A less talented team which has over-performed can come in over confident.

The point being debated is whether GT loses to a worse georgie team because they are psyched out. Yall haven't shown they had less talent.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Rivals Recruiting Ranking, 2005-2009
U[sic]GA: 10, 4, 10, 7, 6
Us: 65, 60, 19, 49, 52

Yeah, if we use the @cuttysark reasoning where every 2* is a 4* and vice versa, I can understand the logic that GT had more talent and were just psychologically weak that day.

Based on those numbers, the games shouldn't even be close. They should all be blowouts.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

"Stars" kids take courses designed to keep them eligible at most other schools. Not to succeed in life.

Unfortunately true more times than not.

 

[AE 87]

Based on those numbers, the games shouldn't even be close. They should all be blowouts.

... which is why I think georgie getting their act together for a rivalry game after sleep walking against Kentucky makes better sense than GT getting psyched out

 

[Northeast Stinger]

LOL. I asserted that better talent overall has been the driving issue, and one genius responds recruiting rankings are irrelevant.

Let's be clear, because it seems some geniuses are confused: two teams play in each game. You can't hold one team constant, and act like GTs psychology is the only variable.

A talented team which craps bricks all season can get psyched up for a rivalry game. A less talented team which has over-performed can come in over confident.

The point being debated is whether GT loses to a worse georgie team because they are psyched out. Yall haven't shown they had less talent.

Are you over stating your case to make your point? Or do you truly hold to the proposition that Georgia teams are always better than Tech teams talent wise?

Psychology is not the only variable. I don't believe anyone said that. We were just trying to tease out whether that might be a factor once you have eliminated all the games in which the other variables were significant or driving factors.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

When did Tech have the better team and lost? Or have you gone back to assuming your opinion is fact?

I already told you that it was my opinion based on my memory. Indeed it could be a clouded or skewed memory.
But....

These were the years in which on paper Tech had a comparable team to Georgia and lost, which was also reflected more or less in the final season records of the two teams: 1964, 1965, 1966, 1972, 1979, 1993, 1995, 1996, 2001, 2006, 2009, 2010.

As I said before, someone could do a deeper study of team strength, recruiting and other factors to see if anything is there. Otherwise, at least on paper, if you put two evenly matched teams on the field in this rivalry, Georgia seems to have an edge. A game I remember that falls outside of this pattern but which I think Tech should have won was 1991. Tech had much of their national championship team intact but had a down year. I felt they were still the better team but Georgia played their best game of the season and won.