Post-Spring game season win total poll

[boger2337]

I completely agree with you.

So, are we not supposed to believe in recruiting rankings? Is there no difference between a 52 ranking and a 26 ranking (twice as good/bad numerically)? If there is no difference, why should we be excited about the possibility of higher ranked recruiting classes?

Was it just that the coaching for the 52'nd ranked recruiting class was so superior to that of the 26'th ranked class so that the 52'nd ranked class blew out the 26'th ranked class last year? Will that be the case going forward?

I think I that remains to be seen. I don't think you see true dominance of player talent till you hit the top 5 in recruiting for 2-4 years in a row. The clemsons, bama, and ugas. Not saying they cannot lose to a 10-40 recruiting class averaged team, but they usually are on a different level. I think recruiting class only matters until we are constantly in the top 20. Then the goal is to be top 10 year in and year out. That's when we will see playoff consideration

 

[smathis30]

Just did a bit of research based off nothing but returning starters. GT returns 8 starters on both sides of the ball (5 on O, 3 on D) which is historically low.

Since 2010, only 19 Power 5 teams and 47 total teams have had 9 or fewer returning starters for the next season, with an average year over year win differential of -1.7 (e.g. teams with that few of starters on average win ~2 fewer games that season then the one before)

For Power 5 teams with 9 or fewer returning starters:
4/19 had the same or more wins the next season, and 15 had worse seasons.
The exceptions were a 2017 Michigan state team that went from 3 wins to 10 wins
A 2015 Clemson team that retruned a healthy Deshaun Watson
and a 2014 Arizona State and Boston College teams that met their previous season win totals.
Expanding it to G5+P5 teams
4/29 have met or done better the following season with 8 or fewer returning starters, with those win improvements being 4 (clemson) 1,1,0. Its definitely doable, but it will require a breakout year for quite a few people.

Schedule as I see it
@Clemson -Lol
USF - Win. They lose a lot on an iffy defense, but return basically everyone on offense. Close game last year, should win at home
Citadel- Win. I think people are horrifically undervaluing them, but this should be spooky close. They were tied with Alabama at basically half last year.
@Temple - W/Tossup Vendetta game for them. Still got a lot of questions about us, that should get answered in first 3 games. Clemson wont be a good barometer.
UNC - W. They have been terrible, and should be better this season. Return a ton of players on Offense. It took us until the 4th Q to put the game away last year. They were better than their record last year, and itll show this year.
@Duke - L. Daniel Jones is a pain in the ***, and Duke loses about the same amount of production at us, so they are also a huge wild card. Id take us at home, but not on the road. Well know what Duke looks like after their first few games.
@Miami - L. In 2017, when they won the Coastal, they were 4-0 in games decided by one score or less. They were 1-3 last year. Overrated in 2017, underrated in 2018 IMO. Id prefer our chances at home, but it should be close given what the transfer portal did to them.
Pitt - L/Tossup. Loses their RB, but they always seem to have their RB have their breakout game against us. They do lose basically their entire OL, but with us losing the entirety of the front 7, there isnt much room for exploitation.
@UVA - L, W if at home. I cant state enough how much better our even year schedule is
vs VT - W/tossup. VT returns damn near everyone. Rough season last year, but they will catch up to their usual magic. They did lose some through the portal.
vc NCSU. Toss up With the demise of FSU, the middle of the atlatnic is rough. NCSU and BC lose everyone, Louisville is a trainreck, and they will be worse than their record for that reason.
UGA - L

4 lean wins, 3 tossups, 5 lean Losses.

 

[takethepoints]

I completely agree with you.

So, are we not supposed to believe in recruiting rankings? Is there no difference between a 52 ranking and a 26 ranking (twice as good/bad numerically)? If there is no difference, why should we be excited about the possibility of higher ranked recruiting classes?

Was it just that the coaching for the 52'nd ranked recruiting class was so superior to that of the 26'th ranked class so that the 52'nd ranked class blew out the 26'th ranked class last year? Will that be the case going forward?

There's a difference between the top 20 or so teams in the national rankings and the rest, mainly because those teams have the majority of the 4 and 5 star players and those guys are different. Below that the rankings are not very revealing, imho. First, the recruiting classes between, say, 30 and 60 are mainly made up of 3 star players. The differences between these players are often minimal, but get over hyped in the rankings. ("We're doing better this year! We have more high 3 stars!" Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it.) That's why a couple of 4 star players can make a difference. Second, as you point out, coaching and development programs make a difference too. We've been pretty good at that over the years. Prime example on this team: Jalen Camp.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't get all excited if we suddenly bring in 5 or 6 4 star players. That'd be awesome.

 

[stinger 1957]

I think grad transfers, if any, and transfer eligibility(Clayton, Miami kid) will have a big say in our record and no one knows the answers to any of that at this point.

 

[85Escape]

So, what most of y'all (@85Escape , @AUFC , @RyanS12 , @bwelbo , @tech_wreck47 , @boger2337 ) are saying is that either
A.) Recruiting doesn't really matter.
Or, B.) Our coaching/scheme is superior to theirs.
Or, maybe even C.) The recruiting rankings for our team have been wrong.

Every Power5 team on our schedule has recruiting rankings superior to ours year-over-year. Even USF and Temple are probably close to us in those rankings (I haven't looked it up).

Actually, I'm saying that culture matters. There are plenty of very talented teams (FSU, NC) that are beaten by much less talented teams with no better schemes every year. What matters is heart, will to win and how much the team is in it for each other. The differential between us and most of our schedule is not enough to overcome those 'soft' factors. Talent will overwhelm in some cases (the first and last week), and we won't always have the heart advantage. But I'm hoping (and hope is all it is at this point) that our players are bought in enough to each other to surprise us.

I'd rather than believe that than be a skeptic who, in an attempt to overcome my intellectual insecurities, finds it is safer to predict failure since no one calls you on that if you win, and you can say "I told you so" if you lose. Each to his or her own, but as for me and my house, we will expect to win.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Actually, I'm saying that culture matters. There are plenty of very talented teams (FSU, NC) that are beaten by much less talented teams with no better schemes every year. What matters is heart, will to win and how much the team is in it for each other. The differential between us and most of our schedule is not enough to overcome those 'soft' factors. Talent will overwhelm in some cases (the first and last week), and we won't always have the heart advantage. But I'm hoping (and hope is all it is at this point) that our players are bought in enough to each other to surprise us.

I'd rather than believe that than be a skeptic who, in an attempt to overcome my intellectual insecurities, finds it is safer to predict failure since no one calls you on that if you win, and you can say "I told you so" if you lose. Each to his or her own, but as for me and my house, we will expect to win.

So your optimism grants you intellectual security.......Ooohhhhhkaayyyy.

Some fans are typically pessimistic. Some are typically optimistic. I thinks it’s pretty lame for either side philosophically to throw rocks at the other.

 

[33jacket]

Nothing unique on O. Easy as heck to prep for as we are running the ncaa offense. Which is fine, if you have talent. And we dont yet as we have what we have from tough recruitment to the option. Iiwii. As a result. I expect us to struggle on O all year. And i am not sold on lucas. I am sold on him today. But not as it relates to the total future.

As a result the d will be more exposed than ever before. May see em on the field alot. Which makes the d under paul more frustrating because the o didn’t leave em exposed often. We won’t have that luxury and as with o the d its not totally there yet either. Lb is just bad. Poorly recruited and the ones with talent never learned. Db is ok. Dl iiwii.

So i am struggling with more than 5 wins. I guess maybe 6 is possible . But i see us in the 4-6 range and a rebuilding project in year 1 AP.

The spring game was a farce. Nothing to gage on it. It was a fun show with no scheme

 

[LibertyTurns]

The numbers excel came up with are:

ugag .02

A big fat BOO to you & your spreadsheet formula, sir. 2 cents is about all that predickshun is worth.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

It’s a total unknown. As the previous poster stated we will now be running the standard college offense and it looks like we’ll be doing it up tempo so every team we play will be ready for it. The defense is going to be tested all year because they will be on the field a lot. The jimmies and joes will decide it as we will have no schematic advantage. The good news is that no one outside of Clemson in the ACC has proven to be solid week in and week out so we’ll be in every game. The next two years are going to be interesting and as long as the recruiting continues on an upward trajectory I’m not too worried about our record.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

Honestly, predicting totals at this point is an exercise in futility. This formula is fairly consistent in recent years: you can basically mark 2 games down as losses (@Clem, v. UGA), FCS game down as a win (vs. The Citadel). Hopefully we can sweep our last 2 OOCs and then pretty much every Coastal game is a toss up. Playing law of averages, I'll say we go 2-2 OOC and 4-4 ACC for a 6-6 record.

Of course it is an exercise in futility but it is fun to do anyway. I don't know where you live, but it is going to be a long hot summer in south Georgia.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

Pretty much all this. UVA will be replacing some talent on the OL and at WR and IDK what’s going in VT. They don’t appear to be a good football team.

Loss of Adams will sting a lot and may cause me to say 7-5 but ima roll with 8-4

I pretty much agree with the original poster that 8 games is possible but so is 5. I would not sleep on UNC. They have talent, they always have talent but the question is can Coach Brown get them to play ball when the old regime consistently underachieved? Virginia Tech? I never thought I would see the day when Bud Foster could not somehow, someway, get his guys to play defense. The Coastal will be in turmoil again, you can bank on it.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

I completely agree with you.

So, are we not supposed to believe in recruiting rankings? Is there no difference between a 52 ranking and a 26 ranking (twice as good/bad numerically)? If there is no difference, why should we be excited about the possibility of higher ranked recruiting classes?

Was it just that the coaching for the 52'nd ranked recruiting class was so superior to that of the 26'th ranked class so that the 52'nd ranked class blew out the 26'th ranked class last year? Will that be the case going forward?

UNC is exhibit "A" that recruiting, though important, is only half the battle. You still have to develop them, coach them up, motivate them, get them through school, etc. One and done will not get you anywhere in football.

 

[vamosjackets]

Actually, I'm saying that culture matters. There are plenty of very talented teams (FSU, NC) that are beaten by much less talented teams with no better schemes every year. What matters is heart, will to win and how much the team is in it for each other. The differential between us and most of our schedule is not enough to overcome those 'soft' factors. Talent will overwhelm in some cases (the first and last week), and we won't always have the heart advantage. But I'm hoping (and hope is all it is at this point) that our players are bought in enough to each other to surprise us.

I'd rather than believe that than be a skeptic who, in an attempt to overcome my intellectual insecurities, finds it is safer to predict failure since no one calls you on that if you win, and you can say "I told you so" if you lose. Each to his or her own, but as for me and my house, we will expect to win.

I would consider "culture" to be in the category of coaching. I have 2 categories - coaching and talent ... well, there really should be a third - luck. So, you believe that our coaching is superior to the majority (or perhaps all) of the teams on our schedule then ... because it will produce a culture in which our players play harder than their opponents. I'm just trying to restate your argument to make sure I understand it correctly.

 

[vamosjackets]

A big fat BOO to you & your spreadsheet formula, sir. 2 cents is about all that predickshun is worth.

I would welcome and be glad for you to come up with something better.

 

[vamosjackets]

There's a difference between the top 20 or so teams in the national rankings and the rest, mainly because those teams have the majority of the 4 and 5 star players and those guys are different. Below that the rankings are not very revealing, imho. First, the recruiting classes between, say, 30 and 60 are mainly made up of 3 star players. The differences between these players are often minimal, but get over hyped in the rankings. ("We're doing better this year! We have more high 3 stars!" Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it.) That's why a couple of 4 star players can make a difference. Second, as you point out, coaching and development programs make a difference too. We've been pretty good at that over the years. Prime example on this team: Jalen Camp.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't get all excited if we suddenly bring in 5 or 6 4 star players. That'd be awesome.

I've been told by a few on this board that not all 3-stars are equal, there are high 3-stars and low 3-stars. I don't have a problem with that argument, and can probably even buy into it. Also, the 4-star tag has not been very good to us lately for some reason. Most of our 4* recruits have not ended up being our best players. Bad luck? Maybe it's selective memory on my part and not thorough analysis.

Several counter-examples of teams in the top 20 in recruiting who are pretty darn bad on the field (FSU, Tenn for two, Miami hasn't been very good). I would like a more certain barometer for expectations for our recruiting and then expectations for performance based on that expectation for recruiting. Should top 30 make us think - no discernable difference? Should top 20 get us slightly excited, but we really should only get truly excited if we get in the top 10? top 5? What actually counts here? I think looking at our expectations for our team versus other teams when considering recruiting rankings helps point out flaws and inconsistencies in the typical way of thinking on this board. Many (most?) are saying that we should still expect to beat a team who is in the 20's when we're in the 50's, but that if and when we get in the 20's we should expect the opposite.

 

[LibertyTurns]

I would welcome and be glad for you to come up with something better.

Just move the decimal place over 1 spot to the right for that one cell & multiply times 50 and I think it would be good. The rest of the spreadsheet is just fine,

 

[vamosjackets]

Just move the decimal place over 1 spot to the right for that one cell & multiply times 50 and I think it would be good. The rest of the spreadsheet is just fine,

I'm not sure I understand. Are you talking about for Ugag? If so, I like your spirit!

 

[LibertyTurns]

I'm not sure I understand. Are you talking about for Ugag? If so, I like your spirit!

Yes. Sorry my snarky comment was poorly delivered. Hate them mutts.

We have not beat them bastards at home in so long I can’t remember. Time for that crap to change.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

247 team recruiting rankings in 2019:
GT 52
ugag 2
clemson 10
vt 26
mia 28
ncst 29
unc 32
uva 34
duke 47
pitt 55
usf 76
temple 104
citadel 214

I'm trying to think of a way to produce an "objective" record prediction based on the talent as measured by recruiting rankings. This is just one year's ranking, but I'm going to assume (perhaps erroneously - feel free to point that out if you believe it is) that last year was pretty typical for us and our opponents. I'm going to have to put more thought into this. Maybe somebody else has already done it (Seem certain they have). Maybe putting these into a normal distribution with a corresponding probability or something like that.

A formula I came up with just messing around on excel is (Opp Rec Rank/ GT Rec Rank)/2. That gave us a 50% chance of beating ourselves. I have no logical basis for this formula, but it seemed to come out with numbers that were right on target (except for temple and citadel which were 100% and 206%, but it worked well for the rest). Again, gotta think about this more, though I doubt I will have time. The numbers excel came up with are:

ugag .02
clem .1
vt .25
mia .27
ncst .28
unc .31
uva .33
duke .45
pitt .53
usf .73
temp 1
cit 1

So, our expected win total, based on recruited talent alone would be 5.27. Seems that could be about right.

I look at it with a much simpler lense. Based on talent comparison alone, I call each matchup either highly favored (we'd likely win 8 out of 10 matchups), highly underdog (we'd likely lose 8 of 10 matchups) or push (fairly even, we'd likely win 5 or so out of 10). There are so many "push" games on our schedule, it makes it virtually impossible to accurately predict given the sample size (12 games) and the myriad of factors affecting close games and their outcomes that are not accounted for in a purely talent, even if accurate, analysis. Iow, I don't think it's probable that we win half the "push" games. It is just as probable to win all of them or none of them. From a scientific standpoint, there are just too many uncontrolled (unaccounted for) variables in a game that could easily be decided by an inch gained or denied here or a blown call there.

It's a fools errand you pursue, but hey, it's the offseason so CHEERS! This is the beauty of true unscripted sports competition. This ain't pro rasslin'!

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Nothing unique on O. Easy as heck to prep for as we are running the ncaa offense. Which is fine, if you have talent. And we dont yet as we have what we have from tough recruitment to the option. Iiwii. As a result. I expect us to struggle on O all year. And i am not sold on lucas. I am sold on him today. But not as it relates to the total future.

As a result the d will be more exposed than ever before. May see em on the field alot. Which makes the d under paul more frustrating because the o didn’t leave em exposed often. We won’t have that luxury and as with o the d its not totally there yet either. Lb is just bad. Poorly recruited and the ones with talent never learned. Db is ok. Dl iiwii.

So i am struggling with more than 5 wins. I guess maybe 6 is possible . But i see us in the 4-6 range and a rebuilding project in year 1 AP.

The spring game was a farce. Nothing to gage on it. It was a fun show with no scheme

This is the most accurate assessment of our upcoming season I've read to date. I have a little more faith in Lucas and I'm still curious as to what Tobias can do in the new O (high school offense). He ran it in high school and had big stats in the air and on the ground. He also has the "it" factor, imo. The guy has some serious toughness, onfield leadership and a knack for getting tough yards much like Josh.