Raw Data on Recruiting

[Augusta_Jacket]

There's been a lot of debate over the years in regards to our recruiting. Some have argued that Paul Johnson hurt recruiting, others have argued that he did more with less, some have even argued that he improved recruiting. A couple of years ago I decided to look at the data, and frankly, what I found surprised me. I compiled all the data from 2002-2018, using rivals as a source, since they predate some of the other services and have long been considered an industry standard. Using ESPN, 247, or others would most likely produce similar results, but for the purpose of this exercise, I opted to use Rivals. For purposes of comparing the coaches, I added classes 2002-2007 to CCG, and 2009-2018 to CPJ. I left the 2008 class out of each coaches data sets, as the coaching change impacted the cycle. Of note, however, that class was ranked 49th, so it sits in line with both coaches average class.

I'd also like to put the following caveats out there. We cannot know if CCG would have sustained recruiting success similar to 2007 going forward. Before the change, the 2008 class was in line with more normal GT recruiting on a "good" cycle. If memory serves me correctly, we were ranked in the low 40's/high 30's when CCG was fired. I have no data to support this assertion, however.

I'd also like to point out that I was not a fan of firing CCG, and I was initially opposed to the hire of CPJ. I have since come to love him and what he did for GT. That being said, let's take a look at the raw data.

Since 2002, GT has averaged a recruiting class rank of 51.5. Where do our coaches fall on this scale? CCG classes averaged 50.8, and CPJ classes averaged 52.1. This average takes into account CCGs monster 2007 class and also penalizes CPJ for the disastrous (ranking wise) 2013 class. The argument that CPJ has been a poorer recruiter than CCG can be viewed as valid if you use this as your only data point.

However, you need to understand that recruiting rankings are done using a "total points" system that rewards larger recruiting classes and penalizes smaller classes. To get a full baseline score, you can count the points for 20 recruits. After 20, your 20 highest count and "hide" your lowest scoring recruits. This is why large recruiting classes tend to be ranked the highest, and smaller classes rank lowest. For instance, the 2013 class ranked 84th had 14 commitments in it. Similarly, 2016, 2012, 2006, & 2002 had 18, 17, 16, & 15 commitments. Each of those years were ranked in the 50's or higher. So, for context, how many years did we rank higher than 50 with "full" classes of 20 or more? 3 times. 2018 (53 & 21), 2004 (56 & 24), & 2003 (50 & 21).

What I find to be a better indicator of class composition is the average star per recruit. In this, CPJ has a decided advantage. In the 10 years accredited to him, his recruits have averaged 2.92 stars out of 5. CCG averaged 2.7. Only one CCG class averaged better than 3 stars: 2007 at 3.3. CPJ has had 4 years with averages of 3.0 or greater. As you can see in the chart below, CPJ has done a better job of staying at or above the trendline than CCG did.

Lastly, in the stat that I think best sums up the difference in the recruiting of CCG and CPJ, is number of 4* vs 2* recruits. While I think we can all agree that many 2* recruits are hidden gems, as many times as not they never perform as well as higher rated recruits. In the 6 years accredited to CCG, he had 53 2* recruits to the 33 in ten years CPJ recruited. Conversely, CCG had 15 4* recruits in 6 years vs 18 in 10 years for CPJ. If each coaches recruiting was compared to a baseball hitter, CCG was the slugger who struck out a lot and CPJ is the line drive hitter who gets consistent singles and doubles.

So, what do we derive from this data? It depends on what's most important to you. If you want to win recruiting rankings, the CCG was slightly better and trending up. CPJ stayed consistent with GTs recruiting history ranking wise, but improved our per recruit average.

Ultimately, I think we need to realize that unless we change our financial situation, and begin to fund football on par with expectations, then we will most likely remain mired at our current level regardless of the coach brought in. I just figured I'd show you guys the numbers, and let you make of them what you will.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

There's been a lot of debate over the years in regards to our recruiting. Some have argued that Paul Johnson hurt recruiting, others have argued that he did more with less, some have even argued that he improved recruiting. A couple of years ago I decided to look at the data, and frankly, what I found surprised me. I compiled all the data from 2002-2018, using rivals as a source, since they predate some of the other services and have long been considered an industry standard. Using ESPN, 247, or others would most likely produce similar results, but for the purpose of this exercise, I opted to use Rivals. For purposes of comparing the coaches, I added classes 2002-2007 to CCG, and 2009-2018 to CPJ. I left the 2008 class out of each coaches data sets, as the coaching change impacted the cycle. Of note, however, that class was ranked 49th, so it sits in line with both coaches average class.

I'd also like to put the following caveats out there. We cannot know if CCG would have sustained recruiting success similar to 2007 going forward. Before the change, the 2008 class was in line with more normal GT recruiting on a "good" cycle. If memory serves me correctly, we were ranked in the low 40's/high 30's when CCG was fired. I have no data to support this assertion, however.

I'd also like to point out that I was not a fan of firing CCG, and I was initially opposed to the hire of CPJ. I have since come to love him and what he did for GT. That being said, let's take a look at the raw data.

Since 2002, GT has averaged a recruiting class rank of 51.5. Where do our coaches fall on this scale? CCG classes averaged 50.8, and CPJ classes averaged 52.1. This average takes into account CCGs monster 2007 class and also penalizes CPJ for the disastrous (ranking wise) 2013 class. The argument that CPJ has been a poorer recruiter than CCG can be viewed as valid if you use this as your only data point.

However, you need to understand that recruiting rankings are done using a "total points" system that rewards larger recruiting classes and penalizes smaller classes. To get a full baseline score, you can count the points for 20 recruits. After 20, your 20 highest count and "hide" your lowest scoring recruits. This is why large recruiting classes tend to be ranked the highest, and smaller classes rank lowest. For instance, the 2013 class ranked 84th had 14 commitments in it. Similarly, 2016, 2012, 2006, & 2002 had 18, 17, 16, & 15 commitments. Each of those years were ranked in the 50's or higher. So, for context, how many years did we rank higher than 50 with "full" classes of 20 or more? 3 times. 2018 (53 & 21), 2004 (56 & 24), & 2003 (50 & 21).
View attachment 4636
What I find to be a better indicator of class composition is the average star per recruit. In this, CPJ has a decided advantage. In the 10 years accredited to him, his recruits have averaged 2.92 stars out of 5. CCG averaged 2.7. Only one CCG class averaged better than 3 stars: 2007 at 3.3. CPJ has had 4 years with averages of 3.0 or greater. As you can see in the chart below, CPJ has done a better job of staying at or above the trendline than CCG did.

View attachment 4637

Lastly, in the stat that I think best sums up the difference in the recruiting of CCG and CPJ, is number of 4* vs 2* recruits. While I think we can all agree that many 2* recruits are hidden gems, as many times as not they never perform as well as higher rated recruits. In the 6 years accredited to CCG, he had 53 2* recruits to the 33 in ten years CPJ recruited. Conversely, CCG had 15 4* recruits in 6 years vs 18 in 10 years for CPJ. If each coaches recruiting was compared to a baseball hitter, CCG was the slugger who struck out a lot and CPJ is the line drive hitter who gets consistent singles and doubles.

View attachment 4639

So, what do we derive from this data? It depends on what's most important to you. If you want to win recruiting rankings, the CCG was slightly better and trending up. CPJ stayed consistent with GTs recruiting history ranking wise, but improved our per recruit average.

Ultimately, I think we need to realize that unless we change our financial situation, and begin to fund football on par with expectations, then we will most likely remain mired at our current level regardless of the coach brought in. I just figured I'd show you guys the numbers, and let you make of them what you will.

20 2-stars in 2004. Holy Moly.

 

[ibeattetris]

Actual data thanks! I’m sure there will be no posts in here that completely ignore the data and instead talk about how they feel instead

 

[Boaty1]

Actual data thanks! I’m sure there will be no posts in here that completely ignore the data and instead talk about how they feel instead

I love data. It's what has to drive debate. Unfortunately this data leaves out the O'Leary years which were just before this. Oleary had brought in 3 consecutive top 25ish classes before he left. I've tried to research this but the current databases only go back to 02. What I was able to find was a ranking by Tom Lemming on the 00 class that showed us 12th in the country. This was 3 spots ahead of UGA. The 01 class I couldn't find a ranking but was able to find quotes about GT becoming a major player in recruiting and similar quotes on the 99 class. Look at who we beat out for some of those players and you will see our recruiting took a giant step backwards in Gailey's when Gailey was hired from where O'Leary had us. One of the reasons I'm sure was the fact that Gailey came from the NFL and didn't have connections established to recruit the way O'leary and staff did which is one of the concerns about the potential hire of Whisenhunt. The argument can be made that he made the adjustment however and reeled in the 07 class and was on the verge of another borderline top 25 class in 08 before he was fired.

If you view the 99-01 classes as top 25, and I'm sure 00 & 01 were, then 4 of the 9 classes signed before Johnson were top 25. If you remove the 99 class which would have been the only one in question then that is 3 of 9. I believe Johnson's highest rated class per Rivals was 39th. In 11 years he was never able to figure out how to recruit to GT. I know people have different views on why this is. Some point to the changing landscape while others point to his offense and there may be merit to both sides. Regardless, taking a look at GT and gauging our recruiting potential off of what we have done since 02 will give you nothing really other than what our floor should be in recruiting. We had one coach transitioning from the NFL to college and another coach running an offense that potential recruits want nothing to do with.

 

[GTRX7]

I love data. It's what has to drive debate. Unfortunately this data leaves out the O'Leary years which were just before this. Oleary had brought in 3 consecutive top 25ish classes before he left. I've tried to research this but the current databases only go back to 02. What I was able to find was a ranking by Tom Lemming on the 00 class that showed us 12th in the country. This was 3 spots ahead of UGA. The 01 class I couldn't find a ranking but was able to find quotes about GT becoming a major player in recruiting and similar quotes on the 99 class. Look at who we beat out for some of those players and you will see our recruiting took a giant step backwards in Gailey's when Gailey was hired from where O'Leary had us. One of the reasons I'm sure was the fact that Gailey came from the NFL and didn't have connections established to recruit the way O'leary and staff did which is one of the concerns about the potential hire of Whisenhunt. The argument can be made that he made the adjustment however and reeled in the 07 class and was on the verge of another borderline top 25 class in 08 before he was fired.

If you view the 99-01 classes as top 25, and I'm sure 00 & 01 were, then 4 of the 9 classes signed before Johnson were top 25. If you remove the 99 class which would have been the only one in question then that is 3 of 9. I believe Johnson's highest rated class per Rivals was 39th. In 11 years he was never able to figure out how to recruit to GT. I know people have different views on why this is. Some point to the changing landscape while others point to his offense and there may be merit to both sides. Regardless, taking a look at GT and gauging our recruiting potential off of what we have done since 02 will give you nothing really other than what our floor should be in recruiting. We had one coach transitioning from the NFL to college and another coach running an offense that potential recruits want nothing to do with.

I think you raise some good points, but miss others. As others will point out, there were two major differences differences between the O'Leary era and the CPJ era that makes it hard to compare the two. First, O'Leary tended to get more academic exceptions, but that trend went away after Flunkgate and APR became realities. Second, I would guess that our recruiting resources in the late 90's were around average to slightly above average. By the time 2016 rolled around, I would guess we were way below average. Teams like Duke not only caught up in the interim, but actually passed us.

All that said, I have always been of the belief that CPJ is probably a slightly below average recruiter and that, with a stud (top-tier) recruiting staff and resources, we could get classes averaging between 20-30 instead of 45-55. We do seem to be trying to add more to the resource area and now hopefully the staff side as well. Will the increase in talent lead to more wins? I hope so.

 

[Animal02]

There's been a lot of debate over the years in regards to our recruiting. Some have argued that Paul Johnson hurt recruiting, others have argued that he did more with less, some have even argued that he improved recruiting. A couple of years ago I decided to look at the data, and frankly, what I found surprised me. I compiled all the data from 2002-2018, using rivals as a source, since they predate some of the other services and have long been considered an industry standard. Using ESPN, 247, or others would most likely produce similar results, but for the purpose of this exercise, I opted to use Rivals. For purposes of comparing the coaches, I added classes 2002-2007 to CCG, and 2009-2018 to CPJ. I left the 2008 class out of each coaches data sets, as the coaching change impacted the cycle. Of note, however, that class was ranked 49th, so it sits in line with both coaches average class.

I'd also like to put the following caveats out there. We cannot know if CCG would have sustained recruiting success similar to 2007 going forward. Before the change, the 2008 class was in line with more normal GT recruiting on a "good" cycle. If memory serves me correctly, we were ranked in the low 40's/high 30's when CCG was fired. I have no data to support this assertion, however.

I'd also like to point out that I was not a fan of firing CCG, and I was initially opposed to the hire of CPJ. I have since come to love him and what he did for GT. That being said, let's take a look at the raw data.

Since 2002, GT has averaged a recruiting class rank of 51.5. Where do our coaches fall on this scale? CCG classes averaged 50.8, and CPJ classes averaged 52.1. This average takes into account CCGs monster 2007 class and also penalizes CPJ for the disastrous (ranking wise) 2013 class. The argument that CPJ has been a poorer recruiter than CCG can be viewed as valid if you use this as your only data point.

However, you need to understand that recruiting rankings are done using a "total points" system that rewards larger recruiting classes and penalizes smaller classes. To get a full baseline score, you can count the points for 20 recruits. After 20, your 20 highest count and "hide" your lowest scoring recruits. This is why large recruiting classes tend to be ranked the highest, and smaller classes rank lowest. For instance, the 2013 class ranked 84th had 14 commitments in it. Similarly, 2016, 2012, 2006, & 2002 had 18, 17, 16, & 15 commitments. Each of those years were ranked in the 50's or higher. So, for context, how many years did we rank higher than 50 with "full" classes of 20 or more? 3 times. 2018 (53 & 21), 2004 (56 & 24), & 2003 (50 & 21).
View attachment 4636
What I find to be a better indicator of class composition is the average star per recruit. In this, CPJ has a decided advantage. In the 10 years accredited to him, his recruits have averaged 2.92 stars out of 5. CCG averaged 2.7. Only one CCG class averaged better than 3 stars: 2007 at 3.3. CPJ has had 4 years with averages of 3.0 or greater. As you can see in the chart below, CPJ has done a better job of staying at or above the trendline than CCG did.

View attachment 4637

Lastly, in the stat that I think best sums up the difference in the recruiting of CCG and CPJ, is number of 4* vs 2* recruits. While I think we can all agree that many 2* recruits are hidden gems, as many times as not they never perform as well as higher rated recruits. In the 6 years accredited to CCG, he had 53 2* recruits to the 33 in ten years CPJ recruited. Conversely, CCG had 15 4* recruits in 6 years vs 18 in 10 years for CPJ. If each coaches recruiting was compared to a baseball hitter, CCG was the slugger who struck out a lot and CPJ is the line drive hitter who gets consistent singles and doubles.

View attachment 4639

So, what do we derive from this data? It depends on what's most important to you. If you want to win recruiting rankings, the CCG was slightly better and trending up. CPJ stayed consistent with GTs recruiting history ranking wise, but improved our per recruit average.

Ultimately, I think we need to realize that unless we change our financial situation, and begin to fund football on par with expectations, then we will most likely remain mired at our current level regardless of the coach brought in. I just figured I'd show you guys the numbers, and let you make of them what you will.

Now overlay that with the increasingly stiffer APR requirements AND the declining spending on football in comparison to the rest of the league and it shows CPJ was doing quite well....
Facts that those with a narrative to sell ignore.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I love data. It's what has to drive debate. Unfortunately this data leaves out the O'Leary years which were just before this. Oleary had brought in 3 consecutive top 25ish classes before he left. I've tried to research this but the current databases only go back to 02. What I was able to find was a ranking by Tom Lemming on the 00 class that showed us 12th in the country. This was 3 spots ahead of UGA. The 01 class I couldn't find a ranking but was able to find quotes about GT becoming a major player in recruiting and similar quotes on the 99 class. Look at who we beat out for some of those players and you will see our recruiting took a giant step backwards in Gailey's when Gailey was hired from where O'Leary had us. One of the reasons I'm sure was the fact that Gailey came from the NFL and didn't have connections established to recruit the way O'leary and staff did which is one of the concerns about the potential hire of Whisenhunt. The argument can be made that he made the adjustment however and reeled in the 07 class and was on the verge of another borderline top 25 class in 08 before he was fired.

If you view the 99-01 classes as top 25, and I'm sure 00 & 01 were, then 4 of the 9 classes signed before Johnson were top 25. If you remove the 99 class which would have been the only one in question then that is 3 of 9. I believe Johnson's highest rated class per Rivals was 39th. In 11 years he was never able to figure out how to recruit to GT. I know people have different views on why this is. Some point to the changing landscape while others point to his offense and there may be merit to both sides. Regardless, taking a look at GT and gauging our recruiting potential off of what we have done since 02 will give you nothing really other than what our floor should be in recruiting. We had one coach transitioning from the NFL to college and another coach running an offense that potential recruits want nothing to do with.

Prior to 2002, recruiting wasn't tracked well across the board, hence the starting point used. As has also been previously mentioned, CGO'L was known to cut corners academically and ended up getting us put on probation for playing academically ineligible players. After that debacle, the Hill reduced the number of special admits we could bring in as a program. So yes, if the rankings went back far enough, it would most likely support that CGO'L was a better recruiter, but how much of that is due to his cutting corners and general lack of integrity would make me place a major asterisk on any of his results.

 

[JorgeJonas]

The issue I would take with this is that distribution and delta matter. So in the same way that Johnson and Gailey have similar winning percentages, Johnson is perceived as being more successful because he had big seasons. Similarly, averages are helpful, but I’d be curious to know how many four star players Johnson signed each year versus Gailey. I suspect Gailey would look more favorable there, because Johnson may have signed fewer two star players but also fewer four star players. It’s also important to understand what the difference between a two star and three star player is. For example, I bet the difference between a five star and four star is less than the difference between a three star and two star, and so it’s critical to hit on the four stars because there’s a bigger difference between them and the three star than there is between the three star and the two star.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Now overlay that with the increasingly stiffer APR requirements AND the declining spending on football in comparison to the rest of the league and it shows CPJ was doing quite well....
Facts that those with a narrative to sell ignore.

Again, I am just posting raw data. Gailey had to deal with reduced recruiting classes due to flunkgate just as CPJ had some reduced to the DRad mishandling of the NCAA investigation. CPJ also had more special admits given to him a few years ago after he proved he could graduate players, so, IMO, it's almost a wash. That being said, I do believe that the numbers do not back up what the most negative people say, but they also don't prove that CPJ was a recruiting genius either.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Similarly, averages are helpful, but I’d be curious to know how many four star players Johnson signed each year versus Gailey

It's in the table above in the original post.

 

[Boaty1]

Prior to 2002, recruiting wasn't tracked well across the board, hence the starting point used. As has also been previously mentioned, CGO'L was known to cut corners academically and ended up getting us put on probation for playing academically ineligible players. After that debacle, the Hill reduced the number of special admits we could bring in as a program. So yes, if the rankings went back far enough, it would most likely support that CGO'L was a better recruiter, but how much of that is due to his cutting corners and general lack of integrity would make me place a major asterisk on any of his results.

No doubt Augusta and I appreciate your research! I've tried to do something similar but was stymied by the lack of data beyond 02.

I would argue that much of our issue with flunkgate was administrative but that point can be debated as well.

 

[Boaty1]

Now overlay that with the increasingly stiffer APR requirements AND the declining spending on football in comparison to the rest of the league and it shows CPJ was doing quite well....
Facts that those with a narrative to sell ignore.

There are absolutely zero facts to show that CPJ was "doing quite well" as you say in recruiting. You may justify his poor recruiting by pointing to the changing landscape of college football but no one should say he was "doing quite well" in recruiting.

 

[tsrich]

The issue I would take with this is that distribution and delta matter. So in the same way that Johnson and Gailey have similar winning percentages, Johnson is perceived as being more successful because he had big seasons. Similarly, averages are helpful, but I’d be curious to know how many four star players Johnson signed each year versus Gailey. I suspect Gailey would look more favorable there, because Johnson may have signed fewer two star players but also fewer four star players. It’s also important to understand what the difference between a two star and three star player is. For example, I bet the difference between a five star and four star is less than the difference between a three star and two star, and so it’s critical to hit on the four stars because there’s a bigger difference between them and the three star than there is between the three star and the two star.

You can track that in the last table. Outside of the monster 2007 class, it looks like the two were close.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

There are absolutely zero facts to show that CPJ was "doing quite well" as you say in recruiting. You may justify his poor recruiting by pointing to the changing landscape of college football but no one should say he was "doing quite well" in recruiting.

Correct, but it's just as asinine for you to call it poor recruiting. If anything, the data shows that he was pretty average. Also, consider that a lot of his system recruits aren't going to garner a lot of high recruiting rankings, so to call him poor is just driving a different narrative.

 

[ibeattetris]

Unfortunately this data leaves out the O'Leary years which were just before this. Oleary had brought in 3 consecutive top 25ish classes before he left.

O'Leary was also one of the top paid coaches in the entire country. GT was comparatively investing more in the program in those years then they are now. From the GOL years to the CPJ years we became a penny pinching school with regards to football. GOL had incredible success on the flats both recruiting and on the field. Flunkgate came from this time frame, but from everything I've heard, it was more an administrative issue then something done out of malice. I think you get what you pay for an if GT wants to compete with the best on and off the field they need to put their money on the table.

 

[JorgeJonas]

You can track that in the last table. Outside of the monster 2007 class, it looks like the two were close.

Sure, but that’s the same as Johnson’s critics who always begin their criticism by eliminating 2014 and 2009. I am not defending Gailey, but I’m a pretty big believer in applying standards consistently.

 

[ibeattetris]

Sure, but that’s the same as Johnson’s critics who always begin their criticism by eliminating 2014 and 2009. I am not defending Gailey, but I’m a pretty big believer in applying standards consistently.

Even when you include 2007 they were close. 2004 was as bad as 2007 was good. And those 2004 guys would still have been around in 2008 and possibly 2009 with redshirts. 2007 was an amazing class. I hope our next coach can find whatever magic was there again.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Sure, but that’s the same as Johnson’s critics who always begin their criticism by eliminating 2014 and 2009. I am not defending Gailey, but I’m a pretty big believer in applying standards consistently.

Same here. That's why I struggled as to what to do with the data from 2008. Ultimately I opted to just leave it unassigned as it really wasn't a fair assessment of either coach given the transistion.

 

[Boaty1]

Correct, but it's just as asinine for you to call it poor recruiting. If anything, the data shows that he was pretty average. Also, consider that a lot of his system recruits aren't going to garner a lot of high recruiting rankings, so to call him poor is just driving a different narrative.

I have a different view of it Augusta. I've been a Tech fan for a while and have closely followed recruiting since the late 90's. During Gailey's first few years his recruiting classes were ripped apart by Tech fans who had become used to competing with the big boys for our players. As time went on however and he developed his staff and connections in the south east his recruiting took a sharp turn for the better and in 07 and 08. My argument would be that he figured out how to recruit to GT and in fact his 07 and what was leading to his 08 class were more in line with what we should expect with recruiting as they correlate better with where O'Leary left the program. Comparing Johnson to the first 5 years of Gailey and drawing the conclusion that he faired similarly so this must be GT's ceiling or expectation in regards to recruiting is simply wrong in my view as Gailey was seen as a really poor recruiter and had taken a significant step back during his first 5 years in terms of recruiting. As I said earlier to judge the ability of tech to recruit based off the first 5 years of Gailey and the entirety of Johnson does nothing but show where our floor should be. Neither were considered strong recruiters although Gailey did turn that around.

 

[Boaty1]

O'Leary was also one of the top paid coaches in the entire country. GT was comparatively investing more in the program in those years then they are now. From the GOL years to the CPJ years we became a penny pinching school with regards to football. GOL had incredible success on the flats both recruiting and on the field. Flunkgate came from this time frame, but from everything I've heard, it was more an administrative issue then something done out of malice. I think you get what you pay for an if GT wants to compete with the best on and off the field they need to put their money on the table.

Very fair points IB. I totally agree that there is no excuse for where we are in terms of our spend on athletics.