Raw Data on Recruiting

[Animal02]

Yep. So that is what happened from an outside perspective. I want to know the inner details. Who was supposed to be helping the students? Who knew the players weren’t progressing? Why wasn’t it just a football issue but other athletes as well?

Talked with another alum I meet waiting for a plane.He said he used to tutor BB players at Tech back in that era......said it was all about keeping them eligible.....not about advancing or actually learning something

 

[GTRX7]

And I get accused of cherry picking data. If you don’t understand the impact this offense has on recruiting then so be it. 4 of the previous 9 classes prior to CPJ were top 30 with 3 being top 20. CPJ’s highest class was 39th all while having 2 Orange Bowl season in his first 7 years. If his offense isn’t a problem then his personality must have been.

You crack me up sometimes. You say in your response that you sometimes get accused of "cherry picking data," and then proceed to accomplish some extreme cherry picking to support your point that CPJ's offense must have significantly hurt recruiting.

Listen, if you wanted to be objective and look at, specifically, the question of whether CPJ's offense significantly hurt recruiting, looking at the previous 6 years of data with a similar average recruiting coach (CCG) but with a completely different offense makes the most sense. Those are also the only years we have full data. Comparing those, there really isn't any difference in success. Instead, you pick the one good year CCG had and combine it with some assumptions about 1999 - 2001 based on some anecdotal data to conclude that "4 of the previous 9 classes prior to CPJ were top 30 with 3 being top 20." Lol. So much cherry picking it hurts my brain. Moreover, you still seem to gloss over the academic issues, APR, and relative recruiting budgets when comparing GOL to CCG/CPJ. Heck, if you want to go back all the way to GOL, why stop there. How did CPJ compare to B***L L****S? Guessing that doesn't fit the narrative either though.

Again, I don't think CPJ was a particularly good recruiter and I do think his offense, on balance, probably hurt more than it helped. But any objective view of the most comparative data shows that it certainly didn't hurt that much.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Again, I don't think CPJ was a particularly good recruiter and I do think his offense, on balance, probably hurt more than it helped. But any objective view of the most comparative data shows that it certainly didn't hurt that much.

As I said, I was initially disappointed in the hire of CPJ. I was operating under the assumption that CCG would hopefully land another class like 2007 in 2009, as the 2008 class, while nice, wasn't in the same neighborhood. I assumed that premier RBs and WRs would gravitate to the more popular offenses and that we would be looking for more lightly regarded "system fits" instead. By necessity, this would lessen the recruiting on offense. Knowing that, I was expecting recruiting to tank. It didn't, but rather, stayed pretty much on par with what we came to expect from CCG. Between that and the efficiency of his O, I began to change my mind about CPJ. I just find it pretty amazing that, knowing that the system is a detriment to recruiting rankings, we still managed to stay pretty stable under CPJ.

I'd also like to make the point that finishing lower in rankings doesn't mean you are recruiting poorly. If you are finding good players that fit your system and execute it well, then what they are ranked matters not. After all, 4* Uzzi and 2* Mason both performed well in our offense, and if I had to choose one over the other, I'd pick Mason. Yet Mason was a net drain on our recruiting according to the rankings methodology.

 

[Boaty1]

You crack me up sometimes. You say in your response that you sometimes get accused of "cherry picking data," and then proceed to accomplish some extreme cherry picking to support your point that CPJ's offense must have significantly hurt recruiting.

Listen, if you wanted to be objective and look at, specifically, the question of whether CPJ's offense significantly hurt recruiting, looking at the previous 6 years of data with a similar average recruiting coach (CCG) but with a completely different offense makes the most sense. Those are also the only years we have full data. Comparing those, there really isn't any difference in success. Instead, you pick the one good year CCG had and combine it with some assumptions about 1999 - 2001 based on some anecdotal data to conclude that "4 of the previous 9 classes prior to CPJ were top 30 with 3 being top 20." Lol. So much cherry picking it hurts my brain. Moreover, you still seem to gloss over the academic issues, APR, and relative recruiting budgets when comparing GOL to CCG/CPJ. Heck, if you want to go back all the way to GOL, why stop there. How did CPJ compare to B***L L****S? Guessing that doesn't fit the narrative either though.

Again, I don't think CPJ was a particularly good recruiter and I do think his offense, on balance, probably hurt more than it helped. But any objective view of the most comparative data shows that it certainly didn't hurt that much.

Yeah. You must have missed my most recent post prior to this. 8 of the 17 classes before Gailey were ranked in the top 25. Calling Gailey's first 5 classes the standard for GT recruiting prior to Johnson is just slanderous to the GT program. But it doesn't fit your narrative so carry on and act like you didn't see this and continue to accuse me of spinning a narrative.

You asked about Bill Lewis recruiting. He brought in a top 25 class in 93. You really shouldn't speak on things you don't have much knowledge on. You are clearly relatively new to GT.

 

[alagold]

Whether the system was at fault or not, one of the things that plagued GT under CPJ was terrible defenses...and at times, complete lack of defense.

Here's the question (something I posed in another thread): If the next guy comes in and has great defenses (DFEI of 20's) but only above average offenses (OFEI 30-40's) and averages a win or two more every year, would that still make everyone happy?

IMO, it's not the Clemsons and the UGA's I worry about anymore. The spending gap on the college level has made it a tier of the elites, and everyone else. GT is in the "everyone else" category. I just want GT to be the elites of the "everyone else" and win a competitive share against the Clemsons and the UGAs. Being the elite team of the Coastal division is a real possibility and IMO that's what the next coach can realistically strive for. In CPJ's defense, he was probably thisclose to getting GT there.

The problem with our schedule is Clepsum.We have a loss EVERY yr while the rest of division does not.

 

[Architorture23]

Didn't see this mentioned but it could show how ratings of athletes has been inflated over the last 16 years or so. This shows the total number of athletes of each star ranking per year and then the % of the total at each star ranking. Pretty easy to see that there were overall a lot more *** athletes during the CPJ years than the CCG years. Perhaps the services (Rivals in this case) were inflating rankings or perhaps the talent was just better. You can see that the % of recruits ranked *** was extremely close to the % of recruits ranked ** from 2010-2012 especially, but even after that the trend is up from the early Gailey years.

This could certainly explain why PJ had a lot more *** and fewer ** than Gailey.

Also, FWIW, I couldn't stand Gailey and am not defending him, and I'm upset to see PJ go.

 

[alagold]

@Techster , why do you think we’ve been so consistently mediocre-to-bad on defense for the last 11 years? Is it just bad luck with hiring the wrong DC four times in a row (personally I like what Woody’s defense does and think we can get better with him, but the initial results weren’t great)? Something systematic about how CPJ runs practice?

S,
I'll throw in my thoughts.I believe the common denominator is the TO offense. Poor WRs, weak passing QB, and completely different sets to practice against--a lot.
Also, nobody wants to practice against it so can't recruit good players ESP DLs. ---So it feeds on itself after a while.

 

[stylee]

S,
I'll throw in my thoughts.I believe the common denominator is the TO offense. Poor WRs, weak passing QB, and completely different sets to practice against--a lot.
Also, nobody wants to practice against it so can't recruit good players ESP DLs. ---So it feeds on itself after a while.

When you say “poor WRs” you’re presumably talking about our defense practicing against our scout team, right? I can buy that. But our starting WRs since 2009 include: Thomas, Hill, Waller, and Smelter, all NFL talent. Jeune wasn’t quite at that level but was talented.

If our defense is always only/primarily practicing against our 3rd string WRs - who aren’t as good as, say, UVA’s 3rd stringers -, yeah I think that may play into it

 

[Boaty1]

As I said, I was initially disappointed in the hire of CPJ. I was operating under the assumption that CCG would hopefully land another class like 2007 in 2009, as the 2008 class, while nice, wasn't in the same neighborhood. I assumed that premier RBs and WRs would gravitate to the more popular offenses and that we would be looking for more lightly regarded "system fits" instead. By necessity, this would lessen the recruiting on offense. Knowing that, I was expecting recruiting to tank. It didn't, but rather, stayed pretty much on par with what we came to expect from CCG. Between that and the efficiency of his O, I began to change my mind about CPJ. I just find it pretty amazing that, knowing that the system is a detriment to recruiting rankings, we still managed to stay pretty stable under CPJ.

I'd also like to make the point that finishing lower in rankings doesn't mean you are recruiting poorly. If you are finding good players that fit your system and execute it well, then what they are ranked matters not. After all, 4* Uzzi and 2* Mason both performed well in our offense, and if I had to choose one over the other, I'd pick Mason. Yet Mason was a net drain on our recruiting according to the rankings methodology.

I understand your rationale, but believe you are doing our program a disservice by using Gailey’s first 5 classes as the benchmark for our program. He recruited at the very bottom of power 5 football which is a drastic departure from where our program had been recruiting.

I’ll just leave it at this. I think with the right hire people will be shocked with the improve in recruiting. This program has a higher ceiling than many of our fans give it credit for.

 

[stech81]

I understand your rationale, but believe you are doing our program a disservice by using Gailey’s first 5 classes as the benchmark for our program. He recruited at the very bottom of power 5 football which is a drastic departure from where our program had been recruiting.

I’ll just leave it at this. I think with the right hire people will be shocked with the improve in recruiting. This program has a higher ceiling than many of our fans give it credit for.

Which one will help recruiting ?

 

[LibertyTurns]

We either had great recruiting classes prior to CPJ & severely underperformed or we recruited about the same & performed about the same. Take your pick. It really doesn’t matter now. We will have a new coach just as soon as Stansbury can get the Whiz on a plane to Atlanta.

 

[Boaty1]

Which one will help recruiting ?

Honestly I believe all the candidates being considered will improve recruiting starting with next years class except for Whisenhunt where I believe a learning curve similar to Gailey could take place.

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

We either had great recruiting classes prior to CPJ & severely underperformed or we recruited about the same & performed about the same. Take your pick. It really doesn’t matter now. We will have a new coach just as soon as Stansbury can get the Whiz on a plane to Atlanta.

I sure hope that is sarcasm. I found it hard to recognize the sarcasm font you used.

 

[LibertyTurns]

I sure hope that is sarcasm. I found it hard to recognize the sarcasm font you used.

I don’t exactly have any input. I suppose I have 3 options:

A. Support the new coach
B. Pout
C. Find another team

2 of the 3 aren’t going to happen.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Yeah. You must have missed my most recent post prior to this. 8 of the 17 classes before Gailey were ranked in the top 25.

We didn't miss it, we just want hard data to prove it. All you've posted is anecdotal evidence. Specifically, conversations much like this one where someone claims years later that we were recruiting behemoths in the past. What we don't have is hard and fast data prior to 2002. Your narrative demands your use of the anecdotal evidence, so you treat it as gospel. A lot of us, who have been around this program for decades, aren't buying it.

 

[Boaty1]

We didn't miss it, we just want hard data to prove it. All you've posted is anecdotal evidence. Specifically, conversations much like this one where someone claims years later that we were recruiting behemoths in the past. What we don't have is hard and fast data prior to 2002. Your narrative demands your use of the anecdotal evidence, so you treat it as gospel. A lot of us, who have been around this program for decades, aren't buying it.

Are you kidding me? In that link you had an individual posting that literally could tell you every commit from a given class in any year asked for and you don't think he was getting that from a book?

Why do you want the history of GT recruiting to be so poor? Is it just to justify the recruiting of Johnson?

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

you had an individual posting that literally could tell you every commit from a given class in any year asked for and you don't think he was getting that from a book

Congratulations. You just defined anecdotal evidence...

 

[RonJohn]

Yeah. You must have missed my most recent post prior to this. 8 of the 17 classes before Gailey were ranked in the top 25. Calling Gailey's first 5 classes the standard for GT recruiting prior to Johnson is just slanderous to the GT program. But it doesn't fit your narrative so carry on and act like you didn't see this and continue to accuse me of spinning a narrative.

You asked about Bill Lewis recruiting. He brought in a top 25 class in 93. You really shouldn't speak on things you don't have much knowledge on. You are clearly relatively new to GT.

Where do you get the datat that "8 of 17" classes before Gailey were ranked in the top 25? The recruiting sites weren't even active at that time. I don't see any lists anywhere of anything before 2002, except for on 247.(A site that wasn't even around in 2002, and those rankings for 1999-2001 don't have any actual data or average stars or anything of the like.)

 

[steebu]

Honestly I believe all the candidates being considered will improve recruiting starting with next years class except for Whisenhunt where I believe a learning curve similar to Gailey could take place.

I would hope not. And this issue right here ... THIS issue (recruiting learning curve) is where having an excellent support staff in place can make a huge difference. If Bill Belichick decided to come here he'd face the same issues: "What? I can't call a recruit over the Christmas holidays? What kind of crap is that?"

I would *hope* that having more support staff in place can mitigate any potential problems a newcomer to the college game might face. If anything, it just shows that NOT having a good support staff is like taking an uppercut to the jaw from which it'll take potentially years to recover.

 

[Animal02]

Congratulations. You just defined anecdotal evidence...

He should give tap dance lessons.....he is an expert at it