Raw Data on Recruiting

[Boaty1]

Congratulations. You just defined anecdotal evidence...

You seem like a reasonable guy. Do you have any recollection of O’Leary’s reacruiting classes? I’m guessing no from your lack of knowledge on them. I’m not being mean but why are you having such a strong opinion over something you are ignorant of? I’m telling you I remember the classes of 99-01 well and they were all top 25 classes. I also posted a link with someone claiming to have recruiting magazines from thae 80’s & 90’s that indicates we recruited fairly consistently in that area. I also posted a link to Tom Lemmings rankings in 00 that had us ranked #12. You certainly haven’t provided any evidence claiming we did not recruit top 25 classes roughly every other year from 85-01. Yet still you won’t believe me. I have to wonder what your motivation is for believing that I am fabricating our recruiting history and just getting lucky by stumbling upon some corroborating evidence from others who you appearantly believe are lying about our history. And obviously Tom Lemming was in on it one year as well.

The poster from the link provided was answering questions he would have no way of knowing if he wasn’t reading the answers out of a book. Are we supposed to act like recruiting didn’t take place before 02 because there wasn’t a Rivals database?

This has major ramifications in regards to expectations of our program in terms of recruiting and for the life of me I can’t figure out why so many Tech fans want to believe the most negative perceptions of our program.

 

[GTRX7]

...I can’t figure out why so many Tech fans want to believe the most negative perceptions of our program . . . under CPJ.

FIFY

 

[Boaty1]

FIFY

I know it’s all about the coach for you but for me it’s more about the program. It’s just a simple fact that Johnson was the worst recruiter at GT since we entered the ACC. Yes even Bill Lewis recruited better. And by a pretty wide margin.

 

[RonJohn]

You certainly haven’t provided any evidence claiming we did not recruit top 25 classes roughly every other year from 85-01.

You have claimed that we did indeed recruit that well in that period. People are asking you for evidence to support your claim. A response of -- you haven't proved a negative in regards to my claim -- doesn't cut it. If you have evidence, then please provide it. Otherwise this back and forth doesn't gain anything.

 

[alagold]

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

Really? You named FOUR WRS over NINE YRS.Actually there are only 2 uga level ones there.I don't call that enough to give our DBs good practice in that period..
I'm not talking about just 3rd string guys but some teams DO have exceptional Redshirts to be on scout team. btw--if you think there is not a lot of practice of our 1st/2nd Off vs our 1st/2nd DEF in the Spring and summer then bless you.You'll really miss PJ.

 

[Boaty1]

You have claimed that we did indeed recruit that well in that period. People are asking you for evidence to support your claim. A response of -- you haven't proved a negative in regards to my claim -- doesn't cut it. If you have evidence, then please provide it. Otherwise this back and forth doesn't gain anything.

I believe the links provided support my claim. I encourage you to read them and tell me what more the individual could have done to prove he had the recruiting magazines he claimed? Do you believe it is reasonable to believe he has committed the various classes to memory in order to support his argument? Just think about what you are saying. Isn’t it more reasonable to believe me about the O’Leary years and this other gentleman about years prior rather than assuming we are lying about it? Why would we do that?

I’ve provided something to support my claims. Do you have anything to counter it? For example do you not believe Quincy Carter was one of the highest rated players in the nation when he signed with us in 96? Daryl Smith, Key Fox, Hobie Holiday, Jimmy Dixon, Tony Hollings, etc. were these guys not coveted by every college in the southeast in 00? Do you not believe Tom Lemming’s ranking that had us 12th in 00?

Would you like to go player by player and see what colleges we beat out for our players in 99-01? What can I do to prove to you we recruited better leading up to Gailey and that he should not be the standard? Because the recruiting databases weren’t around then. It was mostly television and magazines doing this. Just because I can’t prove it on the internet doesnt mean it didn’t happen? And why do you want the worst perceptions of our program to be true? I’m not making this up.

 

[RonJohn]

Really? You named FOUR WRS over NINE YRS.Actually there are only 2 uga level ones there.I don't call that enough to give our DBs good practice in that period..
I'm not talking about just 3rd string guys but some teams DO have exceptional Redshirts to be on scout team. btw--if you think there is not a lot of practice of our 1st/2nd Off vs our 1st/2nd DEF in the Spring and summer then bless you.You'll really miss PJ.

Do average football teams have WRs drafted every year? Do average football teams have WRs drafted every two years? The answer is no. There are only about 30-34 WRs drafted every year. There are 129 FBS teams.

 

[RonJohn]

I believe the links provided support my claim. I encourage you to read them and tell me what more the individual could have done to prove he had the recruiting magazines he claimed? Do you believe it is reasonable to believe he has committed the various classes to memory in order to support his argument? Just think about what you are saying. Isn’t it more reasonable to believe me about the O’Leary years and this other gentleman about years prior rather than assuming we are lying about it? Why would we do that?

I’ve provided something to support my claims. Do you have anything to counter it? For example do you not believe Quincy Carter was one of the highest rated players in the nation when he signed with us in 96? Daryl Smith, Key Fox, Hobie Holiday, Jimmy Dixon, Tony Hollings, etc. were these guys not coveted by every college in the southeast in 00? Do you not believe Tom Lemming’s ranking that had us 12th in 00?

Would you like to go player by player and see what colleges we beat out for our players in 99-01? What can I do to prove to you we recruited better leading up to Gailey and that he should not be the standard? Because the recruiting databases weren’t around then. It was mostly television and magazines doing this. Just because I can’t prove it on the internet doesnt mean it didn’t happen? And why do you want the worst perceptions of our program to be true? I’m not making this up.

You made a claim that 8 of 17 classes prior to CCG were in the top 25. Where is a list showing the rankings from those years to prove your point?

Some guy said he has a magazine(that you nor I haven't seen) from one year isn't proof. People "on the internet" say all kinds of things, but that doesn't mean they are factual. There are people "on the internet" who say that the Earth is flat. Show me evidence, not conjecture from someone "on the internet". I have not seen any links in this thread that indicate that 8 of 17 classes prior to CCG were in the top 25.

You made a claim that you cannot back up, and people are pushing back on you because of that. If you do indeed have evidence of that, then please point me to it. If you don't, then please don't bother responding to my post.

 

[GTRX7]

I know it’s all about the coach for you but for me it’s more about the program. It’s just a simple fact that Johnson was the worst recruiter at GT since we entered the ACC. Yes even Bill Lewis recruited better. And by a pretty wide margin.

Nope. I feel like you got that reversed. I think if you read my posts in this thread alone, I have acknowledged about 3 times that CPJ was not a great recruiter and his offense, on balance, probably did more harm than good. I am a Tech fan first and foremost. I just like to think I am objective about CPJ, his offense, his limitations, and what he accomplished here. Others don't seem capable of having that same perspective IMHO.

For me, posting on The Swarm is all about having a rational, well-reasoned discussion with others. I stopped posting on other Tech boards I won't name when they got far too negative without any real, level headed discussions, just b*tching and moaning. I am hoping this new coaching change will reverse that negative trend on this board as well.

 

[GTRX7]

You made a claim that 8 of 17 classes prior to CCG were in the top 25. Where is a list showing the rankings from those years to prove your point?

Some guy said he has a magazine(that you nor I haven't seen) from one year isn't proof. People "on the internet" say all kinds of things, but that doesn't mean they are factual. There are people "on the internet" who say that the Earth is flat. Show me evidence, not conjecture from someone "on the internet". I have not seen any links in this thread that indicate that 8 of 17 classes prior to CCG were in the top 25.

You made a claim that you cannot back up, and people are pushing back on you because of that. If you do indeed have evidence of that, then please point me to it. If you don't, then please don't bother responding to my post.

Also, I think most people will acknowledge that GOL was a good recruiter and better than CPJ. Most will also acknowledge he had less limitations to deal with, we just seem to disagree on whether CPJ's offense was a "significant" one. A comparison to CCG's recruiting with a different offense would seem to suggest it is not. I (think?) that is the real issue with this thread, but who knows anymore?

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

You seem like a reasonable guy. Do you have any recollection of O’Leary’s reacruiting classes? I’m guessing no from your lack of knowledge on them. I’m not being mean but why are you having such a strong opinion over something you are ignorant of? I’m telling you I remember the classes of 99-01 well and they were all top 25 classes. I also posted a link with someone claiming to have recruiting magazines from thae 80’s & 90’s that indicates we recruited fairly consistently in that area. I also posted a link to Tom Lemmings rankings in 00 that had us ranked #12. You certainly haven’t provided any evidence claiming we did not recruit top 25 classes roughly every other year from 85-01. Yet still you won’t believe me. I have to wonder what your motivation is for believing that I am fabricating our recruiting history and just getting lucky by stumbling upon some corroborating evidence from others who you appearantly believe are lying about our history. And obviously Tom Lemming was in on it one year as well.

The poster from the link provided was answering questions he would have no way of knowing if he wasn’t reading the answers out of a book. Are we supposed to act like recruiting didn’t take place before 02 because there wasn’t a Rivals database?

This has major ramifications in regards to expectations of our program in terms of recruiting and for the life of me I can’t figure out why so many Tech fans want to believe the most negative perceptions of our program.

Let's break this down.

"You seem like a reasonable guy. Do you have any recollection of O’Leary’s reacruiting classes?"
Yes. As others have mentioned I agree that GOL was a better recruiter than either CPJ or CCG. At issue is how good he truly was. We have asked for hard data, but you haven't provided any. We also understand that GOL had MUCH less interference from the Hill on his recruiting, as it was prior to flunkgate.

"I’m guessing no from your lack of knowledge on them. I’m not being mean but why are you having such a strong opinion over something you are ignorant of? I’m telling you I remember the classes of 99-01 well and they were all top 25 classes. I also posted a link with someone claiming to have recruiting magazines from thae 80’s & 90’s that indicates we recruited fairly consistently in that area. I also posted a link to Tom Lemmings rankings in 00 that had us ranked #12."

I remember them well. I also don't have any recollection of routine top 25 classes. You even adimt that your link is of a poster who "claims" to have a magazine. That's not evidence. I can point you to links where poeple have "claimed" to see Elvis after his death. I already granted the Tom Lemming article, as that was actually hard data.

"You certainly haven’t provided any evidence claiming we did not recruit top 25 classes roughly every other year from 85-01. Yet still you won’t believe me. I have to wonder what your motivation is for believing that I am fabricating our recruiting history and just getting lucky by stumbling upon some corroborating evidence from others who you appearantly believe are lying about our history. And obviously Tom Lemming was in on it one year as well."

It's not my job to provide evidence that your anecdotal "evidence" is false. I provided what hard data I could find and posted it for review. As most of us here recognize, the landscape of CFB was altered drastically in 1999, it seems fair to assume that, had GOL stayed, our recruiting would have been better during the first years of the hard data. But he didn't stay, and so we have what data we have. You, however, seem intent on moving this discussion away from the purpose of this thread, which was to discuss raw data, which as we have ascertained, really only exists for the last 16 years.

"The poster from the link provided was answering questions he would have no way of knowing if he wasn’t reading the answers out of a book. Are we supposed to act like recruiting didn’t take place before 02 because there wasn’t a Rivals database? "

Really? No way of knowing? In your post above you say: "I’m telling you I remember the classes of 99-01 well and they were all top 25 classes." How would you know then unless you have a book? If you do, please post some scans and we can be done with this nonsense. I hate to break the news to you, but internet message boards aren't always the best source of factual information. I am not saying that you are wrong, and I am not saying that the poster is wrong. I am saying there is no hard data, and you have yet to provide any to back up your assertions.

"This has major ramifications in regards to expectations of our program in terms of recruiting and for the life of me I can’t figure out why so many Tech fans want to believe the most negative perceptions of our program."

Oh the irony in this statement. You blast others on this board for believing in the most negative perceptions of this program while continuing in the lambasting of what you perceive is the most negative perception of our program.

In summary:

1. This thread was put out to compare CPJ to CCG, as that's all that the data really allows.
2. This thread was intended to look at raw, hard data, not message board assertions and anecdotal evidence.
3. You appear to be driving a narrative, which is why so many people have a hard time taking you serious

 

[jayparr]

As Chan was coming on board; AD brainless told Chan not worry about his players academics that it would be taken care of ( by a woman whose name I have forgotten) so don,t worry! That was the worst thing that happened to Tech football and that is forever!!!

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Nope. I feel like you got that reversed. I think if you read my posts in this thread alone, I have acknowledged about 3 times that CPJ was not a great recruiter and his offense, on balance, probably did more harm than good. I am a Tech fan first and foremost. I just like to think I am objective about CPJ, his offense, his limitations, and what he accomplished here. Others don't seem capable of having that same perspective IMHO.

For me, posting on The Swarm is all about having a rational, well-reasoned discussion with others. I stopped posting on other Tech boards I won't name when they got far too negative without any real, level headed discussions, just b*tching and moaning. I am hoping this new coaching change will reverse that negative trend on this board as well.

I'm with you somewhat. I think CPJ was a pretty good recruiter. For his offense. The problem is that his offense does impact recruiting from a star ranking standpoint. So, when compared to his peers, CPJ will always seem to be a poorer recruiter. So yes, the offense does somewhat limit the recruiting at GT.

 

[Boaty1]

Let's break this down.

"You seem like a reasonable guy. Do you have any recollection of O’Leary’s reacruiting classes?"
Yes. As others have mentioned I agree that GOL was a better recruiter than either CPJ or CCG. At issue is how good he truly was. We have asked for hard data, but you haven't provided any. We also understand that GOL had MUCH less interference from the Hill on his recruiting, as it was prior to flunkgate.

"I’m guessing no from your lack of knowledge on them. I’m not being mean but why are you having such a strong opinion over something you are ignorant of? I’m telling you I remember the classes of 99-01 well and they were all top 25 classes. I also posted a link with someone claiming to have recruiting magazines from thae 80’s & 90’s that indicates we recruited fairly consistently in that area. I also posted a link to Tom Lemmings rankings in 00 that had us ranked #12."

I remember them well. I also don't have any recollection of routine top 25 classes. You even adimt that your link is of a poster who "claims" to have a magazine. That's not evidence. I can point you to links where poeple have "claimed" to see Elvis after his death. I already granted the Tom Lemming article, as that was actually hard data.

"You certainly haven’t provided any evidence claiming we did not recruit top 25 classes roughly every other year from 85-01. Yet still you won’t believe me. I have to wonder what your motivation is for believing that I am fabricating our recruiting history and just getting lucky by stumbling upon some corroborating evidence from others who you appearantly believe are lying about our history. And obviously Tom Lemming was in on it one year as well."

It's not my job to provide evidence that your anecdotal "evidence" is false. I provided what hard data I could find and posted it for review. As most of us here recognize, the landscape of CFB was altered drastically in 1999, it seems fair to assume that, had GOL stayed, our recruiting would have been better during the first years of the hard data. But he didn't stay, and so we have what data we have. You, however, seem intent on moving this discussion away from the purpose of this thread, which was to discuss raw data, which as we have ascertained, really only exists for the last 16 years.

"The poster from the link provided was answering questions he would have no way of knowing if he wasn’t reading the answers out of a book. Are we supposed to act like recruiting didn’t take place before 02 because there wasn’t a Rivals database? "

Really? No way of knowing? In your post above you say: "I’m telling you I remember the classes of 99-01 well and they were all top 25 classes." How would you know then unless you have a book? If you do, please post some scans and we can be done with this nonsense. I hate to break the news to you, but internet message boards aren't always the best source of factual information. I am not saying that you are wrong, and I am not saying that the poster is wrong. I am saying there is no hard data, and you have yet to provide any to back up your assertions.

"This has major ramifications in regards to expectations of our program in terms of recruiting and for the life of me I can’t figure out why so many Tech fans want to believe the most negative perceptions of our program."

Oh the irony in this statement. You blast others on this board for believing in the most negative perceptions of this program while continuing in the lambasting of what you perceive is the most negative perception of our program.

In summary:

1. This thread was put out to compare CPJ to CCG, as that's all that the data really allows.
2. This thread was intended to look at raw, hard data, not message board assertions and anecdotal evidence.
3. You appear to be driving a narrative, which is why so many people have a hard time taking you serious

It seems like you are wanting to draw conclusions about our expectations based on the hard data you have supplied. I don’t know why else you would post it. So the issue at hand is are the Gailey years a reasonable standard to gauge the success or lack thereof of Johnson on the recruiting trail? I’m arguing the answer is no. And seeing how most who support Johnson do so because of our perceived inability to recruit at a high level this is a really important conversation and the reason I speak up on this topic more than any other. If I am correct about the strength of recruiting pre Gailey the curriculum argument for example gets demolished as our curriculum has not changed in the past 3 decades. Same goes for our smaller fanbase. Admittedly others such as funding of the program still stand.

As far as my evidence being anecdotal I wish I had more. I wish it was easier to pull this data together but I remember those classes and have provided some evidence even if we would both like more. Seeing how I provided more evidence than anyone here I think my position is the most solid. I would welcome any evidence regardless of how questionable it is that disputed my claim. So far none has surfaced.

 

[RonJohn]

As far as my evidence being anecdotal I wish I had more. I wish it was easier to pull this data together but I remember those classes and have provided some evidence even if we would both like more. Seeing how I provided more evidence than anyone here I think my position is the most solid. I would welcome any evidence regardless of how questionable it is that disputed my claim. So far none has surfaced.

You still don't seem to understand. You make statements like 8 of 17 years were top 25 with ZERO evidence of that being an actual ratio. Then you say that your ratio is correct because no one has provided evidence that it isn't. Your "proof" that your ratio is correct is that others can't prove it isn't? IF you have ANY evidence that 8 years of 17 before CCG were in the top 25 of recruiting, then please post it. I have been waiting for several days, and I haven't seen it yet.

 

[Boaty1]

You still don't seem to understand. You make statements like 8 of 17 years were top 25 with ZERO evidence of that being an actual ratio. Then you say that your ratio is correct because no one has provided evidence that it isn't. Your "proof" that your ratio is correct is that others can't prove it isn't? IF you have ANY evidence that 8 years of 17 before CCG were in the top 25 of recruiting, then please post it. I have been waiting for several days, and I haven't seen it yet.

All I have in that regard is a guy that claims he is reading rankings out Joe Terranova’s Handbook for college Recruiting. He claims to have issues from 78-99 and answered multiple questions to validate his claims. His information matches up with what we know as well. For example he says the 96 class was ranked 9th on the back of he Quincy Carter signing. He says the 99 class was ranked 19th which matches my memory of it.

Someone also asks for the recruiting ranking of each commit in the class of 93 and he is able to list each commit. There are other questions he answers that for me prove he has the actual data but you could believe he is lying about the rankings.

Regardless I am saying 99-01 were top 20 classes because I remember them.

 

[RonJohn]

All I have in that regard is a guy that claims he is reading rankings out Joe Terranova’s Handbook for college Recruiting. He claims to have issues from 78-99 and answered multiple questions to validate his claims. His information matches up with what we know as well. For example he says the 96 class was ranked 9th on the back of he Quincy Carter signing. He says the 99 class was ranked 19th which matches my memory of it.

Someone also asks for the recruiting ranking of each commit in the class of 93 and he is able to list each commit. There are other questions he answers that for me prove he has the actual data but you could believe he is lying about the rankings.

Regardless I am saying 99-01 were top 20 classes because I remember them.

You listed two years that "someone" said were top 20. Where are the other 6? You "remember" that the 99-01 classes were good, but that doesn't mean they were top 25. Even if they were, 96, plus 99, plus 00, plus 01 equals four years. Where are the other 4? Your memory and some guy on the internet equals four of 17, but you made a specific claim "8 of 17 years". I don't put much stock in "some guy on the internet", and I don't put much stock in your memory.(Not anything against you, but everyone has biased memories). However, even if I grant you those four years, it still leaves four years of your specific claim with not even "some guy on the internet" as evidence. I don't understand how you can't see that calls the credibility of the "8 of 17 years" claim into question.

 

[Boaty1]

You listed two years that "someone" said were top 20. Where are the other 6? You "remember" that the 99-01 classes were good, but that doesn't mean they were top 25. Even if they were, 96, plus 99, plus 00, plus 01 equals four years. Where are the other 4? Your memory and some guy on the internet equals four of 17, but you made a specific claim "8 of 17 years". I don't put much stock in "some guy on the internet", and I don't put much stock in your memory.(Not anything against you, but everyone has biased memories). However, even if I grant you those four years, it still leaves four years of your specific claim with not even "some guy on the internet" as evidence. I don't understand how you can't see that calls the credibility of the "8 of 17 years" claim into question.

Fair enough. The 8 of 17 comes from the link I listed. The guy with the magazines said we are ranked in the top 25 in 85, 88, 91, 93, 96, & 99. I posted a link from Tom Lemming saying we were ranked 12th in 00. So that just leaves 01 which I can’t find a ranking for on the internet but remember us being in the top 20 from my days on the Hive.

If you don’t believe me that’s fine. I acknowledge it’s flimsy evidence. I would bet a large sum of money I am correct however.

 

[RonJohn]

Fair enough. The 8 of 17 comes from the link I listed. The guy with the magazines said we are ranked in the top 25 in 85, 88, 91, 93, 96, & 99. I posted a link from Tom Lemming saying we were ranked 12th in 00. So that just leaves 01 which I can’t find a ranking for on the internet but remember us being in the top 20 from my days on the Hive.

If you don’t believe me that’s fine. I acknowledge it’s flimsy evidence. I would bet a large sum of money I am correct however.

I can't speak for him, but I believe the intent that @Augusta_Jacket had was to use actual data, not feelings to compare recruiting during CPJ's tenure to recruiting before CPJ. I think the original post in this thread basically said that the only hard data available is from 2002 forward. I believe that he wanted to get out of flimsy data and how people "think" things were to look at available facts. Hard data wasn't available before 2002. Some people have argued that CCG was a better recruiter, and that recruiting tanked when CPJ took over. The available data does not support that.

 

[ibeattetris]

I can't speak for him, but I believe the intent that @Augusta_Jacket had was to use actual data, not feelings to compare recruiting during CPJ's tenure to recruiting before CPJ. I think the original post in this thread basically said that the only hard data available is from 2002 forward. I believe that he wanted to get out of flimsy data and how people "think" things were to look at available facts. Hard data wasn't available before 2002. Some people have argued that CCG was a better recruiter, and that recruiting tanked when CPJ took over. The available data does not support that.

@Boaty1 is not one of the people who thinks Gailey was a good recruiter though and does not think we should consider Gailey our ceiling, but instead our floor (apart from 2007 which we all agree was stellar).

I disagree with his premise as athletic spending is different over the past 20 years, and sadly once we try to compare CPJ with GOL we can only consider how we felt since there is no more hard data to work with.

I think we can all agree CPJ was similar to CCG in recruiting for the years they were here. Whether CCG had it turned around or not is always up for debate though