Raw Data on Recruiting

[Animal02]

Everything good that happens to the program is a “special circumstance”. It's usually dominated by the other half of the equation sucking. To many the only way this program ever does good is when everyone or everything else completely sucks. We may accept mediocrity but we’re completely enamored with downplaying success.

Yeah, just saw another post saying the program needs rescuing or a savior....WTF....well over half the schools in the country would love to have our record the last 11 years

 

[MountainBuzzMan]

Yeah, just saw another post saying the program needs rescuing or a savior....WTF....well over half the schools in the country would love to have our record the last 11 years

You know the stereotypical fan is completely incapable of using anything remotely resembling logic.

 

[Boaty1]

You know the stereotypical fan is completely incapable of using anything remotely resembling logic.

You guys are great. I try to be objective and I say the same thing about you guys. I say this with a smile on my face. It’s crazy how differently 2 people can view the same topic.

Go Jackets regardless of who coaches us!

 

[slugboy]

Ah, Sorta like Chan. And, no, I wouldn't be at all happy with that.

The defense was very exciting. Offense had the same completion rate we have today (actually worse).

We used to play defense like this (and against Fridge’s offense)

Having offense and defense both would be cool.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Boaty1]

The defense was very exciting. Offense had the same completion rate we have today (actually worse).

We used to play defense like this (and against Fridge’s offense)

Having offense and defense both would be cool.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Beautiful to watch!

 

[SteamWhistle]

Do you think offensive performance will improve? Do you think the better recruits you are confident will arrive will outperform, say, the 2014 offense (#3 OFEI)?

If your answer is “yes” or “maybe” please point to any historical reference that backs that up

I think the offense will be more consistent, and won’t rely on turnovers and ball control to win games. In my opinion that’s an improvement. Hopefully Our offense will give people headaches because of the players we have, not what scheme we run.

 

[GTRX7]

I think the offense will be more consistent, and won’t rely on turnovers and ball control to win games. In my opinion that’s an improvement. Hopefully Our offense will give people headaches because of the players we have, not what scheme we run.

More consistent? Our offensive efficiency has been been excellent most years, some years among the best in the country. If we become more consistent than that paired with very good defenses we will be in the hunt for the National Championship more years than not. Sign me up!

 

[GTRX7]

Well, a kid wanting to play qb and us beating out a school that wanted him at db is a pretty case. Lol.

You do get the irony of this, right? According to your own conclusion, CPJ’s system (the one you constantly say killed recruiting) was the exact “special circumstance” that led to one of our best recruits choosing Tech over Alabama.

Again, I don’t think CPJ was a great recruiter, but I do get annoyed at those that harp on how the offense killed recruiting for certain positions without acknowledging it may have actually helped with some others. Overall it was probably a negative, but I don’t believe it was ever the boogie man some folks made it out to be. The data in the OP makes that pretty clear.

 

[Boaty1]

You do get the irony of this, right? According to your own conclusion, CPJ’s system (the one you constantly say killed recruiting) was the exact “special circumstance” that led to one of our best recruits choosing Tech over Alabama.

Again, I don’t think CPJ was a great recruiter, but I do get annoyed at those that harp on how the offense killed recruiting for certain positions without acknowledging it may have actually helped with some others. Overall it was probably a negative, but I don’t believe it was ever the boogie man some folks made it out to be. The data in the OP makes that pretty clear.

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.

 

[ibeattetris]

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.

We don’t always see eye to eye, but you’ve been solid in this thread imo. The only thing I’d comment on is “4 of the previous 9 classes were top 20”. That is just counter to what was displayed in the original post. I am not saying you are wrong, but maybe you and the poster use a different source. Based on the data in the original post, CPJ and CCG were pretty equal on average with one stellar year by CG bringing his average on par with CPJ. CPJ was consistently improving but never having a breakout year.

If there is conflicting data I’d like to see it. Comparing it with the other data may be informative.

 

[Boaty1]

We don’t always see eye to eye, but you’ve been solid in this thread imo. The only thing I’d comment on is “4 of the previous 9 classes were top 20”. That is just counter to what was displayed in the original post. I am not saying you are wrong, but maybe you and the poster use a different source. Based on the data in the original post, CPJ and CCG were pretty equal on average with one stellar year by CG bringing his average on par with CPJ. CPJ was consistently improving but never having a breakout year.

If there is conflicting data I’d like to see it. Comparing it with the other data may be informative.

For the record I don’t believe Augusta was cherry picking data. The databases unfortunately only go back to 02 which is exactly when Gailey took over and our recruiting took a drastic drop from where O’Leary had it. The 4 of 9 top 30 classes comes when you include the classes O’Leary brought in from 99-01.

 

[ibeattetris]

For the record I don’t believe Augusta was cherry picking data. The databases unfortunately only go back to 02 which is exactly when Gailey took over and our recruiting took a drastic drop from where O’Leary had it. The 4 of 9 top 30 classes comes when you include the classes O’Leary brought in from 99-01.

Sorry thanks. I guess I missed that the end of O'Leary years would go that far back. Thanks! O'Leary certainly spoiled us

 

[heyhellowhatsup]

For the record I don’t believe Augusta was cherry picking data. The databases unfortunately only go back to 02 which is exactly when Gailey took over and our recruiting took a drastic drop from where O’Leary had it. The 4 of 9 top 30 classes comes when you include the classes O’Leary brought in from 99-01.

This was before my time but didn’t lots of those guys flunk out?

 

[Boaty1]

This was before my time but didn’t lots of those guys flunk out?

They did but many believe this was more on the administration as opposed to the players. Big screw up by GT.

 

[ibeattetris]

They did but many believe this was more on the administration as opposed to the players. Big screw up by GT.

I would love for someone to spill the full beans on this. I have heard enough pieces to make me think this could have been one of the bigger blunders in our athletic history (more so than leaving the SEC). CCG and CPJ paid the price from the Hill for this, but I am not sure that it was warranted.

 

[Vespidae]

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.

Excellent analysis. However ...

... there is always the question of "development". TStan has said many times that Georgia Tech will never (my word) be able to recruit 4 and 5 star players. And that the GT Way is through development. So, it's not so much who we recruit when they get here ... it's how good they are by the time they leave.

I think an interesting take on this ... of the players we did recruit, how many actually made it to the NFL? For example, Alabama, LSU, Florida, Miami, and Ohio State produced the most NFL talent ... putting 44, 40, 38, 36 and 36 players each into the NFL. Georgia Tech, by comparison, contributed 9.

I think this is telling. We *say* the goal is to develop 2 stars into 4 or 5 stars ... and that is our plan. The reality is ... we don't really do it. Tech ranks 61st out of 116 schools on par with ... Rice, who contributed 8.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

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.

Can you show data supporting your assertion? All you have is anecdotal evidence that GO'Ls classes were top 30.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I would love for someone to spill the full beans on this. I have heard enough pieces to make me think this could have been one of the bigger blunders in our athletic history (more so than leaving the SEC). CCG and CPJ paid the price from the Hill for this, but I am not sure that it was warranted.

http://www.espn.com/college-football/news/story?id=2227377

Marsh said the committee found six student-athletes were allowed
to count grades of D for satisfactory progress even though their
majors required grades of C or better. Four were allowed to
continue in athletics despite lacking the necessary percentage of
degree requirements.

The reason some blame the administration os that 17 athletes were declared ineligible, but only 11 football players. The athletic department and the school were both at fault. In the end, getting tagged with the "lack of institutional control" screams that coaches knew and supported what was going on. Blaming the administration is an easy way to still feel good about a sleazy coach as long as his results are in line with your desires.

 

[Boaty1]

Can you show data supporting your assertion? All you have is anecdotal evidence that GO'Ls classes were top 30.

As you know, finding good data on pre 2002 recruiting classes is much more difficult. Here is a link to a thread talking about historical rankings of GT classes that says Joe Terranova had us ranked 19th in 99 which matches my memory of that class. This was just after the time I started following recruiting extensively.

https://247sports.com/college/georg...-for-Historical-recruiting-rankings-72623191/

Here is Tom Lemming's class ranking for 2000. You will see we are ranked 12th in the nation here. 3 spots above UGA.

http://www.espn.com/recruiting/s/2000/0203/333209.html

I find the first link very interesting because it gives insight into how we have recruited since joining the ACC basically. And we have had some solid classes fairly consistently. It turns out the 07 class was not some outlier when looking back 25 years before that point and gives more credence to my belief that Gailey's first 5 years in recruiting were extremely poor by our standards and yet we are using that time frame to justify what Paul Johnson did in regards to recruiting while here. The triple option was a flat KILLER in regards to recruiting. From 85 to 01 we had 8 top 25 classes in 17 years.

I will look for links on the 01 class specifically but I am very confident that was a top 25 class as well. If that is the case, Oleary had 6 full recruiting classes and in those 6 he had the 9th, 19th, 12th & whatever the 01 class was ranked which was top 25 at least. One thing this data should do is decrease the argument about our curriculum being such a hurdle along with the calculus issue. Those things haven't changed in the last 3 decades.

According to the first link we also had top 25 classes in 85, 88, 91 & 93. Paul Johnson's recruiting was historically bad and in fact he has been the ONLY coach out of 6 not to bring in a top 25 class over the last 30 years despite the being the longest tenured.

 

[ibeattetris]

http://www.espn.com/college-football/news/story?id=2227377

Marsh said the committee found six student-athletes were allowed
to count grades of D for satisfactory progress even though their
majors required grades of C or better. Four were allowed to
continue in athletics despite lacking the necessary percentage of
degree requirements.

The reason some blame the administration os that 17 athletes were declared ineligible, but only 11 football players. The athletic department and the school were both at fault. In the end, getting tagged with the "lack of institutional control" screams that coaches knew and supported what was going on. Blaming the administration is an easy way to still feel good about a sleazy coach as long as his results are in line with your desires.

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?