Recruiting analysis

[Vespidae]

Ok, nobody would take me up on looking at recruiting so I decided to do it myself. The results are in the small table below. I compare Tech with the three schools most like us in the NCAA - VT (sorta), Rice, and Purdue. All style themselves technical institutions, three are public and one private. (For reasons known only to Rivals and God, Rice was left out of the ratings for 2008 and 2010.) I also included Duke and Pitt since everybody seems to have their shorts in a nit about them. I used the Rivals average "stars" ratings for each team in each year instead of the overall rankings. The overall is a product of the stars and the number of recruits and is obviously invalid for year over year comparisons, given the varying slots available for each year. The average stars don't tell us nearly as much as they should, but the stats aren't ready for anything else.

I should preface this by saying that the usual ACC suspects - Clemson, FSU, UNC, and Da U - always out recruit everybody else in the conference. I know you are shocked.

View attachment 4340

The first thing to notice is that VT is out recruiting everybody else, but not by much. The second is that Pitt always has good years; no surprise given where they are. The third point of interest is that Tech easily our recruits Purdue, the closest to us in basic characteristics. Fourth, there's the slow increase in Duke's recruiting rating since 2014; their average since then is 2.94, Tech's is 2.90. Close. You think maybe all the extra resources Cutliffe has gotten are paying off?

The main thing here, however, is how well Tech is doing in terms of the quality of the recruits involved. We are far from being some kind of recruiting disaster, like some people here keep talking about. Our average stars over the period in question are 2.89; VT's are 3.12. Not bad, given the difference in entrance standards and curriculum at the two schools. And a good deal better then Duke: 2.72.

Will this satisfy some folks here? Of course not. We have a vocal minority here who think we should go the factory route and try to be another Clemson. For the last time (I wish): that is not going to happen. Not today, not tomorrow, not evah! We do and have had a good football program. Imho, we can get up to the VT level with additional resources. But that'll take time. And money.

Good post, thanks.

We have to have the best development of the athletes we do recruit. I think that’s where we fall down.

Am curious how you’re analysis would look adjusting for all those who transfer or quit the team.

 

[takethepoints]

I'll leave that to you, if you don't mind. This took me 1.5 hours this morning.

One thing: the best tool is the retrospective analyses done 4 years after the recruiting class. I couldn't find enough of those, but I wasn't looking all that hard. Maybe next week.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

Ok, nobody would take me up on looking at recruiting so I decided to do it myself. The results are in the small table below. I compare Tech with the three schools most like us in the NCAA - VT (sorta), Rice, and Purdue. All style themselves technical institutions, three are public and one private. (For reasons known only to Rivals and God, Rice was left out of the ratings for 2008 and 2010.) I also included Duke and Pitt since everybody seems to have their shorts in a nit about them. I used the Rivals average "stars" ratings for each team in each year instead of the overall rankings. The overall is a product of the stars and the number of recruits and is obviously invalid for year over year comparisons, given the varying slots available for each year. The average stars don't tell us nearly as much as they should, but the stats aren't ready for anything else.

I should preface this by saying that the usual ACC suspects - Clemson, FSU, UNC, and Da U - always out recruit everybody else in the conference. I know you are shocked.

View attachment 4340

The first thing to notice is that VT is out recruiting everybody else, but not by much. The second is that Pitt always has good years; no surprise given where they are. The third point of interest is that Tech easily our recruits Purdue, the closest to us in basic characteristics. Fourth, there's the slow increase in Duke's recruiting rating since 2014; their average since then is 2.94, Tech's is 2.90. Close. You think maybe all the extra resources Cutliffe has gotten are paying off?

The main thing here, however, is how well Tech is doing in terms of the quality of the recruits involved. We are far from being some kind of recruiting disaster, like some people here keep talking about. Our average stars over the period in question are 2.89; VT's are 3.12. Not bad, given the difference in entrance standards and curriculum at the two schools. And a good deal better then Duke: 2.72.

Will this satisfy some folks here? Of course not. We have a vocal minority here who think we should go the factory route and try to be another Clemson. For the last time (I wish): that is not going to happen. Not today, not tomorrow, not evah! We do and have had a good football program. Imho, we can get up to the VT level with additional resources. But that'll take time. And money.

Interesting but if people don't think we have a recruiting problem, they have not been paying attention. I was watching Duke and Virginia today and let me tell you Virginia is vastly improved. They put it to Duke. Their corners were making plays on passes that I have not seen Tech do in years. Virginia Tech does out recruit the group you have but not by that much. We may have a attrition and player development problem that is as significant as the recruiting. Duke proves that you can put resources into recruiting and get better results when paired with better coaching. Today, Duke looked like a cheap imitation of the team that played us. They were missing tackles and Jones was getting sacked right and left. Imagine that. Maybe we had something to do with that.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

I'll leave that to you, if you don't mind. This took me 1.5 hours this morning.

One thing: the best tool is the retrospective analyses done 4 years after the recruiting class. I couldn't find enough of those, but I wasn't looking all that hard. Maybe next week.

Thank you for your time and effort. It was an interesting read.

 

[Jacket in Dairyland]

Seems like part of that has been bad luck with attrition. I don't think we have worse attrition than average, overall. But we've lost out with guys like Travis Custis, Myles Autry, AJ Gray, Dedrick Mills, Jaylend Ratliffe and others over the years who had the potential to be special. Imagine if this team had a healthy Jaylend Ratliffe as a Senior or RS Junior QB (With LJ backing him up), Dedrick Mills as a Junior RB (with Kirvonte backing him up), AJ Gray leading the Defense, and so on. Some of our best prospects have been lost to injury, health, off-field issues...

Agree. That is part of it. But back luck usually doesn't last for this long ......

 

[g0lftime]

Interesting but if people don't think we have a recruiting problem, they have not been paying attention. I was watching Duke and Virginia today and let me tell you Virginia is vastly improved. They put it to Duke. Their corners were making plays on passes that I have not seen Tech do in years. Virginia Tech does out recruit the group you have but not by that much. We may have a attrition and player development problem that is as significant as the recruiting. Duke proves that you can put resources into recruiting and get better results when paired with better coaching. Today, Duke looked like a cheap imitation of the team that played us. They were missing tackles and Jones was getting sacked right and left. Imagine that. Maybe we had something to do with that.

The fumbles and our inability to have an effective passing game when behind did us in. Their O wasn't great against us and it showed today against UVA.

 

[Jacket in Dairyland]

Interesting but if people don't think we have a recruiting problem, they have not been paying attention. I was watching Duke and Virginia today and let me tell you Virginia is vastly improved. They put it to Duke. Their corners were making plays on passes that I have not seen Tech do in years. Virginia Tech does out recruit the group you have but not by that much. We may have a attrition and player development problem that is as significant as the recruiting. Duke proves that you can put resources into recruiting and get better results when paired with better coaching. Today, Duke looked like a cheap imitation of the team that played us. They were missing tackles and Jones was getting sacked right and left. Imagine that. Maybe we had something to do with that.

Thought the same. Mendenhall can get it done , IMO.

 

[BCJacket]

Agree. That is part of it. But back luck usually doesn't last for this long ......

Most definitely. "Luck" may not have been the right word to use. And there's something to be said for making your own luck. Tech's self-inflicted choices account for a lot of the guys we lost who were potential difference makers. We're tougher on discipline and academic issues than most P5 schools. AJ Gray and Ratliffe were bad luck. Dedrick, Custis and Trey Klock were due to the Institute setting other priorities ahead of football. For better or worse.

 

[swampsting]

If we want 4 and 5 stars, we better start dropping off bags of cash at their homes.
That’s how it gets done. And of course, no one gets caught (as the NCAA pulls its Sgt Schultz routine) but somehow, we would

 

[jacketup]

Ok, nobody would take me up on looking at recruiting so I decided to do it myself. The results are in the small table below. I compare Tech with the three schools most like us in the NCAA - VT (sorta), Rice, and Purdue. All style themselves technical institutions, three are public and one private. (For reasons known only to Rivals and God, Rice was left out of the ratings for 2008 and 2010.) I also included Duke and Pitt since everybody seems to have their shorts in a nit about them. I used the Rivals average "stars" ratings for each team in each year instead of the overall rankings. The overall is a product of the stars and the number of recruits and is obviously invalid for year over year comparisons, given the varying slots available for each year. The average stars don't tell us nearly as much as they should, but the stats aren't ready for anything else.

I should preface this by saying that the usual ACC suspects - Clemson, FSU, UNC, and Da U - always out recruit everybody else in the conference. I know you are shocked.

View attachment 4340

The first thing to notice is that VT is out recruiting everybody else, but not by much. The second is that Pitt always has good years; no surprise given where they are. The third point of interest is that Tech easily our recruits Purdue, the closest to us in basic characteristics. Fourth, there's the slow increase in Duke's recruiting rating since 2014; their average since then is 2.94, Tech's is 2.90. Close. You think maybe all the extra resources Cutliffe has gotten are paying off?

The main thing here, however, is how well Tech is doing in terms of the quality of the recruits involved. We are far from being some kind of recruiting disaster, like some people here keep talking about. Our average stars over the period in question are 2.89; VT's are 3.12. Not bad, given the difference in entrance standards and curriculum at the two schools. And a good deal better then Duke: 2.72.

Will this satisfy some folks here? Of course not. We have a vocal minority here who think we should go the factory route and try to be another Clemson. For the last time (I wish): that is not going to happen. Not today, not tomorrow, not evah! We do and have had a good football program. Imho, we can get up to the VT level with additional resources. But that'll take time. And money.

There is a general misconception about VT. Its the every person flagship university in Virginia--not UVa. Its student population is 50% larger than UVa. Getting into VT is much easier than getting into UVa. VT and GT are apples and oranges. UVa would be a better comparison.

Purdue has a student population that is comparable to VT and is only slightly smaller than IU. It's not really comparable to GT either.

GT is different than any other school playing P5 football. Homer Rice saw that as an advantage. Dave Braine saw it as a disadvantage (he came from VT). The years since Braine became AD speak for themselves.

And I still agree with Kim King:
"Do I think that Tech can compete for a national championship under the current setup. No, not really. So I was a shocked as anybody at what happened in 1990. Do I think that Tech has a chance to be a really good team and finish in the Top 10, Yes I do. Maybe not year in and year out, But I do think they could be a regular Top 25 team and compete for the ACC on a regular basis. And I still think that's the case at Tech."

 

[4shotB]

This has been one of the best data analysis (thanks OP) and threads I have read in a long time. Yet I came away with no further understanding of our record over the last 3-5 years than I did before. I throw my hat into the lack of player development/"bad luck" camp. I am not sure there is anything significantly different between Duke/VT/GT/Pitt in average recruiting rankings. However, I haven't seen anyone outside of Gotsis or perhaps Mason in this regime show much year over year improvement. Usually what you see in year 1 is what you see in year 4 with our players.

 

[GTThor]

I told myself that I wouldn't post here anymore, but I'm sorry, it did not last long.

I said it last weekend. Stars do not mean anything, unless you are one of the few elite athletes each year. (Even some 5 stars don't pan out.).

Duke is getting the kids that GT use to get. The rankings may be similar, but the kids on the field are not.

I don't know why things have changed. It could be academic requirements. It could be the system our coach runs.

We don't know. Anyone who says they know is a liar.

I love Paul Johnson and I bthink he's a GREAT MAN AND COACH!

Recruiting has to be better. Not talking about stars. Talking about the Phillip Wheelers of the world.

 

[RamblinWreck92]

This has been one of the best data analysis (thanks OP) and threads I have read in a long time. Yet I came away with no further understanding of our record over the last 3-5 years than I did before. I throw my hat into the lack of player development/"bad luck" camp. I am not sure there is anything significantly different between Duke/VT/GT/Pitt in average recruiting rankings. However, I haven't seen anyone outside of Gotsis or perhaps Mason in this regime show much year over year improvement. Usually what you see in year 1 is what you see in year 4 with our players.

Agreed. Our coaching is doing a poor job at imparting fundamentals. To turn the ball over this much isn't bad luck nor a fluke but rather a trend. For TQM to not be better at passing since last year isn't bad luck - it's a lack of coaching. Same with our veteran OL.

The problem is obvious.

 

[Boaty1]

Ok, nobody would take me up on looking at recruiting so I decided to do it myself. The results are in the small table below. I compare Tech with the three schools most like us in the NCAA - VT (sorta), Rice, and Purdue. All style themselves technical institutions, three are public and one private. (For reasons known only to Rivals and God, Rice was left out of the ratings for 2008 and 2010.) I also included Duke and Pitt since everybody seems to have their shorts in a nit about them. I used the Rivals average "stars" ratings for each team in each year instead of the overall rankings. The overall is a product of the stars and the number of recruits and is obviously invalid for year over year comparisons, given the varying slots available for each year. The average stars don't tell us nearly as much as they should, but the stats aren't ready for anything else.

I should preface this by saying that the usual ACC suspects - Clemson, FSU, UNC, and Da U - always out recruit everybody else in the conference. I know you are shocked.

View attachment 4340

The first thing to notice is that VT is out recruiting everybody else, but not by much. The second is that Pitt always has good years; no surprise given where they are. The third point of interest is that Tech easily our recruits Purdue, the closest to us in basic characteristics. Fourth, there's the slow increase in Duke's recruiting rating since 2014; their average since then is 2.94, Tech's is 2.90. Close. You think maybe all the extra resources Cutliffe has gotten are paying off?

The main thing here, however, is how well Tech is doing in terms of the quality of the recruits involved. We are far from being some kind of recruiting disaster, like some people here keep talking about. Our average stars over the period in question are 2.89; VT's are 3.12. Not bad, given the difference in entrance standards and curriculum at the two schools. And a good deal better then Duke: 2.72.

Will this satisfy some folks here? Of course not. We have a vocal minority here who think we should go the factory route and try to be another Clemson. For the last time (I wish): that is not going to happen. Not today, not tomorrow, not evah! We do and have had a good football program. Imho, we can get up to the VT level with additional resources. But that'll take time. And money.

So many things wrong with this. For one, avg star rating is useless in examining classes. Most power 5 players are ranked 3 star so there is a world of difference between a high 3 star and low 3 star player.

Also, I wouldn’t say GT is similar to most of these schools in terms potential. I would say VT has the highest ceilings of these programs listed followed by GT and Pitt. Rice shouldn’t be in the conversation and Purdue has 3 starters on their offense alone from Ga. no way they are in a better position than we are.

 

[Boaty1]

IMO this proves that when you put resources into your program the recruiting will get better (Duke)

GT still has more resources than Duke. Not even close.

 

[jacketup]

Recruiting has to be better. Not talking about stars. Talking about the Phillip Wheelers of the world.

Chan Gailey hired a bunch of former head coaches at lower levels as assistants. His theory was that those guys had to find diamonds in the rough when they were head coaches and could do it at GT. That's one of the reasons why the players he left behind for Johnson may not have been the highest rated--and why you can't compare ratings from the services--but it's also one of the reasons Johnson had a 17-7 record his first 2 years against FBS opponents--a two year record he hasn't sniffed since.

Hiring a bunch of ex Navy coaches and players to recruit is one of the reasons Johnson has a sub .500 record vs FBS from 2010 forward.

Johnson is loyal to his players, assistants and offensive ideas, but that will be his undoing, just like Gailey's failure to hire a competent OC was his undoing.

 

[Boaty1]

Never said it did. Oth, going 2 - 2 against VT and Ugag (consistently in the top 10 using the scale in the table above) in the last four years sure does.

You are fixating on Duke. It's like all sports; sometimes people get a streak going on you. This is almost always the result of bum luck, unless you can't get athletes like the other side does. Like, say, Clemson.

I’m fixated on missing bowl games in 3 of 4 years after making it for 18 straight and people like you making excuses for the coach. What a joke.

 

[tech_wreck47]

GT still has more resources than Duke. Not even close.

That wasn’t my point, I was showing when you put resources into your program then the recruiting gets better. I wasn’t comparing GT to Duke at all. I’ll also disagree on the resources, last I heard Duke had a bigger staff and spent more money. To me, both of those are your biggest things for recruiting.

 

[Boaty1]

That wasn’t my point, I was showing when you put resources into your program then the recruiting gets better. I wasn’t comparing GT to Duke at all. I’ll also disagree on the resources, last I heard Duke had a bigger staff and spent more money. To me, both of those are your biggest things for recruiting.

They could have twice the staff as us and still not have the resources we do. They play in front of about 20k Duke fans at home and their history and tradition is virtually non existent. A few extra dollars into their program can’t make up for that. They should not beat us consistently for Georgia players. Unfortunately they came down here with about 20 players from Ga and owned us. No excuse for that.

 

[tech_wreck47]

They could have twice the staff as us and still not have the resources we do. They play in front of about 20k Duke fans at home and their history and tradition is virtually non existent. A few extra dollars into their program can’t make up for that. They should not beat us consistently for Georgia players. Unfortunately they came down here with about 20 players from Ga and owned us. No excuse for that.

Staff is a major thing, the more staff the better recruiting gets imo. They are missing some things we have, but two of the biggest things for recruiting they are beating us in. I think the fact that they have increased in staff and the recruiting has gotten substantially better is proff of how important big staff can be.