takethepoints
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 6,148
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.
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.
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.
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.
