recruiting classes and off topic posts

deeeznutz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,329
Yeah...it is not like they offer a whole lot of non stem degrees:rolleyes:

But that’s different from 98% of our competition how, though? I subscribe to the “UVA sucks” school of thought...their hoops team is riding a high right now, but they’ll level out eventually. Cavman ain’t [emoji90]
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
18,235
Their "significant up tic" got them to (about) parity with Tech. A significant up tic by Tech - i.e. a lot more money - should get us out in front for good. In football recruiting, that is.

GT will get a lot of recruiting traction precisely because we are putting more money into coaches who are known recruiters (CGC and Brent Key are the two big hitters), investing more into marketing and recruiting initiatives. I think also having to no longer recruit against the negative perceptions of the offense will also help. The combination of the two should REALLY help us in the recruiting front...that's why a team like Duke was probably hurt the most by CPJ retiring and GT hiring CGC.
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,096
GT will get a lot of recruiting traction precisely because we are putting more money into coaches who are known recruiters (CGC and Brent Key are the two big hitters), investing more into marketing and recruiting initiatives. I think also having to no longer recruit against the negative perceptions of the offense will also help. The combination of the two should REALLY help us in the recruiting front...that's why a team like Duke was probably hurt the most by CPJ retiring and GT hiring CGC.
Well … if we win, yes. If we don't, no.

Also, I have never brought this "negative perceptions" business. All college football recruiting is negative. All programs, except the top 5 or so, have a particular bete noire they have to contend with. I think that Paul was quite ok with how his recruiting for offense went; he knew who would fit and went after them. Further, most of those players were quite pleased to get a nod from Tech; we were recruiting, as I just said in another thread, for cogs in a machine, not overall star ratings. We weren't interested in players, no mater what their talent, who didn't fit.

Now, of course, we are going to be dependent on how many really good players we can get on O; the new regime is most definitely not recruiting for a machine. I confess that this is what worries me the most about the program going forward. If Coach decides to channel his inner Bill Synder and go all Kansas State on the ACC, then I think we can get the players we need and do very well. Otherwise, we had better hope that the secret sauce is very, very strong.
 

WrongShadeOfGold

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
358
And if they don't "play school" for that first semester.....they end up academically ineligible.
But keep believing your fantasy.
Can you read? I said they have to play school for a semester and a half, i.e. not flunk the first semester. They really need to teach you Tech grads some reading comprehension.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
18,235
Well … if we win, yes. If we don't, no.

Also, I have never brought this "negative perceptions" business. All college football recruiting is negative. All programs, except the top 5 or so, have a particular bete noire they have to contend with. I think that Paul was quite ok with how his recruiting for offense went; he knew who would fit and went after them. Further, most of those players were quite pleased to get a nod from Tech; we were recruiting, as I just said in another thread, for cogs in a machine, not overall star ratings. We weren't interested in players, no mater what their talent, who didn't fit.

Now, of course, we are going to be dependent on how many really good players we can get on O; the new regime is most definitely not recruiting for a machine. I confess that this is what worries me the most about the program going forward. If Coach decides to channel his inner Bill Synder and go all Kansas State on the ACC, then I think we can get the players we need and do very well. Otherwise, we had better hope that the secret sauce is very, very strong.

Still wonder why people think there were no negative perceptions with regards to CPJ's offense. Elite level offensive recruits flat out said they didn't want to play in it, HS coaches flat out said GT was unattractive to offensive recruits because of the offense, reporters from services reported that, etc. I mean, at this point, people have to have their head in the sand to ignore the fact that the offense was a liability when it came to recruiting.

In fact, there's a campaign going on right now with the current staff to make sure that recruits know GT is no longer running the option based offense...hence all the "pro offense" talk CGC likes to put out there.
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,096
Still wonder why people think there were no negative perceptions with regards to CPJ's offense. Elite level offensive recruits flat out said they didn't want to play in it, HS coaches flat out said GT was unattractive to offensive recruits because of the offense, reporters from services reported that, etc. I mean, at this point, people have to have their head in the sand to ignore the fact that the offense was a liability when it came to recruiting.

In fact, there's a campaign going on right now with the current staff to make sure that recruits know GT is no longer running the option based offense...hence all the "pro offense" talk CGC likes to put out there.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. It is true that Tech recruited a lot of the same people we are offering today; shoot, everybody offers the four and five stars, usually with about the same success we had under Paul. Then we ended up doing very well indeed with the people who decided to come to Tech. There certainly wasn't any negative perception among those recruits. I'm sure some "elite level" players on O didn't want to play in the spread option. And I'm just as sure that Paul would have wanted them if he could have got them. But what you are saying - well, implying - is that the players we got were way short of what we needed to win consistently. That's just wrong. We took players who could be those cogs I spoke of. We'd have taken others too, but we knew what we wanted and usually got it.

So, yes, the O was a liability with a lot of players we didn't expect to get anyhow. And it was a plus with others. As I've said before, we are in the middle of a natural experiment to see if the perceptions you tout are the main reason why we didn't get higher ranked recruiting classes. We'll have to see if the result is one that sustains your argument. And, of course, delivers wins.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
18,235
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. It is true that Tech recruited a lot of the same people we are offering today; shoot, everybody offers the four and five stars, usually with about the same success we had under Paul. Then we ended up doing very well indeed with the people who decided to come to Tech. There certainly wasn't any negative perception among those recruits. I'm sure some "elite level" players on O didn't want to play in the spread option. And I'm just as sure that Paul would have wanted them if he could have got them. But what you are saying - well, implying - is that the players we got were way short of what we needed to win consistently. That's just wrong. We took players who could be those cogs I spoke of. We'd have taken others too, but we knew what we wanted and usually got it.

So, yes, the O was a liability with a lot of players we didn't expect to get anyhow. And it was a plus with others. As I've said before, we are in the middle of a natural experiment to see if the perceptions you tout are the main reason why we didn't get higher ranked recruiting classes. We'll have to see if the result is one that sustains your argument. And, of course, delivers wins.

Agree to disagree as well. I'll just leave this article here and you can draw your own conclusions from it:

https://www.ajc.com/sports/college/...y-about-geoff-collins/oeelE24cbEcFeovOhJAqcL/

Coaches believe the change from Johnson’s option offense to Collins’ pro-style scheme will appeal to a higher tier of prospects. Smith, at Cedar Grove, said that some recruits weren’t receptive to Johnson’s offense and their roles in it.

“I think more kids, skill guys, are pretty excited about it,” said Sanders, the Norcross assistant coach.

Sanders’ head coach at Norcross, Keith Maloof, said that Tech’s recruitment of defensive players could improve because of the negative recruiting that Tech absorbed from rival coaches.

“The biggest thing that I think is going to help Georgia Tech now is the other schools can’t come in and say, ‘Well, you’re going to get cut (blocked) your whole career on defense,’” Maloof said. “I think that’s going to help, if Tech plays their cards right. That’s going to help Tech get that pro-style defensive player that they haven’t been able to get in recent years, especially at linebacker and D-line.”
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,096

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
18,235
I'll draw my conclusions when the experiment is over. I'd advise everyone to do the same. Holmes was right:

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

The bigger question is, would Holmes have signed on to play in CPJ's offense?! :)
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
18,235
Of course! The idea of playing O by watching what the other team does - i.e. collecting data - and responding to it would have suited him fine.

That's essentially all sports. Observe, collect data, respond in the best way possible to overcome the opponent once a conclusion from the data is formed.

Alright, you and I are about to GT nerd the heck out of this thread.
 

Cam

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,591
Location
Atlanta, Georgia
In another thread it was discussed whether CPJ was able to out-coach other programs who had similar talent to our program. I feel like it's more relevant for this thread, so I thought I would just compare Power 5 teams who have similar or lesser talent to us (based on the 247 Team Talent Rankings) to the end of year finish ranking as determined by the F/+ Combined Rankings. Below are teams ranked based off of the 247 rankings with the number in parentheses being their finish in the F/+ rankings. Those that are bolded are ones that finished ahead of us in F/+.

40. Duke (40)
41. NC State (37)
42. Missouri (16)
43. Iowa (20)
44. Utah (18)
45. Vanderbilt (64)
46. Northwestern (49)
47. Cal (61)
48. Minnesota (45)
49. Colorado (79)

50. GT (83)***
52. Syracuse (34)
53. Arizona (70)
54. Iowa State (36)
55. Brigham Young (58)
57. Washington State (24)
59. Indiana (68)
60. Texas Tech (51)

61. Illinois (108)
62. Rutgers (112)
63. Virginia (35)
65. Kansas State (89)
67. Oregon State (122)
68. Boston College (65)
70. Wake Forest (74)
71. Purdue (46)

72. Kansas (102)

Despite having a talent advantage on 16 Power 5 programs, 11 of those programs had better overall teams last year. And all 10 of the teams ahead of us in the relatively equal talent range of 40-49 finished ahead of us. However, there were 5 more talented teams we outperformed: Louisville, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Florida State.

In the 2017 season, our end of year overall ranking was 67 and we were better than 17 teams that have greater talent than us. On the flip side, 10/16 of the teams we have greater talent than finished ahead of us and 4/10 teams in the “equal talent” range finished ahead of us, so it kind of leveled out. I always felt like CPJ’s system was a really good equalizer for us, but looking at these comparisons kind of challenged that notion for me. At the very least it has made me feel that we can be successful running other systems and that if we can recruit at a higher level (as expected) it should correlate to an overall better program.
 

AlaGTech

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
475
Let me add something that I hope will help...

We have to remember that recruiting is all about PROBABILITIES.

A team that consistently ranks in the top 10 is usually much better than most other teams.

But a team ranked 35th may not be much better than a team ranked 55th.

The further you go down in the rankings the less reliable they are for predicting on the field results.
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,096
In the 2017 season, our end of year overall ranking was 67 and we were better than 17 teams that have greater talent than us. On the flip side, 10/16 of the teams we have greater talent than finished ahead of us and 4/10 teams in the “equal talent” range finished ahead of us, so it kind of leveled out. I always felt like CPJ’s system was a really good equalizer for us, but looking at these comparisons kind of challenged that notion for me. At the very least it has made me feel that we can be successful running other systems and that if we can recruit at a higher level (as expected) it should correlate to an overall better program.
Good. Your assignment for today: do the same analysis for all of Paul's 11 years. (Hey, you sorta volunteered, didn't you?) I'm pretty sure that'll restore your perspective.

Tha problem with looking at 2017/18 is that in both years we lost our starting BB right before the season started (Mills) or one game in (Benson). We have Mills in 2017 and we win 9, maybe 10 (Miami, UVA, TN, Duke). With Benson healthy in 2018 we win 9 at least (Duke and Pitt) maybe 10. You can't lose your feature back two years in a row and hope to get what you want out of the O.

Btw, I share your expectations about improved recruiting rankings. We'll have to see if that happens and translates into more wins, but I think they will. Coach is n0 slouch.
 
Top