Recruiting Comparison Across Years

[ilovetheoption]

So, the basic idea that i'm putting forward is that a staff offers their ery top priorities early, and gives them chances to commit, when some of those do not commit, they move on to their next lower guys, and so on and so forth.

With is idea, it can be deduced that the guys who are signed earlier in teh recruiting process are likely guys the staff had higher on their lists than guys who signed later in the classes. There are, of course, exceptions, but I think across broad data, it probably holds true.

With this in mind:

On this date
The 2015 class has
14 Commits

The 2014 Class had
11 Commits

The 2013 Class had
10 Commits

The class of 2012 had
6 Commits

The class of 2011 had
6 Commits

The class of 201o had
8 Commits

The class of 2009 had
9 commits

The class of 2008 had
6


So, last year was the best early recruiting results you guys have had since coach johnson has gotten her. This year is even better. It seem to me that recruiting is likely trending upward, at leastt in terms of "getting the guys the staff REALLY wants to commit, and not being forced down the list"

 

[Eric]

You also have to factor in the decommits... for example Miles Taylor and Caleb Kinlaw were GT commits at this time last year.

 

[FatPat]

And some kids they have been recruiting since 9th/10th grade - some worked out as they grew up some did not. You are reading to much into it!

 

[nodawgs]

Don't get me wrong, I like this class, but I do have to wonder if the 2015 A list is equivalent to the A lists of years past. For whatever reason it doesn't look like we are going after many of the elite prospects that we have gone for in the past. Could be that they don't want to waste the time on top players who we end up swinging and missing on anymore. What's your take Eric?

 

[thwgjacket]

Fwiw it's worth we are currently #28 on Rivals. Ahead of our recruiting arch nemesis Wisconsin.

 

[SecretAgentBuzz]

I think this definitely shows improvement, and I am certainly pleased with the recent recruiting results (2014, 2015), but I think this also reflects a trend all across college football where recruits are committing earlier and earlier. If you look up and down the top 50 teams, the numbers are up for almost every team. Maybe somebody who has more time than me can do the research!

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Don't get me wrong, I like this class, but I do have to wonder if the 2015 A list is equivalent to the A lists of years past. For whatever reason it doesn't look like we are going after many of the elite prospects that we have gone for in the past. Could be that they don't want to waste the time on top players who we end up swinging and missing on anymore. What's your take Eric?

I think there's some truth in this. But I think we're getting better at identifying good fits and not wasting time on bad fits. Also, it's hard to factor the value we're getting with the expanded staff and better recruiters now in their second year.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

Love the option, I had looked at the rate of signing and came to the same conclusion: we are getting a lot more of our A list targets earlier. I think there is more signing early but there may also be more flipping. We'll see.

But there are two things about the stats, first the commits you see as of a certain date in past years don't have the players who decommitted, so it makes the numbers look low. Second, I was going to take class size into account. Especially for the 2013 class where we had only 14 players. So at this time, we were 71% done (10/14). For the 2015 class, we are 67% done (14/21) if no one decommits. We will probably get 2 decommits (WAG) which will bring the % down to 57%.

But I am really happy with this class since it is filling the needs which we have given our O and D scheme. (We don't have any glaring ST weaknesses that need to be fixed.)

 

[Eric]

Don't get me wrong, I like this class, but I do have to wonder if the 2015 A list is equivalent to the A lists of years past. For whatever reason it doesn't look like we are going after many of the elite prospects that we have gone for in the past. Could be that they don't want to waste the time on top players who we end up swinging and missing on anymore. What's your take Eric?

It really is the same pattern as other years...a couple of years back instead of just offering two guys for one position we had open we would offer how many we thought were good enough for that spot...so we could have 5 guys offered for one spot.

We really have just done a better job at hitting on our top targets.

We identity early who we really like and focus on them if they show mutual interest.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

And, I would add . . . there is a confluence of two streams that recruiting at Tech has to follow, is this player high on our evaluations and is he likely to qualify academically. Anecdotally it appears Tech is doing a better job now with this process. Unlike uga we seem to have fewer decommits and a higher percentage of players qualifying academically. And, as this thread started out, we seem to be getting more of our top choices early.

Of course there are always those "star" players who like the drama and who will not commit until close to signing day. I am never quite sure how those players fit in Tech's culture.