Recruiting or coaching

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,442
Location
Auburn, AL
I didn’t examine the underlying model, but this looks pretty reasonable (for a 2-minute read). It figures that about 36% of “variation in the Sagarin rating” is explained by the 247 composite score of the roster.
I’m also not sure why they weakly-worded the conclusion. It seems like recruiting might be one of the largest factors, if not the largest, but a minority of the whole.

It’s an amazing conclusion. In a sport where athletics matters, getting better athletes is a good strategy.

Consultants charge money for this?
 

ibeattetris

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,668
I didn’t examine the underlying model, but this looks pretty reasonable (for a 2-minute read). It figures that about 36% of “variation in the Sagarin rating” is explained by the 247 composite score of the roster.
I’m also not sure why they weakly-worded the conclusion. It seems like recruiting might be one of the largest factors, if not the largest, but a minority of the whole.

It's definitely interesting. Even in the final chart 5 of the top 15 teams were outside of the top 30. While important, it definitely is not everything. It certainly pays to be good in as many aspects as you can, and hopefully our recruiting will begin to pay off in the coming years.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,659
Jim Grobe’s last 8 years at Wake: 51-50, 29-35 in the ACC (.453)

Removing Clawson’s first 2 years at Wake he was 17-22 (.435) in the ACC going into this season. And at this point in the season he is 20-22 (.476) in the ACC.
As I've pointed out, Jim Grobe was also a good coach.

Wake all-time record against current ACC teams: 201-410-15, .329 pct.

Clawson's ACC record: 20-22, .476 pct.
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,669
Coaches recruit to their system and culture.

Coaches that recruit successfully, run reasonable systems, establish an effective culture, develop kids, build a good staff, etc. are successful.

Also it depends on how committed to winning the school is. Jimbo left FSU because they wouldn't make the necessary investment. Kirby went to UGA because they would. Saban went to Bama because they would. Saban was 6-6 first year at Bama with shelves stocked. Best possible coach at top 5 coaching destination with all the support you could ask for.

So clearly it takes time. How much time is reasonable? Dunno. GT ain't a state school where every kid grows up wanting to come. So recruiting improvement will take time (see 3 blue chip DTs committed in this year's class, 4-star OL, etc.) because it takes multi-year relationships to get those kids to come to a place like GT (generally). Then you have to get those kids to come in and coach 'em up for at least a year or two typically.

Do I see stuff I think could be a problem with Collins? Yeah. And I also see a lot of recruits who are not only high level guys but they also seem to be excelling/panning out and doing so when they are pretty young. That's a good sign.

Can't and won't tell you what to do but for me it makes sense to be patient. I like Thacker. Patenaude I'm not sure about for long term. On O I see things I like and don't like. Being strong in the trenches tends to make coordinators look really good/playcalling look great. For me as long as we keep bringing in good talent and they look like they are developing and coaching seems not obviously bad (not able to fix stuff, losing lockeroom, beating self too much, etc.) I am apt to be patient. IMO at a school like GT it could really pay off.
Yep. I have no desire to see CGC fired and I think patience is the watchword for now.

The gnawing concern in the back of my mind is when Chan G. was brought in as coach. I remember liking some other candidates much better but the money guys liked Chan. The reasons they gave at the time were: 1. He used to coach in the pros so he understands how to recognize and use pro level talent. 2. He will repair Tech’s broken relationships with high school coaches all over the state. 3. He has deep Georgia roots and a wide network of relationships to call upon. 4. He is a top notch recruiter. 5. He will run a pro style offense that all the kids will want to play for.

But I was patient with Chan, even when I didn’t want to be, until it absolutely hurt. Frankly, I learned then to never again offer a Tech coach blind loyalty, against my better judgment, just because the money guys tell me a guy is really going to change the culture.

I can stick out with CGC as long as it takes but I will also have a pretty short fuse with Tech folks who try to blow smoke up my skirts again.
 

58stinger

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
8
I wish someone would give evidence that CPJ did not work on recruiting. I see that posted periodically and then quoted as fact.

All I know about his recruiting is from outside observation. CPJ said about recruiting that it was like shaving -“if you didn’t work on it every day, you looked like a bum.” I also saw him lobby for more recruiting resources on more than one occasion. Then there was his ability to find players that were overlooked like 2 star Shaq Mason. He also constantly did battle with the negative recruiting tactics of other schools that the media was happy to amplify at volume 11.

CPJ had a lot of obstacles thrown in the way of his recruiting but I never saw anything publicly that suggested he didn’t care about it or think it was important.
That was George O’Leary that made the shaving analogy.
 

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
14,409
Then he copied PJ who had been saying that for decades.

It's a well known recruiting adage...neither CPJ or O'Leary was the original source. Coaches from all sports have used that saying.

CPJ cared about recruiting. Anyone who said he didn't care about recruiting just has a bone to pick with CPJ. The "problem" with CPJ was that he made recruiting harder on himself with some of his staff choices and the offense he ran. Anyone who is still denying the offense was a problem in recruiting is just denying all the evidence of the last decade, especially the Sports Illustrated article where CPJ pretty much admits it.


IMO, the offense was a bigger hurdle in recruiting than GT's "hurdles" everyone use to bring up. CGC's recruiting is starting to prove that correct. What people always forget about recruiting is that the kids you recruit have to also want to run the offense or defense you're running. Very few of the "elite" kids wanted to run it when they could go to other schools and run systems they liked more.

I've always said CPJ came to GT a decade too late. He came to GT at the beginnings of social media and explosion of recruiting services. Kids saw their peers pass for 300-400 yards, or have 100-200 yards catching the ball...then they saw GT games where we barely passed the ball at all. Recruits heard over and over on social media that playing in an option offense would ruin their chances of playing in the NFL. Obviously a LOT of the negative stuff about the offense wasn't true, but perception is reality sometimes on social media. IMO, had CPJ came a decade earlier, we would have had many more seasons like the 2008/2009/2014 seasons. GT probably would have been close to what Clemson has been in the last decade.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
6,387
Back to the “36%” share of team strength that comes from recruiting. An easy way to look at it is that a lot of the other success factors are “even enough” between an Alabama and a Cincinnati that you could say the main difference is recruiting.
  • Alabama is reliably in the “top 5” of recruiting, and ranks very high on the other factors (coaching, $$$, stability, facilities, etc.).
  • Alabama’s 247 average rating for 2020 was 0.9354 and their national rank was 2. In 2017 it was 0.9376 and their rank was 1.
  • Alabama makes $164 mil/year
  • Alabama has a Sagarin predictor score of 95.02
  • Cincinnati makes about $53 mil/year, and spends it.
  • Cincinnati’s 247 avg rating for 2020 was 0.8531 and their rank was 41. In 2017 it was 0.8270 and their national rank was 63.
  • Cincinnati has a Sagarin predictor score of 83.85
First, I give a lot of these numbers a side eye, because going to 4 digits of precision on a numerical average recruiting rating is silly, and Sagarin 5 weeks into a season where most of the games are in-conference and you don’t get the cross-over play you’d get in a tournament isn’t nearly as good a score as I’d like.


In a bowl game, Sagarin would expect Alabama to win over Cincinnati by 11 points. Is the recruiting rating difference worth 4 points (~36%) of that? Maybe even more?

Moral of the story: don’t get crappy coaching, but don’t expect great coaching to completely make up for weaker recruiting.

Side point: I’d be really happy with GT rating in the UCF/Cincinnati range of football these days.
 

TruckStick

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
511
Back to the “36%” share of team strength that comes from recruiting. An easy way to look at it is that a lot of the other success factors are “even enough” between an Alabama and a Cincinnati that you could say the main difference is recruiting.
  • Alabama is reliably in the “top 5” of recruiting, and ranks very high on the other factors (coaching, $$$, stability, facilities, etc.).
  • Alabama’s 247 average rating for 2020 was 0.9354 and their national rank was 2. In 2017 it was 0.9376 and their rank was 1.
  • Alabama makes $164 mil/year
  • Alabama has a Sagarin predictor score of 95.02
  • Cincinnati makes about $53 mil/year, and spends it.
  • Cincinnati’s 247 avg rating for 2020 was 0.8531 and their rank was 41. In 2017 it was 0.8270 and their national rank was 63.
  • Cincinnati has a Sagarin predictor score of 83.85
First, I give a lot of these numbers a side eye, because going to 4 digits of precision on a numerical average recruiting rating is silly, and Sagarin 5 weeks into a season where most of the games are in-conference and you don’t get the cross-over play you’d get in a tournament isn’t nearly as good a score as I’d like.


In a bowl game, Sagarin would expect Alabama to win over Cincinnati by 11 points. Is the recruiting rating difference worth 4 points (~36%) of that? Maybe even more?

Moral of the story: don’t get crappy coaching, but don’t expect great coaching to completely make up for weaker recruiting.

Side point: I’d be really happy with GT rating in the UCF/Cincinnati range of football these days.

Alabama will be a permanent fixture at the top as long as these factors are present.

Luke Fickell is a great coach and a great equalizer. He deserves 80% of the success they achieve. One thing that works well for him is he knows Ohio.

He is a model that CGC should use and many successful coaches because he has fully adapted to his team to achieve their highest ceiling. Similar to Peterson did for Boise State. It has hard for him to replicate that integration into Boise State. That is why I'd rather give a lifetime coaching contract to coaches that can successfully achieve that integration like Bobby Bowden. I truly believe it can only go down from there in college athletics. We can name so many coaches in the mid-tier teams that have done this and when they left it was never the same.

Integration is a compete awareness of strengths, weaknesses, and knowing your players and how they fit in the scheme vs. opponents. Keeping in mind that a one-size fits all approach doesn't work.

I think CGC can be our Luke Fickell. He needs to get some better on-field coaching and preparation. That is reliant on assistants. He needs the best assistants he can get and cannot make excuses.
 

GoldZ

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
560
It is always both, but it is not an even split, nor is the same thing needed at all schools. At a place like Tech, we will have inconsistent recruiting classes. That is just the way it goes. And we will never be consistently a top 25 recruiting power.

Our emphasis should be on coaching. And it has been, until the past three years. By the end of Paul, it was clear that the recruiting piece was so lacking that no amount of coaching could solve the issues. Friedgen, Jon Tenuta. These dudes maximized. Used odd schemes that weren't necessary at a top 15 recruiting power, but we needed them. Great position coaches matter. Buzz did wonders with our receivers.
Not so sure I'd use Tenuta and Ralph in the same vein.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
6,387
Here's another look, 4 year recruiting rating (y-axis) vs SP+ overall rating (which is going to correlate with wins, x-axis) from 2018. I could have pulled 2019, but that was a big transition year.
This was under CPJ, and we're recruiting better than BC, UVA, Wake, and Syracuse, but doing worse than them. We're recruiting much worse than FSU, but doing about the same. We're doing better than UNC and Louisville despite a lower recruiting rating (pre-Mack Brown for UNC).
With Clemson, you've got "coaching them up" and "recruiting" and they're way off to the right.
No one in the ACC is getting more than pedestrian results from "coaching them up" without high-end recruiting.

1633874799136.png
 

DavidStandingBear

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
216
Location
McKinney TX
Yes I know you have to do both, but is it better to have a bunch of 4 star players out of high school that aren't coached up. Or is it better to have a bunch of 3 stars players that are coached up?

I'm not talking about CGC but in general . Hell look at FSU a bunch of 4 and 5 star players that suck. Now look at WF a bunch of 3 star players that win.

I don't go to any practices so I don't have any idea which coaches we have that coach players up . If CGC feels that he needs to make any changes after this year ( which I don't see happening) the only one that I would not want to lose is Coach Choice , that does not mean there are not others who may be doing a good job.

And I will say that after the game with Pitt CGC did sound more like a coach and less like a cheerleader. And as bad as on OL looked I didn't know how bad our injuries were at that position.
I’m gonna support CGC here and say that recruiting is way more important
 
Top