Recruiting Potential

[Pointer]

Since one of the key pillars for the success of future Tech football is now recruiting, I would like to see what people realistically expect Tech to reach. What I mean is average recruiting class rankings.

Specifically the scenario is that we are 4 years into the CGC era and the ship has been righted. We've fielded competitive teams with non losing seasons. Collins stays another 6 years after that.

What is the average recruiting class rankings for those 6 years and onward?

It would also be nice to get a civil discussion about what this average class ranking needs to be in order to succeed with our spread offense and multiple defense schemes. Success being multiple double digits win seasons and acc champ/playoff contention.

Also what are people's definition for elite recruiting in general (not specifically to Tech)?

It would be really great to get some former athletes opinions on this seeing as how they have competed athletically and faced the academic rigors at Tech.

 

[GCdaJuiceMan]

We were ranked 24-28th last year depending on which scouting website you used. If Collins figures things out on the field, he better average a recruiting class ranking of 16-25.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

If we can be around the top 25-30 with this type of result on the field, I suspect we can get to 20-25 with more success over time.

 

[ChicagobasedJacket]

We were ranked 24-28th last year depending on which scouting website you used. If Collins figures things out on the field, he better average a recruiting class ranking of 16-25.

I agree. 16-25 is where I always thought we could reach given our location, P5, program history, scholastics/post collegiate outlook, and other factors that I don’t think we’ve capitalized on like we should have since O’Leary left.

 

[Pointer]

We should keep in mind that CGO didn't have to deal with APR.

Let's not forget flunkgate. System seems rigged for factories.

 

[ChicagobasedJacket]

Since one of the key pillars for the success of future Tech football is now recruiting, I would like to see what people realistically expect Tech to reach. What I mean is average recruiting class rankings.

Specifically the scenario is that we are 4 years into the CGC era and the ship has been righted. We've fielded competitive teams with non losing seasons. Collins stays another 6 years after that.

What is the average recruiting class rankings for those 6 years and onward?

It would also be nice to get a civil discussion about what this average class ranking needs to be in order to succeed with our spread offense and multiple defense schemes. Success being multiple double digits win seasons and acc champ/playoff contention.

Also what are people's definition for elite recruiting in general (not specifically to Tech)?

It would be really great to get some former athletes opinions on this seeing as how they have competed athletically and faced the academic rigors at Tech.

I think 16-25 is where we will end up. I think we are going to need to recruit in that range because it doesn’t seem like we are beating the teams we are supposed to beat based on talent level which is a worrying trend. Although we do technically have wins against teams that are more talented than us based on recruiting rankings (i.e., FSU, NC state, and Miami), it’s more concerning how many losses we have against teams that are demonstrably lower rated in talent (e.g., citadel, BC, Syracuse). I think we are going to need to be top 20 to be successful.

 

[Vespidae]

Who knows? What’s driving student athletes today is “earnings potential” especially that based on NIL. Tech ... is simply too small a school to move the needle compared to big land grant schools.

Having said that, I do think there s a lot of kids who would rather be king in Atlanta than back up in Palookaville.

I think we’ll average 30-ish ranking to produce an average 8-5 season. I don’t see us being a regular Top 10 team.

 

[stech81]

I have no problem with our recruiting with CGC but unlike some I do think it will drop if we don't do better on the field.

 

[Pointer]

Here's an interesting article to supplement this thread. It's from 2019

It includes the average class ranking for the previous 5 years. Here is a sample since I can't figure out how to get the table on here.

Top 5 range
Georgia, Alabama, Ohio State

6-15 range
LSU, Oklahoma, Michigan...

16-25 range
Oregon, South Carolina, Mississippi State...

College football recruiting: Schools with best class rankings on average over the past five years

These 25 programs have averaged a top-25 class across the last five years

www.cbssports.com

Edit: I have not read the article fully, just looked through the table.

 

[ChicagobasedJacket]

We should keep in mind that CGO didn't have to deal with APR.

Let's not forget flunkgate. System seems rigged for factories.

Good point. That’s right

 

[Oakland]

Right now per Rivals we're rated at #28 and on 247Sports, we're currently at #39 nationally and 10th in the ACC. We could improve or not later. I think if we can stay around a rating of 25 to 35 that would show a marked improvement. Collins needs to get a couple more wins this year. Recruits are not attracted to losers.

 

[Pointer]

Right now per Rivals we're rated at #28 and on 247Sports, we're currently at #39 nationally and 10th in the ACC. We could improve or not later. I think if we can stay around a rating of 25 to 35 that would show a marked improvement. Collins needs to get a couple more wins this year. Recruits are not attracted to losers.

And what do you consider elite recruiting?
Specifically what range do we need to be in to compete at the level CGC has stated for us?

 

[LibertyTurns]

We’re currently ranked #34 in talent level on 247.

1-18 are: Bammer, Oh St, Tx, Clemp, UF, ND, USC, LSU, OU, A&M, Ore, St Pen, Tenn, Barn, FSU, Mich, da U, mutt. Then there’s Stanford and UNC. There’s Wash, SCe, Neb, Miss St and Ark.

Frankly I’m surprised Old Piss isn’t in there but they’re 29th. Wisc is 27th. Interesting VT and Mich St are below us at #35 & 36.

We can vote 16-25, but essentially that’s voting 21-25. We can compete with those last 5, not those other 20. Basically it’s 10 teams competing for 20-30, then there’s few other wannabees like WV, UCLA, Ky, TCU, etc. Coming in regularly with 20-25 classes should get us to the 8-5 level with adequate coaching, ranked half the time with an occasional Top 20.

 

[Pointer]

.

We’re currently ranked #34 in talent level on 247.

1-18 are: Bammer, Oh St, Tx, Clemp, UF, ND, USC, LSU, OU, A&M, Ore, St Pen, Tenn, Barn, FSU, Mich, da U, mutt. Then there’s Stanford and UNC. There’s Wash, SCe, Neb, Miss St and Ark.

Frankly I’m surprised Old Piss isn’t in there but they’re 29th. Wisc is 27th. Interesting VT and Mich St are below us at #35 & 36.

We can vote 16-25, but essentially that’s voting 21-25. We can compete with those last 5, not those other 20. Basically it’s 10 teams competing for 20-30, then there’s few other wannabees like WV, UCLA, Ky, TCU, etc. Coming in regularly with 20-25 classes should get us to the 8-5 level with adequate coaching, ranked half the time with an occasional Top 20.

I see what you are saying. I was also trying to not let the options get overwhelming.

 

[JacketOff]

I don’t really like these choices, so I’m not going to vote because I think the results will be skewed in a direction that I don’t think will be accurate. I think the poll should’ve been structured more like:

• Top 5
• 6-12
• 13-20
• 21-30
• 31-40
• 40+

I personally think CGC and Tech will settle in the 21-30 range, with 1 class every few years in the 13-20 range, and bad classes in the low 30s.

 

[slugboy]

We should keep in mind that CGO didn't have to deal with APR.

Let's not forget flunkgate. System seems rigged for factories.

I don’t think any coach since then will take their eyes off of academic progress, and the AA shouldn’t let that fall out of their purview. Academic progress does favor the schools with a lower academic bar, but I have some reason to believe that we learned our lesson on that front.

 

[Pointer]

I don’t really like these choices, so I’m not going to vote because I think the results will be skewed in a direction that I don’t think will be accurate. I think the poll should’ve been structured more like:

• Top 5
• 6-12
• 13-20
• 21-30
• 31-40
• 40+

I personally think CGC and Tech will settle in the 21-30 range, with 1 class every few years in the 13-20 range, and bad classes in the low 30s.

That's fair.
I think the ultimate goal of the current staff is acc championships and national title. Based on the previous article I linked, teams consistently in NC range were 5 or better, 15-6 range were in constant conference title contention, but less playoff potential and so on.

To me, elite is top 15 or better and that's what it will take to reach this staff's goal (again this is my expectation for average class rank starting after year 4).

 

[Coloradojacket]

Since one of the key pillars for the success of future Tech football is now recruiting, I would like to see what people realistically expect Tech to reach. What I mean is average recruiting class rankings.

Specifically the scenario is that we are 4 years into the CGC era and the ship has been righted. We've fielded competitive teams with non losing seasons. Collins stays another 6 years after that.

What is the average recruiting class rankings for those 6 years and onward?

It would also be nice to get a civil discussion about what this average class ranking needs to be in order to succeed with our spread offense and multiple defense schemes. Success being multiple double digits win seasons and acc champ/playoff contention.

Also what are people's definition for elite recruiting in general (not specifically to Tech)?

It would be really great to get some former athletes opinions on this seeing as how they have competed athletically and faced the academic rigors at Tech.

Ok, so this question has a question. Recruiting ranking by class is somewhat bogus as number of recruits is factored into both Rivals and 247. And some one will argue and say no but that is fact. If you really want to judge recruiting go to rivals and sort by star average. Our current rank on this measure is we are 52. Makes sense as we have a mostly 3 star class. But as I will always argue, it is about developing players. Some of our greatest players in Tech history were 2 and 3 star recruits.

But lets see how many of those top recruits we can get to Tech.

 

[Pointer]

.

Ok, so this question has a question. Recruiting ranking by class is somewhat bogus as number of recruits is factored into both Rivals and 247. And some one will argue and say no but that is fact. If you really want to judge recruiting go to rivals and sort by star average. Our current rank on this measure is we are 52. Makes sense as we have a mostly 3 star class. But as I will always argue, it is about developing players. Some of our greatest players in Tech history were 2 and 3 star recruits.

But lets see how many of those top recruits we can get to Tech.

I think the practice of processing players helps to get a bigger hit rate on 3 stars or lower who are diamonds in the rough. So the more you take in each class, the more you can filter out the ones who don't work out. Not saying I agree with this at all.

 

[JacketOff]

Ok, so this question has a question. Recruiting ranking by class is somewhat bogus as number of recruits is factored into both Rivals and 247. And some one will argue and say no but that is fact. If you really want to judge recruiting go to rivals and sort by star average. Our current rank on this measure is we are 52. Makes sense as we have a mostly 3 star class. But as I will always argue, it is about developing players. Some of our greatest players in Tech history were 2 and 3 star recruits.

But lets see how many of those top recruits we can get to Tech.

Average star rating is probably the worst way to compare recruiting lol