Recruiting rankings apples and oranges

[ilovetheoption]

Just a small thought exercise.

By 247, GT ranks 54th in recruiting this year.

I was curious how much GT not looking for the same kinds of guys on offense has on total recruiting rankings, so I isolated the likely defensive players, and recalculated.

By "star system" average, GT's defensive only players (that is, the ones they're competing with apples to apples with everybody else) would have been the ~39th rated class in the country.

So, what are people's thoughts about having the 39th rated class in the country? Is this good enough? Is it acceptable? Can GT reasonably expect better, year in, year out?

Given GT's super weird recruiting mix (middle of talent bed, super tough academics, biggest rival sucks all the air out of the room), how does #39 stack up?

 

[jgtengineer]

This is all going to go so well but my two cents, defense isolation is a good start however I think it also is the best one to display the disparity in our academics versus our peers. Defensive lineman for instance routinely score the lowest on the wonderlic test for the NFL and NFL caliber defensive lineman are something we just don't land on, a gotsis or Morgan not withstanding. Corners and safeties however do score fairly well on the test and we seem to be able to land 4 star defensive backs about as well as our peers. Which would mean a 39th rating might actually be really good for us. To be honest I wonder what a breakdown by position would look like over time

 

[4shotB]

By "star system" average, GT's defensive only players (that is, the ones they're competing with apples to apples with everybody else) would have been the ~39th rated class in the country.

So, what are people's thoughts about having the 39th rated class in the country? Is this good enough? Is it acceptable? Can GT reasonably expect better, year in, year out?

Given GT's super weird recruiting mix (middle of talent bed, super tough academics, biggest rival sucks all the air out of the room), how does #39 stack up?

The rankings to me aren't that big of a deal. That is a typical GT class ranking. The reason it gets so much scrutiny here recently is that A) CPJ and his staff are all over the map with their results. We can punch above our recruiting weight and win 9 to 11 games per year. Then we can turn around, with the exact same type of recruits (per the experts) and underperform relative to same and win 3 to 5. B) we have lost ground to our two biggest rivals. There has always been a talent gap but it has widened.

If we can keep the floor where CCG had it with the 7-4 years and lower tier bowls and have the occasional surprise seasons like we have had under Paul's tenure, I (and perhaps many other fans) probably wouldn't care where the experts ranked our classes. But losing seasons 2 out of the last 3 years invite scrutiny to every aspect of the program.

 

[SteamWhistle]

Up to 51st.

 

[herb]

Just a small thought exercise.

By 247, GT ranks 54th in recruiting this year.

I was curious how much GT not looking for the same kinds of guys on offense has on total recruiting rankings, so I isolated the likely defensive players, and recalculated.

By "star system" average, GT's defensive only players (that is, the ones they're competing with apples to apples with everybody else) would have been the ~39th rated class in the country.

So, what are people's thoughts about having the 39th rated class in the country? Is this good enough? Is it acceptable? Can GT reasonably expect better, year in, year out?

Given GT's super weird recruiting mix (middle of talent bed, super tough academics, biggest rival sucks all the air out of the room), how does #39 stack up?

Thanks, I wondered about this very thing today, but was too busy, ahem lazy, to do what you did. I think 39th is a little lower than I would have guessed. Thanks for doing this

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I just want to know from someone who's "in the know" how well does this class meet our needs?

 

[tech_wreck47]

Tied for 42nd by average star ranking. There is also another 11 teams that are ahead of us that are only .1 stars ahead of us. So while we are 52nd, it’s not as bad as it seems, and I don’t think there is a big difference in recruiting classes between us and teams that are within .1 stars better. And beyond that, there is another 8 teams that are less that .25 stars ahead of us, which imo isn’t a huge difference, actually just 1 player can be the difference in that.

 

[knoxjacket]

The problem with this theory is your original assumption is incorrect. We are not recruiting different guys on offense.

We offered at least 18 four and five stars on the offensive side of the ball.

Just because we missed on all but one doesn’t mean we aren’t going after them or don’t want them.

 

[ilovetheoption]

The problem with this theory is your original assumption is incorrect. We are not recruiting different guys on offense.

We offered at least 18 four and five stars on the offensive side of the ball.

Just because we missed on all but one doesn’t mean we aren’t going after them or don’t want them.

Meh.

There are almost no P5 Schools where guys like jump and McKeehan are takes at ol.

I don't think they were takes by accident for cpj. Jump was a take relatively early in the process, which to me indicates that he was a first-choice guy for the staff.

Would the staff love to get a five-star offensive lineman? Of course. That doesn't does not mean that when it comes down to who are realistic gets for the program vis a vis their peer competitors (the uva's and NC State's and Pitt's of the world) they are not looking at different guys.

Some positions there is more crossover than others, but it's different enough that I think it renders comparing offensive recruiting, at least in terms of national recruiting Services, largely irrelevant.

 

[stech81]

I just want to know from someone who's "in the know" how well does this class meet our needs?

Ask again in 3 years

 

[ilovetheoption]

Ask again in 3 years

This, of course, is the only analysis that REALLY matters

 

[33jacket]

Wish we landed 1 more OL. Other than that we filled the slots.

As far as rankings. Typical. Nothing has changed in a decade. 40s to 50s ranked classes with the D players usually a bit better than the O.

Iiwii.

 

[Lavoisier]

I'll take this in a different direction. I would like higher rated guys, but I'm not disappointed about where we finished. My main thing, especially this last year, is we have to actually keep the guys we sign in school. Stars don't matter if they aren't here and we can't develop players if they leave. Look at our 2016 class, 4 out of the top 6 players we signed are not on the team. That's close to 25% of our class that year.

 

[GTJackets]

Wish we landed 1 more OL. Other than that we filled the slots.

As far as rankings. Typical. Nothing has changed in a decade. 40s to 50s ranked classes with the D players usually a bit better than the O.

Iiwii.

Hasn't it been covered enough that saying our rankings haven't changed "in a decade" is WAY underselling it? There was one class 10 years ago. Most of us were around for that one and remember it fondly. But if you keep going back a little beyond that one....
2007 - 15, then 62, 70, 48, 38, 53, 51.

I'll stop there. But it's been more than a decade. Paul Johnson didn't create this issue.

 

[33jacket]

Hasn't it been covered enough that saying our rankings haven't changed "in a decade" is WAY underselling it? There was one class 10 years ago. Most of us were around for that one and remember it fondly. But if you keep going back a little beyond that one....
2007 - 15, then 62, 70, 48, 38, 53, 51.

I'll stop there. But it's been more than a decade. Paul Johnson didn't create this issue.

Wow. Not exactly interpreting what i mean correctly here. I just picked decade because its a common time label. I easily could have said 20 years. My time label has nothing to do with paul. It was an arbitrary selection just stating our rankings have been the same “for a long time”

 

[JacketFromUGA]

http://picksixpreviews.com/how_to_win_in_recruiting.html

We wanted to find out exactly how high school football players perceive the Power 5 schools, so we asked 224 recruits to grade their interest and desire in each program as if they were the number one recruit in the country (i.e. they had offers from every school). This process gave us a peek into the minds of the most important demographic: teenage football players. Everyone who follows college football surely has an opinion on every program and, consciously or unconsciously, has their own personal ranking system comprised of all the brands. However, a middle-aged man probably has a different, more favorable perception of a once-gloried program than a young teenager who never witnessed a winning season. Rather, the lifeblood of a college program lies in the minds of high school football players. These rankings show us the critical hierarchy of schools within recruits’ minds. This is the closest thing to the NCAA’s version of the NFL draft. The teams at the top of these rankings will get the first picks and the teams at the bottom of the rankings will get the leftovers. Pro teams can squander high draft positions through poor talent evaluation and thus poor draft selections while college teams can squander favorable brand positioning with poor talent evaluation, poor recruiting execution, or poor player development. However, in terms of raw “draft capital,” this is how teams position themselves for future success. Pro teams tank seasons and acquire additional draft picks to improve positioning. College teams hire creative marketing staffers and build fancy new facilities to improve positioning.

 

[smokey_wasp]

How is Bama # 19?

 

[herb]

Hmmm, interesting. Agree with smokey, that ranking for Alabama does not compute. They seem way too low and Michigan State seem too high. The graph, though, wow! Third from last in total revenue, ouch.

 

[slugboy]

How is Bama # 19?

Do you think Saban has a reputation as a warm and cuddly personality?

 

[ilovetheoption]

I genuinely do not get the Penn State thing