Recruiting rankings apples and oranges

[GTJackets]

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”

Apologies if I misinterpreted. But to be fair it wasn't a huge stretch. Choosing "in a decade" right after CPJ completed his tenth season set me up for that assumption. For decades seems more accurate, but I'm sure someone will do the research to prove me wrong using O'Leary. But regardless we agree, recruiting rankings have been an issue at GT for a long time. Regardless of scheme.

 

[smokey_wasp]

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

No, but I don't really see how that would be a big factor compared to the 5 natties in 9 years or whatever it is. Maybe Saban's age is starting to become an issue for recruits.

 

[Sideways]

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?

It is not "good enough" nor is it acceptable if your goal is to compete with the likes of Miami, UGA, and Clemson. This will not do. I understand many will complain about my own personal thoughts but recruiting is the life blood of a college football program and we are not getting it done. Entirely too many projects of one kind or another and not near enough difference makers on both sides of the ball. Something has to be done or we will be out of the top 50 faster than a Miami player chasing a ho down South Beach.

 

[Lavoisier]

I genuinely do not get the Penn State thing

Recency bias, especially for young highschool kids. Last two seasons: 22-5, conference title, back to back top 10 finishes, Heisman finalist. They are a very hot team right now. They signed a monster class this year and those 11 win seasons are going to land them a historic class next year.

 

[smokey_wasp]

A lot of interesting things on that list and graph. Oregon is still highly thought of in spite of the lousy few years they've had. Nike swag goes a long way with recruits. We're right in the middle, but I could definitely see us jumping a bunch of schools in front of us with the right changes. The revenue thing is a whole other deal. Stansbury has a big job ahead.

 

[awbuzz]

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.

... needs to be seen again and read by those that skipped it earlier.

 

[mj claz]

http://picksixpreviews.com/how_to_win_in_recruiting.html

From the article, "To connect this analogy back to football, think about these brand rankings as a ranking system of the true probabilities assigned to each program’s likelihood to land any given high school recruit regardless of circumstance. Clemson would then have the best probability to land any recruit it wants, whether it be the number one recruit in the country or the number 5,000 recruit in the country. Stanford would have the best probability to land an academic-minded recruit over the likes of Duke, Georgia Tech, Vanderbilt, and Northwestern. Kansas would have the worst probability to land any given recruit when competing against its fellow Power 5 brethren."

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

http://picksixpreviews.com/how_to_win_in_recruiting.html

Interesting dispersion. Notice how, as the revenue stream increases the ability to rise far above the mean brand recognition between 100 mil and 130 mil. Above 130 there is far less “return” and several schools far fall below the mean (Yexas and aTm in particular).

Conversely, between 75 mil and 120 mil there many schools falling well below the mean while those above it are not very much so.

I think it shows that money matters but tradition (and brand awareness) can’t be bought, it has to be earned. Oregon is a bit of an exception. Texas on the other end as well. Which also shows what a few good or bad years strung together can do.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

It is not "good enough" nor is it acceptable if your goal is to compete with the likes of Miami, UGA, and Clemson. This will not do. I understand many will complain about my own personal thoughts but recruiting is the life blood of a college football program and we are not getting it done. Entirely too many projects of one kind or another and not near enough difference makers on both sides of the ball. Something has to be done or we will be out of the top 50 faster than a Miami player chasing a ho down South Beach.

Figure out the “something”, email Tstan, problem solved.

 

[Sideways]

Figure out the “something”, email Tstan, problem solved.

I would if I could. This problem has bedeviled coaches from Dodd's time until today. Unless changes are made in making our curriculum less restrictive it will remain unsolvable. Devoting more resources to recruiting is a good start but every coach has complained about the lack of support from the Hill and seemingly nothing has changed.

 

[Cam]

Ask again in 3 years

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

I might take a crack at it myself, but it would be interesting to go back and look at the 2014 it 2015 class and evaluate each player's impact thus far and do a reevaluation of talent. See whether the ratings matched their output.