Why we had a 7-6 record

gtdrew

Banned
Messages
740
Location
Decatur
I may be wrong, but the facts are much more in my favor than yours. We may have had more stars than normal, but that class was still ranked in the 40's by both services. Granted there were only 18 signed in that class and that certainly is part of the reason for the low ranking. Some panned out and some didn't. When you only recruit 18 players and some don't pan out, you go 7-6. The reality is that class turn out to be exactly what it was supposed to - a mediocre class that led us to a mediocre record.
I guess I'm not sure what part of what I said you're disagreeing with. I agree that his class underperformed. My whole point is that if you go back and look at the individual star rankings, that class should've been better than it was. Being as how all 3 major recruiting services also raise and lower rankings based on the number of commits there are in a class, I'm not usre I buy the ranking in the 40's AT THE TIME for that class. If the avg stars had been the exact same w 25 kids, that would've been a top 25 class. Georgia Tech is NEVER going to oversign.
 

IEEEWreck

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
587
I want us to succeed as well. And I am really not sure how I feel about oversigning and cutting players. But let's have an honest discussion about it. Remember when you were a freshman at Tech and they told you to look to your right and then your left because one of the three of you won't graduate? Isn't one of the reasons we are all so proud of our degrees is that we were one of the survivors of this attrition? And don't you believe that it was perfectly OK for our fine Institute to tell kids to go home and not come back because they couldn't handle the academic rigors of Tech? But for some reason we can't apply those same standards to our football team?

And I want to be clear - I am not trying to be sarcastic with my post. I am really interested in your thoughts.

One final thing - we can sign 20-25 guys every year without cutting. Normal attrition will take care of the rest. Redshirting in my mind has not been the cure all to our recruiting problems. We are carrying guys for five years that never pan out.
The great thing about being a Ramblin Wreck is the universality of our brotherhood. Anyone who can hack it is a member. Management (lately business) majors who struggle with Shocks for Jocks to CS majors who struggle with weekly bathing, even the meanest of these shall be my brother. The simple and irrefutable reason is that we choose to disdain the wide and easy path (which leadeth surely to Athens) and all who get the Shaft must stick together. Shall I then cleave to the incredibly annoying hipster Industrial Design guy who won't shut up about how unique his music is, but cast out the football player because he doesn't get results?

No. Because this is Georgia Tech, and we are a school. The only condition to be a Tech man is that you must pass. To consider elsewise would be to tear ourselves apart with our own hands.

Now, if we had a special "ok, get off the football team, but we keep our word" fund to convert bad picks to nonathletic scholarships, well, I guess that would be ok.
 

91Wreck

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
354
The great thing about being a Ramblin Wreck is the universality of our brotherhood. Anyone who can hack it is a member. Management (lately business) majors who struggle with Shocks for Jocks to CS majors who struggle with weekly bathing, even the meanest of these shall be my brother. The simple and irrefutable reason is that we choose to disdain the wide and easy path (which leadeth surely to Athens) and all who get the Shaft must stick together. Shall I then cleave to the incredibly annoying hipster Industrial Design guy who won't shut up about how unique his music is, but cast out the football player because he doesn't get results?

No. Because this is Georgia Tech, and we are a school. The only condition to be a Tech man is that you must pass. To consider elsewise would be to tear ourselves apart with our own hands.

Now, if we had a special "ok, get off the football team, but we keep our word" fund to convert bad picks to nonathletic scholarships, well, I guess that would be ok.
No one is saying that they have to leave school, only that they have to pay for it themselves. But yes, they would lose their scholarship if they cannot hack it on the football field. This is no different than most academic scholarships that require certain levels of academic performance.
 

alaguy

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,117
Why were we 7-6? Because our team was comprised of classes that were ranked as follows:

2009 Scout (32) Rivals (49)
2010 Scout (41) Rivals (43)
2011 Scout (46) Rivals (41)
2012 Scout (59) Rivals (57)
2013 Scout (72) Rivals (85)

We can talk about attrition and a whole host of other excuses, but the reality is that we have only signed 71 players over the last four classes. When players don't pan out, like they do at every school, we don't have another guy to make up for it. We only have ourselves to blame. This is why most successful schools average signing 20 plus players every year.

The rating on class is very imexact but gives a good general idea.Look at the 09 class.It was ranked 49 but it had more productive players-Jemea,Sweeting,Watts,sims,etc

Alsoa note on rating/ranking.REALLY the classes need to be rated at the start of the Fall after FEb signing.LOTS of guys at many schools somehow "don't show up" even after signing-bad grades,hurt,lose interest,etc
 
Messages
2,077
Recruiting will be Johnson's downfall. I don't think the 2010 class is any different really than his other classes including the current one.

I don't think IT WILL BE his downfall, I think it is pretty clear by now that it IS his downfall. That and the fact that from the OP's data, it could be deduced that we have taken some talented guys and actually coached them down.
 

Rodney Kent

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
558
Location
McDonough, GA
The list from 91 Wreck may be skewed by sheer numbers. Some of those years, we could not recruit many players because of the 85 cap. The total rating is also weighted on the total number of points for all recruits. Many schools over recruit and then send some home after Spring practice.

I bet you can find some teams that had recruiting postions less the Tech that did very well with a great coach. It is just like Pete Carroll being a consistant contender for #1 in the nation while at USC. As soon as he left, they began to decrease in the ratings NCAA ratings. Now, it seems he is building a dynasty with his pro team. The great coaches will win anywhere and will also attact the type of players they want, due to the coaches expertise in using the talent correctly. Winning and losing is still driven more by the coach than the star ratings of the players.
 
Messages
2,077
Why were we 7-6? Because our team was comprised of classes that were ranked as follows:

2009 Scout (32) Rivals (49)
2010 Scout (41) Rivals (43)
2011 Scout (46) Rivals (41)
2012 Scout (59) Rivals (57)
2013 Scout (72) Rivals (85)

We can talk about attrition and a whole host of other excuses, but the reality is that we have only signed 71 players over the last four classes. When players don't pan out, like they do at every school, we don't have another guy to make up for it. We only have ourselves to blame. This is why most successful schools average signing 20 plus players every year.
Why are we blaming "ourselves"? I had nothing to do with this multi-year debacle. The blame is clearly directed at no one but the coaching staff.
 

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
12,980
That's redicuolous

As I understand the logic of many posts in this thread, I have a few responses for you:
1. Deflection: You are just satisfied with mediocrity.
2. Offer fact of unclear relevance drawing a questionable conclusion: No top 10 team plays in a 100 yr old on campus stadium. You're just being stubborn and are satisfied with not being top 10 if you think it's a good idea.

3. Offer speculative potential future as fact: Kids want to play in big modern stadiums filled with 100K fans. We can get that in the suburbs but not at BDSHGF. That will not only help recruiting but expand our fan base, heighten our profile and raise revenue.

4. Claim the moral high ground: I'm sure some of you will make excuses about one good season here or there, but I expect more from GT, and we can do it.

5. Reframe opposition questions without supporting facts: What about students? Well, I guess you want to leave D1. There are a lot of old on campus stadiums in D2.
 

daBuzz

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
965
As I understand the logic of many posts in this thread, I have a few responses for you:
1. Deflection: You are just satisfied with mediocrity.
2. Offer fact of unclear relevance drawing a questionable conclusion: No top 10 team plays in a 100 yr old on campus stadium. You're just being stubborn and are satisfied with not being top 10 if you think it's a good idea.

3. Offer speculative potential future as fact: Kids want to play in big modern stadiums filled with 100K fans. We can get that in the suburbs but not at BDSHGF. That will not only help recruiting but expand our fan base, heighten our profile and raise revenue.

4. Claim the moral high ground: I'm sure some of you will make excuses about one good season here or there, but I expect more from GT, and we can do it.

5. Reframe opposition questions without supporting facts: What about students? Well, I guess you want to leave D1. There are a lot of old on campus stadiums in D2.

Not sure if you're being serious but:

Ohio State's is on-campus...built in 1922.
Michigan's is on-campus...built in 1927.
UGA's is on campus....built in 1911 (over 100 years old).
LSU's is on campus...built in 1922.
Alabama's Bryant Denny stadium is on campus...built in 1929.
 

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
12,980
Not sure if you're being serious but:

Ohio State's is on-campus...built in 1922.
Michigan's is on-campus...built in 1927.
UGA's is on campus....built in 1911 (over 100 years old).
LSU's is on campus...built in 1922.
Alabama's Bryant Denny stadium is on campus...built in 1929.

Sanford was opened in 1929. None of those is 100 years old. Stop making excuses. 7-6 Mediocrity. BDSHGF must go.
 

91Wreck

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
354
I guess I'm not sure what part of what I said you're disagreeing with. I agree that his class underperformed. My whole point is that if you go back and look at the individual star rankings, that class should've been better than it was. Being as how all 3 major recruiting services also raise and lower rankings based on the number of commits there are in a class, I'm not usre I buy the ranking in the 40's AT THE TIME for that class. If the avg stars had been the exact same w 25 kids, that would've been a top 25 class. Georgia Tech is NEVER going to oversign.

I disagree that the class was overall a good recruiting class. I agree we recruited some good players that didn't pan out - but that happens to every team and is not something special to GT.

I do agree that if we sign 25 in that class it wouldn't have been ranked in 40's. But the reason the rankings are better when you recruit more kids should be obvious. Many players aren't going to pan out. The more you sign, the better the probability that you have multiple players in each class that contribute. If we sign 25 in that class with the same average star rankings as the 18 that were signed, we would have had the extra players we needed to make up for those that didn't pan out. And with those extra players we probably would have finished with at least an 8-4 record this season.

Finally, as has already been discussed, we can recruit 20-25 guys per year and allow normal attrition to take care of the oversigning issue. We just can't redshirt players like we have been. I am not convinced of the merits of redshirting. Our 5th year offensive line players certainly didn't make a strong case that redshirting works.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,675
Our RS Srs on OL were very good. Our OL struggles came more from the injuries to RS Sr and RS Jr tackles. The younger guys weren't as good.
I think Finch was our best OL and I think he would have been even more productive if Burden was able to sub for him when he needed a blow. Bailey probably would have been better than Finch had he been healthy. To comment on the affectiveness of our OL w/o accounting for injuries is absurd. Yes, all OL's get injured, but injuries are magnified at GT. We don't and have never absorbed injuries like the factories. When we have an inordinate amount of injuries to one unit, you better expect some drop off, you're gonna have it.
 

alaguy

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,117
I think Finch was our best OL and I think he would have been even more productive if Burden was able to sub for him when he needed a blow. Bailey probably would have been better than Finch had he been healthy. To comment on the affectiveness of our OL w/o accounting for injuries is absurd. Yes, all OL's get injured, but injuries are magnified at GT. We don't and have never absorbed injuries like the factories. When we have an inordinate amount of injuries to one unit, you better expect some drop off, you're gonna have it.
Cheese,
And the reason for the OL injuries being magnified? short of players---look at this '10 class-like several guys said at time only TWO OLs? were signed ( and both were of little value to team).But we instead added at end of recr a 175lb Aback(zenon) that was playing THIRD string last yr when we could have used another OL.
 

dressedcheeseside

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,675
Cheese,
And the reason for the OL injuries being magnified? short of players---look at this '10 class-like several guys said at time only TWO OLs? were signed ( and both were of little value to team).But we instead added at end of recr a 175lb Aback(zenon) that was playing THIRD string last yr when we could have used another OL.
And if the coaches had a crystal ball, they'd use it. Bailey was a HUGE get by the way. Also, you have to go by the needs at the time, not the needs now. Back in
'10 we had very few ships to give and had glaring needs in other areas.

I think we've changed strategy in trying not to come up short on NSD. It seemed to me we gave out waaaaay more offers early this year. It's nice to save some schollies for late bloomers and big fish who like to announce on NSD, but I think it's wiser to lock up your class early with solid players who are sure-fire commits. One thing CPJ fears over all else in recruiting is promising a kid a scholly then having to tell him on NSD "sorry, we're all full."
 

Whiskey_Clear

Banned
Messages
10,487
Wow. So much to disagree with 91 on this thread.
Every team redshirts. Gives the player an extra year to learn systems and physically mature. If a guy coming in can contribute to a need we DO pull his shirt and play him.
You complain about our lack of success recruiting but propose telling kids...you have a 3 year scholarship but will have to prove yourself for a 4th year. Good luck with that, it would just close the door on a very large number of potential recruits for us. (The competition certainly won't do the same but you can bet your *** they would point it out to kids we compete for.)
 
Top