Recruiting rankings perspective….

[Jake]

In 2019, both Rivals and 2-4-7 had Ga Tech’s class of 22 kids ranked ahead of ours. (Rivals substantially higher).

Ga Tech has exactly 0 starters from that class.

Ours includes Mikel Jones, Garrett Williams. Matthew Bergeron, Steve Linton, and Courtney Jackson.

Just sayin…

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

More than half transferred, so it's not like they were all busts. But still.

 

[GoSU96]

In 2019, both Rivals and 2-4-7 had Ga Tech’s class of 22 kids ranked ahead of ours. (Rivals substantially higher).

Ga Tech has exactly 0 starters from that class.

Ours includes Mikel Jones, Garrett Williams. Matthew Bergeron, Steve Linton, and Courtney Jackson.

Just sayin…

Good stuff

 

[cuse309]

A coaching change is likely responsible for most of this. Not just in transfers, but also, you're going to have players recruited specifically for their fit in what was a triple option at the time. No longer a good fit perhaps knocks them down the depth chart.

 

[SUGIANT]

I like watching the recruiting but don’t put much stock in it. Many players end up being much better than thier rankings. Who knows how a 17 or 18 year will be doing in a year or so.

 

[sufandu]

More than half transferred, so it's not like they were all busts. But still.

They were for Ga Tech. Part of the recruiting game now is keeping guys on campus. Of course, I believe that was their new coach's first class, so many of the players may have been guys already committed under the previous staff that ultimately decided the new staff wasn't a good fit.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

They were for Ga Tech. Part of the recruiting game now is keeping guys on campus. Of course, I believe that was their new coach's first class, so many of the players may have been guys already committed under the previous staff that ultimately decided the new staff wasn't a good fit.

These were all guys Collins inked. Coaches don’t sign conmits from the previous staff that they don’t see as a fit.

 

[sufandu]

These were all guys Collins inked. Coaches don’t sign conmits from the previous staff that they don’t see as a fit.

I know that's officially true, but don't you think they may take some that wouldn't have originally taken if they need bodies and are late to the game in their first class after just getting hired? And regardless of whether the coaches see the player as a fit, the player may be quicker to decide the coaches aren't when they're not the staff that started out recruited them.

 

[rrlbees]

It was 0 for 22. Zero. I don’t care who you committed to play for.

 

[baggerbob]

I like watching the recruiting but don’t put much stock in it. Many players end up being much better than thier rankings. Who knows how a 17 or 18 year will be doing in a year or so.

Missing so badly on Iffy shows how the rating people are completely incompetent. His brother was a good player in college and not bad in the NFL.
That just shows stupidity or bias.
Probably a bit of both.

 

[SoBristol]

It is easy to find examples of possible bias, misjudgments (Pugh, both Jones, many more even on our own lists). We have had plenty of guys at the top of our list be busts and we have guys lower on the lists turn out to be starters.

So why? Consider who does the rankings; how many guys they actually see; that the rankings are done on junior year performance and some camps but plainly not everyone gets an in-depth look. Some prospects develop a ton between junior year and when they show up as a true frosh. Rankings are an inexact science - no news there.

Now, in the broader picture, we know our recruiting is less stellar than we want and it shows on the field in most seasons. And we can still hope that this year, like 2018, is a year when we have enough among the 1s to win 6 or 7.

 

[All4SU]

If you’re not 4* or 5*, the range of possible success or failure is immense.