- Joined
- Jan 2, 2014
- Messages
- 2,920
Started tracking this when the "3Stario" thing started getting tossed around a couple of years ago and some people were trying to rewrite history to say our recruiting had always been at this level. Seems like this year is likely wrapped up (though I wouldn't be shocked if someone like Wiley jumped into one of these tiers as final rankings come out). All of the below is based on the 247 Composite rankings. Also, the point of this wasn't to sunshine pump or mope, just was curious what the trends would look like.
This year was a massive disappointment. I don't think anyone would disagree. No top 50 players and only 1 top 100 is brutal, especially coming off such a successful season and having a coach brought in for roster construction. We can't have another year in the 12-15 range with a coach who isn't an X's and O's savant. That being said, I do think the stacking of top 250 talent across the board over the past 4 years is encouraging. Depth is important. Both to be able to withstand injuries and also create discomfort so there isn't complacency (hopefully one day we won't be playing receivers that have the self-control of a 5 year old, but I digress)
We've signed roughly the same amount of top 50, 100, 150, and 200 players in Mario's 4 years as we did in Richt and Diaz's six years combined (6:7, 14:16, 26:23, 35:36). There will always be misses, but it's a numbers game and having more at bats leads to more hits.
These numbers, to me, are more an indictment of our prior recruiting efforts than anything. Mario has been here for 4 years with one being a last minute transition class. To have already signed more than 50% the amount of top 150 and 200 players as we did in the 13 years prior to him showing up is not some great indicator of his recruiting prowess, it's inexcusable from prior staffs.
Have we been more talented than the majority of teams we've played in the past 10-15 years? Sure. But when we signed an average of less than 4 top 150 players per year over that time span, we haven't had as much of an advantage as public perception would lead you to believe.
I think this year showed everyone just how much high level depth matters. The UGAs and Bamas of the world don't have the same level of high end depth that they have because of NIL and the portal, and they all of a sudden are losing to Vandy and Oklahoma and find themselves in dogfights with Kentucky and Georgia Tech. If next year's class is more in line with 2025 than '23 and '24, we have a problem. But I think it's also okay to acknowledge the improvement we're seeing in the number of high level recruits we're getting in the building.
Anyway. This is probably interesting to exactly zero people but I was bored and after updating it I figured I'd share.
This year was a massive disappointment. I don't think anyone would disagree. No top 50 players and only 1 top 100 is brutal, especially coming off such a successful season and having a coach brought in for roster construction. We can't have another year in the 12-15 range with a coach who isn't an X's and O's savant. That being said, I do think the stacking of top 250 talent across the board over the past 4 years is encouraging. Depth is important. Both to be able to withstand injuries and also create discomfort so there isn't complacency (hopefully one day we won't be playing receivers that have the self-control of a 5 year old, but I digress)
We've signed roughly the same amount of top 50, 100, 150, and 200 players in Mario's 4 years as we did in Richt and Diaz's six years combined (6:7, 14:16, 26:23, 35:36). There will always be misses, but it's a numbers game and having more at bats leads to more hits.
These numbers, to me, are more an indictment of our prior recruiting efforts than anything. Mario has been here for 4 years with one being a last minute transition class. To have already signed more than 50% the amount of top 150 and 200 players as we did in the 13 years prior to him showing up is not some great indicator of his recruiting prowess, it's inexcusable from prior staffs.
Have we been more talented than the majority of teams we've played in the past 10-15 years? Sure. But when we signed an average of less than 4 top 150 players per year over that time span, we haven't had as much of an advantage as public perception would lead you to believe.
I think this year showed everyone just how much high level depth matters. The UGAs and Bamas of the world don't have the same level of high end depth that they have because of NIL and the portal, and they all of a sudden are losing to Vandy and Oklahoma and find themselves in dogfights with Kentucky and Georgia Tech. If next year's class is more in line with 2025 than '23 and '24, we have a problem. But I think it's also okay to acknowledge the improvement we're seeing in the number of high level recruits we're getting in the building.
Anyway. This is probably interesting to exactly zero people but I was bored and after updating it I figured I'd share.
