AD sabotage the football program

Deleted member 2897

Guest
lv20gt said:
It's a BS excuse that has come up coincidentally only as the results on the field have declined and certain people don't want to blame the head coach for it.
Click to expand...

Fake News.

Anybody remotely close to the program over the last 5, 10, and 15 years knows you’re not even remotely accurate here. Not even remotely close. Your assertion is so off base it will ruin your ability to get people to listen to you again.
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,561
TampaGT said:
So what is the rumor?
Click to expand...

There are no specifics. The "sabotage" was that we dared make a short term hire for AD that was experienced with making good basketball hires to make our coaching decision. In the meantime he didn't bend over backwards for Johnson so that means it was sabotage.
 

Deleted member 2897

Guest
lv20gt said:
Then enlighten us.
Click to expand...

I’ll answer you, then you’ll be put on ignore.

This is a short not deep reply, because frankly you don’t deserve it. You’re denigrating people and insulting people when you don’t even know what you’re talking about. Maybe I’m taking your posts too seriously, but they just seem very negative and insulting.

First, I wouldn’t personally use the word “sabotage”. But over the last several years, and prior actually to the previous AD even, money was denied for new coaches, and pretty much every other project requested. The net result was that over a period of several years, the amount of money we spent on football and the size of our staff gradually decreased relative to everyone else in the ACC until we were like 30% below average. I mean not just average, not just below average...but in the sewer.

Again, I wouldn’t use the word “sabotage”, but hopefully this is a good starting point summary. Have a good night.
 

Animal02

Banned
Messages
6,269
Location
Southeastern Michigan
lv20gt said:
It's a BS excuse that has come up coincidentally only as the results on the field have declined and certain people don't want to blame the head coach for it.
Click to expand...
And certain people don't want to face reality.
College football is an arms race, and Tech as gone from above middle to near the bottom in the ACC.
Spending per player (not including scholarship cost)
Source: http://spendingdatabase.knightcommission.org

Spending per player.jpg
 
TampaGT

TampaGT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,129
bwelbo said:
I’ll answer you, then you’ll be put on ignore.

This is a short not deep reply, because frankly you don’t deserve it. You’re denigrating people and insulting people when you don’t even know what you’re talking about. Maybe I’m taking your posts too seriously, but they just seem very negative and insulting.

First, I wouldn’t personally use the word “sabotage”. But over the last several years, and prior actually to the previous AD even, money was denied for new coaches, and pretty much every other project requested. The net result was that over a period of several years, the amount of money we spent on football and the size of our staff gradually decreased relative to everyone else in the ACC until we were like 30% below average. I mean not just average, not just below average...but in the sewer.

Again, I wouldn’t use the word “sabotage”, but hopefully this is a good starting point summary. Have a good night.
Click to expand...
Thanks, that kind of goes with what I read this past summer that TS told the higher ups that they had done a disservice to CPJ for a number of years and put him into a hole.
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,561
Animal02 said:
And certain people don't want to face reality.
College football is an arms race, and Tech as gone from above middle to near the bottom in the ACC.
Spending per player (not including scholarship cost)
Source: http://spendingdatabase.knightcommission.org
Click to expand...

1) That isn't sabotage though and labeling at such is just trying to pass the buck.

2) The AD isn't just in charge of football. Over that period we renovated the basketball arena and had to make 2 coaching changes in basketball. So of course the focus for investment was in basketball rather than football. Again, that's not sabotage. That's part of the expected process.

3) In case you look, the teams that have significantly outclassed us haven't been the issue. Clemson we face every year. We don't face UL every year and this year we smoked them. We don't face NCSU every year and when we did play them we smoked them too. FSU dwarfs us and we beat them the last time we played. But notice, the 3 coastal teams mentioned, haven't increased that much more. I'd believe that Miami has, in part because of a coaching change, but I doubt Duke or Pitt have blown us out of the water in that regard. Maybe you can find the data that says they do though.

4) Investments are usually linked with coaching changes because the impacts of each play off each other to greater effect. We did that with basketball in renovating the AMC and hiring a new basketball coach. When a guy has been coach at a place for 10 years the overall biggest thing is what he has done there. Shiny new toys aren't going to mean as much when recruits can look back and say "but you only throw the ball to a WR 3 times a game" or "you've missed a bowl game 3 of the past 4 years". With a new coach, the new investments play into the sell of being something new. So having an 11 year coach it's to be expected that the investment hasn't kept up with schools that have changed coaches over that time.

5) Most importantly. Again, it's not sabotage and it's not close to being so.
 

Animal02

Banned
Messages
6,269
Location
Southeastern Michigan
lv20gt said:
1) That isn't sabotage though and labeling at such is just trying to pass the buck.

2) The AD isn't just in charge of football. Over that period we renovated the basketball arena and had to make 2 coaching changes in basketball. So of course the focus for investment was in basketball rather than football. Again, that's not sabotage. That's part of the expected process.

3) In case you look, the teams that have significantly outclassed us haven't been the issue. Clemson we face every year. We don't face UL every year and this year we smoked them. We don't face NCSU every year and when we did play them we smoked them too. FSU dwarfs us and we beat them the last time we played. But notice, the 3 coastal teams mentioned, haven't increased that much more. I'd believe that Miami has, in part because of a coaching change, but I doubt Duke or Pitt have blown us out of the water in that regard. Maybe you can find the data that says they do though.

4) Investments are usually linked with coaching changes because the impacts of each play off each other to greater effect. We did that with basketball in renovating the AMC and hiring a new basketball coach. When a guy has been coach at a place for 10 years the overall biggest thing is what he has done there. Shiny new toys aren't going to mean as much when recruits can look back and say "but you only throw the ball to a WR 3 times a game" or "you've missed a bowl game 3 of the past 4 years". With a new coach, the new investments play into the sell of being something new. So having an 11 year coach it's to be expected that the investment hasn't kept up with schools that have changed coaches over that time.

5) Most importantly. Again, it's not sabotage and it's not close to being so.
Click to expand...
Denial.....not just a river in Egypt.
The fact remains, TECH spending in football WRT our competition has decreased. Of the public schools reporting.....only UVA spends less per player. Sure VT's spending increase is on par.....but they started and remain far ahead. You have your head buried deep if you think that spending 20-50K PER PLAYER less is going to keep Tech competitive.
It doesn't matter how many facts hit you over the head....you want to play only the HC, and will spin everything to advance your narrative.
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,561
Animal02 said:
Denial.....not just a river in Egypt.
The fact remains, TECH spending in football WRT our competition has decreased. Of the public schools reporting.....only UVA spends less per player. Sure VT's spending increase is on par.....but they started and remain far ahead. You have your head buried deep if you think that spending 20-50K PER PLAYER less is going to keep Tech competitive.
It doesn't matter how many facts hit you over the head....you want to play only the HC, and will spin everything to advance your narrative.
Click to expand...

No you're right. It's all the administrations fault. We should never fire Johnson. Any struggles are clearly not because of him or his staff, unless it's the DC, then these things don't apply. When he retires, promote from within. Don't worry if we've not made a bowl in 5 years if that's the case. That's not the fault of the coaching staff, and this is the one and only system that can possibly succeed.
 
Top