Athletic Director's Update

[jgtengineer]

19 out of every 20 players for LSU was bigger than the GT player across from them... Wasn't a "fair" fight per se.

Didnt that lsu team also send 8 of 11 starters on d to the pros

 

[GT_05]

19 out of every 20 players for LSU was bigger than the GT player across from them... Wasn't a "fair" fight per se.

I remember thinking that same thing when we played Iowa a few years ago,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[awbuzz]

I remember thinking that same thing when we played Iowa a few years ago,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only 9 of 10... Their D line was impressive.

 

[awbuzz]

Didnt that lsu team also send 8 of 11 starters on d to the pros

Would not surprise me for sure.

 

[takethepoints]

I've been thinking about what's behind some of the responses here. Ok, some of it is people like the old guy who used to sit behind me at Tech games a few years ago. He kept complaining that he "… wanted some excitement!" and that with the O he wasn't getting it. There's a faction that's been waiting to see a couple of bad years in a row - they were badly disappointed in 2015 - so that they can try to chase Coach and get "excitement" back in Tech football. This, I understand. It's the same thing that got the folks at GSU to fire Sewak after two straight seasons of post conference play and a 35 - 14 record. Nowadays, of course, they get real upset down there if they see a shotgun formation.

But I don't think that's what's behind some of it. Everybody on this board knows what Tech's recruiting obstacles are and that they are why we hired Coach in the first place. A change in coaching staff and offensive style won't change any of those obstacles one whit and, I think, most folks who want a change know that. So what are they looking for? I speculate that they feel they can leverage their contributions to the school to get more exemptions for Tech football (for which three cheers) and more leeway in the academic programs; i.e. a UNC solution for the athletic program. They could point out, correctly, that UNC's academic rep hasn't suffered at all as a result of the blatant mistreatment of their "scholar-athletes". Graduating functional illiterates hasn't even led to NCAA penalties. Why shouldn't Tech do the same (without admitting it, of course) and take the shackles off its recruiting? We'd win! Problem = Coach has made it clear many times that he won't stand for this and, as long as that's the case, the administration has cover for not taking steps to eliminate our recruiting obstacles. He has to go.

If I'm right - and I could be completely wrong; I expect people will tell me directly - I think the "UNC solution" people are living in a fool's paradise. The problem for this route is the curriculum. Is Tech going to go to the BoR and ask for basket weaving majors with any success? No. The administration will never support it and the BoR will never do it; there are sound reasons for Georgia to insist on Tech remaining one of the best engineering schools in the world. That means that any new coach will face exactly the same situation, given the NCAA progress regs, that we face today. It could be, of course, that a change to a shotgun spread would have the recruiting results predicted, but I haven't see any systemic evidence of that, especially with present restrictions. I think our new AD has the solution squarely in his sights: more money to bring the program back to parity with its rivals. That might mean a new coach in time, but Coach has been successful here and I think TS is right in saying he deserves a chance to see what he can do with the resources he has been asking for for years. I'll support that.

 

[iceeater1969]

I've been thinking about what's behind some of the responses here. Ok, some of it is people like the old guy who used to sit behind me at Tech games a few years ago. He kept complaining that he "… wanted some excitement!" and that with the O he wasn't getting it. There's a faction that's been waiting to see a couple of bad years in a row - they were badly disappointed in 2015 - so that they can try to chase Coach and get "excitement" back in Tech football. This, I understand. It's the same thing that got the folks at GSU to fire Sewak after two straight seasons of post conference play and a 35 - 14 record. Nowadays, of course, they get real upset down there if they see a shotgun formation.

But I don't think that's what's behind some of it. Everybody on this board knows what Tech's recruiting obstacles are and that they are why we hired Coach in the first place. A change in coaching staff and offensive style won't change any of those obstacles one whit and, I think, most folks who want a change know that. So what are they looking for? I speculate that they feel they can leverage their contributions to the school to get more exemptions for Tech football (for which three cheers) and more leeway in the academic programs; i.e. a UNC solution for the athletic program. They could point out, correctly, that UNC's academic rep hasn't suffered at all as a result of the blatant mistreatment of their "scholar-athletes". Graduating functional illiterates hasn't even led to NCAA penalties. Why shouldn't Tech do the same (without admitting it, of course) and take the shackles off its recruiting? We'd win! Problem = Coach has made it clear many times that he won't stand for this and, as long as that's the case, the administration has cover for not taking steps to eliminate our recruiting obstacles. He has to go.

If I'm right - and I could be completely wrong; I expect people will tell me directly - I think the "UNC solution" people are living in a fool's paradise. The problem for this route is the curriculum. Is Tech going to go to the BoR and ask for basket weaving majors with any success? No. The administration will never support it and the BoR will never do it; there are sound reasons for Georgia to insist on Tech remaining one of the best engineering schools in the world. That means that any new coach will face exactly the same situation, given the NCAA progress regs, that we face today. It could be, of course, that a change to a shotgun spread would have the recruiting results predicted, but I haven't see any systemic evidence of that, especially with present restrictions. I think our new AD has the solution squarely in his sights: more money to bring the program back to parity with its rivals. That might mean a new coach in time, but Coach has been successful here and I think TS is right in saying he deserves a chance to see what he can do with the resources he has been asking for for years. I'll support that.

I agree we need to support t Stan s efforts. The record at end if year along w the number of beat downs ( to and from ) in the acc and uga will determine if we make a change. I hope we are the guys giving it , especially DUKE


I would hope t stan includes more resources to continue our steady increase in the football grad rate. Having a rate in 90 s will make for better non local recruiting. Also for more room to get an exception for a good smart athlete that was less than serious in first 2 years of hs.


With our "non NFL" student athletes I would also like to see more of a commitment to become R seniors. (Perhaps more time working on strength on their own, spreading out course load or taking extra classes . For example, with recent Ol attrition ( already graduated) to careers and other programs we looking a younger subs instead of seasoned subs.

I have heard a number of younger players are now close to graduating = get h s advanced creds, enroll early, take full load w tutors, take summer classes, and Bam - 2 plus years later about to graduate.

.

 

[smokey_wasp]

I have maintained for a while that a coaching change won't be made because of losses, even blowout losses to Clemson, uga, VPI, Miami, etc. Those are the scenarios where, as TStan says, we are fighting above our weight class.

Losses to the likes of USF, Pitt, Duke, UVA, etc? All bets are off and nothing in TStan's letter leads me to believe otherwise.

 

[takethepoints]

I hear you, Iceman, but I think the NCAA progression to graduation regs make it harder to stretch careers out as much as they used to. I don't know how - or have the time - to see how many of our athletes in former years took multiple years past eligibility to graduate from Tech, but it used to be the common way for our players to organize their education. At the time this story was written in 2016 (http://www.espn.com/blog/detroit-li...o-calvin-johnson-including-getting-his-degree) Calvin still hadn't gotten his degree and he's only one example. Now, the only recourse is grad school or leaving without a degree after losing eligibility.

I'm all for this, btw. The problem is that it is so easy to cheat on it. The NCAA cleared UNC for, again, graduating functional illiterates because their regs don't say anything about the content of the programs used to show progress to graduation. It's hard to see how a more useful approach could be written, but progress to graduation is a good deal better then nothing. It's hard on football players, however, and might be reconsidered.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Serious question here.... but technology makes things awful cheap. I can go look at film of an athlete in CA right now and put together a list of potential candidates. We should be able to leverage technology to get film on kids from across the country and hire a few people whose job is to do just that and present it to the head man to determine the list. Then you connect with that list. Make strategic trips to see them play to minimize travel budget. Do in homes etc. I’m sure we can afford a few plane tickets.

If the coaches are waiting on the money and resources to come to them then they are probably going to wait a while. So how about trying to be creative and finding another way to do it.

Im no recruiter and what I said might be the complete wrong way to do it but it’s gotta be something.

I don’t care for the facilities argument. We have an awesome indoor practice facility and new locker rooms. You know who just got an indoor practice facility and locker rooms just this year? UGA. That’s who. So on the facilities front I think we are doing fine.

While I support the use of technology to aid us in our efforts, we'd be fools to think that relying on technology alone will solve our problems. The factories will simply utilize any advantage we find technology-wise and employ three times the people using it to beat us at our own game. At some point, you just HAVE to have enough boots on the ground building relationships to be competitive in this industry.

 

[AE 87]

I hear you, Iceman, but I think the NCAA progression to graduation regs make it harder to stretch careers out as much as they used to. I don't know how - or have the time - to see how many of our athletes in former years took multiple years past eligibility to graduate from Tech, but it used to be the common way for our players to organize their education. At the time this story was written in 2016 (http://www.espn.com/blog/detroit-li...o-calvin-johnson-including-getting-his-degree) Calvin still hadn't gotten his degree and he's only one example. Now, the only recourse is grad school or leaving without a degree after losing eligibility.

I'm all for this, btw. The problem is that it is so easy to cheat on it. The NCAA cleared UNC for, again, graduating functional illiterates because their regs don't say anything about the content of the programs used to show progress to graduation. It's hard to see how a more useful approach could be written, but progress to graduation is a good deal better then nothing. It's hard on football players, however, and might be reconsidered.

Fwiw, this is why comparisons to the George years don't tell the whole story. Iirc, our grad rate was below 50% compared to like 90% now.

 

[UgaBlows]

I have to think that no matter the overall record this season that Tstan understands that our current QB situation is less than ideal because of various injuries and defections this season but there is promising talent in the wings, and that the defense will almost certainly improve if given time. I do expect that he is going to have a serious talk with CPJ in the offseason about special teams and expect for changes to be made.

 

[jgtengineer]

I have to think that no matter the overall record this season that Tstan understands that our current QB situation is less than ideal because of various injuries and defections this season but there is promising talent in the wings, and that the defense will almost certainly improve if given time. I do expect that he is going to have a serious talk with CPJ in the offseason about special teams and expect for changes to be made.

I fully expect we'll hire a special teams coach again. Hopefully someone who can coach kickers too. Maybe we'll get lucky and we can move sewak from an old the field coach to an offensive analyst to accommodate this.

 

[jacketup]

I've been thinking about what's behind some of the responses here. Ok, some of it is people like the old guy who used to sit behind me at Tech games a few years ago. He kept complaining that he "… wanted some excitement!" and that with the O he wasn't getting it. There's a faction that's been waiting to see a couple of bad years in a row - they were badly disappointed in 2015 - so that they can try to chase Coach and get "excitement" back in Tech football. This, I understand. It's the same thing that got the folks at GSU to fire Sewak after two straight seasons of post conference play and a 35 - 14 record. Nowadays, of course, they get real upset down there if they see a shotgun formation.

But I don't think that's what's behind some of it. Everybody on this board knows what Tech's recruiting obstacles are and that they are why we hired Coach in the first place. A change in coaching staff and offensive style won't change any of those obstacles one whit and, I think, most folks who want a change know that. So what are they looking for? I speculate that they feel they can leverage their contributions to the school to get more exemptions for Tech football (for which three cheers) and more leeway in the academic programs; i.e. a UNC solution for the athletic program. They could point out, correctly, that UNC's academic rep hasn't suffered at all as a result of the blatant mistreatment of their "scholar-athletes". Graduating functional illiterates hasn't even led to NCAA penalties. Why shouldn't Tech do the same (without admitting it, of course) and take the shackles off its recruiting? We'd win! Problem = Coach has made it clear many times that he won't stand for this and, as long as that's the case, the administration has cover for not taking steps to eliminate our recruiting obstacles. He has to go.

If I'm right - and I could be completely wrong; I expect people will tell me directly - I think the "UNC solution" people are living in a fool's paradise. The problem for this route is the curriculum. Is Tech going to go to the BoR and ask for basket weaving majors with any success? No. The administration will never support it and the BoR will never do it; there are sound reasons for Georgia to insist on Tech remaining one of the best engineering schools in the world. That means that any new coach will face exactly the same situation, given the NCAA progress regs, that we face today. It could be, of course, that a change to a shotgun spread would have the recruiting results predicted, but I haven't see any systemic evidence of that, especially with present restrictions. I think our new AD has the solution squarely in his sights: more money to bring the program back to parity with its rivals. That might mean a new coach in time, but Coach has been successful here and I think TS is right in saying he deserves a chance to see what he can do with the resources he has been asking for for years. I'll support that.

It's frightening that you and several others believe what you posted.

You say "Coach has been successful here." No he hasn't.

He was successful his first 2 years. More on that in a minute.

The next 4 years--2010-2013--he was 23-25 vs FBS opponents. You call that successful? I don't.

Then there was 2014. One poster aptly called the season "Fools Gold."

From 2015 to date he is 19-22, and 16-22 vs FBS. 9-17 vs ACC opponents. You call that successful? I don't.

He was 18-7 his first two years vs FBS opponents. He was 23-25 over the next 4 years. Did he suddenly forget how to coach in 2010, or was Chan Gailey's recruiting that much better? You tell me which is was--but you can't have it both ways.

If Chan Gailey's recruiting was that much better, then your academic argument goes away. The academics didn't suddenly get that much harder or more restrictive when Johnson came (in fact, we have more liberal arts majors than ever). Keep in mind that Johnson has advantages in recruiting that Gailey did not have, like an indoor practice facility.

If he forgot how to coach, then what is your argument for keeping him?

Your post is long on opinion and short on facts and logic.

 

[jgtengineer]

It's frightening that you and several others believe what you posted.

You say "Coach has been successful here." No he hasn't.

He was successful his first 2 years. More on that in a minute.

The next 4 years--2010-2013--he was 23-25 vs FBS opponents. You call that successful? I don't.

Then there was 2014. One poster aptly called the season "Fools Gold."

From 2015 to date he is 19-22, and 16-22 vs FBS. 9-17 vs ACC opponents. You call that successful? I don't.

He was 18-7 his first two years vs FBS opponents. He was 23-25 over the next 4 years. Did he suddenly forget how to coach in 2010, or was Chan Gailey's recruiting that much better? You tell me which is was--but you can't have it both ways.

If Chan Gailey's recruiting was that much better, then your academic argument goes away. The academics didn't suddenly get that much harder or more restrictive when Johnson came (in fact, we have more liberal arts majors than ever). Keep in mind that Johnson has advantages in recruiting that Gailey did not have, like an indoor practice facility.

If he forgot how to coach, then what is your argument for keeping him?

Your post is long on opinion and short on facts and logic.

Academics were suddenly tracked with apr when Johnson got here. That entire 2007 class was sold on the three and done promise, and the number of them with degrees show that. 2011 and 2012 were an excercise in what happens when you hire a DC that doesn't work out. Those offenses were some of the most productive we have ever had at tech. Al Groh should have worked out. This was a man with a superbowl ring and proven knoweldge of the game. But it didn't work. johnson hired him but he did so on a budget. Roof was a bobinski hire. Roof was better with groh's recruits than his own.

2014 is still the only time we have ever had a truly experienced in every place but QB offense. The line stayed healthy. He put a player in the NFL from guard position which is something we weren't suppose to be able to do ( did it through development too mason was a 2 star). Had a 2nd round pick in gotsis as well on the DL who may have even gone first had he not injured his knee in 2015.

Honestly I think our academics are a major part of the problem with our defenses. Our offense can focus on repetitive tasks. Its memorization. Defense is film study. How many interceptions did our secondary get in 2014 because of golden camping out in the film room and recognizing plays? That kind of dedication isn't possible with our workload often. Especially not for underclassman. Johnson is graduating players too, our APR is second or 3rd highest in the ACC and among the highest in the country. Maybe if we sold a 3 year plan instead of a 40 year plan we'd get a few more 4 stars, that likely transfer out after they hit Calc 1 and Compsci for non engineers. Or maybe they make it to finance.

You bring up liberal arts but ivan allen still has math weedout and if you can't read or write you don't get a free pass like you do at most other "schools".

 

[takethepoints]

It's frightening that you and several others believe what you posted.

You say "Coach has been successful here." No he hasn't.

He was successful his first 2 years. More on that in a minute.

The next 4 years--2010-2013--he was 23-25 vs FBS opponents. You call that successful? I don't.

Then there was 2014. One poster aptly called the season "Fools Gold."

From 2015 to date he is 19-22, and 16-22 vs FBS. 9-17 vs ACC opponents. You call that successful? I don't.

He was 18-7 his first two years vs FBS opponents. He was 23-25 over the next 4 years. Did he suddenly forget how to coach in 2010, or was Chan Gailey's recruiting that much better? You tell me which is was--but you can't have it both ways.

If Chan Gailey's recruiting was that much better, then your academic argument goes away. The academics didn't suddenly get that much harder or more restrictive when Johnson came (in fact, we have more liberal arts majors than ever). Keep in mind that Johnson has advantages in recruiting that Gailey did not have, like an indoor practice facility.

If he forgot how to coach, then what is your argument for keeping him?

Your post is long on opinion and short on facts and logic.

I added it up. Coach's record against FBS opponents is 67 - 57. That's a 54% average. He's at 57% wins overall and 56% in the ACC. Or, iow, a winning record. I mean you can cherry-pick to your heart's content, but to quote someone we know, "It is what it is."

Your point about academic reatrictions ignores the NCAA progress requirements, as is pointed out by JGT above, and by me as well. In fact, we've done alright with recruiting, about the same as Chan, in the last 11 years. We've had a run of really bad luck with injury and transfers in the last three years. But I'll put it simply: if Mills hadn't been kicked off the team, we wouldn't be having a conversation about recruiting. (Yes, he really was that important.)

I'm disappointed about the 2016 campaign too and it doesn't look like this one will turn out much better, though it is early days still. But I've seen too many programs get rid of future Hall of Fame coaches - like the one we have now - because some fans are eager for a change. It almost never works out and that is at schools without Tech's recruiting obstacles. That's why I think TS has the right idea going forward.

 

[SidewalkJacket]

He was successful his first 2 years. More on that in a minute.

The next 4 years--2010-2013--he was 23-25 vs FBS opponents. You call that successful? I don't.

Then there was 2014. One poster aptly called the season "Fools Gold."

From 2015 to date he is 19-22, and 16-22 vs FBS. 9-17 vs ACC opponents. You call that successful? I don't.

You truly are gifted. No sarcasm. It takes talent to cherry pick data the way you do.

2008/2009 don’t count because CCG.

2014 was “fool’s gold”

You don’t even mention 2016.

That’s rich, man.

 

[Jacket in Dairyland]

I've been thinking about what's behind some of the responses here. Ok, some of it is people like the old guy who used to sit behind me at Tech games a few years ago. He kept complaining that he "… wanted some excitement!" and that with the O he wasn't getting it. There's a faction that's been waiting to see a couple of bad years in a row - they were badly disappointed in 2015 - so that they can try to chase Coach and get "excitement" back in Tech football. This, I understand. It's the same thing that got the folks at GSU to fire Sewak after two straight seasons of post conference play and a 35 - 14 record. Nowadays, of course, they get real upset down there if they see a shotgun formation.

But I don't think that's what's behind some of it. Everybody on this board knows what Tech's recruiting obstacles are and that they are why we hired Coach in the first place. A change in coaching staff and offensive style won't change any of those obstacles one whit and, I think, most folks who want a change know that. So what are they looking for? I speculate that they feel they can leverage their contributions to the school to get more exemptions for Tech football (for which three cheers) and more leeway in the academic programs; i.e. a UNC solution for the athletic program. They could point out, correctly, that UNC's academic rep hasn't suffered at all as a result of the blatant mistreatment of their "scholar-athletes". Graduating functional illiterates hasn't even led to NCAA penalties. Why shouldn't Tech do the same (without admitting it, of course) and take the shackles off its recruiting? We'd win! Problem = Coach has made it clear many times that he won't stand for this and, as long as that's the case, the administration has cover for not taking steps to eliminate our recruiting obstacles. He has to go.

If I'm right - and I could be completely wrong; I expect people will tell me directly - I think the "UNC solution" people are living in a fool's paradise. The problem for this route is the curriculum. Is Tech going to go to the BoR and ask for basket weaving majors with any success? No. The administration will never support it and the BoR will never do it; there are sound reasons for Georgia to insist on Tech remaining one of the best engineering schools in the world. That means that any new coach will face exactly the same situation, given the NCAA progress regs, that we face today. It could be, of course, that a change to a shotgun spread would have the recruiting results predicted, but I haven't see any systemic evidence of that, especially with present restrictions. I think our new AD has the solution squarely in his sights: more money to bring the program back to parity with its rivals. That might mean a new coach in time, but Coach has been successful here and I think TS is right in saying he deserves a chance to see what he can do with the resources he has been asking for for years. I'll support that.

I agree with you to a point. You and others seem to be saying that the solution to admitting some less academically qualified SAs is an " either/or" proposition. Either continue what we are doing or go to the other extreme and be UGA, UNC, LSU .......
I would like to believe that the solution lies somewhere in between where we are and mistreatment of SAs. I think the idea is "easing " restrictions - to some degree- not completely abolishing them. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Boaty1]

It's frightening that you and several others believe what you posted.

You say "Coach has been successful here." No he hasn't.

He was successful his first 2 years. More on that in a minute.

The next 4 years--2010-2013--he was 23-25 vs FBS opponents. You call that successful? I don't.

Then there was 2014. One poster aptly called the season "Fools Gold."

From 2015 to date he is 19-22, and 16-22 vs FBS. 9-17 vs ACC opponents. You call that successful? I don't.

He was 18-7 his first two years vs FBS opponents. He was 23-25 over the next 4 years. Did he suddenly forget how to coach in 2010, or was Chan Gailey's recruiting that much better? You tell me which is was--but you can't have it both ways.

If Chan Gailey's recruiting was that much better, then your academic argument goes away. The academics didn't suddenly get that much harder or more restrictive when Johnson came (in fact, we have more liberal arts majors than ever). Keep in mind that Johnson has advantages in recruiting that Gailey did not have, like an indoor practice facility.

If he forgot how to coach, then what is your argument for keeping him?

Your post is long on opinion and short on facts and logic.

Great post. Unfortunately most on this board believe this is as good as we can do right now. I believe in the program more than that as you do but apparently we are in the minority. I went to Clemson this weekend to watch their game vs the Cuse. A couple things jumped out to me.

1. How Syracuse was so much better than us in D and special teams. And this is not a program that has resources we don’t have.

2. Literally every Clemson fan I spoke to thought we should get rid of Johnson. It’s baffling to me how people from outside of our program think more of us than many of our fans.

Frustrating times for this jacket right now. There is a reason Johnson is still at Tech. It’s clearly not because he wants to be. He’s here because he has no other options.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

How Syracuse was so much better than us in D and special teams.

Playing the third string QB can have that effect on an opposing team...

 

[AE 87]

Great post. Unfortunately most on this board believe this is as good as we can do right now. I believe in the program more than that as you do but apparently we are in the minority. I went to Clemson this weekend to watch their game vs the Cuse. A couple things jumped out to me.

1. How Syracuse was so much better than us in D and special teams. And this is not a program that has resources we don’t have.

2. Literally every Clemson fan I spoke to thought we should get rid of Johnson. It’s baffling to me how people from outside of our program think more of us than many of our fans.

Frustrating times for this jacket right now. There is a reason Johnson is still at Tech. It’s clearly not because he wants to be. He’s here because he has no other options.

Fwiw, I think CU should get rid of Dabo the Clown and Venables.