Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Athletic Director's Update
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="takethepoints" data-source="post: 468620" data-attributes="member: 265"><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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 <em>win!</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="takethepoints, post: 468620, member: 265"] 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 [I]win![/I] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
The 2014 ACC Football Championship was played in what city?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Athletic Director's Update
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top