Commitment to basketball success

jacketup

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,551
Recruiting is about building relationships. Cremins did it so well. Recent coaches at GT (in football and basketball) have done it so poorly.

Pastner seems to be able to build relationships, but his judgment hasn't been good about the level of that relationship. His relationship with Watson wasn't going to overcome the blood relative coach, and geography may be important to an 18 year old from the west coast-- more so than to a coach who played at Arizona.

That's the disappointment to me--Pastner didn't understand where he stood earlier so that he could move on. I guess he was confident, and it takes confidence to be a good recruiter, but his confidence may have trumped his judgment.

I haven't given up on him. He works hard and has improved the program. However, I also agree that recruiting needs to improve quickly or let's move on.

Is Tech sufficiently committed to athletics? Homer Rice convinced the Hill and boosters that athletics are good for the Institute when the situation was worse than it is now. The three knuckleheads who followed him didn't get it. The jury is still out on Stansbury, but all I see so far is rhetoric. He's kind of like Pastner--he's an improvement, but is he enough of an improvement? Either commit to competing at a high level or shut it down.
 

spdrama

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
561
Recruiting is about building relationships. Cremins did it so well. Recent coaches at GT (in football and basketball) have done it so poorly.

Pastner seems to be able to build relationships, but his judgment hasn't been good about the level of that relationship. His relationship with Watson wasn't going to overcome the blood relative coach, and geography may be important to an 18 year old from the west coast-- more so than to a coach who played at Arizona.

That's the disappointment to me--Pastner didn't understand where he stood earlier so that he could move on. I guess he was confident, and it takes confidence to be a good recruiter, but his confidence may have trumped his judgment.

I haven't given up on him. He works hard and has improved the program. However, I also agree that recruiting needs to improve quickly or let's move on.

Is Tech sufficiently committed to athletics? Homer Rice convinced the Hill and boosters that athletics are good for the Institute when the situation was worse than it is now. The three knuckleheads who followed him didn't get it. The jury is still out on Stansbury, but all I see so far is rhetoric. He's kind of like Pastner--he's an improvement, but is he enough of an improvement? Either commit to competing at a high level or shut it down.
I too was wondering why, recently, GT has not been able to keep Atlanta kids home for BB. If you do some research, I think you will find this is not a problem only in Atlanta. Wisconsin can’t keep kids in state and they have a very good program. South Carolina had the same problem, even after a big tourney run. Further research will probably show this is a nationwide problem, except for the Blue Bloods. And everyone seems to blame the same new dynamics. HS coaches are no longer the recruitment mentors and advisors. It’s all about AAU and these kids travel every weekend all over. They make contacts and build relationships far from home and become comfortable playing in foreign locales. Local pride and loyalty has disappeared. And the AAU teams are financed by the Athletic wear companies who pay their expenses and bills. The AAU coaches are in the recruitment advisor role and are beholding to sneaker companies, whose big $ is spent on the bigger high ranked teams. There are now 350+ Division 1 teams competing for talent. Not trying to make excuses for Pastner, but, in fairness, what I am learning tells me he, like most coaches, have a bigger uphill recruiting battle than we fans might be aware of.
 

YlJacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,261
Top kids travel routinely with their AAU programs so there isn't the "fear" of traveling away from their hometown.
Almost every game of a P5 program is on TV so they know their parents and loved ones can see them play even if they are not local
Makes it a lot easier to look at options on a national basis and these guys already know the coaches from AAU discussions.
 

dtm1997

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
15,709
Recruiting is about building relationships. Cremins did it so well. Recent coaches at GT (in football and basketball) have done it so poorly.

Pastner seems to be able to build relationships, but his judgment hasn't been good about the level of that relationship. His relationship with Watson wasn't going to overcome the blood relative coach, and geography may be important to an 18 year old from the west coast-- more so than to a coach who played at Arizona.

That's the disappointment to me--Pastner didn't understand where he stood earlier so that he could move on. I guess he was confident, and it takes confidence to be a good recruiter, but his confidence may have trumped his judgment.

I haven't given up on him. He works hard and has improved the program. However, I also agree that recruiting needs to improve quickly or let's move on.

Is Tech sufficiently committed to athletics? Homer Rice convinced the Hill and boosters that athletics are good for the Institute when the situation was worse than it is now. The three knuckleheads who followed him didn't get it. The jury is still out on Stansbury, but all I see so far is rhetoric. He's kind of like Pastner--he's an improvement, but is he enough of an improvement? Either commit to competing at a high level or shut it down.

Stansbury has put forth a very clear, much needed, long overdue plan for investment, which includes upgrading facilities, endowing scholarships, & providing funds for operations.

Since launch, they've attained pledges for one third already with an end date of 2020.

We have a brand new $4.5MM football locker room and are nearing completion of fundraising for new basketball locker rooms & incremental baseball facilities, all of which are tangible and intended to deliver specific purpose.

If anyone believes all they've seen from Stansbury is rhetoric so far, then I have to call your credibility in to question, as Stansbury has put tangible action in to effect, right in front of our faces.

Before anyone starts questioning commitment, make sure you take a look in the mirror and figure out what kind of commitment, large or even very very small, to GT Athletics you're going to put forth before going to the link below and pledging it.

http://gtathl.com/2020/
 

jacketup

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,551
Stansbury has put forth a very clear, much needed, long overdue plan for investment, which includes upgrading facilities, endowing scholarships, & providing funds for operations.

Since launch, they've attained pledges for one third already with an end date of 2020.

We have a brand new $4.5MM football locker room and are nearing completion of fundraising for new basketball locker rooms & incremental baseball facilities, all of which are tangible and intended to deliver specific purpose.

If anyone believes all they've seen from Stansbury is rhetoric so far, then I have to call your credibility in to question, as Stansbury has put tangible action in to effect, right in front of our faces.

Before anyone starts questioning commitment, make sure you take a look in the mirror and figure out what kind of commitment, large or even very very small, to GT Athletics you're going to put forth before going to the link below and pledging it.

http://gtathl.com/2020/

Some historical perspective.

In the late ‘70s our facilities were the worst in Division 1-A (for which Bobby Dodd is largely to blame). We were recruiting at a Division 1-AA level in football. Basketball and other sports were a complete afterthought (Whack Hyder was my PT instructor in the early ‘70s—can you image Pastner being required to teach basketball to the students?).

The Administration cared nothing for athletics, which was a big part of the problem.

Homer Rice came in and saved the GTAA and Division 1-A athletics at Tech, for which he gets too little credit. Rice was a brilliant fund raiser, but one of the main things he did was convince the Administration of the benefit of a strong athletic program. His Total Person program showed that there could be an educational aspect to athletics. He showed that athletics could help with academic fund raising—Georgia Tech Clubs in the 80’s were for academic and athletic fund raising. Coaches attended and spoke at those events, even in small markets (they don’t anymore). He also motivated the boosters, who frankly put pressure on the Administration to support athletics. It didn’t hurt that a key ally, Kim King, was making money in Atlanta real estate and was one of Dodd’s Boys. Alumni and boosters listened to him.

Homer knew that Tech was different. He embraced those differences. He knew that “different” includes both positives and negatives. “Quality not quantity” was one of his sayings, emphasizing a difference between Tech and schools with bigger stadiums and fan bases—doing it in a way that emphasized the positive and deemphasized the negative.

Homer retired. Clough brought in his buddy from VPISU, Dave Braine. Braine came to the realization that Tech was different. But he only saw the negative side of different. He preached mediocrity, a philosophy many fans bought into and which still exists today—if you don’t believe it, go read the GTSwarm football board. It didn’t help that he spent more money than he raised, which was the beginning of the current financial problems.

Braine was followed Radakovich and Bobinski, the triumvirate I call The Three Stooges.

Which brings us to Todd Stansbury. You took my post, to which you responded, as being more critical of Stansbury than was intended. When he was hired, I posted that he had a tough job due to the mess The Three Stooges left behind. It will take time to clean it up. As I said in my post, I haven’t given up on him.

We need the second coming of Homer Rice. It’s a good thing that Stansbury was around when Homer was here. Hopefully he learned from the master. On the other hand, is he up to the task?

Things aren’t as bad as they were in the late ‘70’s, but they are similar. Peterson controls the Board, which is dominated by academics. He doesn’t seem to care about athletics, and maybe even sees the GTAA as a competitor for fund raising. The Board is a bunch of academics who know tenure but not business—who else would have approved Hewitt’s contract? The Board is why we are slow to pressure or fire underperformers—just like in the academic world. You won’t find that culture at schools embracing competition.

But maybe the current culture of mediocrity is worse than the ‘70’s. Back then, things had hit bottom and need for a change was obvious. Now we have a big segment of the fan base that is OK with a football program being 1 game above .500 vs. FBS opponents over a 9 season span.

Stansbury talks about competing for championships, but we aren’t. So for now, that’s rhetoric. I don’t see changes in the Administration that are positive for athletics. I don’t see changes in the makeup of the Board that are positive. I don’t see coaching changes sending the message that more is expected. But like I said, I haven’t given up on him, and he has a tough job. I hope he is up to it. My biggest fear is that no one is.

With regard to fund raising—it is a key part of his job, and you are correct that there is positive movement. On the other hand, I have contributed to AT for more than 30 years (which I am willing to bet is longer than you). I stopped my contribution for the last 2 years of Bobinski’s supposed reign as AD (if he existed) because of the trajectory of the programs and Bobinski's non-responsiveness to questions. I started donating again when Stansbury was hired, but not at my previous level—I want to see some tangible improvement. My contact at the GT Development Office—which is primarily for academic fund raising—has commented on my AT contribution history. However, no one from the GTAA has ever contacted me regarding my hiatus in contributing or why my contribution is now lower than before—or for any other reason. For an entity that depends on contributions, that’s pretty sad. It hasn't changed under Stansbury. Maybe my annual contributions have never been at the 5 digit level, but the GTAA needs every contributor it can get. It's a small investment to spend a few minutes reaching out on a personal level to donors given the potential return--but they don't do it. The Development Office does.

The next 12 months are critical. Interest in sports programs at Tech is declining. The situation must be reversed before it’s too late. Status quo is not the answer. It will be interesting to see what Stansbury does. He has a tough job. Let’s hope for the best.
 

dtm1997

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
15,709
Some historical perspective.

In the late ‘70s our facilities were the worst in Division 1-A (for which Bobby Dodd is largely to blame). We were recruiting at a Division 1-AA level in football. Basketball and other sports were a complete afterthought (Whack Hyder was my PT instructor in the early ‘70s—can you image Pastner being required to teach basketball to the students?).

The Administration cared nothing for athletics, which was a big part of the problem.

Homer Rice came in and saved the GTAA and Division 1-A athletics at Tech, for which he gets too little credit. Rice was a brilliant fund raiser, but one of the main things he did was convince the Administration of the benefit of a strong athletic program. His Total Person program showed that there could be an educational aspect to athletics. He showed that athletics could help with academic fund raising—Georgia Tech Clubs in the 80’s were for academic and athletic fund raising. Coaches attended and spoke at those events, even in small markets (they don’t anymore). He also motivated the boosters, who frankly put pressure on the Administration to support athletics. It didn’t hurt that a key ally, Kim King, was making money in Atlanta real estate and was one of Dodd’s Boys. Alumni and boosters listened to him.

Homer knew that Tech was different. He embraced those differences. He knew that “different” includes both positives and negatives. “Quality not quantity” was one of his sayings, emphasizing a difference between Tech and schools with bigger stadiums and fan bases—doing it in a way that emphasized the positive and deemphasized the negative.

Homer retired. Clough brought in his buddy from VPISU, Dave Braine. Braine came to the realization that Tech was different. But he only saw the negative side of different. He preached mediocrity, a philosophy many fans bought into and which still exists today—if you don’t believe it, go read the GTSwarm football board. It didn’t help that he spent more money than he raised, which was the beginning of the current financial problems.

Braine was followed Radakovich and Bobinski, the triumvirate I call The Three Stooges.

Which brings us to Todd Stansbury. You took my post, to which you responded, as being more critical of Stansbury than was intended. When he was hired, I posted that he had a tough job due to the mess The Three Stooges left behind. It will take time to clean it up. As I said in my post, I haven’t given up on him.

We need the second coming of Homer Rice. It’s a good thing that Stansbury was around when Homer was here. Hopefully he learned from the master. On the other hand, is he up to the task?

Things aren’t as bad as they were in the late ‘70’s, but they are similar. Peterson controls the Board, which is dominated by academics. He doesn’t seem to care about athletics, and maybe even sees the GTAA as a competitor for fund raising. The Board is a bunch of academics who know tenure but not business—who else would have approved Hewitt’s contract? The Board is why we are slow to pressure or fire underperformers—just like in the academic world. You won’t find that culture at schools embracing competition.

But maybe the current culture of mediocrity is worse than the ‘70’s. Back then, things had hit bottom and need for a change was obvious. Now we have a big segment of the fan base that is OK with a football program being 1 game above .500 vs. FBS opponents over a 9 season span.

Stansbury talks about competing for championships, but we aren’t. So for now, that’s rhetoric. I don’t see changes in the Administration that are positive for athletics. I don’t see changes in the makeup of the Board that are positive. I don’t see coaching changes sending the message that more is expected. But like I said, I haven’t given up on him, and he has a tough job. I hope he is up to it. My biggest fear is that no one is.

With regard to fund raising—it is a key part of his job, and you are correct that there is positive movement. On the other hand, I have contributed to AT for more than 30 years (which I am willing to bet is longer than you). I stopped my contribution for the last 2 years of Bobinski’s supposed reign as AD (if he existed) because of the trajectory of the programs and Bobinski's non-responsiveness to questions. I started donating again when Stansbury was hired, but not at my previous level—I want to see some tangible improvement. My contact at the GT Development Office—which is primarily for academic fund raising—has commented on my AT contribution history. However, no one from the GTAA has ever contacted me regarding my hiatus in contributing or why my contribution is now lower than before—or for any other reason. For an entity that depends on contributions, that’s pretty sad. It hasn't changed under Stansbury. Maybe my annual contributions have never been at the 5 digit level, but the GTAA needs every contributor it can get. It's a small investment to spend a few minutes reaching out on a personal level to donors given the potential return--but they don't do it. The Development Office does.

The next 12 months are critical. Interest in sports programs at Tech is declining. The situation must be reversed before it’s too late. Status quo is not the answer. It will be interesting to see what Stansbury does. He has a tough job. Let’s hope for the best.

Despite this post being very long, I've made the effort to read it all. Here are my thoughts & responses:
  1. I entered GT on the tail end of the Homer Rice era, but I know he did great things at GT.
  2. I agree with you calling his successors the Three Stooges, as you can probably tell by my avatar and the fact I call Sasquatch's predecessor LazyAD and don't refer to them by name.
  3. I'm glad you haven't given up on Stansbury, nor should you. If you're seeking the closest thing to the second coming of Homer Rice, he's arrived and, quite frankly, it's pretty self-evident. He views Homer Rice as his mentor. Full stop. He's implemented the Everyday Champions program, which is built on the underpinnings of the Total Person Program. You can review it here at your leisure. http://ramblinwreck.com/everydaychampions/
  4. I no longer hold Bud in any sort of esteem, but I'm guessing it's for different reasons than most. I agree he does not seem to support athletics outside of glad handing people at games.
  5. Stansbury does talk about competing for championships, but I firmly disagree on you continuing to call it rhetoric. He's painting a clear vision and taking clear action to build the foundation needed to do exactly that. There's no magic switch to flip. It will take several years to raise the war chest, upgrade the facilities, and put appropriate resources behind our programs. If it was rhetoric, now, then, or in the future, he wouldn't be on the road chasing after these efforts.
  6. I'm not going to remark on coaching changes. This dialogue is off track enough from the thread topic and I'd like to think it's too soon to bring that concept up in terms of GT basketball and I'm certainly not going to bring other sports in the this forum.
  7. Duly noted. You've donated for longer than I have because I've only donated every year since I graduated, which was 1997 (Maybe 1993 if you count Roll Call). I'll assume that wasn't some sort of enormously condescending remark in a veiled attempt to put me in my place or something.
  8. Can't say I blame you for cutting your donation during the Sasquatch era, but let's be clear on something. College athletics, through its ups & downs, is a passion project. By choking off resources, tell me how you can expect improvement? You certainly don't put yourself in position to demand it.
  9. Glad to hear you've started donating again. It'd be nice if you donated at your previous level, but the important thing to me is that folks do something.
  10. Regarding Development, their job is to tailor your philanthropy to GT based on your preferences. If GT athletics is your preference, trust me, they'll oblige. If you're disappointed in Bud's lack of support, maybe you should consider sending a message that you won't donate to the academic side until you see the academic side get on board with supporting GT athletics.
  11. Ironically, I've seen more & more remarks about increased GTAA outreach to people. A thread was started on another board today by @crut mentioning a moment of hope. Does it need to continue to improve? Yes. Have I personally seen changes in a positive direction? Yes. Does my contact in Development support the efforts of Athletics and my personal interest in it? Yes.
  12. The next 24 months are important. Stansbury has set forth an extremely clear vision & scope towards increasing resources and improving facilities. He's planted a flag for us to rally around. It's not as if you and everyone else don't know that AI 2020 is out there. The question is whether we are going to to collectively step up to the plate and support getting GT athletics to some level of equal footing with all of these other programs that have invested heavily or are we going to sit here and say "the GTAA hasn't called me" or "I'm not giving because the teams aren't winning enough" or "They're not getting my money because Coach X needs to go".
The choice is yours (meaning everyone here, not you, @jacketup, specifically). Rally around our best hope of leadership capable of amassing the resources GT Athletics needs to compete in modern college athletics or go away and don't come back around with complaints, philosophies, platitudes or sanctimony, if you choose to not get with the cause.

Below is the link to donate... in case anyone missed it previously.

http://gtathl.com/2020/
 

684Bee

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,644
Despite this post being very long, I've made the effort to read it all. Here are my thoughts & responses:
  1. I entered GT on the tail end of the Homer Rice era, but I know he did great things at GT.
  2. I agree with you calling his successors the Three Stooges, as you can probably tell by my avatar and the fact I call Sasquatch's predecessor LazyAD and don't refer to them by name.
  3. I'm glad you haven't given up on Stansbury, nor should you. If you're seeking the closest thing to the second coming of Homer Rice, he's arrived and, quite frankly, it's pretty self-evident. He views Homer Rice as his mentor. Full stop. He's implemented the Everyday Champions program, which is built on the underpinnings of the Total Person Program. You can review it here at your leisure. http://ramblinwreck.com/everydaychampions/
  4. I no longer hold Bud in any sort of esteem, but I'm guessing it's for different reasons than most. I agree he does not seem to support athletics outside of glad handing people at games.
  5. Stansbury does talk about competing for championships, but I firmly disagree on you continuing to call it rhetoric. He's painting a clear vision and taking clear action to build the foundation needed to do exactly that. There's no magic switch to flip. It will take several years to raise the war chest, upgrade the facilities, and put appropriate resources behind our programs. If it was rhetoric, now, then, or in the future, he wouldn't be on the road chasing after these efforts.
  6. I'm not going to remark on coaching changes. This dialogue is off track enough from the thread topic and I'd like to think it's too soon to bring that concept up in terms of GT basketball and I'm certainly not going to bring other sports in the this forum.
  7. Duly noted. You've donated for longer than I have because I've only donated every year since I graduated, which was 1997 (Maybe 1993 if you count Roll Call). I'll assume that wasn't some sort of enormously condescending remark in a veiled attempt to put me in my place or something.
  8. Can't say I blame you for cutting your donation during the Sasquatch era, but let's be clear on something. College athletics, through its ups & downs, is a passion project. By choking off resources, tell me how you can expect improvement? You certainly don't put yourself in position to demand it.
  9. Glad to hear you've started donating again. It'd be nice if you donated at your previous level, but the important thing to me is that folks do something.
  10. Regarding Development, their job is to tailor your philanthropy to GT based on your preferences. If GT athletics is your preference, trust me, they'll oblige. If you're disappointed in Bud's lack of support, maybe you should consider sending a message that you won't donate to the academic side until you see the academic side get on board with supporting GT athletics.
  11. Ironically, I've seen more & more remarks about increased GTAA outreach to people. A thread was started on another board today by @crut mentioning a moment of hope. Does it need to continue to improve? Yes. Have I personally seen changes in a positive direction? Yes. Does my contact in Development support the efforts of Athletics and my personal interest in it? Yes.
  12. The next 24 months are important. Stansbury has set forth an extremely clear vision & scope towards increasing resources and improving facilities. He's planted a flag for us to rally around. It's not as if you and everyone else don't know that AI 2020 is out there. The question is whether we are going to to collectively step up to the plate and support getting GT athletics to some level of equal footing with all of these other programs that have invested heavily or are we going to sit here and say "the GTAA hasn't called me" or "I'm not giving because the teams aren't winning enough" or "They're not getting my money because Coach X needs to go".
The choice is yours (meaning everyone here, not you, @jacketup, specifically). Rally around our best hope of leadership capable of amassing the resources GT Athletics needs to compete in modern college athletics or go away and don't come back around with complaints, philosophies, platitudes or sanctimony, if you choose to not get with the cause.

Below is the link to donate... in case anyone missed it previously.

http://gtathl.com/2020/

Good post.
 

Connell62

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
3,094
Despite this post being very long, I've made the effort to read it all. Here are my thoughts & responses:
  1. I entered GT on the tail end of the Homer Rice era, but I know he did great things at GT.
  2. I agree with you calling his successors the Three Stooges, as you can probably tell by my avatar and the fact I call Sasquatch's predecessor LazyAD and don't refer to them by name.
  3. I'm glad you haven't given up on Stansbury, nor should you. If you're seeking the closest thing to the second coming of Homer Rice, he's arrived and, quite frankly, it's pretty self-evident. He views Homer Rice as his mentor. Full stop. He's implemented the Everyday Champions program, which is built on the underpinnings of the Total Person Program. You can review it here at your leisure. http://ramblinwreck.com/everydaychampions/
  4. I no longer hold Bud in any sort of esteem, but I'm guessing it's for different reasons than most. I agree he does not seem to support athletics outside of glad handing people at games.
  5. Stansbury does talk about competing for championships, but I firmly disagree on you continuing to call it rhetoric. He's painting a clear vision and taking clear action to build the foundation needed to do exactly that. There's no magic switch to flip. It will take several years to raise the war chest, upgrade the facilities, and put appropriate resources behind our programs. If it was rhetoric, now, then, or in the future, he wouldn't be on the road chasing after these efforts.
  6. I'm not going to remark on coaching changes. This dialogue is off track enough from the thread topic and I'd like to think it's too soon to bring that concept up in terms of GT basketball and I'm certainly not going to bring other sports in the this forum.
  7. Duly noted. You've donated for longer than I have because I've only donated every year since I graduated, which was 1997 (Maybe 1993 if you count Roll Call). I'll assume that wasn't some sort of enormously condescending remark in a veiled attempt to put me in my place or something.
  8. Can't say I blame you for cutting your donation during the Sasquatch era, but let's be clear on something. College athletics, through its ups & downs, is a passion project. By choking off resources, tell me how you can expect improvement? You certainly don't put yourself in position to demand it.
  9. Glad to hear you've started donating again. It'd be nice if you donated at your previous level, but the important thing to me is that folks do something.
  10. Regarding Development, their job is to tailor your philanthropy to GT based on your preferences. If GT athletics is your preference, trust me, they'll oblige. If you're disappointed in Bud's lack of support, maybe you should consider sending a message that you won't donate to the academic side until you see the academic side get on board with supporting GT athletics.
  11. Ironically, I've seen more & more remarks about increased GTAA outreach to people. A thread was started on another board today by @crut mentioning a moment of hope. Does it need to continue to improve? Yes. Have I personally seen changes in a positive direction? Yes. Does my contact in Development support the efforts of Athletics and my personal interest in it? Yes.
  12. The next 24 months are important. Stansbury has set forth an extremely clear vision & scope towards increasing resources and improving facilities. He's planted a flag for us to rally around. It's not as if you and everyone else don't know that AI 2020 is out there. The question is whether we are going to to collectively step up to the plate and support getting GT athletics to some level of equal footing with all of these other programs that have invested heavily or are we going to sit here and say "the GTAA hasn't called me" or "I'm not giving because the teams aren't winning enough" or "They're not getting my money because Coach X needs to go".
The choice is yours (meaning everyone here, not you, @jacketup, specifically). Rally around our best hope of leadership capable of amassing the resources GT Athletics needs to compete in modern college athletics or go away and don't come back around with complaints, philosophies, platitudes or sanctimony, if you choose to not get with the cause.

Below is the link to donate... in case anyone missed it previously.

http://gtathl.com/2020/

And there it is...... Well said, dtm.

If sidewalk fans like myself are donating, there's not excuse for a GT grad not donating!
 

orientalnc

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
9,946
Location
Oriental, NC
I started donating when my sons were students at Tech and they copied me after graduation. We are not big donors, but we give something regularly. It isn't that hard for most Tech people that care.
 

BigDaddyBuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,189
Despite this post being very long, I've made the effort to read it all. Here are my thoughts & responses:
  1. I entered GT on the tail end of the Homer Rice era, but I know he did great things at GT.
  2. I agree with you calling his successors the Three Stooges, as you can probably tell by my avatar and the fact I call Sasquatch's predecessor LazyAD and don't refer to them by name.
  3. I'm glad you haven't given up on Stansbury, nor should you. If you're seeking the closest thing to the second coming of Homer Rice, he's arrived and, quite frankly, it's pretty self-evident. He views Homer Rice as his mentor. Full stop. He's implemented the Everyday Champions program, which is built on the underpinnings of the Total Person Program. You can review it here at your leisure. http://ramblinwreck.com/everydaychampions/
  4. I no longer hold Bud in any sort of esteem, but I'm guessing it's for different reasons than most. I agree he does not seem to support athletics outside of glad handing people at games.
  5. Stansbury does talk about competing for championships, but I firmly disagree on you continuing to call it rhetoric. He's painting a clear vision and taking clear action to build the foundation needed to do exactly that. There's no magic switch to flip. It will take several years to raise the war chest, upgrade the facilities, and put appropriate resources behind our programs. If it was rhetoric, now, then, or in the future, he wouldn't be on the road chasing after these efforts.
  6. I'm not going to remark on coaching changes. This dialogue is off track enough from the thread topic and I'd like to think it's too soon to bring that concept up in terms of GT basketball and I'm certainly not going to bring other sports in the this forum.
  7. Duly noted. You've donated for longer than I have because I've only donated every year since I graduated, which was 1997 (Maybe 1993 if you count Roll Call). I'll assume that wasn't some sort of enormously condescending remark in a veiled attempt to put me in my place or something.
  8. Can't say I blame you for cutting your donation during the Sasquatch era, but let's be clear on something. College athletics, through its ups & downs, is a passion project. By choking off resources, tell me how you can expect improvement? You certainly don't put yourself in position to demand it.
  9. Glad to hear you've started donating again. It'd be nice if you donated at your previous level, but the important thing to me is that folks do something.
  10. Regarding Development, their job is to tailor your philanthropy to GT based on your preferences. If GT athletics is your preference, trust me, they'll oblige. If you're disappointed in Bud's lack of support, maybe you should consider sending a message that you won't donate to the academic side until you see the academic side get on board with supporting GT athletics.
  11. Ironically, I've seen more & more remarks about increased GTAA outreach to people. A thread was started on another board today by @crut mentioning a moment of hope. Does it need to continue to improve? Yes. Have I personally seen changes in a positive direction? Yes. Does my contact in Development support the efforts of Athletics and my personal interest in it? Yes.
  12. The next 24 months are important. Stansbury has set forth an extremely clear vision & scope towards increasing resources and improving facilities. He's planted a flag for us to rally around. It's not as if you and everyone else don't know that AI 2020 is out there. The question is whether we are going to to collectively step up to the plate and support getting GT athletics to some level of equal footing with all of these other programs that have invested heavily or are we going to sit here and say "the GTAA hasn't called me" or "I'm not giving because the teams aren't winning enough" or "They're not getting my money because Coach X needs to go".
The choice is yours (meaning everyone here, not you, @jacketup, specifically). Rally around our best hope of leadership capable of amassing the resources GT Athletics needs to compete in modern college athletics or go away and don't come back around with complaints, philosophies, platitudes or sanctimony, if you choose to not get with the cause.

Below is the link to donate... in case anyone missed it previously.

http://gtathl.com/2020/
Post of the year! Stansbury gets it and is doing what he can. Peterson is a joke and I think he's out soon. For the life of me I don't know why a GT sports fan wouldn't donate to the AA. That is the easiest and best way to make a difference. For those that have questions, call the AA and speak to them.
 

jacketup

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,551
Despite this post being very long, I've made the effort to read it all. Here are my thoughts & responses:
  1. I entered GT on the tail end of the Homer Rice era, but I know he did great things at GT.
  2. I agree with you calling his successors the Three Stooges, as you can probably tell by my avatar and the fact I call Sasquatch's predecessor LazyAD and don't refer to them by name.
  3. I'm glad you haven't given up on Stansbury, nor should you. If you're seeking the closest thing to the second coming of Homer Rice, he's arrived and, quite frankly, it's pretty self-evident. He views Homer Rice as his mentor. Full stop. He's implemented the Everyday Champions program, which is built on the underpinnings of the Total Person Program. You can review it here at your leisure. http://ramblinwreck.com/everydaychampions/
  4. I no longer hold Bud in any sort of esteem, but I'm guessing it's for different reasons than most. I agree he does not seem to support athletics outside of glad handing people at games.
  5. Stansbury does talk about competing for championships, but I firmly disagree on you continuing to call it rhetoric. He's painting a clear vision and taking clear action to build the foundation needed to do exactly that. There's no magic switch to flip. It will take several years to raise the war chest, upgrade the facilities, and put appropriate resources behind our programs. If it was rhetoric, now, then, or in the future, he wouldn't be on the road chasing after these efforts.
  6. I'm not going to remark on coaching changes. This dialogue is off track enough from the thread topic and I'd like to think it's too soon to bring that concept up in terms of GT basketball and I'm certainly not going to bring other sports in the this forum.
  7. Duly noted. You've donated for longer than I have because I've only donated every year since I graduated, which was 1997 (Maybe 1993 if you count Roll Call). I'll assume that wasn't some sort of enormously condescending remark in a veiled attempt to put me in my place or something.
  8. Can't say I blame you for cutting your donation during the Sasquatch era, but let's be clear on something. College athletics, through its ups & downs, is a passion project. By choking off resources, tell me how you can expect improvement? You certainly don't put yourself in position to demand it.
  9. Glad to hear you've started donating again. It'd be nice if you donated at your previous level, but the important thing to me is that folks do something.
  10. Regarding Development, their job is to tailor your philanthropy to GT based on your preferences. If GT athletics is your preference, trust me, they'll oblige. If you're disappointed in Bud's lack of support, maybe you should consider sending a message that you won't donate to the academic side until you see the academic side get on board with supporting GT athletics.
  11. Ironically, I've seen more & more remarks about increased GTAA outreach to people. A thread was started on another board today by @crut mentioning a moment of hope. Does it need to continue to improve? Yes. Have I personally seen changes in a positive direction? Yes. Does my contact in Development support the efforts of Athletics and my personal interest in it? Yes.
  12. The next 24 months are important. Stansbury has set forth an extremely clear vision & scope towards increasing resources and improving facilities. He's planted a flag for us to rally around. It's not as if you and everyone else don't know that AI 2020 is out there. The question is whether we are going to to collectively step up to the plate and support getting GT athletics to some level of equal footing with all of these other programs that have invested heavily or are we going to sit here and say "the GTAA hasn't called me" or "I'm not giving because the teams aren't winning enough" or "They're not getting my money because Coach X needs to go".
The choice is yours (meaning everyone here, not you, @jacketup, specifically). Rally around our best hope of leadership capable of amassing the resources GT Athletics needs to compete in modern college athletics or go away and don't come back around with complaints, philosophies, platitudes or sanctimony, if you choose to not get with the cause.

Below is the link to donate... in case anyone missed it previously.

http://gtathl.com/2020/

I appreciate your reply, and I was going to leave this subject alone--even though a key part of my earlier post is how the entire structure and culture of the GTAA and the Board is due for a transformation--just like it was in 1980. Donations are important, but they won't accomplish that transformation.

The reason I reply now is to say that you should go to the football board and read the post entitled Trying to Donate our Yellow Jacket.

The GTAA needs to understand that every donor is important. Recognition of even small donations can lead to bigger donations in the future. They haven't understood the importance of reaching out and personally communicating with donors since Homer was AD. I too have written Stansbury-- as a 30 plus year AT donor-- and not gotten a reply--not even a form letter.

It's inexcusable. It's not like our donor base is that big.

When Homer was AD and Curry was HC, I wrote an assistant football coach a letter and got telephone call to answer my question. That wouldn't happen now.
 

dtm1997

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
15,709
I appreciate your reply, and I was going to leave this subject alone--even though a key part of my earlier post is how the entire structure and culture of the GTAA and the Board is due for a transformation--just like it was in 1980. Donations are important, but they won't accomplish that transformation.

The reason I reply now is to say that you should go to the football board and read the post entitled Trying to Donate our Yellow Jacket.

The GTAA needs to understand that every donor is important. Recognition of even small donations can lead to bigger donations in the future. They haven't understood the importance of reaching out and personally communicating with donors since Homer was AD. I too have written Stansbury-- as a 30 plus year AT donor-- and not gotten a reply--not even a form letter.

It's inexcusable. It's not like our donor base is that big.

When Homer was AD and Curry was HC, I wrote an assistant football coach a letter and got telephone call to answer my question. That wouldn't happen now.

I'll try and read the thread later after the hoops game, but I'll mention that I received an email from my hoops ticket rep today explaining that I was at X level of giving and I was close to the next level. He suggested we chat about getting me up to the next level.

This is a direct function of donor outreach being put together with our ticket office, which Stansbury facilitated. I know he did this because I've talked to him about it before at an event and, today, we saw the tangible act.

Maybe it's on the football thread, but @crut posted a great synopsis elsewhere of a young alumni event hosted by Todd last night.

I don't know where or why you're having this personal disconnect and I don't want to speculate, but I stand by the following:

1) Todd Stansbury is the right man for the job.

2) He's taking action and achieving tangible results.

3) [Speaking to the broad audience, not you specifically @jacketup]If you're a fan of Georgia Tech athletics and you're in a position to contribute, the AI2020 effort is a call to arms that GT fans are fully aware of. Answer the call. Step forward and proactively do your part. Don't sit around waiting for someone to reach out.

@CuseJacket - Will you please put these in another thread in the hoops forum so I'm not clogging up the Didenko thread?
 

jacketup

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,551
I'll try and read the thread later after the hoops game, but I'll mention that I received an email from my hoops ticket rep today explaining that I was at X level of giving and I was close to the next level. He suggested we chat about getting me up to the next level.

This is a direct function of donor outreach being put together with our ticket office, which Stansbury facilitated. I know he did this because I've talked to him about it before at an event and, today, we saw the tangible act.



@CuseJacket - Will you please put these in another thread in the hoops forum so I'm not clogging up the Didenko thread?

I highlighted your reply to indicate a disconnect at the GTAA. It's a misunderstanding by the GTAA of their constituents.

I live too far away to use season tickets. The statistics were and probably still are that most grads leave Georgia. I went to campus the weekend of the Clemson game. Taking my wife and son to visit my other son who is a Tech student (another $40K plus a year I "donate" to Tech) cost a $1000.

I have donated to AT for more than 3o years with no expectation of anything in return--not ticket priority or anything else. I'll bet there are lots of alumni like me who would like to be connected but can't justify season tickets. But the GTAA doesn't seem to give a damn about someone who writes checks but doesn't buy tickets, as your statement above seems to corroborate. I made the point with Bobinski when I wrote him that I had donated for 30 years and never expected anything in return, but I expected a reply to my letter--a reply I never received. I quit writing checks after that until he was gone.

I can't address these concerns with Stansbury. He won't reply to my letters either. Based on what I saw on the football board, I am not alone.

I am not anti-Stansbury. He's the best we've had in 20 years. I'm just saying there is a lot--a lot--that needs to be improved just to get back to where we were 30 years ago.
 

Boaty1

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,104
Some historical perspective.

In the late ‘70s our facilities were the worst in Division 1-A (for which Bobby Dodd is largely to blame). We were recruiting at a Division 1-AA level in football. Basketball and other sports were a complete afterthought (Whack Hyder was my PT instructor in the early ‘70s—can you image Pastner being required to teach basketball to the students?).

The Administration cared nothing for athletics, which was a big part of the problem.

Homer Rice came in and saved the GTAA and Division 1-A athletics at Tech, for which he gets too little credit. Rice was a brilliant fund raiser, but one of the main things he did was convince the Administration of the benefit of a strong athletic program. His Total Person program showed that there could be an educational aspect to athletics. He showed that athletics could help with academic fund raising—Georgia Tech Clubs in the 80’s were for academic and athletic fund raising. Coaches attended and spoke at those events, even in small markets (they don’t anymore). He also motivated the boosters, who frankly put pressure on the Administration to support athletics. It didn’t hurt that a key ally, Kim King, was making money in Atlanta real estate and was one of Dodd’s Boys. Alumni and boosters listened to him.

Homer knew that Tech was different. He embraced those differences. He knew that “different” includes both positives and negatives. “Quality not quantity” was one of his sayings, emphasizing a difference between Tech and schools with bigger stadiums and fan bases—doing it in a way that emphasized the positive and deemphasized the negative.

Homer retired. Clough brought in his buddy from VPISU, Dave Braine. Braine came to the realization that Tech was different. But he only saw the negative side of different. He preached mediocrity, a philosophy many fans bought into and which still exists today—if you don’t believe it, go read the GTSwarm football board. It didn’t help that he spent more money than he raised, which was the beginning of the current financial problems.

Braine was followed Radakovich and Bobinski, the triumvirate I call The Three Stooges.

Which brings us to Todd Stansbury. You took my post, to which you responded, as being more critical of Stansbury than was intended. When he was hired, I posted that he had a tough job due to the mess The Three Stooges left behind. It will take time to clean it up. As I said in my post, I haven’t given up on him.

We need the second coming of Homer Rice. It’s a good thing that Stansbury was around when Homer was here. Hopefully he learned from the master. On the other hand, is he up to the task?

Things aren’t as bad as they were in the late ‘70’s, but they are similar. Peterson controls the Board, which is dominated by academics. He doesn’t seem to care about athletics, and maybe even sees the GTAA as a competitor for fund raising. The Board is a bunch of academics who know tenure but not business—who else would have approved Hewitt’s contract? The Board is why we are slow to pressure or fire underperformers—just like in the academic world. You won’t find that culture at schools embracing competition.

But maybe the current culture of mediocrity is worse than the ‘70’s. Back then, things had hit bottom and need for a change was obvious. Now we have a big segment of the fan base that is OK with a football program being 1 game above .500 vs. FBS opponents over a 9 season span.

Stansbury talks about competing for championships, but we aren’t. So for now, that’s rhetoric. I don’t see changes in the Administration that are positive for athletics. I don’t see changes in the makeup of the Board that are positive. I don’t see coaching changes sending the message that more is expected. But like I said, I haven’t given up on him, and he has a tough job. I hope he is up to it. My biggest fear is that no one is.

With regard to fund raising—it is a key part of his job, and you are correct that there is positive movement. On the other hand, I have contributed to AT for more than 30 years (which I am willing to bet is longer than you). I stopped my contribution for the last 2 years of Bobinski’s supposed reign as AD (if he existed) because of the trajectory of the programs and Bobinski's non-responsiveness to questions. I started donating again when Stansbury was hired, but not at my previous level—I want to see some tangible improvement. My contact at the GT Development Office—which is primarily for academic fund raising—has commented on my AT contribution history. However, no one from the GTAA has ever contacted me regarding my hiatus in contributing or why my contribution is now lower than before—or for any other reason. For an entity that depends on contributions, that’s pretty sad. It hasn't changed under Stansbury. Maybe my annual contributions have never been at the 5 digit level, but the GTAA needs every contributor it can get. It's a small investment to spend a few minutes reaching out on a personal level to donors given the potential return--but they don't do it. The Development Office does.

The next 12 months are critical. Interest in sports programs at Tech is declining. The situation must be reversed before it’s too late. Status quo is not the answer. It will be interesting to see what Stansbury does. He has a tough job. Let’s hope for the best.

Fantastic post and the most difficult thing to overcome that you just typed is the acceptance of mediocrity by the fanbase. The demand for success is what drives every thing else.
 

crut

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,366
Maybe it's on the football thread, but @crut posted a great synopsis elsewhere of a young alumni event hosted by Todd last night.

Didn't post on this site. Here you go:

I was at the event last night. It was called Young Alumni Night with Todd Stansbury. Here is a synopsis:

The event was at Second Self Brewery on the Westside. For $18 ($14 for season ticket holders) you got unlimited tacos from a food truck and beer from inside. It was cold as balls. Wiley Ballard came up and MCed for a moment, introducing an assistant women's bball and baseball coach. Then he introduced Stansbury who came up and talked for 10 mins about how he wanted to make Georgia Tech cool, not settling for mediocrity, being Tech and not trying to beat Clemson (in football) by being Clemson, and that we need to use all our assets to our advantage. Mainly stuff that has been posted on here previously as his talking points.

He did play to the audience calling the Young Alumni "the future". He then stated that everyone that came (probably about 100 people or so) would all get 2 free tickets to the men's bball game vs. East Carolina and 2 for the women's bball game against uga. He also said this would be the first of many Young Alumni events like this, and that the GT network is the best in the world, so get to know the people around you.

Everyone then went back to drinking and chatting, and Stansbury went around from group to group. I think the Young Alumni base is one with A LOTTT of ideas and opinons but is a group that isn't heard much because they dont provide the $$$. I could tell he was getting pitched a lot of things in other conversations, and that was for sure the case when my group spoke with him. I was pretty happy with how in touch he was with the realities of the school and our competitors. He revealed a couple cool plans coming up that sound like some great brand name PR boosts! He also told a great story of him driving out to the Final 4 in 1990 that made him more relatable, not to mention sounding like a good time in college! The only thing he seemed to be out of touch with was the gold issue. He weirdly seemed to think that it's only the older alumni that want more gold, yet he was standing in the middle of a group of 8 mid 20s alums who all of us, one of our priorities in talking to him was: "Where is the gold at!? We want more gold!"

Anyway, I think the event went really well and it was a good time. It was cool of Stansbury to take the time to meet with all of us and make more of a personal relationship with this part of the fan base and hopefully that engagement pays off.
 

dtm1997

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
15,709
I highlighted your reply to indicate a disconnect at the GTAA. It's a misunderstanding by the GTAA of their constituents.

I live too far away to use season tickets. The statistics were and probably still are that most grads leave Georgia. I went to campus the weekend of the Clemson game. Taking my wife and son to visit my other son who is a Tech student (another $40K plus a year I "donate" to Tech) cost a $1000.

I have donated to AT for more than 3o years with no expectation of anything in return--not ticket priority or anything else. I'll bet there are lots of alumni like me who would like to be connected but can't justify season tickets. But the GTAA doesn't seem to give a damn about someone who writes checks but doesn't buy tickets, as your statement above seems to corroborate. I made the point with Bobinski when I wrote him that I had donated for 30 years and never expected anything in return, but I expected a reply to my letter--a reply I never received. I quit writing checks after that until he was gone.

I can't address these concerns with Stansbury. He won't reply to my letters either. Based on what I saw on the football board, I am not alone.

I am not anti-Stansbury. He's the best we've had in 20 years. I'm just saying there is a lot--a lot--that needs to be improved just to get back to where we were 30 years ago.

1) I don't think either of us are qualified to quantify a disconnect or who the GTAA considers or prioritizes as key constituency? We're both constituents, but that doesn't mean either of are among those considered as particularly key to the efforts.

2) I'm a 20 year GT hoops season ticket holder and I've lived in NYC for 12 years. In a good year, I get to 6 games. Maintaining my season tickets is one of the ways I choose to support GT athletics. You not having season football tickets is a choice for you and you've made the decision based on economic realities. Completely rational, but still a choice that you made.

3) Don't misconstrue a strategy that Stansbury has implemented to create internal synergy as some sort of corroboration that the GTAA cares less about non-ticket buyers. An effort to improve conversion of ticket buyers in to bigger donors is not mutually exclusive from continuing to foster & develop relationships with non-ticket holding donors.

4) Is it possible that in choosing to take a hiatus from writing checks, it may have lost any sway/influence/standing you may have had? During the past few years, regardless of Bobinski being a schmuck, you walked away from being a resource provider. Again, that was your choice. I'm not sure that you've returned to cutting checks based on some of the responses, but my impression is that you have. You had a long track record of giving and then you stopped. Is it fair for you to assume that by donating again you immediately return to the standing you once had, especially amidst turnover at the top?

5) You keep coming back to how you've written to essentially the GTAA's CEO and he hasn't responded. I'd ask you if you've tried reaching out to those beneath him? Do you have relationships elsewhere within the GT network that would result in you fostering a relationship with him? Why do you "expect" a reply from a "CEO"? He's quite literally running an enterprise responsible for supporting the endeavors of hundreds of student athletes.

6) If you think there's a lot that needs to be improved, isn't it logical that it takes a lot of time to make those improvements?

Just so you're aware, I'm really trying to be mindful with how I'm writing my responses and trying to demonstrate that there are so many people, places, & things that Todd Stansbury has to manage. It's not always realistic for any one of us, as average supporters on the street, to think that whatever it is we would like to make known to him will get to him and warrant a response. Additionally, we should pursue other avenues to make inroads for messages we have for the GTAA, whether it's through the ticket office, the A-T Fund staff, etc.
 

Novajacket

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
218
@dtm1997 you have been way more patient and respectful in your replies that I would have ever been. I have to say that you are setting a great example on this front.

@jacketup it seems you have decided based on the fact that the GTAA has not personally contacted you, that everything else they have done is crap. It’s a little sad to see that attitude and that your feelings have been hurt, but people are making the effort to improve things. That doesn’t mean they are doing everything perfect, but especially compared to Bobinski I see the effort and passion from those in GTAA today much better then ever before.
 
Top