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 Basketball
Commitment to basketball success
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="jacketup" data-source="post: 483236" data-attributes="member: 630"><p>Some historical perspective.</p><p></p><p>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?).</p><p></p><p>The Administration cared nothing for athletics, which was a big part of the problem.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>Braine was followed Radakovich and Bobinski, the triumvirate I call The Three Stooges.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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?</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jacketup, post: 483236, member: 630"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What jersey number did Joshua Nesbitt wear?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Basketball
Commitment to basketball success
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