CPJ interview - Nov 11

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,093
Location
Augusta, Georgia
LOL - My "proof" was a literal article that links to a $9 Million state-of-the-art practice facility that PJ asked for....and got. Where is ANY proof whatsoever of the laughable conspiracy that our AD was "out to get PJ"? What a load of paranoid nonsense.

I often see Duke used as the great example of increased spending re:recruiting. However, when you look at the recruiting results, they are almost identical to ours. Yet, the on-field results of the last half of PJ's tenure here were extremely lop-sided.

Our program's recruiting was middle of the pack throughout PJ's tenure. In 2017, Duke was 8th, we were 9th. So even after all this Increased Spending, they beat us by 0.06 points (184.46 to 184.40) in 2017.
https://247sports.com/Season/2017-Football/CompositeTeamRankings/?Conference=ACC

Yet, only due to the backyard-play heroics of JT in 2016 did we not lose 5 in a row to a team that is almost literally the same on the recruiting trail as we are, regardless of how much $$ they spent.

So tell me again how spending more $$ was going to suddenly get higher-ranked kids to want to play in PJ's offense or defense when even after our most successful years, the recruiting rankings barely budged.

It's a fallacy. PJ's scheme was more of a hindrance to improvement than any amount of spending was going to fix, esp. at the key positions on the OL and DL. We're seeing the effects of the scheme on OL and DL this year (and every year recently, esp. on the Defensive side of the ball).

A lot of words make arguing points I did not put forward and moving the goalposts two zip codes down the road and yet you avoided answering the question: "tell me again how winning two rivalry games would have burst open the floodgates of spending that would have avoided this fiasco we find ourselves in now?"
 

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,093
Location
Augusta, Georgia
The entire Georgia Tech fan base lives and dies by what happens versus Georgia. We ask, “What’s the good word?” before every single home game. They show highlights of an FCS team scoring against Georgia while Tech is getting beat by an FCS team. Both of the fight songs reference beating Georgia. The Ramblin Reck itself has “To Hell With Georgia” on it. You don’t think winning 7 out of 9 and 4 in a row against them, after being dominated for 3 decades wouldn’t have changed anything about Georgia Tech sports? Of course it’s all hypothetical and meaningless now, but how can you not see the significance those games had?

Because they don't change things materially. Sure, they haunt us, but they don't cost us money, and rarely have they cost us more than the usual embarrassment of losing to a rival. I'll ask you the same question, haw did losing to uga in '09 and '10, '13, etc cause GT to be ranked 61/65 in football spending? And which of those two things, losing a particular game or overall spending on the program, has more bearing in future gains?
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,580
Athletic spending was a problem overall. However people latch on to it like it was the sole reason certain things happen. Like if we had just spent more Johnson would have certainly recruited in the top 15 or if we had just opened up the purse more the 8th DC would have been the one to get the defense going. It became a crutch that people use to avoid putting any blame on Johnson for the things that were constant problems under him.
 

JacketOff

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,951
Because they don't change things materially. Sure, they haunt us, but they don't cost us money, and rarely have they cost us more than the usual embarrassment of losing to a rival. I'll ask you the same question, haw did losing to uga in '09 and '10, '13, etc cause GT to be ranked 61/65 in football spending? And which of those two things, losing a particular game or overall spending on the program, has more bearing in future gains?
The truth is nobody knows how it affected spending. But being ranked #7 and losing at home to a very average team could’ve killed off the last bit of interest in creating more spending from the people in charge. You don’t think there would have been more money flowing into the program if GT had a winning record over Georgia over the course of 10 years? Maybe MBob and others would have seen that football was a legitimate investment and could be successful on the national stage for years to come. There’s really no point in even arguing about it now, but it blows my mind that you don’t believe beating your biggest rival, who has a much better overall program, consistently over the course of a decade+ wouldn’t have at least created more excitement and increased spending around the team.
 

GTRX7

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,524
Location
Atlanta
Athletic spending was a problem overall. However people latch on to it like it was the sole reason certain things happen. Like if we had just spent more Johnson would have certainly recruited in the top 15 or if we had just opened up the purse more the 8th DC would have been the one to get the defense going. It became a crutch that people use to avoid putting any blame on Johnson for the things that were constant problems under him.

I mean, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Spending more money would have allowed us to improve recruiting for sure, even if not "top 15." Also, it is well know that CPJ was not permitted to make early DC hires he wanted due to money. I actually think that coach Woody was a good hire and would have done here if he had stayed longer. Not everything has to be black and white.
 

RickStromFan

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
899
A lot of words make arguing points I did not put forward and moving the goalposts two zip codes down the road and yet you avoided answering the question: "tell me again how winning two rivalry games would have burst open the floodgates of spending that would have avoided this fiasco we find ourselves in now?"

Respectfully (something that's lacking in a few of your replies), I've already answered that. Let me quote myself from the previous page. You likely don't agree but that is different from accusing me of avoiding the question, something I've not done.

Me said:
Well, just the 08 & 09 seasons alone led to a (at the time) state-of-the-art indoor practice facility. For all the revisionist history here, it's interesting that this is just ignored when it comes to the discussion of Spending. Had we won in 09 and 13 (and maybe 10 and 15), we're literally Running The State. Imagine that - wins vs the mutts in 13,14,15 & 16?

I believe that would've bumped in-state recruiting and fan interest (and thus fan spending) much more than spending a few more million on recruiting assistants. On-field results would trump in-house visits. Seeing is believing.

So what I'd like to know is....how would Spending More Money have improved things? How would More Money convince kids to play here given that they are otherwise deadset against playing in PJ's scheme?
Heck, how would More Money have gotten us a win vs mutts in 2013? Or prevented the injuries in 2015? Or the injuries to QBs that led to the Taquon Marshall Era (which effectively sealed PJ's fate IMO)?

Mo Money, Mo Money, Mo Money. I hear it all the time but haven't seen any proof that it would've ultimately changed the PJ Regime. And again, even after the dismal 2010 season, PJ Asked for - and got - a $9 million practice facility. And ultimately about $30,000,000 in salary.

I'm not losing any sleep over the idea that we didn't spend enough money on PJ.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,985
LOL - My "proof" was a literal article that links to a $9 Million state-of-the-art practice facility that PJ asked for....and got. Where is ANY proof whatsoever of the laughable conspiracy that our AD was "out to get PJ"? What a load of paranoid nonsense.

I often see Duke used as the great example of increased spending re:recruiting. However, when you look at the recruiting results, they are almost identical to ours. Yet, the on-field results of the last half of PJ's tenure here were extremely lop-sided.

Our program's recruiting was middle of the pack throughout PJ's tenure. In 2017, Duke was 8th, we were 9th. So even after all this Increased Spending, they beat us by 0.06 points (184.46 to 184.40) in 2017.
https://247sports.com/Season/2017-Football/CompositeTeamRankings/?Conference=ACC

Yet, only due to the backyard-play heroics of JT in 2016 did we not lose 5 in a row to a team that is almost literally the same on the recruiting trail as we are, regardless of how much $$ they spent.

So tell me again how spending more $$ was going to suddenly get higher-ranked kids to want to play in PJ's offense or defense when even after our most successful years, the recruiting rankings barely budged.

It's a fallacy. PJ's scheme was more of a hindrance to improvement than any amount of spending was going to fix, esp. at the key positions on the OL and DL. We're seeing the effects of the scheme on OL and DL this year (and every year recently, esp. on the Defensive side of the ball).

Did MBob approve and fund the indoor practice facility? It was completed before MBob was even on campus.

The recruiting staff question has a lot more to do with time and ability to scout players. At places like Duke, the coaching staff gets involved with players after their film has been reviewed, the high school/high school coaches have been contacted, rival schools have been contacted for information on the players, etc. Until recently at GT(and even still at GT based on recruiting staff size), the coaching staff was doing the majority of that work. In addition to 80-90 hour weeks, the coaches had to do all of the preliminary video scouting, contacting high schools, getting feedback from opposing coaches ... All before they even began to talk to the players and decide a board of who they wanted to go after the most. Places like Duke can begin with lists of kids, preliminary athletic grades, preliminary academic grades, preliminary social grades. At GT, the coaches were having to generate the list of kids, identify those who they believed could succeed at GT, identify those who posed social issues. After multiple man-months of effort, then the GT staff was at the point where Duke's staff started with recruiting. Until Q2 2018, the coaches had to do all of the analysis, and then do all of the road visits. You can find information out during the road visits, but if you depend on that, you are months behind on schools with sufficient staff.

The extra staff and extra money can go very far whether you believe it or not. @iceeater1969 has complained that GT hasn't recruited areas of Texas very hard. If GT had had extra money and staff, then staff could analyze kids in the area and present lists for the coaching staff to use to visit those areas. Money could be used to send coaches to those areas.(In general, not just talking about Houston) You can even have the staff find information out about freshmen or middle school players and have the coaches ask about them. You probably aren't going to actually make an offer to a middle school player.(and can't make an official offer) However, asking coaches about them will get back to the kids, and maybe your school is high on that young kid's list of dream schools.

Saying that GT was able to keep up with Duke in recruiting despite the financial disadvantages seems to be admission that GT's staff did an excellent job with substantially less support. It seems odd to me that people seem to make professions that: GT can't recruit at all. Then, GT recruits well at some positions, but can't recruit at the positions that matter. Then, GT recruits just as well as other teams, so we can't discuss the recruiting disadvantages that GT has had. The bar just keeps moving to fit whatever the poster wants to say.
 

gt02

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
634
I can count on one hand the teams that have beat Clemson and Georgia the last several years. While
It sucked to lose to them, you can hardly judge PJs performance based on that.

I think the defense would have definitely hamstrung this group seeing how I doubt it would be much better with Woody. However, Temple and Pittsburgh are games I think we definitely win with Johnson's offense. Also, being able to match our opponents in scoring instead of just punting it back to them after they score changes game like against Duke or UNC. I think we end up splitting one of those two. Still obviously lose to Clemson. Probably still lose to UVA. Most likely lose to UGA, but I think he would have beaten both VT and NC State. At the very least, split. Ultimately probably ends up going 7-5 or 8-4 (5-3). Biggest issue towards the end for CPJ was that he was never beating Clemson or UGA again, and probably wasn't going to run the table against Coastal opponent, so the best case scenario was 9-3, but we all know there were going to be at least a loss or two more sprinkled in there.
 

LibertyTurns

Banned
Messages
6,216
I've heard stuff like the ACC scheduling didn't like PJ (never got a reason 'why') thus all the scheduling favorability to Duke and others.......
:rolleyes:o_O:ROFLMAO:
You do realize GT gave the ACC data on this & the random chance odds of the scheduling anomalies happening to only GT and nobody else were something on the order of 30 billion : 1

The ACC changed their policy to prevent it from ever happening again about 2-3 years ago. Things like that do not happen by accident.
 

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,093
Location
Augusta, Georgia
Respectfully (something that's lacking in a few of your replies), I've already answered that. Let me quote myself from the previous page. You likely don't agree but that is different from accusing me of avoiding the question, something I've not done.



So what I'd like to know is....how would Spending More Money have improved things? How would More Money convince kids to play here given that they are otherwise deadset against playing in PJ's scheme?
Heck, how would More Money have gotten us a win vs mutts in 2013? Or prevented the injuries in 2015? Or the injuries to QBs that led to the Taquon Marshall Era (which effectively sealed PJ's fate IMO)?

Mo Money, Mo Money, Mo Money. I hear it all the time but haven't seen any proof that it would've ultimately changed the PJ Regime. And again, even after the dismal 2010 season, PJ Asked for - and got - a $9 million practice facility. And ultimately about $30,000,000 in salary.

I'm not losing any sleep over the idea that we didn't spend enough money on PJ.

More money hires more recruiting staff. If you want to see whos playing for championships, look at who is spending money. It correlates. Winning national championships didn't help us. Beating uga doesn't help us. Winning overall is a part of the process, but you have to have the staff to make it work, and the facilities to attract top tier talent, no matter who the coach is.
 

herb

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,039
You do realize GT gave the ACC data on this & the random chance odds of the scheduling anomalies happening to only GT and nobody else were something on the order of 30 billion : 1

The ACC changed their policy to prevent it from ever happening again about 2-3 years ago. Things like that do not happen by accident.

Come on @RickStromFan if Tech fans cannot unite behind getting the shaft from swofford, then there is no hope.
 

Pointer

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,801
Athletic spending was a problem overall. However people latch on to it like it was the sole reason certain things happen. Like if we had just spent more Johnson would have certainly recruited in the top 15 or if we had just opened up the purse more the 8th DC would have been the one to get the defense going. It became a crutch that people use to avoid putting any blame on Johnson for the things that were constant problems under him.

If we could have gotten a good and sought after DC just one time, we wouldn't have needed to go through so many. And we've already gone over how that offense didn't need the typical recruits in the top 15 to be elite. But no worries, you can keep on trolling, hope you're enjoying the 2 wins so far (#404theculture?). Maybe you're dealing with it by joining coach at Waffle House every morning.

Let me ask you this, are any of the previous DC's currently employed as a coordinator anywhere? I don't know the answer, but I'd be shocked if they were.
 

RickStromFan

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
899
Did MBob approve and fund the indoor practice facility? It was completed before MBob was even on campus.

The recruiting staff question has a lot more to do with time and ability to scout players. At places like Duke, the coaching staff gets involved with players after their film has been reviewed, the high school/high school coaches have been contacted, rival schools have been contacted for information on the players, etc. Until recently at GT(and even still at GT based on recruiting staff size), the coaching staff was doing the majority of that work. In addition to 80-90 hour weeks, the coaches had to do all of the preliminary video scouting, contacting high schools, getting feedback from opposing coaches ... All before they even began to talk to the players and decide a board of who they wanted to go after the most. Places like Duke can begin with lists of kids, preliminary athletic grades, preliminary academic grades, preliminary social grades. At GT, the coaches were having to generate the list of kids, identify those who they believed could succeed at GT, identify those who posed social issues. After multiple man-months of effort, then the GT staff was at the point where Duke's staff started with recruiting. Until Q2 2018, the coaches had to do all of the analysis, and then do all of the road visits. You can find information out during the road visits, but if you depend on that, you are months behind on schools with sufficient staff.

The extra staff and extra money can go very far whether you believe it or not. @iceeater1969 has complained that GT hasn't recruited areas of Texas very hard. If GT had had extra money and staff, then staff could analyze kids in the area and present lists for the coaching staff to use to visit those areas. Money could be used to send coaches to those areas.(In general, not just talking about Houston) You can even have the staff find information out about freshmen or middle school players and have the coaches ask about them. You probably aren't going to actually make an offer to a middle school player.(and can't make an official offer) However, asking coaches about them will get back to the kids, and maybe your school is high on that young kid's list of dream schools.

Saying that GT was able to keep up with Duke in recruiting despite the financial disadvantages seems to be admission that GT's staff did an excellent job with substantially less support. It seems odd to me that people seem to make professions that: GT can't recruit at all. Then, GT recruits well at some positions, but can't recruit at the positions that matter. Then, GT recruits just as well as other teams, so we can't discuss the recruiting disadvantages that GT has had. The bar just keeps moving to fit whatever the poster wants to say.

We had enough money to recruit metro ATL high schools but, from interviews with numerous HS coaches, we had zero presence locally for the past 11 years. That's not a money issue.

Your points re:recruiting are noted but I don't believe that any amount of additional $$ spent was going to change the perception of this scheme that the vast majority of top-ranked HS athletes had.

It's more like Duke was able to keep up with us. Duke isn't a traditional football power. Duke isn't a factory. They increased spending and got their recruiting at a similar level to ours, overall. Yet, on the field (which is where it counts), they've completely passed us. Same goes for Pitt - another school that's passed us in the Coastal recently.

Thankfully, the departure of the PJ scheme has rendered all of this a moot point and I'm optimistic we'll be passing these 2 teams in the next year or 2, now that our recruiting isn't hindered by the scheme we run.
 

RickStromFan

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
899
You do realize GT gave the ACC data on this & the random chance odds of the scheduling anomalies happening to only GT and nobody else were something on the order of 30 billion : 1

The ACC changed their policy to prevent it from ever happening again about 2-3 years ago. Things like that do not happen by accident.

So why did it happen? What's the reasoning behind all this mysterious, everyone-hates-us conspiracy? Why did the ACC allegedly hate PJ? or GT? Or both?
 

RickStromFan

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
899
More money hires more recruiting staff. If you want to see whos playing for championships, look at who is spending money. It correlates. Winning national championships didn't help us. Beating uga doesn't help us. Winning overall is a part of the process, but you have to have the staff to make it work, and the facilities to attract top tier talent, no matter who the coach is.

There are an equal # of teams that spend a ton and get nothing. I mean, at least we're not South Carolina for example.

Just dropping more money at the feet of PJ wouldn't have changed anything. The scheme was too great a hindrance.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,985
Let me ask you this, are any of the previous DC's currently employed as a coordinator anywhere? I don't know the answer, but I'd be shocked if they were.

Ted Roof is the DC at App State. I think Wommack and Groh are both retired. Woody is an analyst for Michigan. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets another coordinators position at some point.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,985
It's more like Duke was able to keep up with us. Duke isn't a traditional football power. Duke isn't a factory. They increased spending and got their recruiting at a similar level to ours, overall.

So which is it? From what you have said: Duke was able to improve their recruiting by spending more money. Yet GT could not have improved their recruiting by spending more money.

Can money help, yes or no? If yes, then it could have helped GT. If no, then it did not help Duke. Or maybe the bar will get moved depending upon whether it helps or hurts an argument.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,985
So why did it happen? What's the reasoning behind all this mysterious, everyone-hates-us conspiracy? Why did the ACC allegedly hate PJ? or GT? Or both?

Why does it have to be a big conspiracy? Teams routinely asked for bye weeks before playing GT and they were granted, or teams were able to figure out how to make certain requests that ended up with a bye week before GT. It doesn't have to be a big conspiracy by the ACC leadership to screw GT.
 

LibertyTurns

Banned
Messages
6,216
So why did it happen? What's the reasoning behind all this mysterious, everyone-hates-us conspiracy? Why did the ACC allegedly hate PJ? or GT? Or both?
There’s lot of data about teams that have a week off before a game’s winning percentage is higher. There’s 2 reasons GT caught the brunt of it:
a. Scheme required add’l prep time because it’s inherently difficult to stop
b. GT is one of those teams that is beatable because the margin between us and others was not large
The ACC should have recognized it placed GT at a competitive disadvantage and eliminated that loophole. Not only did they not do that they perpetuated it. Now you tell me why someone who was aware of such an issue would allow it continue? Again it was a GT only problem, well documented and the data was clear. Why?
 
Top