Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
ESPN says we have
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="lv20gt" data-source="post: 874024" data-attributes="member: 2299"><p>In the context of the conversation, yeah, they were relatively unaffected. Here were their class rankings on 247 leading up to and then including the coaching change. </p><p></p><p>2012 - 26th</p><p>2013 - 27th</p><p>2014 - 25th</p><p>2015 - 36th</p><p>2016 - 40th</p><p>2017 - 40th</p><p>2018 - 29th</p><p>2019 - 39th</p><p></p><p>Sure, they saw a drop, and you could argue that without the scandal they would have capitalized on recent success, but that is a far cry from near death penalty like it was portrayed especially since there was no actual scholarship reductions of post season bans. What few penalties they did get hit with was more related to recruiting infractions than the abuse scandal. Hell, you could argue the recruiting hit was more because they fired their coach in may and hired an interim coach than the actual scandal. Had they fired Briles at the end of the 2015 season and made a normal hire they likely don't see that recruiting hit, or not as much. But they wanted to fire for cause and so waited until the end of the investigation.</p><p></p><p>But they were a program that had averaged going 10-3 the five years prior to the coaching change happening, and the actual fallout that the new coach was going to have to deal with was relatively minimal compared. They were much more attractive a position when they hired Rhule than we were hiring Collins, and not because they took it slow. They were just a better program with more recent success, better recruiting, better fit, and the biggest problem listed, QB issue, was no worse than what we experienced at the QB spot on top of the other issues. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>They went slow because of the timing of it. Not some grand plan to "make the right hire". Had they fired Briles in November instead of the following May, they'd have made a normal hire the previous december. </p><p></p><p>We didn't do the same thing, because Johnson retired in late november allowing us to have a normal search and make a normal timed hire. </p><p></p><p>So what is your suggestion? We hire an interim coach with an entire interim staff to coach for one year while we take a year to make a hire for a job that will still largely be unattractive to most of the higher thought of offensive minds? I mean, we all know the actual suggestion and it has nothing to do with making a fast or slow hire.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="lv20gt, post: 874024, member: 2299"] In the context of the conversation, yeah, they were relatively unaffected. Here were their class rankings on 247 leading up to and then including the coaching change. 2012 - 26th 2013 - 27th 2014 - 25th 2015 - 36th 2016 - 40th 2017 - 40th 2018 - 29th 2019 - 39th Sure, they saw a drop, and you could argue that without the scandal they would have capitalized on recent success, but that is a far cry from near death penalty like it was portrayed especially since there was no actual scholarship reductions of post season bans. What few penalties they did get hit with was more related to recruiting infractions than the abuse scandal. Hell, you could argue the recruiting hit was more because they fired their coach in may and hired an interim coach than the actual scandal. Had they fired Briles at the end of the 2015 season and made a normal hire they likely don't see that recruiting hit, or not as much. But they wanted to fire for cause and so waited until the end of the investigation. But they were a program that had averaged going 10-3 the five years prior to the coaching change happening, and the actual fallout that the new coach was going to have to deal with was relatively minimal compared. They were much more attractive a position when they hired Rhule than we were hiring Collins, and not because they took it slow. They were just a better program with more recent success, better recruiting, better fit, and the biggest problem listed, QB issue, was no worse than what we experienced at the QB spot on top of the other issues. They went slow because of the timing of it. Not some grand plan to "make the right hire". Had they fired Briles in November instead of the following May, they'd have made a normal hire the previous december. We didn't do the same thing, because Johnson retired in late november allowing us to have a normal search and make a normal timed hire. So what is your suggestion? We hire an interim coach with an entire interim staff to coach for one year while we take a year to make a hire for a job that will still largely be unattractive to most of the higher thought of offensive minds? I mean, we all know the actual suggestion and it has nothing to do with making a fast or slow hire. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
How many points did Georgia Tech score against Cumberland in 1916?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
ESPN says we have
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