Football Study Hall on "Coaches who aren't good enough"

Sideways

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,589
Vespidae said:
Nonsense. The Institute doesn’t believe it should be Alabama on Saturday. It doesn’t care.

The AA, not Georgia Tech, runs the sports program. It is the AA that has to raise money, recruit, staff, market and organize grants for the S-As. And it is the AA that has made 100’s of crappy decisions. I was stunned to learn that only last year did the AA publish its first and only strategic plan.

It’s the AA folks. All Tech does is license the marks. That’s it.
Click to expand...

Yep that's what I was trying to get across. It simply does not care. If they do not care enough to nurture the football program why should fans support it? I see this situation spiraling slowly downward to where Georgia Tech becomes another nonentity like Tulane, Vanderbilt etc. That is, unless drastic changes are made in recruiting, curriculum, and financial support from the administration.
 
chewybaka

chewybaka

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
910
steebu said:
It is the fans who believe we should be Alabama on Saturday on a slightly better than Duke budget in the middle of SEC country.

It is an arms race that we are going to have extreme difficulty competing in.
Click to expand...
I think the aspirant peer analogy would be a Stanford hybrid of some sort...
 

bke1984

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,609
I agree with the premise of the article. But I’m not sure it applies to our current situation. The bar that we have failed to hit two of the past three years was not set by Johnson. It was set by three of our last four head coaches. I feel like I’ve probably harped on this already, but I don’t think we are setting expectations as high as CPJ or some other are suggesting. If we were 7-4 or hell, even 6-5 right now I don’t think everyone would be quite as upset.

But look, I don’t care how hard the conference gets or how much of an uphill battle we fight, 3-9 and 5-6 seasons cannot become the norm. It has not been the norm for 20 years, so it shouldn’t become the norm now. It’s up to our coach and our AD to make sure this doesn’t happen.

That said, I think dropping Johnson now would be foolish. But two out of three has the making of a pattern. Let’s see how it goes over the next two seasons. If we miss a bowl in either I think it’s time for a change with one year left on the contract.
 
Vespidae

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,346
Location
Auburn, AL
MWBATL said:
Bingo. It’s the Institute. The GTAA has had its issues, but if we seriously want to compete, you can’t wring tons more money out of the same names to elevate things.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Look at almost every program in the country. The ONLY two I know of where the Athletic Department is part of the School's general fund are Tennessee and Notre Dame. I'm sure there are more. But my point is that the vast majority are run as separate organizations.

And it's a fact ... the GTAA sucks at fund-raising. Look at most of the programs in the SEC and the ACC. A substantial amount of money is driven through the booster network of clubs. Tech? We don't even have one.

There is no piggy bank on the Hill for the AA. The only commitment the Hill makes is the out-of-state tuition waiver.
 
Augusta_Jacket

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,125
Location
Augusta, Georgia
SteamWhistle said:
Georgia Tech doesn’t recruit for stars, bad recruitig isn’t of result of not getting 4-5 stars. Look at a guy like Synjyn Days on that 2014 team played 3 positions, how many of those guys do we have? It’s great to get players that look good on 247 Sports but our staff has struggled to land Offensive playmakers recently. Look at a Guy like Clinton Lynch he was a 2 Star, had a rough year but he’s our best playmaker. We need more guys like him. People think this new staff will bring in 4 stars, it won’t. It will help us find more perfect fits for us so we aren’t guessing with players like we have been.
Click to expand...

I've been mulling this over, but I think you might be wrong on the playmaker aspect. TQM, for all his flaws in the passing game, is a playmaker. I think a major part of the problem arises from the fact that he is a playmaker. Compare the carry distribution from 2014 to 2017. AB carries were reduced from 25% of the workload to 19%. BB carries went from 45% to 38%. QB carries jumped from 30% to 42%. I think the answer isn't that we lacked playmakers, it's that our offense this year didn't do a good job of getting the ball into the hands of those playmakers. After all, Searcy, Cottrell, Lynch, and Greene are all capable playmakers, and we just didn't utilize them well this year.
 
Vespidae

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,346
Location
Auburn, AL
Sideways said:
Yep that's what I was trying to get across. It simply does not care. If they do not care enough to nurture the football program why should fans support it? I see this situation spiraling slowly downward to where Georgia Tech becomes another nonentity like Tulane, Vanderbilt etc. That is, unless drastic changes are made in recruiting, curriculum, and financial support from the administration.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure Tech sees its brand as associated with football. The current faculty are so high on themselves as a "research" institute, they can't get their head through the door.

Here's a tidbit for the administration. Nixon and Nikita Khrushchev sang the Ramblin Wreck together in 1959 at their meeting in Moscow. It was the football team that extended the brand ... not the academics. And it's still football that unites the alumni. I don't think the school understands that. I could care less about the all the engineering magazines I get ... I want to know about the sports teams.
 
LongforDodd

LongforDodd

LatinxBreakfastTacos
Messages
3,265
lv20gt said:
Same argument could, and was, made about Gailey.
Click to expand...

I was at Grant Field for my first game around 1966 with my dad. I started selling cokes and programs as soon as I could. He and I, my daughter, and two uncles are all all grads. There has been a lot family support ($$, time, emotion) for GT and this football program in the past 50 or so years but I'm starting to feel that Stansbury is my last hope to wake the Administration up and prevent these same conversations from reoccurring in another few years. I believe that if Stansbury can't do it, my life will be totally different as I'll be retired by then...with different priorities, I'm afraid.
 

a5ehren

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
485
TheSilasSonRising said:
Can only say that the GTAA Board of Trustees is chaired by the President of the Institute, it has 9 Faculty members on the Board, and (unbelievably to me) has 3 Alumni and 3 Student members. Yes sir, you just know those students have a ton of real life experience comparable to the business world experience more alumni members could bring.
Click to expand...
The board is just a rubber stamp for whatever the AD wants anyway. And 3 students makes sense - 1 is a S-A, 1 is SGA, and I don't know about the other.
 
stech81

stech81

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,962
Location
Woodstock Georgia
Augusta_Jacket said:
I've been mulling this over, but I think you might be wrong on the playmaker aspect. TQM, for all his flaws in the passing game, is a playmaker. I think a major part of the problem arises from the fact that he is a playmaker. Compare the carry distribution from 2014 to 2017. AB carries were reduced from 25% of the workload to 19%. BB carries went from 45% to 38%. QB carries jumped from 30% to 42%. I think the answer isn't that we lacked playmakers, it's that our offense this year didn't do a good job of getting the ball into the hands of those playmakers. After all, Searcy, Cottrell, Lynch, and Greene are all capable playmakers, and we just didn't utilize them well this year.
Click to expand...
I did the same thing for 2016 and 2017.

This is base on avg per game due to 13 games in 2016 and only 11 games in 2017

2016 att avg yards per game 2017 att avg yards per game

QB carries 15.5 65.2 24.1 110.2

B-back carries 22.1 107.3 19.2 118

A-back carries 11.5 79.9 10.7 77.5

Passing 2016 per game 12.2 passing 2017 per game 10.5

This is the big difference that I see from 2016 and 2017

Completions to A-backs 2016 Completions to A-backs 2017
Total for year 35 Avg per game 2.69 Total for year 10 Avg per game .91

Total yards 775 Avg per game 59.6 Total yards 203 Avg per game 18.45
 
stech81

stech81

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,962
Location
Woodstock Georgia
stech81 said:
I did the same thing for 2016 and 2017.

This is base on avg per game due to 13 games in 2016 and only 11 games in 2017

2016 att avg yards per game 2017 att avg yards per game

QB carries 15.5 65.2 24.1 110.2

B-back carries 22.1 107.3 19.2 118

A-back carries 11.5 79.9 10.7 77.5

Passing 2016 per game 12.2 passing 2017 per game 10.5

This is the big difference that I see from 2016 and 2017

Completions to A-backs 2016 Completions to A-backs 2017
Total for year 35 Avg per game 2.69 Total for year 10 Avg per game .91

Total yards 775 Avg per game 59.6 Total yards 203 Avg per game 18.45
Click to expand...
Too hard to read please delete
 

first&ten

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
880
LongforDodd said:
I was at Grant Field for my first game around 1966 with my dad. I started selling cokes and programs as soon as I could. He and I, my daughter, and two uncles are all all grads. There has been a lot family support ($$, time, emotion) for GT and this football program in the past 50 or so years but I'm starting to feel that Stansbury is my last hope to wake the Administration up and prevent these same conversations from reoccurring in another few years. I believe that if Stansbury can't do it, my life will be totally different as I'll be retired by then...with different priorities, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...
Agree on Stansbury, I'm already retired and at 74 losing more interest in GT football with PJ as the coach. He is a terrible front man for Tech football with his demeanor and snide attitude. Having a serious discussion with myself on keeping my 7 season tickets I've had since 1989, but with PJ, I only see more of the same.
 
quadf

quadf

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
52
Frenchise said:
Honestly - 2014 was Shaq Mason, good AB’s, 2 NFL WR’s and dual threat QB who could put considerable zip on the ball.

I think a QB with a better arm and an explosive receiver(Smelter) would put us in easily at 9 wins this year, maybe 10-11.
Click to expand...
takethepoints said:
2009 = Dwyer

2014 = JT working with a largely senior backfield, receivers, and - especially - OL. If TM had had a Days - Laskey combo, a stable of big, experienced ABs, Smelter/Waller to throw to, and the best OL in recent GT history things would have been different.
Click to expand...

I think you guys hit the nail on the head. Considering last year had a decent OL (remember us just pushing around uga and uk?), the change to this year was a loss of OL depth (injuries and attrition), experience at BBack, a starter new to the QB position (one of the toughest positions to learn and play), and we lost an NFL starting kicker.
 

MWBATL

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,589
Vespidae said:
Wrong. Look at almost every program in the country. The ONLY two I know of where the Athletic Department is part of the School's general fund are Tennessee and Notre Dame. I'm sure there are more. But my point is that the vast majority are run as separate organizations.

And it's a fact ... the GTAA sucks at fund-raising. Look at most of the programs in the SEC and the ACC. A substantial amount of money is driven through the booster network of clubs. Tech? We don't even have one.

There is no piggy bank on the Hill for the AA. The only commitment the Hill makes is the out-of-state tuition waiver.
Click to expand...
Said it before and I'll say it again. GT is not large enough to fund raise and compete with the big boys. Outside of Clemson (who does a great job), our giving per alumni head is normally BETTER than just about every other school in the south. We are simply smaller than the rest of these schools...both in undergraduate size AND (even more so) in alumni population local to the school. With people like Tennessee and South Carolina having nearly 3 times as many folks to draw funds from, what in blazes makes you think GT alumni can give 2-3 as much per capita to match their total fund raising efforts?
I am not defending the GTAA, as much as I am saying even a robust GTAA effort is likely doomed to keep us in second tier status simply because SIZE MATTERS.
 
Js-showman

Js-showman

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
340
HurricaneJacket

HurricaneJacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,823
MWBATL said:
Said it before and I'll say it again. GT is not large enough to fund raise and compete with the big boys. Outside of Clemson (who does a great job), our giving per alumni head is normally BETTER than just about every other school in the south. We are simply smaller than the rest of these schools...both in undergraduate size AND (even more so) in alumni population local to the school. With people like Tennessee and South Carolina having nearly 3 times as many folks to draw funds from, what in blazes makes you think GT alumni can give 2-3 as much per capita to match their total fund raising efforts?
I am not defending the GTAA, as much as I am saying even a robust GTAA effort is likely doomed to keep us in second tier status simply because SIZE MATTERS.
Click to expand...

Copy Clemson with a higher frequency version of the IPTAY program aimed at crowd funding for the AD
 
Top