GT needed a change

jandrews

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
275
GTRambler said:
This is one of the best posts and opinion-analyses I have read so far on this board, along with those from jojakt.

If I may also add, I believe recruiting in the ATL (Atlanta) Area — for both football and basketball — will still be tough, and will remain so. As has been observed so far with Coach P over on the basketball side, it has been difficult over the past several years of his tenure.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I think there is so many variables that make recruiting tough. My main one is winning. Once you start winning it makes it a lot easier to sell your program. Basketball hasn't really done that. Branding for the football team has drastically changed while the basketball program has been stagnant. I think the GTMB saw that and they are following the football teams lead now. Football wise there are so many programs that are highly rated in the immediate area it is hard to sell location (other than being directly in downtown ATL). To me its going to be a snowball effect. Get some initial success and start bringing talent, the snowball will quickly start taking shape. When we talk about legacy coaches that define programs, they all have one thing in common.. They build a program that maintains success. Talking with my coworkers (USC and Clemson grads), I mention that I felt Tech and Clemson were on the same level in 2009 but CPJ couldn't maintain it. Dabo was able to maintain and improve. CPJ was able to back there in 2014 but he couldn't ever get us to be at the same level YoY. CGC is laying the foundation for the way he wants to build the program. I'm interested to see if the foundation will last for years and years or crack. I'm not looking at the overall record. Next year will be brutal given the schedule but I want to see improvement.
 
Vespidae

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,317
Location
Auburn, AL
Lots of stuff in this thread.

First, re CGC getting a 7 year contract, Pruitt at UT got six. It seems as if total rebuilds are under way, one needs time to implement.

Re recruiting, I doubt it will change much. The goal is to find 2stars that can be developed into 5 stars over a 4 year period.

Georgia Tech doin Georgia Tech things.
 
jojatk

jojatk

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,510
GTRambler said:
I agree with much of what you say, jojatk. If I may, however, I would like to add here, and repeat what I’ve already said in my previous posts in other threads, that CGC needs to be given no less than five years — from now to the completion of the 2023 season — to establish a sufficient baseline of work that would determine whether he can succeed at GT or not.

The seven-year contract, to me, really doesn’t matter all that much, because by the fifth year CGC would have shown whether his work is trending upward, or trending downward, or trending about halfway or so-so. Then TStan and the big GT athletic donor-alums will make a decision on whether to keep him or buy him out on the remaining two years of his contract.

In this way, five years would be giving CGC a fair shake, to show what he can or cannot do. By the completion of the 2023 season, CGC would have finished his seventh year of head coaching experience at the Division 1 level. He would also have had five full years of GT football recruits, and five full years of on-the-field results at GT, to input onto his performance graph. At that time, the appropriate decision will be made.

That’s the way I see it.
Click to expand...

Great commentary. I appreciate your viewpoints!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Animal02

Banned
Messages
6,269
Location
Southeastern Michigan
.
GTRambler said:
I agree with much of what you say, jojatk. If I may, however, I would like to add here, and repeat what I’ve already said in my previous posts in other threads, that CGC needs to be given no less than five years — from now to the completion of the 2023 season — to establish a sufficient baseline of work that would determine whether he can succeed at GT or not.

The seven-year contract, to me, really doesn’t matter all that much, because by the fifth year CGC would have shown whether his work is trending upward, or trending downward, or trending about halfway or so-so. Then TStan and the big GT athletic donor-alums will make a decision on whether to keep him or buy him out on the remaining two years of his contract.

In this way, five years would be giving CGC a fair shake, to show what he can or cannot do. By the completion of the 2023 season, CGC would have finished his seventh year of head coaching experience at the Division 1 level. He would also have had five full years of GT football recruits, and five full years of on-the-field results at GT, to input onto his performance graph. At that time, the appropriate decision will be made.

That’s the way I see it.
Click to expand...
I think five years is far more than adequate....there is no up side for 7 years from Tech's prospective.
There are three scenarios....
1) CGC craps the bed, goes 1-11, 2-10, 3-9 his first three years. At that point you have to cut him loose. You owe him the balance of his contract.
2) CGC is average. He goes 3-9, 5-7, 7-6 7-6..….. you keep him and keep extending his contract until the fan base gets fed up with CCG ver. 2 and demands change.
3.) CGC is wildly successful.....how 6-6, 8-4, 11-1.....other schools come calling and you renegotiate to keep him other leaves and you start over again.
So where is the up side for Tech with the seven years? Based on general history....#2 is most likely, followed by #1. With Tech's financials......there is no way they should be betting on the Longshot.
 
jojatk

jojatk

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,510
Animal02 said:
.

I think five years is far more than adequate....there is no up side for 7 years from Tech's prospective.
There are three scenarios....
1) CGC craps the bed, goes 1-11, 2-10, 3-9 his first three years. At that point you have to cut him loose. You owe him the balance of his contract.
2) CGC is average. He goes 3-9, 5-7, 7-6 7-6..….. you keep him and keep extending his contract until the fan base gets fed up with CCG ver. 2 and demands change.
3.) CGC is wildly successful.....how 6-6, 8-4, 11-1.....other schools come calling and you renegotiate to keep him other leaves and you start over again.
So where is the up side for Tech with the seven years? Based on general history....#2 is most likely, followed by #1. With Tech's financials......there is no way they should be betting on the Longshot.
Click to expand...

In your scenario the only difference between 5 and 7 years is the amount of money he’d be owed if fired before then. And if you think going into a contract that you’re going to have to fire a guy then why are you hiring him in the first place.

I’ll say again that I would have preferred 5 but I can see rationale for 7 in terms of what you’re telling HS player and their families, what you’re telling HS coaches, what you’re telling new GT assistant coaches, your current players, and the mentors for the prospective players. You’re telling all of them that you believe in the direction we are taking and that if they all make that commitment, even if there are some rough times in the near future, that you will stay the course and they can feel confident that the decision they made to come here with CGC or to buy into CGC (for existing players and AA staff who might have stuck around) is one you will see through with them.

You and I and anyone else may feel that time period is a bit too long but clearly TStan feels there’s a bigger transition that needs to take place than you do and that we needed to show incredible commitment to that process.

I can well appreciate folks not liking all of that. I’m not sure I feel that length of contract was necessary, either. But agree or disagree I get what TStan is saying with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
smokey_wasp

smokey_wasp

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,486
Vespidae said:
Lots of stuff in this thread.

First, re CGC getting a 7 year contract, Pruitt at UT got six. It seems as if total rebuilds are under way, one needs time to implement.

Re recruiting, I doubt it will change much. The goal is to find 2stars that can be developed into 5 stars over a 4 year period.

Georgia Tech doin Georgia Tech things.
Click to expand...

The goal is most definitely not to find 2 stars....I am assuming that was a finger slip.
 

Animal02

Banned
Messages
6,269
Location
Southeastern Michigan
jojatk said:
In your scenario the only difference between 5 and 7 years is the amount of money he’d be owed if fired before then. And if you think going into a contract that you’re going to have to fire a guy then why are you hiring him in the first place.

I’ll say again that I would have preferred 5 but I can see rationale for 7 in terms of what you’re telling HS player and their families, what you’re telling HS coaches, what you’re telling new GT assistant coaches, your current players, and the mentors for the prospective players. You’re telling all of them that you believe in the direction we are taking and that if they all make that commitment, even if there are some rough times in the near future, that you will stay the course and they can feel confident that the decision they made to come here with CGC or to buy into CGC (for existing players and AA staff who might have stuck around) is one you will see through with them.

You and I and anyone else may feel that time period is a bit too long but clearly TStan feels there’s a bigger transition that needs to take place than you do and that we needed to show incredible commitment to that process.

I can well appreciate folks not liking all of that. I’m not sure I feel that length of contract was necessary, either. But agree or disagree I get what TStan is saying with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
TStan also thinks renting out half of MBS for home games was a good idea.:rolleyes:
There are a few other things I don't think he handled well
A seven year contract is meaningless to recruits that will be there 4 or maybe 5 years.
 
Whiskey_Clear

Whiskey_Clear

Banned
Messages
10,486
pbrown520 said:
Why worry overmuch about the contract length? If he sucks after 5, they will find the money to fire him.
Click to expand...

True. But that extra money used to pay off the contract could be used instead to lure the next guy.

Our big donors could always step up to offset. We do have some still. Somewhere.
 
Vespidae

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,317
Location
Auburn, AL
smokey_wasp said:
The goal is most definitely not to find 2 stars....I am assuming that was a finger slip.
Click to expand...

Nope. Ask TStan. He said it. His view is that we can’t recruit against Alabama, Clemson, etc ... but we can excel at developing talent. So our strategy is to find 2 stars with potential and create 5 stars.
 
smokey_wasp

smokey_wasp

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,486
Vespidae said:
Nope. Ask TStan. He said it. His view is that we can’t recruit against Alabama, Clemson, etc ... but we can excel at developing talent. So our strategy is to find 2 stars with potential and create 5 stars.
Click to expand...

If thats the case, we are way ahead of his expectatuons already! You do realize there are 3 and 4 stars, as well, and they make up our whole recruiting class. Much more feasible to develop those into 5 stars
 
smokey_wasp

smokey_wasp

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,486
Vespidae said:
Nope. Ask TStan. He said it. His view is that we can’t recruit against Alabama, Clemson, etc ... but we can excel at developing talent. So our strategy is to find 2 stars with potential and create 5 stars.
Click to expand...

Missed the 10 minute edit window but wanted to add: I am sure you heard what you heard, but I think TStan misspoke. Big gap between unable to compete with Bama vs classes of 2 stars, which would rank below even group of 5 teams. Even PJ took relatively few 2 stars and they were typically system fit OLs and A backs.
 
Last edited:
Vespidae

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,317
Location
Auburn, AL
smokey_wasp said:
Yeah, TStan doesn't believe that. Otherwise, why hire a guy whose whole thing is recruiting? Lol. Something was surely lost in translation there.
Click to expand...

Check it out. TStan said Tech’s Plan is to use "science, technology, innovation, nutrition, and the way we train" to develop athletes, admitting that we probably will not get too many 5 star recruits at Ga Tech. But we can get 2 star and 3 star athletes and train them up to perform at a 5 star level.

That is one of the outcomes for the AI2020 project.
 
Top