GT ranks #33 in football program monetary value

[forensicbuzz]

I am may be sorry but let me stick my nose in this. I have heard these same arguments on other sites. They always reduce me to wondering if there is just a limit to how far dialogue can go on the internet. Both sides make reasonable articulate points, and, if you just look at the meaning of the words themselves, there is only a marginal nuanced difference of opinion. The real argument seems to be going on with some unseen third party who someone has dealt with somewhere else. This third party may have shown up on a cable news opinion piece or perhaps at someone's local town hall meeting or maybe he is someone's shiftless cousin, but he is not either of the gentlemen in this conversation. Yet when the arguments stray is usually in response to this unseen third party. The actual gentlemen in this conversation do not whine, make alibis or excuses for failure. Neither do they fail to face reality, gloss over the special challenges of a school like Tech, act like all schools have the same curriculum or pretend that we are still recruiting in 1954. Both gentlemen want excellence, both want it sooner rather than later and both want the athletic department to pay the price to see that that happens. Beyond that there are some real but nevertheless subtle differences that probably have to do with temperament, level of optimism and patience levels more than anything else. The rest is just semantics, in my opinion.

That and a lack of careful reading without looking for inuindo or inference.

 

[awbuzz]

Why not just get to the point and say that Tech only offers Baccalaureate of Science degrees? That is the real issue and what defines it as opposed to Stanford and every other good school that does offer many stem degrees or even grants a decent amount of them. Much of the difference in available manner of operating an athletic program can be tied into variety of Baccalaureate of Arts degrees available.

The BA vs. the BS programs make a BIG difference on the ability for folks to be able to get a degree.
I know a lady - a teacher - with a masters degree and she told me she took 0, zip, nada math and only two science (biology) classes. I was flabbergasted to think one could get a 4 year (or more ) degree without having to have even a rudimentary math class.

There are too many SAs that can't do basic math and thus can't get into GT.

 

[Ggee87]

That and a lack of careful reading without looking for inuindo or inference.

Exactly. Id say both were being a little hardheaded. Neither were actually HEARING what the other was saying. Were all on the same team, and damn proud of it. Both made very valid points and in the end, agree.

 

[Buzztheirazz]

So should I have read all that? I skipped through all the posts that were more than one paragraph...

 

[jeffgt14]

So should I have read all that? I skipped through all the posts that were more than one paragraph...

I did too.

 

[presjacket]

So should I have read all that? I skipped through all the posts that were more than one paragraph...

No, you didn't miss a thing.

 

[forensicbuzz]

As technical people and problem solvers, we tend to be very particular about how things are worded and exactly what is meant by the words that are used. Many of us that use "words" for a living are very particular about the precision of what is said. Lawyers, expert witnesses, etc. understand that no two words have the exact meaning and that the choice of verbiage can be very important to meaning and inference. I think we tend to fall into two groups on this board, one group is a little lazy in their choice of words or phraseology (we're here for entertainment, so who cares), while the other group is razor-sharp in the interpretation of the wording. If we have an opinion that differs, even slightly, we try to convince each other that our slight variation is the more accurate opinion.

For the group that is interested in the precision of the verbiage, the dialogue back-and-forth isn't typically an issue. They enjoy the banter. For those who don't think this way, it's frustrating and irritating. When there is no movement either way or others get involved in the discussion it can devolve to a more personal discussion/argument. I'd say it's important for us to recognize the type of member we're conversing with and approach the conversation in an appropriate manner. Those that are serious about the exact meaning of what is said (I'd put AE 87, DCS, ATL1, Techster, and probably me in this category) need to understand that not everyone is interested in being that careful with how they post to a message board. We should also be careful to not read too much into what's posted. Not everything has a deeper meaning or agenda.

I'd say the majority of members of this board enjoy the depth and breadth of knowledge that is provided. I know I love the technical discussions and non-technical information about the team. I don't really enjoy the "splitting of hairs" that these conversations tend to devolve into. As everyone has stated, we're all fans of GT and want it to be highly successful. Many times we differ in opinion on not only how to get there, but what "there" represents. I really enjoy the interaction with people who may or may not know more than me, but definitely have the same passion of GT as I do.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

As technical people and problem solvers, we tend to be very particular about how things are worded and exactly what is meant by the words that are used. Many of us that use "words" for a living are very particular about the precision of what is said. Lawyers, expert witnesses, etc. understand that no two words have the exact meaning and that the choice of verbiage can be very important to meaning and inference. I think we tend to fall into two groups on this board, one group is a little lazy in their choice of words or phraseology (we're here for entertainment, so who cares), while the other group is razor-sharp in the interpretation of the wording. If we have an opinion that differs, even slightly, we try to convince each other that our slight variation is the more accurate opinion.

For the group that is interested in the precision of the verbiage, the dialogue back-and-forth isn't typically an issue. They enjoy the banter. For those who don't think this way, it's frustrating and irritating. When there is no movement either way or others get involved in the discussion it can devolve to a more personal discussion/argument. I'd say it's important for us to recognize the type of member we're conversing with and approach the conversation in an appropriate manner. Those that are serious about the exact meaning of what is said (I'd put AE 87, DCS, ATL1, Techster, and probably me in this category) need to understand that not everyone is interested in being that careful with how they post to a message board. We should also be careful to not read too much into what's posted. Not everything has a deeper meaning or agenda.

I'd say the majority of members of this board enjoy the depth and breadth of knowledge that is provided. I know I love the technical discussions and non-technical information about the team. I don't really enjoy the "splitting of hairs" that these conversations tend to devolve into. As everyone has stated, we're all fans of GT and want it to be highly successful. Many times we differ in opinion on not only how to get there, but what "there" represents. I really enjoy the interaction with people who may or may not know more than me, but definitely have the same passion of GT as I do.

And to further complicate things is the fact that words are facile. Look no further than the U.S. Constitution for a prime example. One can intend to be comprehensive yet, pointed and specific, but if one is also trying to cover general themes at the same time then there is much room for interpretation. Then, with a particular writer, we may assume we know the intention behind the words but our interpretation always gets colored by our own hermeneutic.

I like precision too but I also like metaphor since, in my opinion, all language first starts with the metaphorical as it aspires to greater clarity and concrete application. And, yes, words eventually fail.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

KISS, please. I think enough already.

But I've learned to skim and skip these posts. Just please never revisit what is or isn't a dive.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

KISS, please. I think enough already.

But I've learned to skim and skip these posts. Just please never revisit what is or isn't a dive.

I am new here but it sounds like a conversation on another site in which the argument is over whether or not CPJ's spread option can really be called a spread offense or not.

 

[GTRX7]

Having read this thread, I do appreciate the attempt to bring the discussion back to its fundamentals and out of the weeds, but I am not sure that the disagreement between the major parties is as small as suggested. I think the overall question is how much Tech's curriculum is a hindrance in recruiting. It seems one side says only a little (mostly relying on the facts that there are other schools that offer similar STEM programs and the fact that we offer non-STEM programs where most of our SAs are in fact enrolled), while the other side says a lot (mostly relying on the fact that our STEM focus impacts recruits' perception, that even though we have non-STEM majors, they are limited, and the fact that other schools that have a similar STEM-dominant narrow curriculum (e.g. MIT, Cal Tech, etc.) do not compete at nearly the same level of non-STEM dominant schools). [[Maybe I am wrong, and everyone agrees that our STEM-dominated narrow curriculum is a significant recruiting disadvantage?]]

I happen to fall in the latter category. I believe our narrow, STEM based curriculum is a significant recruiting disadvantage. (1) Most elite football/basketball players are not great students. (2) Of the elite athletes that are great students, very few want to go STEM. (3) Of the ones that don't want STEM, Tech offers only limited options and does not have a significant academic advantage in those non-STEM programs over other schools. (4) Even if an athlete does non-STEM, there is still a reputation that Tech is hard and that athletes must still take calculus.

I think those are significant disadvantages. An elite recruiting staff can probably overcome a lot of that. However, that same staff would probably do much better IMHO at a state school. I think that CPJ is an okay recruiter, but certainly not great. When one looks at the pool of "good" players vs. "elite" players, I think there are a lot more that are good students and even some that want to do STEM. That is why I think we are able to get a bunch of 3*s and are at much less of a disadvantage for those players. However, if we are talking "elite" 4* and 5* players, I think Tech's academics are in fact a big disadvantage. (That is not to say that we don't have other advantageous attributes--we do--but that is one big hurdle.)

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Well said. If this conversation follows the usual track however, agreeing on the impact of Stem will get clouded by other, almost ideological concerns, to wit, acknowledging something as a disadvantage is tantamount to giving up since real winners never make excuses.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Well said. If this conversation follows the usual track however, agreeing on the impact of Stem will get clouded by other, almost ideological concerns, to wit, acknowledging something as a disadvantage is tantamount to giving up since real winners never make excuses.

Engineers want and need to know the parameters of the problem they are trying to solve. Acknowledging our hurdles is no different. It is not so much excuse making as it is understanding the parameters of the problem that needs solving.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Engineers want and need to know the parameters of the problem they are trying to solve. Acknowledging our hurdles is no different. It is not so much excuse making as it is understanding the parameters of the problem that needs solving.

I agree completely.

 

[Techster]

I think AD Bobinski said some very interesting things about the way not only fans, but people inside our athletic department view things...this interview kinda escaped a lot of our fans. The article is behind a pay wall, but I'll link/quote the most relevant portion that has to do with the discussion:

http://www.myajc.com/news/sports/co...making-at-tech/nf5nY/#24247c57.3568866.735436

If Bobinski sees a problem, it’s in mindset. He doesn’t doubt everybody in the athletic department wants to win. But he believes there’s a tendency to accept mediocrity too easily.

“One of our biggest challenges is how we view ourselves and how we do business,” he said. “We need to not be in the position of offering explanations to everyone. We need to find a way to move the needle. That’s such a fundamental thing. Those who believe and expect great things will find a way to get it done. Those who don’t, you will get what you get.”

Asked if staff members are making too many excuses, he said, “Excuses is such a tough word. Maybe rationalizations. You hear,‘We’re not this,’ or ‘We’re not that.’ That’s not productive thinking. It’s a comfortable way to say, ‘We can’t get any better.’”

Dan Radakovich, Bobinski’s predecessor at Georgia Tech, encountered similar frustrations. Either there were complaints about academic restrictions or the large shadow that the state’s flagship university in Athens casts over every other campus. With a hunger to win and not having to worry about selling seats, Radakovich left for Clemson.

“Factually, I was extremely well prepared and informed what the situation was,” Bobinski said. “But I would tell you the difficulty of making the turn and changing the mindset has been difficult.

“We have to get comfortable in own skin. You don’t get anywhere with comparisons. You decide who you are and you dedicate yourself to being the best version of yourself that you can be.”

I don't think anyone on here thinks we can be Alabama or Oregon or Auburn...that's just not realistic with the challenges at GT. However, GT can certainly be a LOT better than we have been. Even CPJ said at the ACC conference that we were only a few plays from being a 10+ win team last season. That was actually true for the past few seasons. If we're that close to consistently winning 9-11 games a year, why is it so hard to believe it can be reality? We are closing in on a top 30 recruiting class...by far CPJ's best class, and in my opinion, it's not hard to believe we could be recruit better every season because this class doesn't even include elite players like Calvin, Dwyer, Burnett...guys who chose to come here, and the same type of guys that GT should get a handful of every year.

If someone who heads our athletic department ad is on the inside of our program and sees what GT has to deal with first hand from an academic and administrative standpoint says some of the so called "hurdles" are more mental than real, shouldn't we listen?

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I think AD Bobinski said some very interesting things about the way not only fans, but people inside our athletic department view things...this interview kinda escaped a lot of our fans. The article is behind a pay wall, but I'll link/quote the most relevant portion that has to do with the discussion:

http://www.myajc.com/news/sports/co...making-at-tech/nf5nY/#24247c57.3568866.735436

If Bobinski sees a problem, it’s in mindset. He doesn’t doubt everybody in the athletic department wants to win. But he believes there’s a tendency to accept mediocrity too easily.

“One of our biggest challenges is how we view ourselves and how we do business,” he said. “We need to not be in the position of offering explanations to everyone. We need to find a way to move the needle. That’s such a fundamental thing. Those who believe and expect great things will find a way to get it done. Those who don’t, you will get what you get.”

Asked if staff members are making too many excuses, he said, “Excuses is such a tough word. Maybe rationalizations. You hear,‘We’re not this,’ or ‘We’re not that.’ That’s not productive thinking. It’s a comfortable way to say, ‘We can’t get any better.’”

Dan Radakovich, Bobinski’s predecessor at Georgia Tech, encountered similar frustrations. Either there were complaints about academic restrictions or the large shadow that the state’s flagship university in Athens casts over every other campus. With a hunger to win and not having to worry about selling seats, Radakovich left for Clemson.

“Factually, I was extremely well prepared and informed what the situation was,” Bobinski said. “But I would tell you the difficulty of making the turn and changing the mindset has been difficult.

“We have to get comfortable in own skin. You don’t get anywhere with comparisons. You decide who you are and you dedicate yourself to being the best version of yourself that you can be.”

I don't think anyone on here thinks we can be Alabama or Oregon or Auburn...that's just not realistic with the challenges at GT. However, GT can certainly be a LOT better than we have been. Even CPJ said at the ACC conference that we were only a few plays from being a 10+ win team last season. That was actually true for the past few seasons. If we're that close to consistently winning 9-11 games a year, why is it so hard to believe it can be reality? We are closing in on a top 30 recruiting class...by far CPJ's best class, and in my opinion, it's not hard to believe we could be recruit better every season because this class doesn't even include elite players like Calvin, Dwyer, Burnett...guys who chose to come here, and the same type of guys that GT should get a handful of every year.

If someone who heads our athletic department ad is on the inside of our program and sees what GT has to deal with first hand from an academic and administrative standpoint says some of the so called "hurdles" are more mental than real, shouldn't we listen?

O.K., I do not disagree with anything that you say but I want to offer a somewhat nuanced response. I liked everything I was reading from the article you quoted but then a small red flag went off when I say this quote:

“Factually, I was extremely well prepared and informed what the situation was,” Bobinski said. “But I would tell you the difficulty of making the turn and changing the mindset has been difficult.

Not to over simplify but he at first suggests others might be making rationalizations (or even excuses) and then he turns around and speaks of the difficulties of his own job in this institution. The red flag comes from my intimate knowledge of a certain large national corporation that tends to changes CEOs every 8-16 years. Each time a new CEO comes in he talks about institutional change and those who have to change their mindset. It is not long after arrival that one begins to hear the veiled blame placing on others for the difficult job the CEO has. Eventually they move on without any real change occurring except for the hard working middle management guys who get punked with every change no matter how they adjust or what "new philosophy" they buy into.

Sometimes there are simply significant institutional hurdles and one has to be careful about even appearing to blame others.

But I don't disagree with your sentiment at all. I think Tech can recruit better and Tech can win more games and, over time, increase the overall excellency of the program. But facing some very real hurdles and being realistic about them will require both hard work and patience. And overall I like the new ADs mindset and agree with it.

 

[GTRX7]

I think AD Bobinski said some very interesting things about the way not only fans, but people inside our athletic department view things...this interview kinda escaped a lot of our fans. The article is behind a pay wall, but I'll link/quote the most relevant portion that has to do with the discussion:

http://www.myajc.com/news/sports/co...making-at-tech/nf5nY/#24247c57.3568866.735436

If Bobinski sees a problem, it’s in mindset. He doesn’t doubt everybody in the athletic department wants to win. But he believes there’s a tendency to accept mediocrity too easily.

“One of our biggest challenges is how we view ourselves and how we do business,” he said. “We need to not be in the position of offering explanations to everyone. We need to find a way to move the needle. That’s such a fundamental thing. Those who believe and expect great things will find a way to get it done. Those who don’t, you will get what you get.”

Asked if staff members are making too many excuses, he said, “Excuses is such a tough word. Maybe rationalizations. You hear,‘We’re not this,’ or ‘We’re not that.’ That’s not productive thinking. It’s a comfortable way to say, ‘We can’t get any better.’”

Dan Radakovich, Bobinski’s predecessor at Georgia Tech, encountered similar frustrations. Either there were complaints about academic restrictions or the large shadow that the state’s flagship university in Athens casts over every other campus. With a hunger to win and not having to worry about selling seats, Radakovich left for Clemson.

“Factually, I was extremely well prepared and informed what the situation was,” Bobinski said. “But I would tell you the difficulty of making the turn and changing the mindset has been difficult.

“We have to get comfortable in own skin. You don’t get anywhere with comparisons. You decide who you are and you dedicate yourself to being the best version of yourself that you can be.”

I don't think anyone on here thinks we can be Alabama or Oregon or Auburn...that's just not realistic with the challenges at GT. However, GT can certainly be a LOT better than we have been. Even CPJ said at the ACC conference that we were only a few plays from being a 10+ win team last season. That was actually true for the past few seasons. If we're that close to consistently winning 9-11 games a year, why is it so hard to believe it can be reality? We are closing in on a top 30 recruiting class...by far CPJ's best class, and in my opinion, it's not hard to believe we could be recruit better every season because this class doesn't even include elite players like Calvin, Dwyer, Burnett...guys who chose to come here, and the same type of guys that GT should get a handful of every year.

If someone who heads our athletic department ad is on the inside of our program and sees what GT has to deal with first hand from an academic and administrative standpoint says some of the so called "hurdles" are more mental than real, shouldn't we listen?

I love MBob's mindset, and I hope that is the one that is shared by every GT coach. That said, 60 years of real world results have shown me, personally, that there are truths to the obstacles. Words are nice, but actions speak louder. Once MBob shows me with the action of our programs that there is no truth to the obstacles, I will give his words more weight.

I do believe a coach who is both a truly elite recruiter and a truly elite coach can consistently win in football at elite levels at Tech (9-11 wins each year). That said, there are not a lot of those, and how many of those staffs are willing to take a job at Tech (in the ACC, with our academic challenges, and with what we pay our staff), and just as importantly, stay if they started winning big? It can be done, and we should strive for it, but I also going to be objective as a fan when I judge our results.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I think AD Bobinski said some very interesting things about the way not only fans, but people inside our athletic department view things...this interview kinda escaped a lot of our fans. The article is behind a pay wall, but I'll link/quote the most relevant portion that has to do with the discussion:

http://www.myajc.com/news/sports/co...making-at-tech/nf5nY/#24247c57.3568866.735436

If Bobinski sees a problem, it’s in mindset. He doesn’t doubt everybody in the athletic department wants to win. But he believes there’s a tendency to accept mediocrity too easily.

“One of our biggest challenges is how we view ourselves and how we do business,” he said. “We need to not be in the position of offering explanations to everyone. We need to find a way to move the needle. That’s such a fundamental thing. Those who believe and expect great things will find a way to get it done. Those who don’t, you will get what you get.”

Asked if staff members are making too many excuses, he said, “Excuses is such a tough word. Maybe rationalizations. You hear,‘We’re not this,’ or ‘We’re not that.’ That’s not productive thinking. It’s a comfortable way to say, ‘We can’t get any better.’”

Dan Radakovich, Bobinski’s predecessor at Georgia Tech, encountered similar frustrations. Either there were complaints about academic restrictions or the large shadow that the state’s flagship university in Athens casts over every other campus. With a hunger to win and not having to worry about selling seats, Radakovich left for Clemson.

“Factually, I was extremely well prepared and informed what the situation was,” Bobinski said. “But I would tell you the difficulty of making the turn and changing the mindset has been difficult.

“We have to get comfortable in own skin. You don’t get anywhere with comparisons. You decide who you are and you dedicate yourself to being the best version of yourself that you can be.”

I don't think anyone on here thinks we can be Alabama or Oregon or Auburn...that's just not realistic with the challenges at GT. However, GT can certainly be a LOT better than we have been. Even CPJ said at the ACC conference that we were only a few plays from being a 10+ win team last season. That was actually true for the past few seasons. If we're that close to consistently winning 9-11 games a year, why is it so hard to believe it can be reality? We are closing in on a top 30 recruiting class...by far CPJ's best class, and in my opinion, it's not hard to believe we could be recruit better every season because this class doesn't even include elite players like Calvin, Dwyer, Burnett...guys who chose to come here, and the same type of guys that GT should get a handful of every year.

If someone who heads our athletic department ad is on the inside of our program and sees what GT has to deal with first hand from an academic and administrative standpoint says some of the so called "hurdles" are more mental than real, shouldn't we listen?

After much thought and reading of others' responses in this thread, I have come to the realization that our views are not that far apart. We both want success and we both acknowledge unique challenges. We both feel that GT can and should overcome those challenges better than we have in the recent past.

As to MBob's comments, I like what I'm hearing, but my reaction is tempered by his perspective. Consider that he's the head honcho and recently hired. Consider what he must have said in his interviews to land the job.... it's the same stuff he's saying now. Most of all consider that he comes in the wake of some of the most asinine public statements that could be uttered by a GT AD, Dave Braine basically said our ceiling is mediocrity. DRad was hired, in part, because he was the young hotshot with the SEC training who was the living, breathing antithesis of Braine. Braine labeled us mediocre and the guy who was brought in to prove him wrong eventually threw his hands up and left for greener pastures, to one of our rivals no less, one that happens to be the antithesis of GT in every way.

I like what I'm seeing the past two classes. I've always said GT was a tough nut to crack for any coach and whomever it is should be given more time than one would be given almost anywhere else. Contrary to perception, CPJ has made changes his entire tenure. I think he has evolved as has his formula for success. The fruit of his latest round of changes will be born out in the near future so I'm willing to be patient and see what happens. The signs are looking good so far.

Furthermore, I am extremely happy to see that he hasn't sacrificed his commitment to academic excellence throughout this evolution. In fact, it's gotten better along with the recruits' athletic talent.

 

[Techster]

I love MBob's mindset, and I hope that is the one that is shared by every GT coach. That said, 60 years of real world results have shown me, personally, that there are truths to the obstacles. Words are nice, but actions speak louder. Once MBob shows me with the action of our programs that there is no truth to the obstacles, I will give his words more weight.

I do believe a coach who is both a truly elite recruiter and a truly elite coach can consistently win in football at elite levels at Tech (9-11 wins each year). That said, there are not a lot of those, and how many of those staffs are willing to take a job at Tech (in the ACC, with our academic challenges, and with what we pay our staff), and just as importantly, stay if they started winning big? It can be done, and we should strive for it, but I also going to be objective as a fan when I judge our results.

I don't think we need a Saban, or a Jim Harbaugh. I actually think CPJ is a coach that can consistently win 9-11 games a season at GT. One of his biggest mistakes coming into GT was not getting ahead of the narrative about his offense (and what happens when to the defense that practices against it), and not looking at what past GT successful coaches did in terms of recruiting. It was great that he wanted to fill his roster with GA kids, and honestly GA puts out more than enough elite level and very good recruits that his original plan wasn't bad, maybe just poorly executed. The blue print for GT has always been recruit nationally, and hit target rich areas with good academics...have those non GA players complement the really good players GT could sign from GA.

Back to my original statement about CPJ being the coach that can consistently win 9-11 games a season. The reason I believe that is we've only been a few plays away from doing exactly that every year CPJ has been here. CPJ is a good coach, you don't win at Navy without being a good coach. If he can be that close to winning that many games with recruiting classes that quite honestly haven't been all that good, imagine what he can do if he's consistently pulling in classes like the one that's being put together now. Combine that with finally getting a DC worth a damn, and turning around our special teams...I think we it's not hard to believe we're closer to "the next level" than we were in the recent past.

 

[GTRX7]

Yet you are ignoring the obvious: GT is doing REALLY well right now in recruiting because of the reasons I spelled out in my earlier posts. LOL how you're still arguing against some idea in your head when the reality of what's going on with our 2015 class spells out the potential of what GT can be once the staff finally "gets it". Like I said earlier, GT may be STEM heavy, but that doesn't deter us from recruiting well (currently a top 30 class) and getting kids into GT that are capable of the work. The current class certainly blows holes into the antiquated recruiting excuses posters like you keep holding onto.

What am I missing here? Out of habit, I generally look at Scout's rankings. According to Scout, we are pretty much exactly where we have been the last 5 years (high 40s in the team rankings with all 3* recruits and one 2* recruit). While we may be getting more commitments early (showing we are doing a better job targeting kids we want), we are still not getting enough (or any) of the 4* and 5* recruits that the top teams in the ACC and the country get. I do see some progress, but nothing that suggests to me that we are narrowing our recruiting gap with the factories, just that we seem to be doing maybe a better job targeting 3* kids that fit in our system.