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
If a change is made...
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="slugboy" data-source="post: 896930" data-attributes="member: 282"><p>These are not “<strong><em>bugs</em></strong>” in the contract—they’re <strong><em>features</em></strong>. The design of the contract is to make it hard to fire Collins before his first full recruiting class becomes seniors.</p><p></p><p><strong><em>Every line that we complain about here makes sense in the “give the transition coach 5 years” sense, and they’re doing exactly what they were written to do.</em></strong></p><p></p><p>Most fans have buyers remorse right now, but the contract isn’t a scam pulled by Collins’ agent on the AA. </p><p></p><p>The dates and the payouts are set up to make it painful to fire Collins before year 5. Everything makes sense in that context. The belief is that building an offensive and defensive line would take years to develop, we would need to hit on and develop player in the second and third classes to make it happen, and that players would need to be upperclassmen before they really contributed. <strong>This isn’t a deal that Stansbury kept secret, it’s part of the transaction that the big boosters wanted and the board of trustees reviewed and approved.</strong></p><p></p><p>Reportedly, one of the members of board of trustees who had to approve the contract was one of Johnson’s offensive linemen. It’s a lot to expect a college senior to tell other members of the board that the transition shouldn’t take five years. There were also faculty members, and they tend to share contrarian opinions. The board was “on board” with a long and painful transition. </p><p></p><p>This was reportedly what the big boosters wanted too—they wanted off of the flexbone and wanted a “big boy” NFL-style offense. The option coaches didn’t have much of a chance.</p><p></p><p>The person who feels the most pain from firing Collins is the AD—it wrecks his budget. Not surprisingly, Stansbury fought to give Collins more time.</p><p></p><p>Success has many parents and failure has only one, and that’s what you’re seeing here. Stansbury is just one of the people responsible for this contract, but the big money boosters (such that we have) are disassociating themselves from the contract and pointing fingers at Stansbury. When things got sour last year, they wanted out of the deal, and they wanted Stansbury to bite the bullet that they personally didn’t want to bite. </p><p></p><p>(The warning flag that the transition isn’t working isn’t our record—it’s that we have a lot of player turnover in the first two recruiting classes. Many of the sophomores and juniors that should have developed aren’t on the roster now. They’re on medical scholarships or they’re gone)</p><p></p><p><strong><em>TL;DR version-> TStan gave the big money boosters what they wanted. The results are bad, so now they want him to own the mess and not them.</em></strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="slugboy, post: 896930, member: 282"] These are not “[B][I]bugs[/I][/B]” in the contract—they’re [B][I]features[/I][/B]. The design of the contract is to make it hard to fire Collins before his first full recruiting class becomes seniors. [B][I]Every line that we complain about here makes sense in the “give the transition coach 5 years” sense, and they’re doing exactly what they were written to do.[/I][/B] Most fans have buyers remorse right now, but the contract isn’t a scam pulled by Collins’ agent on the AA. The dates and the payouts are set up to make it painful to fire Collins before year 5. Everything makes sense in that context. The belief is that building an offensive and defensive line would take years to develop, we would need to hit on and develop player in the second and third classes to make it happen, and that players would need to be upperclassmen before they really contributed. [B]This isn’t a deal that Stansbury kept secret, it’s part of the transaction that the big boosters wanted and the board of trustees reviewed and approved.[/B] Reportedly, one of the members of board of trustees who had to approve the contract was one of Johnson’s offensive linemen. It’s a lot to expect a college senior to tell other members of the board that the transition shouldn’t take five years. There were also faculty members, and they tend to share contrarian opinions. The board was “on board” with a long and painful transition. This was reportedly what the big boosters wanted too—they wanted off of the flexbone and wanted a “big boy” NFL-style offense. The option coaches didn’t have much of a chance. The person who feels the most pain from firing Collins is the AD—it wrecks his budget. Not surprisingly, Stansbury fought to give Collins more time. Success has many parents and failure has only one, and that’s what you’re seeing here. Stansbury is just one of the people responsible for this contract, but the big money boosters (such that we have) are disassociating themselves from the contract and pointing fingers at Stansbury. When things got sour last year, they wanted out of the deal, and they wanted Stansbury to bite the bullet that they personally didn’t want to bite. (The warning flag that the transition isn’t working isn’t our record—it’s that we have a lot of player turnover in the first two recruiting classes. Many of the sophomores and juniors that should have developed aren’t on the roster now. They’re on medical scholarships or they’re gone) [B][I]TL;DR version-> TStan gave the big money boosters what they wanted. The results are bad, so now they want him to own the mess and not them.[/I][/B] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who was Georgia Tech's starting QB in 2023?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
If a change is made...
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