Is Collins nasty enough to be a HC ?

[Milwaukee]

Losing brain cells watching this thread.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Wrong. The Hill does not care about performance on the field. There is a reason why they have never integrated donor bases. There are many in the administration that would not object to eliminating sports entirely.

The Georgia Tech Foundation is not controlled by the Hill. The Hill does care about sports. There are some in the administration that thinks the athletics are a distraction, but that exists at EVERY research university. Disney used to use it in many of their non-animated movies back in the 60's.

 

[takethepoints]

Wrong. The Hill does not care about performance on the field. There is a reason why they have never integrated donor bases. There are many in the administration that would not object to eliminating sports entirely.

I wish everybody could accept this because it is true.

One further addition = it looks like a good proportion of Tech students could care less Tech football too. Nationwide, this is probably because every game is on tv and why leave a place where you can drink beer and watch football in peace to go to a stadium and swelter in the heat/freeze you tail off? At Tech, however, I think it is because a substantial part of the studentry just don't care anymore about sports then the administration does.

 

[Vespidae]

The Georgia Tech Foundation is not controlled by the Hill. The Hill does care about sports. There are some in the administration that thinks the athletics are a distraction, but that exists at EVERY research university. Disney used to use it in many of their non-animated movies.

I totally agree. President Petit wanted to shut football down until Kim King went to his office and threatened to remove him. With 26,000 students, of which 400 or so, are athletes ... it is not a priority. Whereas ... at Alabama or UGA ... it very much is.

 

[Vespidae]

I wish everybody could accept this because it is true.

One further addition = it looks like a good proportion of Tech students could care less Tech football too. Nationwide, this is probably because every game is on tv and why leave a place where you can drink beer and watch football in peace to go to a stadium and swelter in the heat/freeze you tail off? At Tech, however, I think it is because a substantial part of the studentry just don't care anymore about sports then the administration does.

Also true. The demographics of the Institute are very different than 30 years ago. Heck, I was at the ME school not long ago and encountered NO ONE that spoke English. Think about that when trying to get students to attend football games.

 

[Vespidae]

This is absolutely not true. I know first hand that two of the last three presidents very much cared about how the athletics teams were doing, and the third understood the benefit but took a very hands-off approach.

Wanting to win is not the same as enabling to win.

 

[GT_EE78]

I went to 247 and looked at VT for 2019 - 2016. (Btw, I picked those years because they were before the transfer rules changed; more realistic comparisons, imho.) Asking for 5 - 7 four star players puts Tech at their level of recruiting for that time period. I have to tell you that I don't think that's going to happen; I don't think there are enough 4/5 star players out there who could get into Tech and will choose to go there over time. We did well last year and - who knows? - maybe we'll see a late surge. However, I think our present class or a little better (mid-30s nationally) is what we can actually expect to be an average for long term recruiting at Tech
Or, short TTP and imho, recruiting comparisons don't matter all that much unless you are Bama or Clemson.

Isn't winning a bit more like Bama and Clemson at least part of the objective here?

 

[Vespidae]

Isn't winning a bit more like Bama and Clemson at least part of the objective here?

No. It isn’t. The goal is to average a 0.67 win rate (8-4) which is a significant improvement over 0.57. Occasionally, we‘ll win Coastal. There’s no expectation we will win 17 natties.

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

Vespidae: The part that many of those disagreeing with you fail to understand is when your fanbase/alumnist base is so, so small compared to factory schools, and most GT alumni do not want to give $$ to athletics. It is impossible to reverse the history of GT and where we are, unless we get a sugar daddy like Okla. St. had with Boone Pickens. It would take someone with basically unlimited funds who was willing to just throw it in the barrel, and that ain't happening anytime soon.

I think it is fine for people to want GT to be more like a "football factory" if that is what they want, but it is a pipe dream in my opinion. That makes me a pessimist (realist), too.

 

[GT_EE78]

No. It isn’t. The goal is to average a 0.67 win rate (8-4) which is a significant improvement over 0.57. Occasionally, we‘ll win Coastal. There’s no expectation we will win 17 natties.

Bobby Dodd would be sad to hear that

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

I wish everybody could accept this because it is true.

One further addition = it looks like a good proportion of Tech students could care less Tech football too. Nationwide, this is probably because every game is on tv and why leave a place where you can drink beer and watch football in peace to go to a stadium and swelter in the heat/freeze you tail off? At Tech, however, I think it is because a substantial part of the studentry just don't care anymore about sports then the administration does.

On your point about Tech grads nationwide, this is true. But, it is true at all schools that most alums are not going to consistently fly in to see home games when they are available on TV. The difference between us and them? They have 10's of thousands of sidewalk fans to go along with many, many alums that do live within reasonable driving distance of the school. We not only have a small alumni base, but also only a small % of those who care about football, and only a small % of those who live within decent distance of the ATL. It isn't hard to understand.

One of my hopes with CGC (other than him being a great recruiter and great coach) was that with his marketing skills, we could create thousands of new fans, but this is so, so hard to do unless you start winning and winning fast. There is still time for him to get everything I hope done, but it is a gargantuan task, and I am a realist and understand just how difficult this will be.

 

[slugboy]

Totally disagree ... but in all fairness for anecdotal reasons.

I asked all my football player students if they considered Tech as an option for college. Answer: Zero. Was it the TO that held them back? No. What then? They wanted to play against their friends.

West GA and East Alabama used to be prime GA Tech recruiting country. And Tech has largely just abandoned it. It's a lot more expensive to recruit in Miami than it is in Newnan ... but then again, it's up to the Man in Charge.

We’re not going to play 8 games against UT, UGA, Auburn, Alabama, Florida, etc, but we have one game against UGA, one against Clemson, and one against UNC. Duke isn’t going to hold much interest for them, but we can get them some time to play against their friends. Not as much and an SEC schedule, but we should be closer than a lot.

Maybe wishful thinking, but this might be something we can work with.

I went to 247 and looked at VT for 2019 - 2016. (Btw, I picked those years because they were before the transfer rules changed; more realistic comparisons, imho.) Asking for 5 - 7 four star players puts Tech at their level of recruiting for that time period. I have to tell you that I don't think that's going to happen; I don't think there are enough 4/5 star players out there who could get into Tech and will choose to go there over time. We did well last year and - who knows? - maybe we'll see a late surge. However, I think our present class or a little better (mid-30s nationally) is what we can actually expect to be an average for long term recruiting at Tech.

But that doesn't mean the end of the world. Minnesota recruits at about this year's level and has had great success recently. If you have a coach who knows what he wants and goes after it, stars or no stars, you can be successful without absolutely oodles of talent. My favorite = Bill Snyder at KSU. They seldom broke the 40s in recruiting rankings at 247 while he was there and won 8 or better every year anyway.

Or, short TTP and imho, recruiting comparisons don't matter all that much unless you are Bama or Clemson.

Bill Snyder at Kansas State and Gary Patterson at TCU at least used to take a lot of JUCO players. Their recruiting rankings weren’t much, but they made up for it by taking players that we won’t be able to take. That’s not the whole story, but it’s enough.

Minnesota is probably a better story for us. I think Collins is a lot more like Fleck than other coaches I hear him compared to.

I’d hope for a lot of classes in the 20-35 range. Hitting in the 10’s usually means you got a 5* player, and I actually can remember the last time that happened, but it’s been a while. Transfers look like they’ll be more important to us in the next few years.

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

Bobby Dodd would be sad to hear that

Although I agree with your sentiment about BD, he never had to compete in today's big business football. When BD was coaching, schools at least tried to make guys be true student athletes, not just athletes. GT was always different, since we are a STEM school, but without delving in the major differences that exist today, it would be very, very hard for Dodd today as well. I do believe he could "coach guys up" as well as anyone in America.

 

[Vespidae]

Although I agree with your sentiment about BD, he never had to compete in today's big business football. When BD was coaching, schools at least tried to make guys be true student athletes, not just athletes. GT was always different, since we are a STEM school, but without delving in the major differences that exist today, it would be very, very hard for Dodd today as well. I do believe he could "coach guys up" as well as anyone in America.

BD’s lifetime win rate was 0.69. We‘re shooting for 0.67. Yes .. terribly disappointing.

 

[AlabamaBuzz]

BD’s lifetime win rate was 0.69. We‘re shooting for 0.67. Yes .. terribly disappointing.

I did not say it was disappointing. If we can average 0.67, we will have years, like we did in 2014, where we win 9-11 games, so I would love that. Like I said, I am a realist like you.

 

[takethepoints]

I’d hope for a lot of classes in the 20-35 range. Hitting in the 10’s usually means you got a 5* player, and I actually can remember the last time that happened, but it’s been a while. Transfers look like they’ll be more important to us in the next few years.

I think we are starting to see why recruiting is more important for us going forward. As I said once, you have to remember that players who transfer in were beaten out of playing time at their original choice. How they were ranked in high school doesn't really matter.

But, admittedly, it's still early days to know if I'm right about this. Hope I'm not.

 

[Ibeeballin]

I have a headache

 

[stech81]

I have a headache

drink a beer

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

This is just silly because we are in year 2 of a total rebuild with a freshman QB and have replacement level players at many positions. He’s gotten our most dynamic player on campus since Calvin Johnson and many of you want to act like that didn’t happen. He got a four star QB that was hand picked to attend highly visible camps that are the playgrounds of the factories. Some of you want to act like that didn’t happen. I guess you’d rather Collins continue the GT tradition of converting DB’s to QB or taking QB’s that no one else wanted. Well, sorry guys, those days are over. There are plenty of 4 stars and high caliber players in this state for the factories to get theirs and for GT to get theirs. Gibbs is the perfect example. None of the factories had him as their #1 RB target. Collins did. And when the factories came calling due to the usual musical chairs of recruiting Collins was able to keep him. And there isn’t a freshman RB in the SEC or ACC that I’d trade Gibbs for. In another 2 classes when all these guys are seeing the field many of you will be singing a completely different tune.

 

[Vespidae]

There are plenty of 4 stars and high caliber players in this state for the factories to get theirs and for GT to get theirs.

I'm happy if we get them. Yay! But that's not my point.

In business, some managers grow profits by focusing on increasing sales, others by maintaining sales and reducing costs. Two ways to reach the same goal.

Many here say Collins is going to recruit like a maniac and we're going to get 7, 8, 10, no 15 four and five stars a year. Natty here we come!

Others (me) refer to TStan and his comments that "no, that is not our game. We will improve recruiting, sure ... but our goal is to recruit great 3-stars and use Georgia Tech science to develop them into five stars". (This is paraphrased, but it's pretty much what he said.)

Which is it?