Johnson

[Techster]

You're assuming the level of competition has remained the same. Gailey coached in an ACC with a down FSU and Clemson and North Carolina. So down, in fact, that Wake Forest won the conference (against Gailey's team, ironically enough). No one is suggesting Johnson walks on water or that Gailey was a bum, but it should seem clear that Johnson is a superior coach. As for O'Leary, he had a terrific 1998 season, but people remember him fondly because he beat UGA three times in a row. I won't hold his record of hiring great assistants against him, but the Fridge was the highest paid assistant in America when he was here. Let's give Johnson $2MM to hire a DC and see what happens.

One could argue that the ACC was a pretty weak conference when CPJ got here as well (ACC has ranked 4th or 5th out of the P5 conferences since they started doing the conference rankings). It use to be if you could get by VT, the ACCCG would be GT or VT's to lose. Clemson's rise and FSU's return to prominence is recent...as has the rise of teams like Duke and UNC (which CPJ use to run roughshod over).

O'Leary is remembered fondly for getting GT out of the Lewis mess, and winning a lot of games after he stabilized the program. He didn't walk into an established situation like Gailey and CPJ did. He also took us to bowl games every year after he stabilized the program during a time when bowl games were hard to come by and less than 50% of teams could go. 1998 was a good year, but so was 2000 when we went 9-3...a time when college teams played less games. Let's not disparage one coach's accomplishment to prop up another.

Your use of hiring good assistants is one of the main criticisms of CPJ...he has a few that aren't performing at the level. Getting and keeping Ted Roof on staff isn't exactly on the cheap ( http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/football/assistant ). I believe he's gotten a raise since that link was published. Part of a coach's job isn't just identifying and developing players, it's also identifying and developing assistant coaches...which O'Leary, Gailey, and Ross were really good at (seriously, look at what coaches under them are doing now). So in that regard, CPJ is sorely lacking compared to his predecessors.

BTW...neither O'Leary or Gailey was making $2 million back in the day...and Friedgen was highly paid, but it was not as exhorbitant as you would like to make it out to be.

 

[JorgeJonas]

One could argue that the ACC was a pretty weak conference when CPJ got here as well (ACC has ranked 4th or 5th out of the P5 conferences since they started doing the conference rankings). It use to be if you could get by VT, the ACCCG would be GT or VT's to lose. Clemson's rise and FSU's return to prominence is recent...as has the rise of teams like Duke and UNC (which CPJ use to run roughshod over).

O'Leary is remembered fondly for getting GT out of the Lewis mess, and winning a lot of games after he stabilized the program. He didn't walk into an established situation like Gailey and CPJ did. He also took us to bowl games every year after he stabilized the program during a time when bowl games were hard to come by and less than 50% of teams could go. 1998 was a good year, but so was 2000 when we went 9-3...a time when college teams played less games. Let's not disparage one coach's accomplishment to prop up another.

Your use of hiring good assistants is one of the main criticisms of CPJ...he has a few that aren't performing at the level. Getting and keeping Ted Roof on staff isn't exactly on the cheap ( http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries/football/assistant ). I believe he's gotten a raise since that link was published. Part of a coach's job isn't just identifying and developing players, it's also identifying and developing assistant coaches...which O'Leary, Gailey, and Ross were really good at (seriously, look at what coaches under them are doing now). So in that regard, CPJ is sorely lacking compared to his predecessors.

BTW...neither O'Leary or Gailey was making $2 million back in the day...and Friedgen was highly paid, but it was not as exhorbitant as you would like to make it out to be.

Power rankings were - and remain - fundamentally silly, as there's no objective criteria by which to judge them. It's true that colleges used to play fewer games a season, but it was only one game, and even then some years they played 12 (specifically when there were 13 weekends between Labor Day and Thanksgiving). This can easily be adjusted for anyway by considering win percentage. It's worth noting that there were also fewer 1-A teams then, too. As for the dollar figures, sure they were less, but it's relative, right? And Friedgen was the highest paid assistant in the nation. I can't imagine any scenario in which Tech forked over that kind of money now.

It's worth also mentioning, if we're going to be honest about everything, that neither O'Leary nor Gailey had any significant success graduating players, which was fine then because there was no NCAA metric requiring that they do so. Now, though, there are penalties for not having players move toward graduation. Unfortunately, at the same time those penalties were introduced, the student body at large at Tech has improved, meaning players are competing with ever brighter kids in the same classes.

 

[Stinger90]

Your list better be 10x that long if you want to field a good team. Cherry picking a handful of our best players going back 10+ years ain't gonna do it for me. Any team can make a fantasy allstar team out of the last 10 years and say "all we gotta do is just recruit these guys." Yeah, right.

And APR is not an excuse, it's reality. It's not just that, academic scandal from

I've been saying this very thing for a long time.

I know the board you tried to explain that to. They'll still thinking it's an excuse along with injuries and another reason to hate our program (coach). Those posters are so full of hate that they have tunnel vision about what our program is really about. I don't know why I waste my time trying to reach those narrow minded people.

 

[Techster]

Power rankings were - and remain - fundamentally silly, as there's no objective criteria by which to judge them. It's true that colleges used to play fewer games a season, but it was only one game, and even then some years they played 12 (specifically when there were 13 weekends between Labor Day and Thanksgiving). This can easily be adjusted for anyway by considering win percentage. It's worth noting that there were also fewer 1-A teams then, too. As for the dollar figures, sure they were less, but it's relative, right? And Friedgen was the highest paid assistant in the nation. I can't imagine any scenario in which Tech forked over that kind of money now.

It's worth also mentioning, if we're going to be honest about everything, that neither O'Leary nor Gailey had any significant success graduating players, which was fine then because there was no NCAA metric requiring that they do so. Now, though, there are penalties for not having players move toward graduation. Unfortunately, at the same time those penalties were introduced, the student body at large at Tech has improved, meaning players are competing with ever brighter kids in the same classes.

Power rankings...that's your perogative to believe what you want. Just look at the ACC's historical record against other conferences and in bowl games from 2008 to present. http://mcubed.net/ncaaf/tvc/acc/index.shtml The ACC overall doesn't have a winning record against ANY current P5 conference.

The academic support staff and amount of tutoring GT's athletes get today far exceeds what was available to SA's back then. In fact, the academic atmosphere overall at GT is far different now than GT during that time. The freshmen retention rate is now 93% overall at GT. Think about that. I graduated from GT, back when "Look to your left, look to your right" was how all freshmen were baptized at orientation. That was during the end of the O'Leary regime, and the beginning of the Gailey regime. I would think that in itself makes what O'Leary and Gailey had to deal in terms of recruiting players and keeping them eligible is to achieve what they did is pretty impressive.

You also have to keep in mind, CPJ has been given certain things previous coaches can only dream about. A higher budget for assistants, an indoor practice facility, more recruiting staff, complete overhaul of player lockerrooms /meeting rooms/player facilities. CPJ has use of a private plane for recruiting (see the Brad Stewart recruiting story).

At the end of the day, you can say this coach had this, or this coach had that. If you look at the evidence, it's all a wash at the end of the day.

EDIT:

Retention rate is actually 97%!

https://gtswarm.com/threads/gt-freshmen-retention-rate-97.8580/

 

[Skeptic]

You're assuming the level of competition has remained the same. Gailey coached in an ACC with a down FSU and Clemson and North Carolina. So down, in fact, that Wake Forest won the conference (against Gailey's team, ironically enough). No one is suggesting Johnson walks on water or that Gailey was a bum, but it should seem clear that Johnson is a superior coach. As for O'Leary, he had a terrific 1998 season, but people remember him fondly because he beat UGA three times in a row. I won't hold his record of hiring great assistants against him, but the Fridge was the highest paid assistant in America when he was here. Let's give Johnson $2MM to hire a DC and see what happens.

If I am not mistaken O'Leary was a .500 coach after Friedgen left. But three straight against the Dogs is not a bad resume. I think the decision or no decision on Roof is going to be a really interesting one. It was a big homecoming for this LB hero of the Black Watch, and letting go a grad would be very tough to do. But I will say this: the only consistent part of Johnson's regime -- offense was until 2015 happened -- has been his defenses, of which there weren't any. I have no clue why, as from what I gather the DC has been given his share of recruits to build on. Ditto ST, which excepting the QBs that coach could have used anybody on the roster, according to Johnson when he was hired. Maybe my GT friend is right: GT just can't recruit the big nastys who love to play defense because they get to hit people, and the poster who noted football is an instinctive game sometimes. The guy who let the Georgia tight end loose for 28 yards in a key possession surely had no instincts. I think it is time for me to dump football and go to soccer. Don't know diddly about it, but that is a positive since I wouldn't care who won or lost.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

With the large number of head coaching vacancies, does Johnson get a call from anyone? If so, which school do you think it'll be? And is there currently a program that would be interested in him and he would leave Tech for?

Iowa State, Rutgers, UCF, Tulane, Texas State, Syracuse, University of Texas San Antonio.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

I think fritz option way easier to recruit to than ours due to more modern look. They also run alot of zone easier on ol and transition to nfl.

I also think when we get ours right its harder to defend, but its also harder for us to get right it seems

And they only need to get the kid admitted to Southern, not Georgia Tech.

 

[Legal Jacket]

This eeyore attitude from GT fans is just disgusting to me. We finished in the AP top 25 for five consecutive years under O'Leary. Not that long ago, Won a National Championship not long before that.

Talent pool? When we stop fishing for marlin in the local pond, maybe things will change. That's another way of saying that when half of our recruits are from more than 300 miles from campus, then we can talk about "talent pool". Go check out where the 1990 two deep was from. People roll out the Academic Excuse (tm) while we recruit some of the worst academic areas in the country.

I will agree on two points. When Homer Rice was AD, the AA was on solid financial footing. Braine came in and turned things around. In a bad way. The two successors to Braine have not improved the situation. If I was on the Athletic Board, I'd make some changes at the AA, starting at the top. But, for now, we don't have money, which is not likely to change under this administration.

The other point I will agree on is that we can't do the same things as other programs. That's why we need a more diversified offense like Friedgen ran. Smart GT kids should be able to run everything from 4 wide to wishbone--and Friedgen literally did that. And a wide open offense would help recruiting.

This is revisionist history at best. Sure, we finished in the top 25 under O'Leary in the AP POLL five years in a row. But that's not true at all in the coaches poll, where we were ranked only 3/5 times. Twice the AP ranked us when we were 7-5 (25th and 24th, in 1997 and 2001). They also ranked us when we were 8-4. Doesn't change the fact O'Leary won 10+ games only once, and never made it to a major bowl game. The three 7 and 8 win teams we fielded in 2011-13 under Johnson weren't that different from the three 7 and 8 win teams we fielded in 97, 99, and 2001 under O'Leary.

I won't get that much into the national championship thing. The football landscape has changed a lot since then. It's even changed a lot since O'Leary was here (especially since O'Leary was the one who used ineligible players). I'll just say this: we were fortunate that year that there weren't any truly great teams. I don't know what the result would have been, but the biggest competition for a national title we faced was a colorado team that should have lost 3 games.

I'll cede a bit on the recruiting nationally. I looked at the 1990 two deep. Shawn Jones was from Thomasville, Ga. William Bell was from Florida. Ken Swilling? Toccoa. Scott Sisson? Marietta. Coleman Rudolph, Georgia. I counted and there were roughly 70 players on that roster from the state of Georgia. So don't pretend like we hardly recruited from our back yard. We also have some national guys on the current team - Jeune is from New York; Gotsis is from Australia; Klock is from Pa; Rook-Chungong is from Maryland; Marcordes is from Illinois. I think looking at the differences, it seems like we recruited a little stronger in Pennsylvania, NJ, and Ohio back in 1990. It wasn't a huge difference though.

In terms of money, that is one way the landscape has changed. We just don't bring in that much money, and the gap has widened since 1990.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

Certainly do not know the man, but if you're the coach at Navy I doubt you'd go to an SEC school unless it was Vandy. UVA would be an option, Duke, and probably there's a few others. I just don't think if you coached the Middies you'd end up being interested in managing the uneducated criminals at someplace like the Cesspool, Miami, etc. plus having to deal with an idiotic fan base, etc.

And idiotic administrations and trustees.

 

[Skeptic]

I know the board you tried to explain that to. They'll still thinking it's an excuse along with injuries and another reason to hate our program (coach). Those posters are so full of hate that they have tunnel vision about what our program is really about. I don't know why I waste my time trying to reach those narrow minded people.

I don't think they're narrow minded. Rigid sometimes maybe. But they have their ideas for what Tech needs and others have their views. And while I don't consider Johnson a polarizing figure -- I have seen enough to recognize those from down the block -- he certainly does engender some strong feelings that put together with a unique and creative offense just sometimes drives people over the edge. (And if you want to know the views of others on the offense, the new VT coach got walloped by Navy and was astonished afterward at the offense.) But you know for $3 mil, not a bad deal for Johnson, particularly given that he doesn't have to watch a thing or read anything about the team. He's a big boy and remains standing.

 

[MWBATL]

Well, after reading this thread, I am thoroughly depressed about the future of GT football.

With the academic/APR issues facing us, the fact that we have a small fan base and stadium, limited majors. play in a weak conference and are not regarded a splaying a system that prepares you for "the league"....well, frankly, we're doomed!

 

[COJacket]

We don't recruit the same players that Ross and O'Leary recruited due to changes in academic standards.

Talent pool may be large for other programs with less academic rigors, but not for GT.

On your last paragraph, I totally agree. Freidgen ran an option based offense with more passing, but again, the Fridge had better players with fewer academic restrictions.

And Fridge had his up and down years after he left Tech

 

[JorgeJonas]

Power rankings...that's your perogative to believe what you want. Just look at the ACC's historical record against other conferences and in bowl games from 2008 to present. http://mcubed.net/ncaaf/tvc/acc/index.shtml The ACC overall doesn't have a winning record against ANY current P5 conference.

The academic support staff and amount of tutoring GT's athletes get today far exceeds what was available to SA's back then. In fact, the academic atmosphere overall at GT is far different now than GT during that time. The freshmen retention rate is now 93% overall at GT. Think about that. I graduated from GT, back when "Look to your left, look to your right" was how all freshmen were baptized at orientation. That was during the end of the O'Leary regime, and the beginning of the Gailey regime. I would think that in itself makes what O'Leary and Gailey had to deal in terms of recruiting players and keeping them eligible is to achieve what they did is pretty impressive.

You also have to keep in mind, CPJ has been given certain things previous coaches can only dream about. A higher budget for assistants, an indoor practice facility, more recruiting staff, complete overhaul of player lockerrooms /meeting rooms/player facilities. CPJ has use of a private plane for recruiting (see the Brad Stewart recruiting story).

At the end of the day, you can say this coach had this, or this coach had that. If you look at the evidence, it's all a wash at the end of the day.

EDIT:

Retention rate is actually 97%!

https://gtswarm.com/threads/gt-freshmen-retention-rate-97.8580/

The issue you're having is comparing Johnson with previous head coaches rather than comparing him to his contemporaries. Every coach has access - though probably not unfettered - to a private plane. And every school has tutors. And if Tech didn't increase the budget for assistants, they'd be hiring high school coaches. Johnson does not have the highest paid assistant in America, and I doubt he'd get the approval for it if he asked, but O'Leary did.

The 97% retention rate now actually supports my earlier point - namely that the quality of student at Tech now is better than it used to be, and the athletes are required to compete with them in class.

 

[AE 87]

How many of those guys would NOT have stayed eligible with today's APR? You don't know any more than I do...APR is a convenient excuse for not recruiting better talent. There is elite talent willing to do the work, and capable of doing the work. We just need to get them.

For instance, a QB like Josh Dobbs (Tennessee's starter), a 4 Star dual threat QB and an Elite 11 QB, that prepped 20 minutes up I-400 LOVED GT's aerospace engineering program wanted to come here for the academics, but GT's offense didn't fit him. You think a talent like that would play in a system like Art Briles or Gus Malzahns that uses the option to complement the vertical passing game? Guys like Dwyer, Nesbitt, Sean Renfree (a commit under Gailey, now an NFL QB), Calvin Johnson, Demaryius Thomas, etc...all got through GT's academics.

The point is, there are enough guys who can get into GT and do the work, and enough top tier guys, that saying "CPJ's system is the only system that will make GT successful" is false. There are plenty of top level recruits that can and will do the work at GT...GT just needs to give those recruits a reason to come here. We're not going to get a line of elite guys lining up to play here, but we can get our fair share, and we have before. I agree recruiting ain't easy, but having CPJ's system makes it harder. I'm saying that as someone who actually likes CPJ's system.

While APR wasn't required until 2003, the NCAA was calculating its GSR (graduation success rate) for SA's graduating within 6 year during that time. GSR counts all students who enter and graduate, i.e. including transfers in but does not count those who enter but don't graduate because they transfer out while in good standing. FGR (federal graduation rate) calculates what % of first-time incoming freshmen who graduate within 6 years.

The year refers to the cohort year, i.e. the first year an SA attends any college full time (source).
CYr.. GSR .. FGR
1998 53% .. 47%
1999 55% .. 48%
2000 51% .. 43%
2001 48% .. 40%
2002 49% .. 41%
2003 49% .. 42%
2004 49% .. 47%
2005 55% .. 45%
2006 63% .. 53%
2007 66% .. 60%
2008 72% .. 66%

Note that 72% for 2008 would go up to 100% if given more than 6 years. The 2009 cohort in football is expected to have a GSR of over 80%.

Whether or not GT is easier to graduate from now than 15 years ago is of course it's own question. However, the APR means that you can't just stay eligible by hitting GPA in electives, which was happening in years previous.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

While APR wasn't required until 2003, the NCAA was calculating its GSR (graduation success rate) for SA's graduating within 6 year during that time. GSR counts all students who enter and graduate, i.e. including transfers in but does not count those who enter but don't graduate because they transfer out while in good standing. FGR (federal graduation rate) calculates what % of first-time incoming freshmen who graduate within 6 years.

The year refers to the cohort year, i.e. the first year an SA attends any college full time (source).
CYr.. GSR .. FGR
1998 53% .. 47%
1999 55% .. 48%
2000 51% .. 43%
2001 48% .. 40%
2002 49% .. 41%
2003 49% .. 42%
2004 49% .. 47%
2005 55% .. 45%
2006 63% .. 53%
2007 66% .. 60%
2008 72% .. 66%

Note that 72% for 2008 would go up to 100% if given more than 6 years. The 2009 cohort in football is expected to have a GSR of over 80%.

Whether or not GT is easier to graduate from now than 15 years ago is of course it's own question. However, the APR means that you can't just stay eligible by hitting GPA in electives, which was happening in years previous.

I love you, man.

 

[swampsting]

And they only need to get the kid admitted to Southern, not Georgia Tech.

They also have PE majors for players, too. Little easier than getting through calculus.

 

[first&ten]

I really don't understand some of you guys that #1 think Johnson is an offensive genius #2 think he'sthe best Tech can hope for and lead us to the promised land. Maybe ya'll see something in him that I don't. The real test will be this years recruiting class, imo after this years disaster.

 

[first&ten]

I've always shook my head when some on here have said "CPJ's system is the only system that will give GT an edge versus other programs". That's simply not true, and your Friedgen example is proof of that. I don't think GT can run the a "pro style offense" and hope to compete on a top 25 level every year (though Gailey was competitive with it), but a system like Gus Malzahn's, Art Briles, Urban Meyer, Bobb Stitt, Willie Fritz...their systems would most definitely work at GT, and they could pull in talent with it. Friedgen didn't get top level offensive recruiting classes, but he got really good recruits and sprinkled it with top tier guys. I can guarantee you that a guy with Art Briles system can pull in good enough QBs, WRs, and RBs to replicate the big numbers they're putting up at Baylor, and we would get more interest from top level QBs and WRs.

The point is, GT can't be like the "pro style" schools, but if we get a coach with a good system like the ones I mentioned above, we can be every bit as good as we have been under CPJ.

There it is! However, Johnson will not, can not give up on his scheme. It's not in his DNA and he will go downwith the ship trying to make it work.

 

[slugboy]

They also have PE majors for players, too. Little easier than getting through calculus.

In Early Childhood Education, you get to read Dr. Seuss books for credit.

 

[IEEEWreck]

The academic support staff and amount of tutoring GT's athletes get today far exceeds what was available to SA's back then. In fact, the academic atmosphere overall at GT is far different now than GT during that time. The freshmen retention rate is now 93% overall at GT. Think about that. I graduated from GT, back when "Look to your left, look to your right" was how all freshmen were baptized at orientation. That was during the end of the O'Leary regime, and the beginning of the Gailey regime. I would think that in itself makes what O'Leary and Gailey had to deal in terms of recruiting players and keeping them eligible is to achieve what they did is pretty impressive.

Those numbers are misleading because the state has tied funding to that kind of number. The reshuffling of the books to make the goalposts is pretty predictable. They accomplish this in a few ways: the admissions are substantially more selective than previously was the case. There's a major restructuring of the numbers of students to support that goal. Essentially, we used to take in enough freshman that we'd kick out a third and end up with the sophomore class numbers we wanted. Now we take in about as many freshmen as we want in a class. They encourage freshmen not to take any major related courses until at least second semester, and they delay the major weed outs until sophomore year. The Institute has a lot of tutoring help for freshmen level classes.

There are also a few professors that make traditional weed out courses easier to survive. Apparently there's one particular professor who teaches a DiffEQ class that has extremely predictable test questions. I've felt bad for the folks who scraped by in that class, because it comes back to bite you in Emag and Signals when you don't have a good grasp of DiffEQ fundamentals.

I think the real question is has Tech given in to the Harvard grading 'curve' where you got in to Harvard, so obviously everyone in the class gets an A. Almost entirely I think no. It's difficult when there are so many administrators and even faculty for whom the GT system (letter grades are given on gaussian distributions. Deal with it.) is profoundly foreign. But I know ECE and ME at least still have consistent weed out course pass percentages that match the old days. Are those people just finding their way to the business school or Ivan Allen college? I don't know. I don't know if the business school matches the grading curve rigor of the management school. But I doubt it's slid very much.

The real loss here is that the GT system was profoundly democratic and fair. Admissions officers are human and foolish and limited and prejudiced. Calculus exams are, by comparison, a lot harder to use to exclude people on the basis of race, class, gender, or funny lookin'ness. I think it's much, much, much more fair and better for the university to take in twice as many freshman and let them see who can cut it rather than hand a mandate to admissions officers to cull the RATs before they even become RATs. Perhaps this culture was doomed when we started trying to emulate MIT and Stanford. For certain the State of Georgia has crushed it by mandating advancement rates.

I guess if that pisses you off like it pisses me off, we can write a letter to the governor or something.