Next Up - Revenge - Hopefully Sweet

[dtm1997]

Yeah this would be a pretty long timeline. I can understand waiting a year or 2, just for the financial reasons/NCAA sanctions to become more palatable. But otherwise, if the right coach is out there, it really seems like we would be doing more harm than good from a fan interest, recruiting, national perception, etc. perspective by waiting this long.

Breaking this down...

From a financial perspective, 1-2 years. Probably 1 to avoid any possibility of paying the retention bonus.

From a recruiting sanctions perspective, 1-2 years. 2, in theory, would help you having to overcommit to financing the next coaching regime.

National perception - objectively, nobody cares except us with the occasional question of "Why are they not better?".

Fan interest - we can punt on this one. Fan interest can dwindle to zero, but if anyone comes in and starts winning, ticket sales will pick up fast. That's just how ATL and our fan base are. Also, I don't think fan interest will ever go to zero and, whether we like it or not, ACC games will always have decent crowds... because of opposing fan bases.

Not advocating for anything here, just providing a POV on the topics mentioned.

 

[GTsports1819]

Breaking this down...

From a financial perspective, 1-2 years. Probably 1 to avoid any possibility of paying the retention bonus.

From a recruiting sanctions perspective, 1-2 years. 2, in theory, would help you having to overcommit to financing the next coaching regime.

National perception - objectively, nobody cares except us with the occasional question of "Why are they not better?".

Fan interest - we can punt on this one. Fan interest can dwindle to zero, but if anyone comes in and starts winning, ticket sales will pick up fast. That's just how ATL and our fan base are. Also, I don't think fan interest will ever go to zero and, whether we like it or not, ACC games will always have decent crowds... because of opposing fan bases.

Not advocating for anything here, just providing a POV on the topics mentioned.

All valid points. To elaborate, on a few of my comments - when I said recruiting and tied in national perception, I was also thinking about how high school players view our program and how this impacts our ability to bring in high quality talent. Easier to bring players into the fold when they know they are going to get national recognition via primetime games on ESPN and have a chance to make a run in the tourney. How much is this impacted by the timeline we are discussing? Debatable. IMO it can change some based on how we finish this year and next, but we've certainly dug ourselves into a bit of a hole since the current HS players won't remember (weren't around) for the glory days.

As far as fan interest - I agree. I think fan interest will make a comeback as soon as we start winning ball games. But from a financial perspective, how much more money do we lose if we aren't filling (say 75% avg) McCamish? It definitely looks packed for the big games - Duke, UNC, some weekend ACC games. But weekday games like the one against VT are not likely to draw much interest right now. What about donations? Would more people contribute if the program has more energy and gets back on the upswing?

Of course all of this is moot if we've put out feelers, and we don't like our options. No need to roll the dice for the sake of rolling it.

 

[TheAnonymous404]

Like I said, do your thing. Be as miserable as you choose to be, bud! Just another one to add to the ignore list.

Like I said, do your thing. Be as miserable as you choose to be, bud! Just another one to add to the ignore list.

Lol Classic Connell comes in hot then retreats to his precious ignore button. Maybe that’s why you think the numbers on this board are dwindling because you use that ignore button too liberally. Seriously man if it’s this distressing just text your buddies instead of looking at the boards. Meanwhile, the rest of us need to get back to discussing sports and why we deserve better than Pastner.

 

[alagold]

So JA played 40 mins last night .At this rate what are the chances he poops out or hurt before the end of yr.?

 

[Connell62]

Lol Classic Connell comes in hot then retreats to his precious ignore button. Maybe that’s why you think the numbers on this board are dwindling because you use that ignore button too liberally. Seriously man if it’s this distressing just text your buddies instead of looking at the boards. Meanwhile, the rest of us need to get back to discussing sports and why we deserve better than Pastner.

That’s the problem, bud. There’s no discussion. It’s just people like yourself that keep repeating the same thing. Get rid of him when that’s not fiscally possible right now.

Despite how many times it said here, it still hasn’t sunk in. Just because one doesn’t jump on here and start blasting away on Pastner or calling for his replacement after every loss or agree that our program is at rock bottom, it doesn’t mean we are okay with the status of the program. Some of us don’t live in fantasyland or disregard the financial big picture.

The only people I’ve ignored are those that continue to ignore the facts or just say stupid **** after every loss. There’s a core group of 5-6 and we all know who they are.

 

[bke1984]

3 years is a bit much. Can totally understand waiting a year for the buyout to reduce, but if it takes 3 years, forget about it.

I don’t think so. What I’m suggesting is to let the contract run out. I know everyone says it will kill recruiting, but will it? Has anyone ever tried? Plus, in basketball it hardly matters anyways. Especially if we are going to suck all three years anyhow. I’d rather save the buyout money to pay the next coach.

 

[LibertyTurns]

I don’t think so. What I’m suggesting is to let the contract run out. I know everyone says it will kill recruiting, but will it? Has anyone ever tried? Plus, in basketball it hardly matters anyways. Especially if we are going to suck all three years anyhow. I’d rather save the buyout money to pay the next coach.

What if @GTsports1819 nailed it & we’ve been recruiting new coaches behind the scenes but we’re not able to come to terms with anyone that’s an upgrade? We sure looked like stooges the last time we tried to replace a basketball coach.

 

[TheAnonymous404]

That’s the problem, bud. There’s no discussion. It’s just people like yourself that keep repeating the same thing. Get rid of him when that’s not fiscally possible right now.

Despite how many times it said here, it still hasn’t sunk in. Just because one doesn’t jump on here and start blasting away on Pastner or calling for his replacement after every loss or agree that our program is at rock bottom, it doesn’t mean we are okay with the status of the program. Some of us don’t live in fantasyland or disregard the financial big picture.

The only people I’ve ignored are those that continue to ignore the facts or just say stupid **** after every loss. There’s a core group of 5-6 and we all know who they are.

Just educate the rest of us on who these 5-6 folks are and just call them out man. I don’t get why we can’t continue to discuss the finances. I’m not just trying to troll, but I am really trying to discuss what the financial situation of our program. The most recent discussion was how the debt was a substantial factor. I am willing to discuss the points as they come up. The fact is the debt isn’t going away any time soon per the AJC til 2038, so should we just extend Pastner til then? I don’t think so. Some on this board are saying that we can fire Pastner next year based on the financials, so what is the difference for one year? Are we really so strapped for cash that we can’t make the move now if someone we really want is out there now? Until anyone with real power which frankly is no one on this board says anything official I think it is far to try to question what the actual state of finances are and at least try to come up with solutions.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Just educate the rest of us on who these 5-6 folks are and just call them out man. I don’t get why we can’t continue to discuss the finances. I’m not just trying to troll, but I am really trying to discuss what the financial situation of our program. The most recent discussion was how the debt was a substantial factor. I am willing to discuss the points as they come up. The fact is the debt isn’t going away any time soon per the AJC til 2038, so should we just extend Pastner til then? I don’t think so. Some on this board are saying that we can fire Pastner next year based on the financials, so what is the difference for one year? Are we really so strapped for cash that we can’t make the move now if someone we really want is out there now? Until anyone with real power which frankly is no one on this board says anything official I think it is far to try to question what the actual state of finances are and at least try to come up with solutions.

@TheAnonymous404 This is why I think our hire will be 2022. Specifics are below. We’ve rehashed this stuff ad naseum on here. I do acknowledge you’re new to the board though.

I’m going to need to put my GT finances stuff in one spot so I can just keep copying them on demand.

Sorry to those I offended with such a short snippy answer, but GT lost $9.6M in 2019 and FY 2020 is projected to lose another $1.7M. FY’s end 6/30 every year in case anyone was not aware. Bottom line the FY 2019 $11.3M in losses completely wiped out GT’s $6.7M reserve fund. All the athletic programs were asked to take a haircut to the tune of $9M to trim FY 2020 down to a $1.7M loss. I don’t have the numbers but quite frankly, we didn’t sell as many football season tickets as we’d hope for coupled with another $6M to pay for the new football staff. We’re also facing annual salary costs in football because there’s more people on staff now because we were so far behind the power curve we could not compete with such a small staff. Lastly, there’s a huge difference between operations and capital expenses. You don’t just mix money, particularly when your fundraising states it will be allocated to a purpose either 100% or the ratio has been specified.

It’s really not until 2023 where our revenues are projected to hit $101M that’s we’ll even be back to the point we have our reserve balance restored. We’ve got the highest debt service of any ACC team & by a large margin. Stansbury bet the bank on our football program & he’s gone all in. It’s our cash cow and there’s a reason every AD with a football program in the country manages football so doggedly. There won’t be any high profile basketball coach coming in here until 2024 unless someone is interested in plunking down about $25M to foot the bill for a 6 year contract.

Now I could be wrong & GTAA has this all nailed but based on the information at hand that is what a prudent steward of a multi-million dollar outfit would do. He’d hold the line in 2021 & 2022 if he could, then make 2024 the splash year. This year’s season football tickets are probably going to be lackluster, if we show some signs of life then FY 2022 may be a bit better. A good 2022 football season and hopefully we’ll rebound plus we got the extra revenue coming in. GT will finally not be upside down operationally, unable to make good decisions because the money is not there. He’ll likely have the ability to make a basketball hire in the spring of 2022 as the FY is winding down. They should be working the hire at the end of next season and have the replacement firmly in place when the 2022 season ends. It’s a business & that’s what he should do.

 

[YlJacket]

Breaking this down...

From a financial perspective, 1-2 years. Probably 1 to avoid any possibility of paying the retention bonus.

From a recruiting sanctions perspective, 1-2 years. 2, in theory, would help you having to overcommit to financing the next coaching regime.

National perception - objectively, nobody cares except us with the occasional question of "Why are they not better?".

Fan interest - we can punt on this one. Fan interest can dwindle to zero, but if anyone comes in and starts winning, ticket sales will pick up fast. That's just how ATL and our fan base are. Also, I don't think fan interest will ever go to zero and, whether we like it or not, ACC games will always have decent crowds... because of opposing fan bases.

Not advocating for anything here, just providing a POV on the topics mentioned.

If they pay the retention bonus after next year I will be pissed

 

[TheAnonymous404]

@TheAnonymous404 This is why I think our hire will be 2022. Specifics are below. We’ve rehashed this stuff ad naseum on here. I do acknowledge you’re new to the board though.

I’m going to need to put my GT finances stuff in one spot so I can just keep copying them on demand.

So the Collins transition cost us $6 million which wiped out $6.7 M reserve fund so be it. The athletic initiative is $13 million over budget in the operations phase of that project. Where is that money going if we wiped out our reserve to pay Collins and staff? Some on these boards have suggested it was to pay Collins, but from what you are saying that was covered by wiping out the reserve funds. Also, many other universities operate from the red, so why can’t we until the increase in revenue kick in 2022? If we found $6 M that could be cut from the budgets, could there not possibly be more extraneous spending in our programs? I think it’s a complicated topic that no offense can’t be summed up in 1 simple post that just contains a few numbers. I appreciate you offering up your opinions and numbers that you have found. I think it is a complicated issue. A lot of random numbers just get thrown around this board, so again I prefer to go read and learn about them for myself even if your post is accurate. Again, I’m not advocating that we just go hire some coach for the sake of change, but I want to know if there is a guy that is the right fit that we really are truly exploring all our options financially and not simply waiting for the numbers to turn black when other programs are willing to risk it in the red.

 

[LibertyTurns]

@TheAnonymous404 The numbers are straight out of the article you cited.

 

[slugboy]

What bothers me is not that the refs are blatantly slanted, but we never seem to get those marginal calls where it affects possession. The opposing player comes over the back and bumps Banks with his body & Banks fumbles the ball out of bounds. Wright gets pushed in the back or hit on the arm going up for a chippy & the shot is missed. You got to call fouls there. Then we get the ref couldn’t possibly see the call or thinks there’s going to be a foul that never actually happens but blows the whistle anyway. It’s not massively disproportionate, but we’re getting the short end of the stick. Coach does not know how to work the refs effectively & opposing coaches get an advantage.

Having a coach who can work the refs should be a bonus. I don’t see many coaches below 0.500 who effectively work the refs, and I think a lot of that is that refs aren’t going to listen to a losing coach. I also think refs let a lot of those calls slide because they want to keep the game moving.

When we lose by 3 or less, I’m more open to the refs being the problem.

So the Collins transition cost us $6 million which wiped out $6.7 M reserve fund so be it. The athletic initiative is $13 million over budget in the operations phase of that project. Where is that money going if we wiped out our reserve to pay Collins and staff? Some on these boards have suggested it was to pay Collins, but from what you are saying that was covered by wiping out the reserve funds. Also, many other universities operate from the red, so why can’t we until the increase in revenue kick in 2022?

In theory, some money is discretionary. In practice, If you raise money for one reason and spend it vastly differently (like on operations instead of capital expenditures), the next round of fundraising is going to be a lot harder.
I don’t know what TStan is up to, but he seems to be reaching out to donors a lot more than we’ve seen in recent years. He seems good at it.
BTW, with our debt load, we are operating well into the red.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheAnonymous404]

Having a coach who can work the refs should be a bonus. I don’t see many coaches below 0.500 who effectively work the refs, and I think a lot of that is that refs aren’t going to listen to a losing coach. I also think refs let a lot of those calls slide because they want to keep the game moving.


When we lose by 3 or less, I’m more open to the refs being the problem.


In theory, some money is discretionary. In practice, If you raise money for one reason and spend it vastly differently (like on operations instead of capital expenditures), the next round of fundraising is going to be a lot harder.
I don’t know what TStan is up to, but he seems to be reaching out to donors a lot more than we’ve seen in recent years. He seems good at it.
BTW, with our debt load, we are operating well into the red.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, the debt isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, it is over $200 M, so yes overall we will be operating overall in the red. What I meant was operating in the red on a yearly basis since the statics you used were yearly figures.

 

[TheAnonymous404]

@TheAnonymous404 The numbers are straight out of the article you cited.

Again, man its just a general statement that some people not necessarily you throw around numbers on this board, but I am glad to see you are still open to discuss the financial situation. I'll take that as some progress.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Again, man its just a general statement that some people not necessarily you throw around numbers on this board, but I am glad to see you are still open to discuss the financial situation. I'll take that as some progress.

You’re point is not completely invalid. You’re basically arguing if we can afford $200M in the hole why can’t we afford $205M.

 

[TheAnonymous404]

You’re point is not completely invalid. You’re basically arguing if we can afford $200M in the hole why can’t we afford $205M.

Exactly if the right coach is there I just don’t want us to operate in fear of debt that is going to a mainstay of the financial picture for many years to come. Again, the key is that we only take that risk for someone that we think is the right coach and truly has a chance to get this program back on track.

 

[RamblinRed]

I think the bigger issue in eventually replacing Pastner is going to be the recruiting restrictions, not the financials (though those don't help either).

Until the more severe restrictions from the NCAA pass it is going to be very difficult to get any coach worth paying to come here.

Hopefully at this point we are getting smart and have withdrawn our appeal of the postseason ban - this year's squad isn't going anywhere.

Alot of it is who can we ultimately attract. Mbob reached out to Chris Mack (who he had hired at Xavier) when Gregory was fired and Mack didn't have any interest in the GT job. Then when Bryce Drew reneged at the last minute they reached out to multiple other coaches before hiring Pastner.

What I do feel like though is when we make our next coaching hire it is the most important one since Cremins. I'm probably older than most on this board. My gut is that if we have a 3rd straight poor hire I may not see a winning program in my remaining lifetime. The kids who are being recruited now have basically never seen GT in the NCAA Tourney. GT currently has one of the longest absences from the NCAA Tourney of any power conference team.

I'm expecting it to take 1-2 years before the financials and recruiting restrictions are in a place where it makes sense to make a move.

 

[GTJake]

I'm not going to get into the Pastner discussion, I'll leave that up to people smarter than me, but it's been almost 15 years so yes it's beyond disappointing ...
Devoe choosing not to play doesn't ring right with me, not sure what's up with that, I don't think he's been the same since Usher started plating ????
But here's the point for me, Shooting !!!!! ... 4-18 from 3 pt. range Alvarado had 3 and Parham had 1 everyone else took the collar.
ND packed in tight and I don't think they even defended outside the paint ... woeful !

 

[Connell62]

I'm not going to get into the Pastner discussion, I'll leave that up to people smarter than me, but it's been almost 15 years so yes it's beyond disappointing ...
Devoe choosing not to play doesn't ring right with me, not sure what's up with that, I don't think he's been the same since Usher started plating ????
But here's the point for me, Shooting !!!!! ... 4-18 from 3 pt. range Alvarado had 3 and Parham had 1 everyone else took the collar.
ND packed in tight and I don't think they even defended outside the paint ... woeful !

He scored 21 against UL - I don't think that he has anything to do with Usher. Sometimes, it is as simple as an injury.

I don't think that there is any need to look further into it than that. His absence has definitely hurt the team though.

To your point, we have virtually no shooting without him in the line-up. Bubba is a good shooter, but he never looks for his shot.

Just shoot the damn ball already, be greedy!