Pat Hill to GT?

[vamosjackets]

I doubt there's anything to this, but …

There's simply no question that the two biggest states for the kind of student -athletes we want at Tech are – wait for it – New York and California. Especially the latter.

It is true that we will have a hard time recruiting in California. It is also true that when you recruit in California you are not recruiting in just another jive state: you're recruiting in another country. There are more good athletes who fit our academic profile in California then any other state in the Union. And when I say that I mean that there are probably at least 2X as many potential Tech recruits there as anywhere else. That we don't recruit there is what's the puzzling question; not whether we would succeed. Shoot, a 10% success rate would repay the cost in talent quickly, imho.

But the only thing that's more risk-adverse then football recruiting is, perhaps, planning for the next war. Besides, I don't know that Hill would be an answer for this. Still, we need to think about it. Seriously.

Gerris Bowers-Wilkinson was the last one I remember from Cali. Seems like there was one more, but I can't recall. Gerris was a terrific player for us.

I think we lost 2 very close recruiting battles in Cali a few years ago. One was Malachi Lewis and the other was Casey Mathews. We came in a very close second to Oregon for both of those guys. Lewis turned out to be a decent TE IIRC, and Mathews was a VERY good LB - would've been a major difference maker for us.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

He can coach it, just not on a high level.

Appreciate your opinion but from everything I've seen and heard about Hill.....completely disagree with that opinion.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

He can coach it, just not on a high level.

Then wouldn't he be perfect for us? We want to be on a high level. We are not. We are arguably third tier in an inferior conference. Preseason predictions will have us in the 30's or 40's nationally. We are not just a tweek away from being on a high level. We need a complete overhaul of how we recruit, how we coach and how we maintain the program. I am certainly not advocating the hire of Hill or any other coach, but to suggest a coach should not be considered because he doesn't match the present day "exalted" level of Georgia Tech football is kind of silly. Bryan Cook? Joe Speed? Mike Sewak? I don't hear a groundswell of activity beating a path to North Avenue to snatch any of our present staff away to bigger and better places. None.

 

[SidewalkJacket]

We are arguably third tier in an inferior conference. Preseason predictions will have us in the 30's or 40's nationally. We are not just a tweek away from being on a high level. We need a complete overhaul of how we recruit, how we coach and how we maintain the program.

Hyperbole much? Maybe take a look at bigger picture of "college" athletics and what "maintaining the program" really means for Georgia Tech? Just a thought.

 

[SidewalkJacket]

But as far as a serious contribution to this thread goes...

I think we need good coaching first. I would love to recruit better, but I see it improving anyway. In the immediate, I think we have the talent to be a really good team, and experienced coaching might help that. Recruiting comes second to that in my mind.

 

[nodawgs]

Then wouldn't he be perfect for us? We want to be on a high level. We are not. We are arguably third tier in an inferior conference. Preseason predictions will have us in the 30's or 40's nationally. We are not just a tweek away from being on a high level. We need a complete overhaul of how we recruit, how we coach and how we maintain the program. I am certainly not advocating the hire of Hill or any other coach, but to suggest a coach should not be considered because he doesn't match the present day "exalted" level of Georgia Tech football is kind of silly. Bryan Cook? Joe Speed? Mike Sewak? I don't hear a groundswell of activity beating a path to North Avenue to snatch any of our present staff away to bigger and better places. None.

You can't have players knowing the system better than their position coach. CPJ ain't gonna change his system to fit a coach either.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

Hyperbole much? Maybe take a look at bigger picture of "college" athletics and what "maintaining the program" really means for Georgia Tech? Just a thought.

.
Of course, hyperbole in response to hyperbole. The bigger picture was not the subject, whether Pat Hill could coach OL in the triple option at a high level was the subject. One said no, I said we aren't (presently) a high levelprogram. I would suggest that Pat Hill was at least as competent as the empty chair left by the departure of Walkosky. He couldn't be too much worse than the empty chair now being occupied by Mike Sewak, could he? I am all about the altruistic features of our program. I just don't think athletic excellence is mutually exclusive from the other.

 

[UgaBlows]

Should think about bringing in a ex player to coach that other O-line spot

 

[vamosjackets]

Should think about bringing in a ex player to coach that other O-line spot

Yeah, an ex-player that actually played that position (or at least played OL) for CPJ would make a lot of sense. They may be the only ones who understand the position and what it takes to succeed in what they're asking those guys to do. Maybe one of his old Navy guys who would now be old enough to coach 23 year olds.

 

[daBuzz]

I don't personally think we're there yet, but if we truly ARE at the point where we need to hire an ex-player who may/may not even be coaching just to coach OL in this system.....if that's the only way you can fill out you coaching staff...then the system is a problem.

 

[GTRX7]

We are arguably third tier in an inferior conference.

Why stop there? I would argue that we are fourth tier in the ACC, maybe even fifth or sixth tier. This statement is particularly effective if we consider each individual team to be a "tier," which makes sense given the common usage of the term "tier." If we define FSU as 1st tier, Va Tech as 2nd tier, and Clemson as 3rd tier, we are clearly behind each of those by a mile. (It matters not that we have a winning record against Clemson over the last 10 years.)
It also doesn't matter that we have 51 ACC wins in the last 10 years compared to Miami's 43 and three ACC championship appearances to their zero, I would also put us way behind the "Miami tier." I mean, they have beaten us head to head lately, and that is all that matters. Well, not all that matters. I would probably put us behind UNC as well. While we do dominate them head to head, they are usually ahead of us in pre-season rankings. So, I would probably consider UNC to be the 5th tier. Given all that, Georgia Tech is probably 6th tier in the ACC. Though, Duke did win the ACC Coastal this year...

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

Why stop there? I would argue that we are fourth tier in the ACC, maybe even fifth or sixth tier. This statement is particularly effective if we consider each individual team to be a "tier," which makes sense given the common usage of the term "tier." If we define FSU as 1st tier, Va Tech as 2nd tier, and Clemson as 3rd tier, we are clearly behind each of those by a mile. (It matters not that we have a winning record against Clemson over the last 10 years.)
It also doesn't matter that we have 51 ACC wins in the last 10 years compared to Miami's 43 and three ACC championship appearances to their zero, I would also put us way behind the "Miami tier." I mean, they have beaten us head to head lately, and that is all that matters. Well, not all that matters. I would probably put us behind UNC as well. While we do dominate them head to head, they are usually ahead of us in pre-season rankings. So, I would probably consider UNC to be the 5th tier. Given all that, Georgia Tech is probably 6th tier in the ACC. Though, Duke did win the ACC Coastal this year...

Sarcasm aside, it isn't me that is predicting a 6th out of seven finish for us this year. Clemson and FSU are the strength of our league and they aren't even in our division. If we're 6th and UVA last per sportswriters' not fans' opinion, then I'd say bottom 1/3 of our division. Maybe viewing the combined divisions as one conference, we jump past Syracuse, Wake, and NCST on the other side about tenth of 14. I don't want us to be there--and if you recall, the comment was in context of someone saying Pat Hill could coach, just not at a high level. Where we are today is not at a high level IMHO.

 

[Squints]

Sarcasm aside, it isn't me that is predicting a 6th out of seven finish for us this year. Clemson and FSU are the strength of our league and they aren't even in our division. If we're 6th and UVA last per sportswriters' not fans' opinion, then I'd say bottom 1/3 of our division. Maybe viewing the combined divisions as one conference, we jump past Syracuse, Wake, and NCST on the other side about tenth of 14. I don't want us to be there--and if you recall, the comment was in context of someone saying Pat Hill could coach, just not at a high level. Where we are today is not at a high level IMHO.

Yea because the opinion of sportswriters is the defining factor for how good a football program is.

I can't roll my eyes any harder.

 

[GTRX7]

Sarcasm aside, it isn't me that is predicting a 6th out of seven finish for us this year. Clemson and FSU are the strength of our league and they aren't even in our division. If we're 6th and UVA last per sportswriters' not fans' opinion, then I'd say bottom 1/3 of our division. Maybe viewing the combined divisions as one conference, we jump past Syracuse, Wake, and NCST on the other side about tenth of 14. I don't want us to be there--and if you recall, the comment was in context of someone saying Pat Hill could coach, just not at a high level. Where we are today is not at a high level IMHO.

So, you are basing your statement that Tech is a "third tier" ACC program based solely on this coming year's media prediction that we will be 6th in the coastal? That, despite the fact that this coming year hasn't actually been played and we have been T-2nd, T-1st, T-2nd, T-2nd, 1st, and T-1st in the Coastal the last 6 years under CPJ? How did those prior year media predictions work out? I am guessing that we surpassed expectations in nearly every one of those years. Guess where the ACC media picked Duke to finish last year? That is right, 7th out of 7: http://www.theacc.com/#!/news-detai...f-Media-Selects-2013-Favorite_07-22-13_fwr5fp

I think you are putting too much stock in the media's preseason predictions. I also used a lot of sarcasm in my response to you because we have been probably the 3rd or 4th best team in the ACC by most every metric since CPJ has been here, so saying that we are a "3rd tier" ACC program to me is simply negative and irrational.

 

[daBuzz]

So, you are basing your statement that Tech is a "third tier" ACC program based solely on this coming year's media prediction that we will be 6th in the coastal? That, despite the fact that this coming year hasn't actually been played and we have been T-2nd, T-1st, T-2nd, T-2nd, 1st, and T-1st in the Coastal the last 6 years under CPJ? How did those prior year media predictions work out? I am guessing that we surpassed expectations in nearly every one of those years. Guess where the ACC media picked Duke to finish last year? That is right, 7th out of 7: http://www.theacc.com/#!/news-detai...f-Media-Selects-2013-Favorite_07-22-13_fwr5fp

I think you are putting too much stock in the media's preseason predictions. I also used a lot of sarcasm in my response to you because we have been probably the 3rd or 4th best team in the ACC by most every metric since CPJ has been here, so saying that we are a "3rd tier" ACC program to me is simply negative and irrational.

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume we're a 3rd tier ACC progam at the moment and it has nothing to do with what the media says.

To my way of thinking you have FSU & Clemson who both have recruited & played to the level of a top 20 national program.

In the second tier, you have Virginia Tech and Miami. Both of these teams spend a decent portion of the season within the top 20 and are usually ranked in the top 25 at the beginning of the season. Depending on injury, quality of play and a few other factors, they may/may not be there at the end of the season. (FWIW, Louisville now may end up being in this 2nd tier but I think you have to wait & see how they perform without Bridgewater and Strong. But Petrino is a heck of a coach even if he is a douchebag, so you would expect they have a very good shot at remaining at a high level of play consistent with top 20 programs).

Then you have us and the occasional Dukes, Carolinas, etc. I think I saw that our average end of year ranking under Johnson is in the range of something like 44 or something. So we certainly aren't a top 25 ranked team. For that matter, I can't even remember the last time we were ranked without looking it up. Was it 2010?

 

[GTRX7]

I like how Miami is ahead of us in your mind, but we are an "occasional," along with Duke and UNC. That said, we have played in the ACC championship game 3 times, and they never have once. Aside from head to head, there is absolutely no rational argument that could possibly put Miami in a higher tier in the ACC than Georgia Tech. None. Since CPJ got here:

Georgia Tech
2008: 9-4 (5-3) - T1st Coastal
2009: 10-3 (7-1) - 1st Coastal
2010: 6-7 (4-4) - T3rd Coastal
2011: 8-5 (5-3) - T2nd Coastal
2012: 7-7 (5-3) - T1st Coastal
2013: 7-6 (5-3) - T2nd Coastal
Total: 47-32 (31-17)
ACC Championship Games: 2
ACC Championship Titles: 1

Miami
2008: 7-6 (4-4) - 3rd Coastal
2009: 9-4 (5-3) - 3rd Coastal
2010: 7-6 (5-3) - 2nd Coastal
2011: 6-6 (3-5) - 5th Coastal
2012: 7-5 (5-3) - T1st Coastal
2013: 9-4 (5-3) - T2nd Coastal
Total: 45-31 (27-21)
ACC Championship Games: 0
ACC Championship Titles: 0

If you want to put them on the same tier, fine. But there is no rational argument that Miami is in a tier ahead of us in the ACC, unless you are only looking at last season and trying to project forward.

 

[daBuzz]

I like how Miami is ahead of us in your mind, but we are an "occasional," along with Duke and UNC. That said, we have played in the ACC championship game 3 times, and they never have once. Aside from head to head, there is absolutely no rational argument that could possibly put Miami in a higher tier in the ACC than Georgia Tech. None. Since CPJ got here:

Georgia Tech
2008: 9-4 (5-3) - T1st Coastal
2009: 10-3 (7-1) - 1st Coastal
2010: 6-7 (4-4) - T3rd Coastal
2011: 8-5 (5-3) - T2nd Coastal
2012: 7-7 (5-3) - T1st Coastal
2013: 7-6 (5-3) - T2nd Coastal
Total: 47-32 (31-17)
ACC Championship Games: 2
ACC Championship Titles: 1

Miami
2008: 7-6 (4-4) - 3rd Coastal
2009: 9-4 (5-3) - 3rd Coastal
2010: 7-6 (5-3) - 2nd Coastal
2011: 6-6 (3-5) - 5th Coastal
2012: 7-5 (5-3) - T1st Coastal
2013: 9-4 (5-3) - T2nd Coastal
Total: 45-31 (27-21)
ACC Championship Games: 0
ACC Championship Titles: 0

If you want to put them on the same tier, fine. But there is no rational argument that Miami is in a tier ahead of us in the ACC, unless you are only looking at last season and trying to project forward.

Well, there are a few problems wrong with your rationale. First of all, Miami finished ahead of us in the Coastal in 2012 and opted not to play in the ACCCG to minimize penalties from the NCAA. But they DID finish ahead of us. We were 6-6 going into the championship game, which isn't exactly something to brag about.

Second, I thought I was very clear. I'm basing my opinion on Top 25 rankings. Miami has been ranked in the top 25 several times during the past 3 or 4 years; we haven't.

And the final rationale for why they would be ranked above us: well, they have beaten us 5 years in a row. That seems to be a pretty rational way of thinking they're on a different plane from us.

 

[AE 87]

Well, there are a few problems wrong with your rationale. First of all, Miami finished ahead of us in the Coastal in 2012 and opted not to play in the ACCCG to minimize penalties from the NCAA. But they DID finish ahead of us. We were 6-6 going into the championship game, which isn't exactly something to brag about.

Second, I thought I was very clear. I'm basing my opinion on Top 25 rankings. Miami has been ranked in the top 25 several times during the past 3 or 4 years; we haven't.

And the final rationale for why they would be ranked above us: well, they have beaten us 5 years in a row. That seems to be a pretty rational way of thinking they're on a different plane from us.

You put Duke and UNC in the same tier as GT even though we've beat them several years in a row, so your last paragraph doesn't explain your rationality.

 

[augustabuzz]

Miami did not finish ahead of Tech. in 2012. 5-3=5-3

 

[AE 87]

Miami did not finish ahead of Tech. in 2012. 5-3=5-3

I think he means that winning a divisional tiebreaker by winning the game tiebreaker in OT shows that you are clearly on a tier above.