Paul Johnson time frame.

[RamblinWreck92]

It’s like they love Paul Johnson more than the Institute. Beyond me.

Scheme First, School Second. It's bizarre.

 

[takethepoints]

Scheme First, School Second. It's bizarre.

This is insulting. The reasons I've given for keeping Coach - the way his style of football overcomes many of our recruiting problems in particular - have never been refuted by anybody here. I support the present staff because I think they are the best fit with Tech's recruiting and academic limitations and give us the best chance to win, long term. But instead of arguments refuting that, we get three varieties of opinion (and that's all it is):

• If the donors will just pressure the Hill and the AD we will get our grade limitations lifted and be able to get the players we need. To do that we need to change coaching staffs. This is the "UNC Solution" and has less then a zero chance of ever seeing the light of day, especially in given the NCAA degree progress regs and the unwillingness of both the Hill and the BoR to allow it.

• If we changed coaching staffs we could recruit better. As I pointed out above, there is no systematic evidence offered that this is true; indeed, we had one response that it would be impossible to provide. We have had some convincing anecdotal evidence that some players haven't come to Tech (or haven't considered Tech; two different things) because they don't want to play in our offense. Or, at least, that is what they told some people here. There are so many alternative explanations for these decisions by 18 year olds that nobody here (I hope) would accept them as valid. The challenge is still there.

• We need "more excitement" to bring fans into the stands and attract better recruits. Nobody ever explains what that means. It is simply assumed that the offense we run isn't exciting, I guess largely because we don't throw as much. Now, if what is meant by exciting is winning more games, I'm all there with that. What I don't see is why a coaching change at this juncture will lead to that. Indeed, I'm pretty sure it would doom Tech to the much mentioned "football irrelevance" so decried here. And for years to come too boot.

Changing procedures because you are disappointed with results makes sense if you have an alternative that you are pretty sure will work. I was not enthusiastic about replacing Gailey until I found our that CPJ was his replacement; that was an alternative that would work. Leaping into the dark without convincing reasons, however, it is very likely to bankrupt the organization.

 

[RamblinWreck92]

This is insulting. The reasons I've given for keeping Coach - the way his style of football overcomes many of our recruiting problems in particular - have never been refuted by anybody here.

Disclaimer: I don't want CCG back and I agreed with his firing.

I'll refute it. CPJ's record is almost identical to CCG's record with a different scheme. Both schemes apparently do about the same job "overcoming our recruiting problems.". Though he never beat the mutts, CCG did manage to beat Auburn a couple of times with his scheme and fell backwards into an ACC-CG even though he horrifically misused Megatron.

But since 2014, we've now been passed in the conference and on the playing field by Duke and PITT, 2 teams who do not recruit any better than we do. CPJ's style DOES NOT GIVE US AN ADVANTAGE anymore and only did for the first few seasons. We have not been competitive with teams who recruit better than us other than a few games in 2014.

The scheme has been figured out, and it's not difficult to stop it. Only the cupcakes on our schedule make it look exciting. As evidenced by our decreasing attendance numbers (which translate to $$$), our offense is also boring to watch and turning people away in droves. No one wants to watch TQM keep it 25 times for 47 yards (Clemson) or watch 65 different versions of B-back dives and QB Keepers. Esp. recruits. And even moreso when we end up losing!

It's sad because all he needs to do is incorporate some of his passing schemes from his old Hawaii playbook and that'd open up the run, be more fun to watch, and probably end up winning more games. It's not coincidental that when we throw it most, we win most (2009, 2014). But this Run First, Run Second, Run Third scheme we're trotting out this year DOES NOT WORK.

 

[GTRX7]

It's not coincidental that when we throw it most, we win most (2009, 2014). But this Run First, Run Second, Run Third scheme we're trotting out this year DOES NOT WORK.

You will get absolutely no argument from me that we are not under-performing right now. But I do question your analysis. To start, I don't think the facts back up your assumption that we threw more in 2009 and 2014. (I agree we were more efficient when we did throw it due to better players, but that is a different point than throwing it more or changing the scheme.) Here are passing averages under CPJ:

attempts/game - yards/game (record)
2008 - 12.7 - 99.2 (9-4)
2009 - 12 - 126.7 (11-3)
2010 - 12.9 - 83.9 (6-7)
2011 - 12.8 - 142.3 (8-5)
2012 - 13.9 - 129.9 (7-7)
2013 - 15.6 - 130.4 (7-6)
2014 - 14.5 - 134.4 (11-3)
2015 - 16 - 121.3 (3-9)
2016 - 12.2 - 129.2 (9-4)
2017 - 10.7 - 84.3 (5-6)

 

[Vespidae]

I've seen a lot of posts here over the last few weeks that assert that if we changed offenses we would recruit better. I've answered a lot of them, pointing out our problems and what we need (more money - duh) to address them.

Now, I'd like to see someone present some systematic evidence - not anecdotes or hearsay - that shows that we would recruit better if we had a different offense. This is a site full of engineers some of whom probably present themselves as data analysts. So let's see what - if anything - you have. Btw, trying to prove a negative ("we must be able to do better since we haven't been going to bowl games!") isn't allowed. Logically, that is.

Btw, I may address the "we want some excitement!" cries in a future post, if I find the time. But this should keep people occupied for awhile.

I suppose if we had access to the recruiting data, we could. Here's my favorite quote on the subject from Lou Holtz, when asked why most teams avoid the TO today:

"I think it's one word: recruiting," says Lou Holtz, who ran option football at five stops in his college coaching career, including with his Notre Dame national champion in 1988. "Once alumni started treating recruiting like it was a season in itself, it became very difficult to run the option. All of a sudden, [if you were an option team,] you couldn't get the dominant quarterback, because you weren't going to throw the football and get him ready for the NFL. You couldn't get the dominant left tackle, because you weren't going to teach him to pass-block. You couldn't get the dominant running back, because he wasn't going to be featured enough. Now, you can still win with the option even if you don't get those people, but if you're not getting those top recruits, the alumni start to think you're losing and you're not exciting enough."

So we'd have to show that we are not getting these players. Yes, no?

 

[takethepoints]

Disclaimer: I don't want CCG back and I agreed with his firing.

It's sad because all he needs to do is incorporate some of his passing schemes from his old Hawaii playbook and that'd open up the run, be more fun to watch, and probably end up winning more games. It's not coincidental that when we throw it most, we win most (2009, 2014). But this Run First, Run Second, Run Third scheme we're trotting out this year DOES NOT WORK.

I never thought you did. Don't put words in my mouth.

I couldn't agree more. We do need better passing elements, especially after losing Benson. Having him in there made life a lot easier for TaQuon. But, as many here point out, TM can do more service for us with his feet then his arm. He can throw, but we have to run to give him the time he needs. Given the lack of game experience of our other QBs - and here losing Lucas Johnson for the year really looms large - if we want to win we have to use our most experienced QB and work with his strengths. I have no doubt that Coach would do more through the air if he felt we could. I also don't doubt that next year we will throw more and with more confidence. But … that is the future. This year we have to work on what we do best and play increasingly better D.

I don't think this has too much to do with our recruiting, however. We have the players, but, aside from QB and AB, they don't have much game experience. Too bad that is happening and it has significantly hurt our performance. Loose your starting BB in two successive seasons and things can get hairy.

Btw, if by "teams who recruit better then us" you mean Clemson and Ugag, other programs reply, "Join the club!" Everybody has had problems with the Tiggers. Oth, we are 2 - 2 with Ugag over the last four years.

 

[RamblinWreck92]

You will get absolutely no argument from me that we are not under-performing right now. But I do question your analysis. To start, I don't think the facts back up your assumption that we threw more in 2009 and 2014. (I agree we were more efficient when we did throw it due to better players, but that is a different point than throwing it more or changing the scheme.) Here are passing averages under CPJ:

attempts/game - yards/game (record)
2008 - 12.7 - 99.2 (9-4)
2009 - 12 - 126.7 (11-3)
2010 - 12.9 - 83.9 (6-7)
2011 - 12.8 - 142.3 (8-5)
2012 - 13.9 - 129.9 (7-7)
2013 - 15.6 - 130.4 (7-6)
2014 - 14.5 - 134.4 (11-3)
2015 - 16 - 121.3 (3-9)
2016 - 12.2 - 129.2 (9-4)
2017 - 10.7 - 84.3 (5-6)

The only 2 seasons in which we've had a WR avg. 3 catches/game was 2009 and 2014.

Throwing wheel routes to RBs is the same as running the option. Throwing deeper to WRs actually opens things up.

 

[GTRX7]

If you go back over the years, I think you would generally be surprised to find that, in many of our biggest wins, we did not throw the ball a lot. Below are the wins I quickly found by GT over ranked teams during the CPJ era. In the majority of the big wins, we actually had fewer pass attempts than even our season average. 10 or less pass ATTEMPTS in 8 of our 12 wins over ranked opponents.

2008
#16 FSU - 6 pass attempts
#13 UGA - 6 pass attempts
2009
#4 Va Tech - 7 pass attempts
#25 Clemson (ACC title game) - 18 pass attempts
2011
#6 Clemson - 9 pass attempts
2014
#18 Clemson - 11 pass attempts
#8 UGA - 16 pass attempts
#8 Miss St. - 12 pass attempts
2015
#9 FSU - 10 pass attempts
2016
#18 Va Tech - 7 pass attempts
UGA - 10 pass attempts
2017
#17 Va Tech - 8 pass attempts

I am not saying you cant win with more passing, I just don't see a strong correlation.

For me, passing efficiency is more critical, and that has more to do with how is throwing it and who is catching it than the fundamental scheme. And in our good years, we have been top 5 in passing efficiency. As you and I agreed before, TM for CPJ = Reggie Ball for Gailey in a lot of ways.

 

[RamblinWreck92]

I never thought you did. Don't put words in my mouth.

Don't be so defensive. A Disclaimer is just that: My way of saying "The next thing I write about CCG doesn't mean I want him back.". Almost every pro-CPJ poster assumes that anyone who doesn't care for CPJ automatically wants him back. My disclaimer simply puts that notion to rest.

I couldn't agree more. We do need better passing elements, especially after losing Benson. Having him in there made life a lot easier for TaQuon. But, as many here point out, TM can do more service for us with his feet then his arm. He can throw, but we have to run to give him the time he needs. Given the lack of game experience of our other QBs - and here losing Lucas Johnson for the year really looms large - if we want to win we have to use our most experienced QB and work with his strengths. I have no doubt that Coach would do more through the air if he felt we could. I also don't doubt that next year we will throw more and with more confidence. But … that is the future. This year we have to work on what we do best and play increasingly better D.

I don't think this has too much to do with our recruiting, however. We have the players, but, aside from QB and AB, they don't have much game experience. Too bad that is happening and it has significantly hurt our performance. Loose your starting BB in two successive seasons and things can get hairy.

Btw, if by "teams who recruit better then us" you mean Clemson and Ugag, other programs reply, "Join the club!" Everybody has had problems with the Tiggers. Oth, we are 2 - 2 with Ugag over the last four years.

Again, not even bothering to compare vs Clemson and mutts. We used to be competitive with Clemson but Dabo long-ago surpassed CPJ. We've managed to beat a couple of bad mutt teams, which is nice, as was the upset in 2008, but I doubt we'll beat them anytime soon under Smart. We SHOULD have beaten them 3 more times under CPJ (2009, 2013, 2015).

But forget those 2 factories. What's worse is that we've now been surpassed by Duke and PITT - and that's inexcusable.

 

[takethepoints]

I suppose if we had access to the recruiting data, we could. Here's my favorite quote on the subject from Lou Holtz, when asked why most teams avoid the TO today:

"I think it's one word: recruiting," says Lou Holtz, who ran option football at five stops in his college coaching career, including with his Notre Dame national champion in 1988. "Once alumni started treating recruiting like it was a season in itself, it became very difficult to run the option. All of a sudden, [if you were an option team,] you couldn't get the dominant quarterback, because you weren't going to throw the football and get him ready for the NFL. You couldn't get the dominant left tackle, because you weren't going to teach him to pass-block. You couldn't get the dominant running back, because he wasn't going to be featured enough. Now, you can still win with the option even if you don't get those people, but if you're not getting those top recruits, the alumni start to think you're losing and you're not exciting enough."

So we'd have to show that we are not getting these players. Yes, no?

This is true and not true at the same time. I don't doubt that we don't get some players because they don't think they'll get into the NFL if they come to Tech. (I'd point out that they almost always fail to get into the NFL if they go somewhere else.) Oth, we get some great players - JT, Graham, Mills (other teams wanted him for LB) - because we offer them a chance to play that they couldn't get elsewhere.

And basing a recruiting strategy and long term planning for a football program on what the alumni think puts me in mind of a gesture the French use. You open your mouth and grab your canine between your forefinger and your thumb. It means, "That's so stupid it makes my teeth hurt!"

 

[RamblinWreck92]

If you go back over the years, I think you would generally be surprised to find that, in many of our biggest wins, we did not throw the ball a lot. Below are the wins I quickly found by GT over ranked teams during the CPJ era. In the majority of the big wins, we actually had fewer pass attempts than even our season average. 10 or less pass ATTEMPTS in 8 of our 12 wins over ranked opponents.

2008
#16 FSU - 6 pass attempts
#13 UGA - 6 pass attempts
2009
#4 Va Tech - 7 pass attempts
#25 Clemson (ACC title game) - 18 pass attempts
2011
#6 Clemson - 9 pass attempts
2014
#18 Clemson - 11 pass attempts
#8 UGA - 16 pass attempts
#8 Miss St. - 12 pass attempts
2015
#9 FSU - 10 pass attempts
2016
#18 Va Tech - 7 pass attempts
UGA - 10 pass attempts
2017
#17 Va Tech - 8 pass attempts

I am not saying you cant win with more passing, I just don't see a strong correlation.

I'd be more interested to see a breakdown of pass attempts in losses....

For instance, you can't run QB Keepers 25 times vs Clemson and expect to win (2018)....You can't run it 65 times vs Duke and expect to win (2018). Or PITT. Etc.

We're so predictable and one-dimensional. Continuing to trot out this godawful, boring offense just ensures another 2017 season. B-back dives excite no one and don't win anything except games against Loserville and other cupcakes.

 

[GTRX7]

The only 2 seasons in which we've had a WR avg. 3 catches/game was 2009 and 2014.

Throwing wheel routes to RBs is the same as running the option. Throwing deeper to WRs actually opens things up.

Huh? Go look at the data. Our running backs generally average anywhere from 10 yards/catch to well over 20 yards per catch. Just some examples from 2014 to 2016:
2014
Perkins - 28 yds/catch
Zenon - 20.1 yards/catch
Hill - 17.8 yds/catch
Snoddy 33.3 yds/catch

2015
Skov - 14.7 yds/catch
M. Marshall 14 yds/catch
Lynch - 24.3 yds/catch

2016
M. Marshall - 30.7 yds/catch
Searcy - 18.3 yds/catch
Lynch - 30.6 yds/catch
Green - 13.3 yds/catch

None of these guys are getting tons of catches (the guys I listed are usually between 3 and 11 catches), but when they do it isn't short balls that fail to help open things up.

 

[GTRX7]

I'd be more interested to see a breakdown of pass attempts in losses....

For instance, you can't run QB Keepers 25 times vs Clemson and expect to win (2018)....You can't run it 65 times vs Duke and expect to win (2018). Or PITT. Etc.

We're so predictable and one-dimensional. Continuing to trot out this godawful, boring offense just ensures another 2017 season. B-back dives excite no one and don't win anything except games against Loserville and other cupcakes.

I don't even have to look this up to know that we typically throw way more in our losses than in our wins. Let me just look at our streak against Duke, because this freaks people out.

2014 - lost 25-31 (26 pass attempts)
2015 - lost 20-34 (22 pass attempts)
2016 - won 38-35 (14 pass attempts)
2017 - lost 20-43 (14 pass attempts)
2018 - lost 28-14 (17 pass attempts)

 

[takethepoints]

Don't be so defensive. A Disclaimer is just that: My way of saying "The next thing I write about CCG doesn't mean I want him back.".

Again, not even bothering to compare vs Clemson and mutts. We used to be competitive with Clemson but Dabo long-ago surpassed CPJ. We've managed to beat a couple of bad mutt teams, which is nice, as was the upset in 2008, but I doubt we'll beat them anytime soon under Smart. We SHOULD have beaten them 3 more times under CPJ (2009, 2013, 2015).

But forget those 2 factories. What's worse is that we've now been surpassed by Duke and PITT - and that's inexcusable.

I wasn't the one who said you wanted Chan back. You just assumed that I thought that. All I was doing was setting you straight.

I agree that we should have beat the Dwags in 2009 and 2013, but that's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes. 2015 is another story. But "a couple of bad mutt teams"? They went 10-3 in 2014 and ended up ranked 9. They went 8-5 in 2016 and won their bowl game. And as to beating Smart coached teams "anytime soon" I refer you to 2016.

Now, as to Duke and Pitt. Duke has had some good luck in close games with us recently and they have improved as a football program, largely because they listened to Cutliffe while two successive ADs ignored CPJ's requests for more resources. So, yes, I do think their program is about (and only that) on a par with ours now. But we can fix that; again, all it takes is money and time. On Pitt, you might recall how badly we beat them last year. I always thought that they had good material and bad coaches. Our overall against both programs, however, is still firmly positive.

 

[GTRX7]

For me, it all comes down to this as far as passing goes. It doesn't matter so much how many times we throw it but, when we do, we must be efficient. And to be efficient, we need a good QB, good line play, and good wide receivers. I have my own personal beliefs as to why we haven't looked good the last two years and you might can guess it isn't based on the scheme.

 

[iceeater1969]

This is insulting. The reasons I've given for keeping Coach - the way his style of football overcomes many of our recruiting problems in particular - have never been refuted by anybody here. I support the present staff because I think they are the best fit with Tech's recruiting and academic limitations and give us the best chance to win, long term. But instead of arguments refuting that, we get three varieties of opinion (and that's all it is):

• If the donors will just pressure the Hill and the AD we will get our grade limitations lifted and be able to get the players we need. To do that we need to change coaching staffs. This is the "UNC Solution" and has less then a zero chance of ever seeing the light of day, especially in given the NCAA degree progress regs and the unwillingness of both the Hill and the BoR to allow it.

• If we changed coaching staffs we could recruit better. As I pointed out above, there is no systematic evidence offered that this is true; indeed, we had one response that it would be impossible to provide. We have had some convincing anecdotal evidence that some players haven't come to Tech (or haven't considered Tech; two different things) because they don't want to play in our offense. Or, at least, that is what they told some people here. There are so many alternative explanations for these decisions by 18 year olds that nobody here (I hope) would accept them as valid. The challenge is still there.

• We need "more excitement" to bring fans into the stands and attract better recruits. Nobody ever explains what that means. It is simply assumed that the offense we run isn't exciting, I guess largely because we don't throw as much. Now, if what is meant by exciting is winning more games, I'm all there with that. What I don't see is why a coaching change at this juncture will lead to that. Indeed, I'm pretty sure it would doom Tech to the much mentioned "football irrelevance" so decried here. And for years to come too boot.

Changing procedures because you are disappointed with results makes sense if you have an alternative that you are pretty sure will work. Other wise it is very likely to bankrupt the organization.

Not engaging in all the general arguments about Change.

Here are a couple of specific questions that may help me see your point.

When Duke beats us 4 of last 5 , I get to thinking we need a change before we go too far down the road to irrelevancy. How bout u?

2. With the 2 acc coastal losses and no victories under our belt, we are off to a bad start.
If we only win 2 coastal games and finish last in acc would u consider we MAYBE going down the wrong path?

Now my pet complaint- oline management and coaching.

3. I am still mad that coach let Sewak start freshman, sophomore, and walk on over Lee and Bryan. We blew the first series.
I am sure u are a premium member of rivals and saw the spread sheet midseason blocking particpation and grades. For those that didnt, the top ol guy is Braun = duh. The next is Bryan. After the blown first series the vets came in and later the young guys (except the Morgan twins) rotated in . I know we played like squat. SEE ABOVE - DUKE HAS OUR NUMBER.
Do u think benching the second best blocker is a good plan ?

4. Why is Bryan not at Rg? He has experience with line calls and has never injured an opponent . He out lifts the soph by +100#, has 11% lower body mass index, and is way quicker. Do u think we are getting push in the middle.

5. . Finally , regardless of record at end of season how many ol need to transfer at
before u see critical issues with our ol coach? How many before u feel we are going down the wrong road?

 

[GTonTop88]

I have no doubt CPJ is a good coach. He could go somewhere like Tennessee or Florida State and make them a winner really quick. Until his offense brings down his talent level.

I honestly believe we could recruit consistently in the top 25-35 in the country with the right coach.

The state of Georgia produces somewhere between 30-40 4-5 star players every year as opposed to 10-15 when Gailey was here. If we could consistently land 4 4 stars we would be around that 30 mark in recruiting. We should be able to find 4 of the top 40 players in the state who want to come to Tech if we take advantage of the hype of a new coach who knows how to recruit and our new facilities.

I’m sure TStan has a plan in place. I definitely trust him. It may take a couple of years but he will get us relevant soon.

 

[Vespidae]

I have no doubt CPJ is a good coach. He could go somewhere like Tennessee or Florida State and make them a winner really quick. Until his offense brings down his talent level.

I honestly believe we could recruit consistently in the top 25-35 in the country with the right coach.

The state of Georgia produces somewhere between 30-40 4-5 star players every year as opposed to 10-15 when Gailey was here. If we could consistently land 4 4 stars we would be around that 30 mark in recruiting. We should be able to find 4 of the top 40 players in the state who want to come to Tech if we take advantage of the hype of a new coach who knows how to recruit and our new facilities.

I’m sure TStan has a plan in place. I definitely trust him. It may take a couple of years but he will get us relevant soon.

CPJ has said that after Tech, he's done. I don't see him coaching after next year.

As to recruiting, you're right of course. The talent is all here. But getting it ... that has been a huge problem. For 57 years.

 

[takethepoints]

Not engaging in all the general arguments about Change.

Here are a couple of specific questions that may help me see your point.

When Duke beats us 4 of last 5 , I get to thinking we need a change before we go too far down the road to irrelevancy. How bout u?

2. With the 2 acc coastal losses and no victories under our belt, we are off to a bad start.
If we only win 2 coastal games and finish last in acc would u consider we MAYBE going down the wrong path?

Now my pet complaint- oline management and coaching.

3. I am still mad that coach let Sewak start freshman, sophomore, and walk on over Lee and Bryan. We blew the first series.
I am sure u are a premium member of rivals and saw the spread sheet midseason blocking particpation and grades. For those that didnt, the top ol guy is Braun = duh. The next is Bryan. After the blown first series the vets came in and later the young guys (except the Morgan twins) rotated in . I know we played like squat. SEE ABOVE - DUKE HAS OUR NUMBER.
Do u think benching the second best blocker is a good plan ?

4. Why is Bryan not at Rg? He has experience with line calls and has never injured an opponent . He out lifts the soph by +100#, has 11% lower body mass index, and is way quicker. Do u think we are getting push in the middle.

5. . Finally , regardless of record at end of season how many ol need to transfer at
before u see critical issues with our ol coach? How many before u feel we are going down the wrong road?

By the point:

1. If you look at those games, you will see that, with the exception of last year, they were very close. I don't see a closer competition with Duke as an indicator of "irrelevancy". It is an indicator that the greater resources they have committed to their program have paid off. We need to do the same.

2. I'd like to win more and maybe we will. But, yes, we are on the wrong path. We are spending a lot of time worrying about the coaching staff instead of giving them the support they have asked for for years. Let's do that, shall we, then see if, once we get the table even, we still have problems. Then we can think seriously about a coaching change; there'll be grounds for it.

3. No. I would have started Bryan. I don't know what Sewak was thinking. And, btw, I'm not a premium member on anything.

4. I think the simple answer here is two fold. He's been hurt and others have practiced more. But the real reason is that Marshall has been hurt so much and Lee was needed at center. That means our #1 option at OT is Will. He's a pretty good OT. I'd like to see the Lee, Braun, Cooper, Bryan, Marshall OL we were all expecting, but Cooper's injury and Marshall's in-and-out performance has made that pretty much impossible. Maybe next Thursday.

5. Our problem with our OLs hasn't been transfers; it's been injury. Who would be starting at LT now? Stickler, who had a career ending injury. Then Marshall gets hurt. Then Will. Then add in Benson and Johnson for good measure; the OL would look a lot better with Kirvontae back there. Sometimes you can't get a break. Also, if there is one area where our recruiting seems to have hit stride, it's at OL. The new kids we have coming up are very promising, we have a great recruit (Dowdy) on the way and we'll have good experience coming back. As to Sewak, I don't know enough about the issues up front from week to week to say more then I wish he had more success and that, if he doesn't, he'll get released.

 

[bobongo]

This is insulting. The reasons I've given for keeping Coach - the way his style of football overcomes many of our recruiting problems in particular - have never been refuted by anybody here. I support the present staff because I think they are the best fit with Tech's recruiting and academic limitations and give us the best chance to win, long term. But instead of arguments refuting that, we get three varieties of opinion (and that's all it is):

• If the donors will just pressure the Hill and the AD we will get our grade limitations lifted and be able to get the players we need. To do that we need to change coaching staffs. This is the "UNC Solution" and has less then a zero chance of ever seeing the light of day, especially in given the NCAA degree progress regs and the unwillingness of both the Hill and the BoR to allow it.

• If we changed coaching staffs we could recruit better. As I pointed out above, there is no systematic evidence offered that this is true; indeed, we had one response that it would be impossible to provide. We have had some convincing anecdotal evidence that some players haven't come to Tech (or haven't considered Tech; two different things) because they don't want to play in our offense. Or, at least, that is what they told some people here. There are so many alternative explanations for these decisions by 18 year olds that nobody here (I hope) would accept them as valid. The challenge is still there.

• We need "more excitement" to bring fans into the stands and attract better recruits. Nobody ever explains what that means. It is simply assumed that the offense we run isn't exciting, I guess largely because we don't throw as much. Now, if what is meant by exciting is winning more games, I'm all there with that. What I don't see is why a coaching change at this juncture will lead to that. Indeed, I'm pretty sure it would doom Tech to the much mentioned "football irrelevance" so decried here. And for years to come too boot.

Changing procedures because you are disappointed with results makes sense if you have an alternative that you are pretty sure will work. I was not enthusiastic about replacing Gailey until I found our that CPJ was his replacement; that was an alternative that would work. Leaping into the dark without convincing reasons, however, it is very likely to bankrupt the organization.

I don't believe the scheme holds back recruiting so much as perhaps Paul Johnson's persona. He seems somewhat aloof and disconnected, to me - like he would rather be someplace else doing something different. There has to be a reason why recruiting has fallen off. It's either him or his scheme. I think it's mostly him. Yes, assistants do most of the actual recruiting, but he runs the show and recruits know they will be playing for him. Yes, we have limitations, but I believe Paul Johnson holds us back further. Another glaring problem is that we just don't seem to be a very well-coached team. Mis-run pass routes, fumbles, an inexplicably grinding ball-control offense down by 3 TD's with time waning - all this is wearing on the fans. It's wearing on me.

What is meant by "more excitement" is just playing better and beating somebody worth their salt. I don't think anybody would care how "boring" the offense looked if it worked against anybody but the Sisters of the Poor and Louisville. At any rate, all this will be decided in the next few weeks. Beating VT and UNC, will put butts in the seats for Miami. Beating Miami would put butts in the seats for Virginia. Beating Georgia would absolutely lock him in for next year. I'm hoping for all that, but it seems like a long shot at this point. Crowd sizes are going to get him fired quicker than anything, and attendance is getting sparse. Paul Johnson has worn thin.