Stansbury Seat Temperature

[GTLorenzo]

By itself, 7 years was not necessarily an issue. By itself, $3m/yr was not necessarily an issue. It was the combination of the two along with the buyout that was the issue.

7 years at a lower rate would have given Collins the same length of runway, allowed for more money to be spent on better assistants, and if he succeeded there would have been contract extensions/renegotiation.

So a question we will likely never know the answer to, who pushed Stansbury to give him the seven year deal? Big money guys? Collins (obviously)? And why didn't Stansbury try to come up with a better plan of using what we had to try to get some more wins in Years 1 and 2 rather than transitioning the entire program to a throwing/spread offense? I guess I'll just never get it unless Stansbury told Collins " you have 7 years, start the transition now so that by Year 3 or 4 you'll be rocking and rolling." But they had to expect 5 or 6 wins in Year 1 (Citadel and Temple plus one more) and that recruiting would improve and they'd be off and running. But the poor coaching and playing in Year 1 and then more of the same in Year 2 after the great start against FSU (Wow! We've got a quarterback!) and then it's been sort of downhill from there. Unfortunate, as Collins, with the right staff and ideology, could've done great things here.

 

[BCJacket]

We'll just have to disagree on it. I'd have given him 5 years. He had no leverage and this is a job he wanted. He wouldn't have turned it down. He came in and was clearly unprepared and now we're stuck for at least one more year. I get WHY he gave him the 7 year deal, it was just the wrong decision and that's on Stansbury.

Sort of like going into a car dealership (years ago, not now) and saying "what are you asking for that nice new shiny car? Full MSRP? Ok, let's do it! I think it's going to be great! No need to test drive it, I trust it will be great because you totally sold me on it!!"

I feel like there's a fallacy in your argument. Certainly, Collins has been a disappointment. Certainly, we'd be better off if he'd only gotten 5 years, or a lower buyout. But you're assuming that we could have hired Collins, or a better prospective coach, in 2018 for a shorter or less lucrative contract. I have a really hard time believing that Stansbury and the people around him at the time thought: "Well, we would agree to 5 years and a $1 million buyout. But we really like the guy! Lets give him a contract that's less favorable to us." That's... just not how things work.

We didn't have the funds or the clout to hire some 'proven coach'. Very few coaches wanted the job of following up CPJ. Collins was a coach with a winning record at a G5 school and a great resume as a defensive coach and recruiter. The hire was highly regarded by outside observers at the time. Given the information and resources available at the time, Collins probably was the best decision available. That the outcome has been bad doesn't make Stansbury wrong in 2018. He had no psychic way to know that CGC would underperform every expectation.

Edit to add that your subsequent post detailing decisions made since 2018 that you disagree with is very fair.

 

[RonJohn]

Unfortunate, as Collins, with the right staff and ideology, could've done great things here.

I will concede staff. Ideology is something that must come from the coach instead of the school or athletic administration. An athletic department can hire a coach that fits in with their ideology, but I don't see how a HC can be brought in and then "molded" to a different ideology. Successful HCs are alpha personality people. They dictate what will happen with the program, not follow along with whatever the AD says.

I remember stories about Al Davis calling the sideline from the owner's box and telling the Raiders' coaches what plays to run. I don't think many NFL HCs would put up with that, and I am pretty sure that no successful coaches would. The athletic department can influence the assistant coaching hires with available salaries, and might flat out refuse to employ someone. However, if the athletic department is dictating they type of offense or defense, or is dictating what the HC's philosophy should be then you either have the wrong athletic department, the wrong HC, or both.

 

[GTLorenzo]

I feel like there's a fallacy in your argument. Certainly, Collins has been a disappointment. Certainly, we'd be better off if he'd only gotten 5 years, or a lower buyout. But you're assuming that we could have hired Collins, or a better prospective coach, in 2018 for a shorter or less lucrative contract. I have a really hard time believing that Stansbury and the people around him at the time thought: "Well, we would agree to 5 years and a $1 million buyout. But we really like the guy! Lets give him a contract that's less favorable to us." That's... just not how things work.

We didn't have the funds or the clout to hire some 'proven coach'. Very few coaches wanted the job of following up CPJ. Collins was a coach with a winning record at a G5 school and a great resume as a defensive coach and recruiter. The hire was highly regarded by outside observers at the time. Given the information and resources available at the time, Collins probably was the best decision available. That the outcome has been bad doesn't make Stansbury wrong in 2018. He had no psychic way to know that CGC would underperform every expectation.

Edit to add that your subsequent post detailing decisions made since 2018 that you disagree with is very fair.

Understood. My main point is that Collins clearly wanted this job. Some big donors apparently wanted him to have this job. Why go 7 years for some who is unproven? I'm less concerned with the annual salary. That sort of is what it is. But Collins would've taken the job with a 5 or 6 year deal. No way he turns it down it the length is under 7 years. If so, bump up the annual pay by $500,000 a year or whatever. He's likely the best we could've gotten at that point and I think he would've taken just about any deal we would've offered.

Again, I wonder whose idea the 7 year contract was? Did we offer that due to the challenging situation or did Collin's team say "7 years or we aren't coming?"

 

[cthenrys]

So we roll back the clock and 2018 ADTS gets the request for a 7 year contact because "greatest transformation in the history of earth". ADTS says no - 5 is all you get. Does CGC take the job ? C'mon -of course he does. So scenario 2 - ADTS says I'll do 5 years with options for the 6th/7th years based on performance - bowl by year 3, top 25 ranking, record - pick your criteria. Does CGC say yes ? Of course he does. ADTS just didn't do any of that (that we know of). If ADTS made any offers like that and CGC's agent played hardball and ADTS buckled, then he messed up... We'll never know I'm sure.

 

[JacketFan137]

I feel like there's a fallacy in your argument. Certainly, Collins has been a disappointment. Certainly, we'd be better off if he'd only gotten 5 years, or a lower buyout. But you're assuming that we could have hired Collins, or a better prospective coach, in 2018 for a shorter or less lucrative contract. I have a really hard time believing that Stansbury and the people around him at the time thought: "Well, we would agree to 5 years and a $1 million buyout. But we really like the guy! Lets give him a contract that's less favorable to us." That's... just not how things work.

We didn't have the funds or the clout to hire some 'proven coach'. Very few coaches wanted the job of following up CPJ. Collins was a coach with a winning record at a G5 school and a great resume as a defensive coach and recruiter. The hire was highly regarded by outside observers at the time. Given the information and resources available at the time, Collins probably was the best decision available. That the outcome has been bad doesn't make Stansbury wrong in 2018. He had no psychic way to know that CGC would underperform every expectation.

Edit to add that your subsequent post detailing decisions made since 2018 that you disagree with is very fair.

in that list i feel like most of the coaches that ended up being good were significantly more expensive than collins and i’m not sure there was any interest coming back our way. i think we kinda got screwed looking for a coach in what was a pretty underwhelming hiring cycle

 

[tmhunter52]

I like this but at GT a pre PT/med degree will not be easy, lots of science, definitely harder than business.

Look an AD who actually ask for fans opinions in an easy straight forward way. Not through some long confusing survey that they may or may not listen to. I'm not saying surveys are bad but asking for fans opinions using visuals is a good idea. Tstan has done better at asking the fans about their opinions compared to past ADs but he rarely listens to our responses. Wish the AD would actually ask and listen to us.

I’m only interested in seeing numbers on our side of the scoreboard that are LARGER than those of our opponents.

 

[GTLorenzo]

I will concede staff. Ideology is something that must come from the coach instead of the school or athletic administration. An athletic department can hire a coach that fits in with their ideology, but I don't see how a HC can be brought in and then "molded" to a different ideology. Successful HCs are alpha personality people. They dictate what will happen with the program, not follow along with whatever the AD says.

I remember stories about Al Davis calling the sideline from the owner's box and telling the Raiders' coaches what plays to run. I don't think many NFL HCs would put up with that, and I am pretty sure that no successful coaches would. The athletic department can influence the assistant coaching hires with available salaries, and might flat out refuse to employ someone. However, if the athletic department is dictating they type of offense or defense, or is dictating what the HC's philosophy should be then you either have the wrong athletic department, the wrong HC, or both.

I'm not saying the administration should've dictated the offense we run. I just think he made a big mistake by not trying to be more run heavy in his first year or two. Likely could've won a few more games using our talent to their best capabilities and what they do well. That's a Collins decision.

And I recall Sasquatch helping Pastner hire assistants when he was hired. Perhaps Stansbury should've had some more seasoned assistants to help Collins in his first couple of years rather than just bringing along most of his Temple staff. Maybe that would've helped.

I just want to see us win and hate that situation we are in now with limited fan support and pessimism. I watched the 1991 Citrus Bowl last week on ACCN. How nice it was to see a well coached team and the excitement in what some said was the largest gather of GT alums ever. Just wish we could get back to being competitive again.

 

[JacketFan137]

Understood. My main point is that Collins clearly wanted this job. Some big donors apparently wanted him to have this job. Why go 7 years for some who is unproven? I'm less concerned with the annual salary. That sort of is what it is. But Collins would've taken the job with a 5 or 6 year deal. No way he turns it down it the length is under 7 years. If so, bump up the annual pay by $500,000 a year or whatever. He's likely the best we could've gotten at that point and I think he would've taken just about any deal we would've offered.

Again, I wonder whose idea the 7 year contract was? Did we offer that due to the challenging situation or did Collin's team say "7 years or we aren't coming?"

i think collins had a little more leverage than some people are acting. like that other comment showed the sentiment around the hire at the time was pretty positive. i know collins says gt is his dream job blah blah blah, like every coach does, but i bet he had a little bit more interest than you are giving him credit for. keep in mind we are saying all of this knowing what we know now. at the time this was an up and coming coach with a lot of high level recruiting experience and track record of solid defensive play

when you factor in we made it a point we were moving on from the option and the fact that we already had a recruiting class coming in, any decent coach was gonna want a little built in protection cause it was gonna take at least 3 years just to get his recruits in. we NEEDED to move on from the option (according to the money), that was probably enough leverage for him to end up where he did

 

[RonJohn]

I'm not saying the administration should've dictated the offense we run. I just think he made a big mistake by not trying to be more run heavy in his first year or two. Likely could've won a few more games using our talent to their best capabilities and what they do well. That's a Collins decision.

And I recall Sasquatch helping Pastner hire assistants when he was hired. Perhaps Stansbury should've had some more seasoned assistants to help Collins in his first couple of years rather than just bringing along most of his Temple staff. Maybe that would've helped.

I just want to see us win and hate that situation we are in now with limited fan support and pessimism. I watched the 1991 Citrus Bowl last week on ACCN. How nice it was to see a well coached team and the excitement in what some said was the largest gather of GT alums ever. Just wish we could get back to being competitive again.

I included the Al Davis story just as an example of an administration/HC relationship that is way out of whack. You said in the earlier post that with the right staff and ideology that Collins could have been successful. I was trying to point out that the ideology is completely on the HC.

"Helping" to hire assistants can be interpreted in many ways. Do you wish that Stansbury had refused to hire Temple assistants that CGC wanted to bring? Do you wish that Stansbury had placed seasoned assistants on the team whether CGC wanted them or not? Do you wish that Stansbury had made much more money available to hire whoever CGC wanted? Do you wish that Stansbury gave administrative and lobbying support to help CGC land coaches that he wanted? I am fairly certain that TStan would have recruited assistants along with CGC. The athletic department has financial limitations that prevent unlimited assistant salaries. On the other points, if you want to force the coach to hire particular assistants, you have the wrong coach. If the HC will allow you to dictate his staff to him, you have the wrong coach. (Not talking with respect to CGC in this statement, just saying that if any HC will allow you to dictate his staff he isn't HC material.)

 

[slugboy]

I'm not saying the administration should've dictated the offense we run. I just think he made a big mistake by not trying to be more run heavy in his first year or two. Likely could've won a few more games using our talent to their best capabilities and what they do well. That's a Collins decision.

I wasn’t a fly on the wall for the conversations between Stansbury, Collins, and possibly boosters. There was plenty of buzz at the time that big boosters wanted a major break from the flexbone.
TL;DR: maybe the boosters did dictate the offense they wanted

Collins was vocal about moving to a pro style offense, but I think it’s reasonable to believe he was partially echoing what he was told the fans and boosters wanted. I’m sure his interview questions included “how fast can you move to a pro offense?” and “are you comfortable ripping the band aid off and transitioning as fast as possible?”.
Yeah, I’m sure he wanted to run his schemes for recruiting purposes, but I don’t think he was doing something the boosters weren’t eager for.
They weren’t eager for the results
I’m also not sure how you compromise between our previous spread blocking scheme and Key’s more traditional scheme.

 

[RonJohn]

With respect to TStan being on the hot seat. From all appearances he has done a good job of running the administrative side, he has done a better job at fundraising than several of the previous ADs (especially the last one), there haven't been major scandals (there was the bball issue, but it was handled much better by the GTAA than shoegate was)

I think his biggest weakness is that he is not a very good communicator. He provides information when he speaks. He doesn't draw people in with his personality.

Football is not in a very good spot at the moment. Hopefully things will get better this year. Even if they do not get better and a change is made at HC, I see more of a downside in getting rid of TStan at the same time. For the athletic association as a whole, TStan has been very good. I don't know how much of an effect TStan has had on the football failures. If you have a strong HC, the AD should only affect the money available to use on the program. I think replacing TStan would have little effect on improving football, but would provide a lot of opportunity for weakening the rest of the athletic association.

 

[yeti92]

We didn't have the funds or the clout to hire some 'proven coach'. Very few coaches wanted the job of following up CPJ. Collins was a coach with a winning record at a G5 school and a great resume as a defensive coach and recruiter. .

The bolded statement is technically true but paints a very incomplete picture. He took over a team that had double digit wins the previous two seasons and went 7-6 and 8-5 while losing to teams he had absolutely no business losing to (which is a pretty strong trend for him at this point). Temple fans were not sad to see him go.

 

[RonJohn]

I wasn’t a fly on the wall for the conversations between Stansbury, Collins, and possibly boosters. There was plenty of buzz at the time that big boosters wanted a major break from the flexbone.
TL;DR: maybe the boosters did dictate the offense they wanted

Total speculation here, but that could impact the 7 year contract. Maybe they agreed to do things in a painful way, but with a stipulation that he would be covered if it ended up poorly.

Still, as I said before, an HC should not allow ANYONE to dictate how he runs the program. (from a football standpoint)

 

[GTLorenzo]

I included the Al Davis story just as an example of an administration/HC relationship that is way out of whack. You said in the earlier post that with the right staff and ideology that Collins could have been successful. I was trying to point out that the ideology is completely on the HC.

"Helping" to hire assistants can be interpreted in many ways. Do you wish that Stansbury had refused to hire Temple assistants that CGC wanted to bring? Do you wish that Stansbury had placed seasoned assistants on the team whether CGC wanted them or not? Do you wish that Stansbury had made much more money available to hire whoever CGC wanted? Do you wish that Stansbury gave administrative and lobbying support to help CGC land coaches that he wanted? I am fairly certain that TStan would have recruited assistants along with CGC. The athletic department has financial limitations that prevent unlimited assistant salaries. On the other points, if you want to force the coach to hire particular assistants, you have the wrong coach. If the HC will allow you to dictate his staff to him, you have the wrong coach. (Not talking with respect to CGC in this statement, just saying that if any HC will allow you to dictate his staff he isn't HC material.)

Not saying that the admin should've dictated ideology or assistants. Perhaps some help or suggestions. I just think that going from what we had to a full spread/throwing offense was the wrong decision. Looking back, Collins made some bad hires. Is that on him or the admin or $$? I don't know. But clearly, there were mistakes that were made.

 

[cthenrys]

i think collins had a little more leverage than some people are acting. like that other comment showed the sentiment around the hire at the time was pretty positive. i know collins says gt is his dream job blah blah blah, like every coach does, but i bet he had a little bit more interest than you are giving him credit for. keep in mind we are saying all of this knowing what we know now. at the time this was an up and coming coach with a lot of high level recruiting experience and track record of solid defensive play

when you factor in we made it a point we were moving on from the option and the fact that we already had a recruiting class coming in, any decent coach was gonna want a little built in protection cause it was gonna take at least 3 years just to get his recruits in. we NEEDED to move on from the option (according to the money), that was probably enough leverage for him to end up where he did

Lol. He was 15-10 as a G5 HC. If he had leverage we gave it to him. Nope.

 

[jacketup]

I ran across this help wanted ad from 2018:

Hiring: P5 Football Coach December 2018.

Georgia Tech has an opening for a head football coach. Georgia Tech is a P5 football program having 260 lb. O-linemen (and not many of those), QBs who don’t pass well, WR who were recruited to block (and not run pass patterns), and no tight ends on the roster. The team also lost 8 starters from a defense that was 103rd in FBS in opponent yards per play last season. The successful candidate will have to wait until after the season next year to begin signing suitable players since this year’s signing date is upon us. As a bonus, the budget for assistants and support staff is among the lowest in FBS. Our fanbase expects to win right now, so the successful candidate must be able to do so.

This is all Stanbury's fault. Top coaches were knocking down his door for the job, but he hired Collins. And any decent coach could have won a national championship by now under these circumstances.

If Stansbury was listening to the fans, he'd be unemployed for sure.

 

[Vespidae]

I wasn’t a fly on the wall for the conversations between Stansbury, Collins, and possibly boosters. There was plenty of buzz at the time that big boosters wanted a major break from the flexbone.
TL;DR: maybe the boosters did dictate the offense they wanted

Collins was vocal about moving to a pro style offense, but I think it’s reasonable to believe he was partially echoing what he was told the fans and boosters wanted. I’m sure his interview questions included “how fast can you move to a pro offense?” and “are you comfortable ripping the band aid off and transitioning as fast as possible?”.
Yeah, I’m sure he wanted to run his schemes for recruiting purposes, but I don’t think he was doing something the boosters weren’t eager for.
They weren’t eager for the results
I’m also not sure how you compromise between our previous spread blocking scheme and Key’s more traditional scheme.

I was lucky enough to be in one of the suites at BDS with several of the boosters during CPJ's time. And they HATED the offense. ABHORED might even be too weak. (You know, I've always liked that word, "abhor", and I so rarely have an opportunity to use it in a sentence.)

Give Geoff credit ... he had an idea that he could recruit and if he could offer students a pro-style game that positioned them for the NFL or ... a degree from a good school if they don't, that that was a winning offer. And that was the Big Bet.

• CPJ was very clear ... Tech does not have the money, organization, or infrastructure (classes, Hill support, donor org) to compete at big time P5 football and is closer to a service academy in both thinking and student quality. So, let's recruit good athletes and level the field through scheme. Be on some level of parity elsewhere.
• Geoff completely rejected that theory and instead said ... Tech can get the money, build the organization and create a pathway to the NFL. Let's go pro-style and ... hope for the best.

That was the big gamble. Go big or go home.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

That's... just not how things work.

Why inject reality into a thread like this???

 

[WreckinGT]

With respect to TStan being on the hot seat. From all appearances he has done a good job of running the administrative side, he has done a better job at fundraising than several of the previous ADs (especially the last one), there haven't been major scandals (there was the bball issue, but it was handled much better by the GTAA than shoegate was)

I think his biggest weakness is that he is not a very good communicator. He provides information when he speaks. He doesn't draw people in with his personality.

Football is not in a very good spot at the moment. Hopefully things will get better this year. Even if they do not get better and a change is made at HC, I see more of a downside in getting rid of TStan at the same time. For the athletic association as a whole, TStan has been very good. I don't know how much of an effect TStan has had on the football failures. If you have a strong HC, the AD should only affect the money available to use on the program. I think replacing TStan would have little effect on improving football, but would provide a lot of opportunity for weakening the rest of the athletic association.

If TStan is given the opportunity to make another hire and he does as poor of a job as he did the first time around then the athletic association as a whole will be weakened far more than if we had made a replacement. This upcoming coaching hire will be one of the more important ones in the history of the program. I have my doubts as to whether he is up for it.