Stansbury Seat Temperature

[cthenrys]

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.

Well one of them was right

 

[Ramble1885]

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.

He has a lot of options. Deion Sanders, George Godsey, Jamey Chadwell, Shawn Elliot are names I think would work well at Tech for one reason or another.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

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?"

Because while Collins may have really wanted this job, his agents negotiated the contract for him without letting sentiment get in the way of a deal. His agents most likely knew the landscape better than he did as to what contract length was needed given the situation. You act as if Stansbury and Collins sat around a table swapping offers. In reality it was a team from the GTAA and Collins agent getting a deal together that both parties could agree to. Stansbury, as head of that department, bears the responsibility, but he didn't author the contract.

I was told from someone in the know when we were looking for coaches and sending out feelers several candidates flat turned us down because of the rebuild needed. I have no issue with the seven year contract considering how fickle our fan base is.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

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.

Lot of presumption here...

 

[JacketFan137]

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

and we were 12-12 in that same time period!

record doesn’t decide leverage. the coaching market decides it. at the time, collins was a much higher rated coaching prospect than you and many others are acting. i’m not quite sure why you are choosing to ignore this. obviously we know what happened after but we were not exactly an attractive job to coaches being told they had to come in and redo the offense with a roster that was absolutely not equipped to do so.

our leverage at the time of this hire was basically non existent lol

 

[GTLorenzo]

He has a lot of options. Deion Sanders, George Godsey, Jamey Chadwell, Shawn Elliot are names I think would work well at Tech for one reason or another.

Deion won't come to Tech. Don't think he'd want to deal with the academics, despite the fact that he sort of preaches that now. And if he did, he'd leave at the first opportunity to go to a bid state university. He's also waiting to see what happens at FSU and if he can get that job in a year or two.

 

[GTLorenzo]

Because while Collins may have really wanted this job, his agents negotiated the contract for him without letting sentiment get in the way of a deal. His agents most likely knew the landscape better than he did as to what contract length was needed given the situation. You act as if Stansbury and Collins sat around a table swapping offers. In reality it was a team from the GTAA and Collins agent getting a deal together that both parties could agree to. Stansbury, as head of that department, bears the responsibility, but he didn't author the contract.

I was told from someone in the know when we were looking for coaches and sending out feelers several candidates flat turned us down because of the rebuild needed. I have no issue with the seven year contract considering how fickle our fan base is.

Sure, it was certainly negotiated. And negotiated poorly on our end, which is a stain on Stansbury.

 

[Ramble1885]

Deion won't come to Tech. Don't think he'd want to deal with the academics, despite the fact that he sort of preaches that now. And if he did, he'd leave at the first opportunity to go to a bid state university. He's also waiting to see what happens at FSU and if he can get that job in a year or two.

If he comes, he'd definitely use us as a step stool up to FSU but he would bring in a lot of recruits and media attention. Plus, he's produced winning results at JSU.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Sure, it was certainly negotiated. And negotiated poorly on our end, which is a stain on Stansbury.

I don't think it was. Neither did the donors who funded it. More than anything, it's just another target for people to lob insults at because they had unrealistic expectations for this rebuild and need to vent their frustration and anger.

 

[GTLorenzo]

If he comes, he'd definitely use us as a step stool up to FSU but he would bring in a lot of recruits and media attention. Plus, he's produced winning results at JSU.

He has won. Mostly by getting recruits, money, new facilities and coaches (Mike Zimmer, former NFL coach is as analyst....) that no other team in their league could get. He would certainly bring a lot of attention, but I doubt he'd even give us a second thought. It's all about FSU for him. Now maybe if we offered him a 7 year contract.......

 

[GTLorenzo]

I don't think it was. Neither did the donors who funded it. More than anything, it's just another target for people to lob insults at because they had unrealistic expectations for this rebuild and need to vent their frustration and anger.

Looking back, I would imagine most anyone looking at the situation then and now, including a high level industry expert as I noted, would say a 7 year deal was not a good deal for Georgia Tech. We can disagree on it. That's fine.

 

[WreckinGT]

It's probably worth noting that Stansbury hurt his own leverage with the Whisenhunt debacle.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Looking back, I would imagine most anyone looking at the situation then and now, including a high level industry expert as I noted, would say a 7 year deal was not a good deal for Georgia Tech. We can disagree on it. That's fine.

That's revisionist history. The CGC hire was almost universally praised as a great hire for GT, and everyone was aware then it was a 7 year contract. If your "high level industry expert" has a registered opinion somewhere, I'd love for you to link it here. Otherwise, anecdotal evidence is easily obtained from almost anyone breathing warm air these days.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Let's think about the length of the contract for a moment...we're in Year 4 right now. If we had negotiated a 5-year contact, we would have already had to extend his contract or fire him (one no one would have wanted to do and the other which is premature). I think if Collins had been fired after last year (FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN BAD BEHAVIOR), we would have had a real problem finding a new coach we'd have been happy with. With a 7-year contact with the buy-out lowering each year, we've effectively given him a 5-year contract with a 2-year extension already built in. The 6th and 7th year are built on a multiplier of the first 5 years, which is lower than would have been if he was given a 2-year extension after Year 3/Year 4 (for recruiting purposes).

The more I think about it, the more brilliant the 7-year contract was, knowing the first 2-3 years were going to be rough.

How's that for a stirring of the proverbial pot?

 

[cthenrys]

and we were 12-12 in that same time period!

record doesn’t decide leverage. the coaching market decides it. at the time, collins was a much higher rated coaching prospect than you and many others are acting. i’m not quite sure why you are choosing to ignore this. obviously we know what happened after but we were not exactly an attractive job to coaches being told they had to come in and redo the offense with a roster that was absolutely not equipped to do so.

our leverage at the time of this hire was basically non existent lol

So do you think Collins would have turned down a 5 year deal ? (We’re all playing hypotheticals btw)

 

[yeti92]

Deion won't come to Tech. Don't think he'd want to deal with the academics, despite the fact that he sort of preaches that now. And if he did, he'd leave at the first opportunity to go to a bid state university. He's also waiting to see what happens at FSU and if he can get that job in a year or two.

Leaving at the first opportunity to go somewhere bigger doesn't hurt us nearly as badly as hiring someone who underperforms like CGC has. If they leave to go elsewhere, that means they were successful here, which is good, and it means we are not only not saddled with debt from a buyout, but we are actually being paid the buyout and now have more money to spend on the next coach and staff.

Obviously a coach that can perform at a high level and doesn't want to leave is ideal, but let's not let good become the enemy of perfect.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

It's probably worth noting that Stansbury hurt his own leverage with the Whisenhunt debacle.

There is a decent bit of truth here, but not all falls on Stansbury. The GT fanbase rising up in almost unified dread of that hire possibly being made was not a good look for anyone trying to hire a coach. It was our version of the Tennessee/Schiano fiasco.

 

[JacketFan137]

Looking back, I would imagine most anyone looking at the situation then and now, including a high level industry expert as I noted, would say a 7 year deal was not a good deal for Georgia Tech. We can disagree on it. That's fine.

you keep bringing this up and it’s simply innacurate. plenty of coaches are on 5+ year deals and this includes coaches being hired from similar situations (g5 head coaches, p5 assistants). you also mentioned this was in conversations last week. obviously everyone knows that it’s not a good contract now. guess what? the falcons should have ran the ball in the second half vs the patriots and the red sox shouldn’t have let go of babe ruth. always much easier to say what we should or shouldn’t have done with the benefit of hindsight

 

[GTLorenzo]

That's revisionist history. The CGC hire was almost universally praised as a great hire for GT, and everyone was aware then it was a 7 year contract. If your "high level industry expert" has a registered opinion somewhere, I'd love for you to link it here. Otherwise, anecdotal evidence is easily obtained from almost anyone breathing warm air these days.

My conversations with him when Collins was hired, other conversations since then, conversation at lunch last week. Obviously, I can’t name him. If I did, you would know who he was. Like I said, happy to disagree with you. I thought the contract was too long from day one. That’s fine, we are where we are at this point. Just shows, in my opinion, that Stansbury did a poor job in the hiring.

 

[yeti92]

Stansbury, as head of that department, bears the responsibility, but he didn't author the contract.

Say no more fam. Would you put your John Hancock on the biggest contract of your career without having a full understanding of what was being agreed to?