Stansbury

[jacket71]

Russell dumped us, they got out of the college uniform game.

Not sure where you are getting your info. Russell did not dump us but was understanding in why we were changing and did not stand in the way. This is straight from an executive at Russell

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

I say we wait till after uga to reach conclusions. until then try to be specific on complaints and praise. .
So far we are playing kind of hot and cold.
Despite that we have been kick in a x x with poor teams and just hung tough w a good team.

Compare what Georgia is doing this year (and several other big programs) to what we are doing. Georgia, Ohio State, TCU etc, are running up comfortable leads in most of their games, and playing all their youngsters. I dare say Georgia will have 45 players with significant experience returning next year. We can't even distance ourselves from Jax State or UNC. But Virginia Tech, Miami, Tennessee, Florida, LSU are in the same boat--barely winning and not building any depth.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

What he (Stanbury) can do is get more recruiting resources available for Coach Johnson and Coach Roof. He can pay the assistants more money. He can continue to address the concerns that fans have about parking and the game day experience. He can work with the various student groups to instill more school spirit and encourage students to attend games. There are a lot of things he can do but firing coaches or making whole sale changes are not and should not be on the agenda. Todd Stanbury is a former player, he knows as well as we do the constraints put on our program by the Board of Regents and the Hill. I am sure that he is working hard within those parameters to improve our team. We should be thankful that we now have an athletic director who is on the same page with the football and basketball coaches and understands their needs.

I do not presume to advise Todd Stansbury on how to do his job. But in this issue of the Alumni Magazine, and I quote:
Can Georgia Tech truly be great athletically?
"Yes", he says, The expectations we have for this place is you have to swing for the fence. I think it is hard for our alumni to embrace that our athletics should be anything else but great, because the Institue has always stood for pushing its students to be better than what they think is possible."
"The ultimate goal for Tech should be knocking on the door across the board in all sports. If we are relevant in the ACC, that makes you relevant nationally."
As of yesterday, we are not relevant in the ACC as far as football is concerned. I hope he has a plan.

 

[Sideways]

I do not presume to advise Todd Stansbury on how to do his job. But in this issue of the Alumni Magazine, and I quote:
Can Georgia Tech truly be great athletically?
"Yes", he says, The expectations we have for this place is you have to swing for the fence. I think it is hard for our alumni to embrace that our athletics should be anything else but great, because the Institue has always stood for pushing its students to be better than what they think is possible."
"The ultimate goal for Tech should be knocking on the door across the board in all sports. If we are relevant in the ACC, that makes you relevant nationally."
As of yesterday, we are not relevant in the ACC as far as football is concerned. I hope he has a plan.

Nope. You are correct we are not relevant in football and will remain irrelevant until recruiting improves.

 

[awbuzz]

The purpose for this thread is we need to pony up big money for a Defensive coordinator

(Note I am NOT picking on our playuers with the following comment.)

Do you really think that Brent Venables would be doing as well at GT as he is at Clemson over the last few years? I'd bet that there are at least a handfull of Clenson defensive players that CPJ didn't recruit due to academics alone. JMO.

 

[awbuzz]

Explain Stanford. Their academics and entrance requirements are as high as ours, if not higher. In 2011-2016 they were 64-17 and won three conference titles. During the same stretch we were 45-34 with zero conference titles.

If GT fans had an expectation of excellence on the football field like GT does in the classroom, we would be perennial competitors. IMO, GT needs more fan support in the form of buying season tickets and A-T donations and less in the way of complacency with 7-win seasons and mid-level bowls.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited to remove comments that were answered by others already. Bottom line Stanford has degrees that are are less rigourous than Criminal Justice degrees or a PhysEd degree.

 

[InsideLB]

I'd say we have been plenty relevant in the ACC. Only year we havent was 3-9. We compete hard, have been in the ACCCG twice and been to two orange bowls. In other years we have been competitive. Even in 3-9 we played hard.

 

[FredJacket]

Nope. You are correct we are not relevant in football and will remain irrelevant until recruiting improves.

Wow... seems we need to define relevance. Correction...I guess relevance in a matter of opinion, really. I think we're relevant... more relevant that most NCAA teams. Not as relevant as teams that consistently lose 1 or 2 games a year. ...but those teams are very few and far between... maybe 15-20 teams.

If we average 7-9 wins a season upsetting 1 or 2 teams each season (I have not look back), I'd say we're definitely "relevant". Allow me to scientifically show this graphically on the world-famous "relevance scale".

NOT relevant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>GaTech>>>>>> RELEVANT

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I do not presume to advise Todd Stansbury on how to do his job. But in this issue of the Alumni Magazine, and I quote:
Can Georgia Tech truly be great athletically?
"Yes", he says, The expectations we have for this place is you have to swing for the fence. I think it is hard for our alumni to embrace that our athletics should be anything else but great, because the Institue has always stood for pushing its students to be better than what they think is possible."
"The ultimate goal for Tech should be knocking on the door across the board in all sports. If we are relevant in the ACC, that makes you relevant nationally."
As of yesterday, we are not relevant in the ACC as far as football is concerned. I hope he has a plan.

We lose by one point to a ranked team, and suddenly we are not relevant? BULL S***T. If Tech is irrelevant, it is because of fans (sic) with lousy attitudes like that.

 

[iceeater1969]

Edited to remove comments that were answered by others already. Bottom line Stanford has degrees that are are less rigourous than Criminal Justice degrees or a PhysEd degree.

Criticizing Stanford is not a good argument. Please be specific by player taking easy classes.
Google Stanford roster football. Select the Stanford website. Then sort by class, then go to the bottom (sr) and work up by player. They even have a player from ga mech in next engineering.
What are the less rigorous degrees? One guy is taking communications. How many on team? Any degree from Stanford is a door opener.
What kind of person plays football and gets a degree in philosophy? The one that goes on to get a man and becomes CEO.
We don't offer philosophy.


Better to critiuze clemson for its less rigorous courses as they are a disgrace. Hope u make the NFL but if not maybe the parks and recreation dept needs someone. Borders on exploitation.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

Wow... seems we need to define relevance. Correction...I guess relevance in a matter of opinion, really. I think we're relevant... more relevant that most NCAA teams. Not as relevant as teams that consistently lose 1 or 2 games a year. ...but those teams are very few and far between... maybe 15-20 teams.

If we average 7-9 wins a season upsetting 1 or 2 teams each season (I have not look back), I'd say we're definitely "relevant". Allow me to scientifically show this graphically on the world-famous "relevance scale".

NOT relevant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>GaTech>>>>>> RELEVANT[/QUOTE
.

My reference about relevance was restricted to the remainder of this season. I don't happen to think we are any longer in the running for the division. JMO, but we are a game behind Miami now, with Clemson and Virginia Tech left to play. That would likely leave us at a minimum of three conference losses, requiring Miami to lose four times in conference. Again, my opinion, but I don't see that happening. We had our destiny in our hands, but didn't make the plays necessary. Not the first time, won't be the last time. We are a solid, middle tier team in the ACC now, similar to Duke, Wake, and now UVA. Flip a coin on those games. We might play the role of spoiler relative to who wins the division, but it won't be us, and it shouldn't be us. This is what we wanted, for the conference to get better as a whole. I think it has, but along with that comes the requirement that we get better as well, if we want to "be relevant". 2-8 against Miami, when Miami had Randy Shannon and Al Golden and were mediocre at best, unfortunately defines where we are. 3-7 against Virginia Tech while Beamer was playing out the string--same thing. If we want to win the division, then we need to win games. And not just games against terrible Pittsburgh and Carolina teams. Once again, we are only a partial team, Strong but not yet dominating on offense, a little better on defense--but not yet able to win a game or protect a lead with our defense; and special teams again a glaring liability. I realize it must be extremely difficult to get all the parts and pieces together at one time, but even taking out the top dozen programs, there appears to be another 25 or thirty programs that get it done better than we do every year

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

We lose by one point to a ranked team, and suddenly we are not relevant? BULL S***T. If Tech is irrelevant, it is because of fans (sic) with lousy attitudes like that.

Okay, all my fault. Outline your path to the ACCCG. Or just the path to relevancy for the rest of this year. Create the situation in which Miami and VT are watching with bated breath to see the results of our remaining games.

 

[RonJohn]

Criticizing Stanford is not a good argument. Please be specific by player taking easy classes.
Google Stanford roster football. Select the Stanford website. Then sort by class, then go to the bottom (sr) and work up by player. They even have a player from ga mech in next engineering.
What are the less rigorous degrees? One guy is taking communications. How many on team? Any degree from Stanford is a door opener.
What kind of person plays football and gets a degree in philosophy? The one that goes on to get a man and becomes CEO.
We don't offer philosophy.


Better to critiuze clemson for its less rigorous courses as they are a disgrace. Hope u make the NFL but if not maybe the parks and recreation dept needs someone. Borders on exploitation.

Did you google it? There are a total of 9 football players with engineering majors. 5 of those 9 are Management, Science, and Engineering. I believe that degree isn't a weak degree, but it is more like a business degree than an engineering degree so I wouldn't count it as engineering. There are 16 with Science, Tech, and Society which is considered as a weak degree for Stanford. There are 51 with undeclared majors. BTW to answer your question, there are 4 current players who major in communication.

I do not mean to degrade Stanford as an academic institute. They rank higher than GT in Engineering and in Business. However, they do have places to hide athletes.

 

[first&ten]

Nope. You are correct we are not relevant in football and will remain irrelevant until recruiting improves.

Recruiting will not improve as long as PJ is the head coach.Some of you guys think that Roof is the problem with his defense. He is no bigger problem than PJ with his offense that most recruits do not want to play in. And, please, please don't respond with that drivel " well, who you gonna get thats better" or "PJ is the best coach that Tech can have" . Let Todd look at our football situation and determine if this is the best we can do.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Okay, all my fault. Outline your path to the ACCCG. Or just the path to relevancy for the rest of this year. Create the situation in which Miami and VT are watching with bated breath to see the results of our remaining games.

So making the ACCCG is your meter for relevancy? Louisville and FSU won't be making the ACCCG, so I guess they both are irrelevant too. If VT goes to the ACCCG, meaning Miami doesn't, does that suddenly turn the tables making Miami no longer relevant? Relevancy is determined by more than one particular game, whether it be during the season or post-season, and Tech is every bit as relevant as any of the other ACC schools.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Recruiting will not improve as long as PJ is the head coach.Some of you guys think that Roof is the problem with his defense. He is no bigger problem than PJ with his offense that most recruits do not want to play in. And, please, please don't respond with that drivel " well, who you gonna get thats better" or "PJ is the best coach that Tech can have" . Let Todd look at our football situation and determine if this is the best we can do.

When has recruiting at Tech EVER compared to recruiting at any of the schools surrounding us? NEVER !!!! It's not a Johnson or Johnson's offense problem; it's a Tech problem. It always has been, and it always will be.

 

[Sideways]

Wow... seems we need to define relevance. Correction...I guess relevance in a matter of opinion, really. I think we're relevant... more relevant that most NCAA teams. Not as relevant as teams that consistently lose 1 or 2 games a year. ...but those teams are very few and far between... maybe 15-20 teams.

If we average 7-9 wins a season upsetting 1 or 2 teams each season (I have not look back), I'd say we're definitely "relevant". Allow me to scientifically show this graphically on the world-famous "relevance scale".

NOT relevant >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>GaTech>>>>>>hea RELEVANT

I guess it depends on one's definition of "relevance". To me the programs that are relevant are those they everyone is talking about from Game Day talking heads to blogs and casual fans. That would be the usual suspects: the factories like UGA, Alabama, Clemson, Ohio State, USC etc. If by relevance, one means a team that garners pretty much instant respect across the fruited plain then Georgia Tech is most certainly relevant in ways that the bottom feeders like Kansas, Purdue, Iowa State, Tulane and many others can only aspire to be like us but remain all but ignored. Georgia Tech is respected and relevant thanks to occasional national exposure, storied tradition, and props from Herbstreit among others. That said, we will never be a factory that reels in 5 stars, nor will we an annual threat to be in the playoffs, and the other assorted traits associated with the universities for whom academic standards have become, shall we say, only a minor hindrance in seeking the Holy Grail of college football.

 

[Sideways]

My reference about relevance was restricted to the remainder of this season. I don't happen to think we are any longer in the running for the division. JMO, but we are a game behind Miami now, with Clemson and Virginia Tech left to play. That would likely leave us at a minimum of three conference losses, requiring Miami to lose four times in conference. Again, my opinion, but I don't see that happening. We had our destiny in our hands, but didn't make the plays necessary. Not the first time, won't be the last time. We are a solid, middle tier team in the ACC now, similar to Duke, Wake, and now UVA. Flip a coin on those games. We might play the role of spoiler relative to who wins the division, but it won't be us, and it shouldn't be us. This is what we wanted, for the conference to get better as a whole. I think it has, but along with that comes the requirement that we get better as well, if we want to "be relevant". 2-8 against Miami, when Miami had Randy Shannon and Al Golden and were mediocre at best, unfortunately defines where we are. 3-7 against Virginia Tech while Beamer was playing out the string--same thing. If we want to win the division, then we need to win games. And not just games against terrible Pittsburgh and Carolina teams. Once again, we are only a partial team, Strong but not yet dominating on offense, a little better on defense--but not yet able to win a game or protect a lead with our defense; and special teams again a glaring liability. I realize it must be extremely difficult to get all the parts and pieces together at one time, but even taking out the top dozen programs, there appears to be another 25 or thirty programs that get it done better than we do every year

Can we go back to when the ACC was not as good as it is now? This neighborhood is getting too rough for nice boys like us that insist on players going to class, taking real courses, and being as much like regular college students as possible. I mean at UNC you can take classes that you don't even have to show up for or even take a test. Meanwhile, the Hill and the Board of Regents remain committed to the idea of destroying any remote possibility of Georgia Tech disrupting UGA's monopoly of football talent in this state.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

So making the ACCCG is your meter for relevancy? Louisville and FSU won't be making the ACCCG, so I guess they both are irrelevant too. If VT goes to the ACCCG, meaning Miami doesn't, does that suddenly turn the tables making Miami no longer relevant? Relevancy is determined by more than one particular game, whether it be during the season or post-season, and Tech is every bit as relevant as any of the other ACC schools.

Yes, you are absolutely correct. Louisville and FSU are no longer relevant this year. They played their way out of contention by the halfway point of their seasons. And yet, both are ranked ahead of Georgia Tech. Go figure. When you are out of the running before Halloween, you leave the conversation. And, no I don't mean you have to win the division to be relevant. But you do have to stay in the running more than three games. IMHO.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Yes, you are absolutely correct. Louisville and FSU are no longer relevant this year. They played their way out of contention by the halfway point of their seasons. And yet, both are ranked ahead of Georgia Tech. Go figure. When you are out of the running before Halloween, you leave the conversation. And, no I don't mean you have to win the division to be relevant. But you do have to stay in the running more than three games. IMHO.

The flaw in your so-called logic is that Tech CAN still win the Coastal, whether it is likely or not to happen. Therefore, since it IS still possible, then according to your logic, Tech IS still relevant.