Stansbury

[Northeast Stinger]

I doubt that. Unless my understanding of the contract is wrong, we pay him the same whether he is fired now or half way thru next season. If CGC is the coach at Spring training, he will be the coach at least until the mutt game next year.

If TStan feels like he has to legalistically stick to the contract to save money then he would truly be penny wise and pound foolish. Running out the string on a dead man walking coach and a donor base that is becoming a dried river bed would be one of the most colossal mistakes in Tech sports history.

 

[RonJohn]

If TStan feels like he has to legalistically stick to the contract to save money then he would truly be penny wise and pound foolish. Running out the string on a dead man walking coach and a donor base that is becoming a dried river bed would be one of the most colossal mistakes in Tech sports history.

Based on not much other than emotion, it feels as though that is what is happening at the moment.

 

[lv20gt]

If TStan feels like he has to legalistically stick to the contract to save money then he would truly be penny wise and pound foolish. Running out the string on a dead man walking coach and a donor base that is becoming a dried river bed would be one of the most colossal mistakes in Tech sports history.

The difference in firing Collins now than a year from now is the following.

Following next year. 2.4 mil for every year he has remaining so 7.2 Million.
Now - full rest of the contract which would be 13.8 million.

That is 6.6 million more we'd be paying him. Now, you might say that 7.2 should also include the 3.3 he'll make next year, which is true but then we would also need include the price of a new coach in the 13.8 million case. Pretty much no matter how you slice it, it's a 6.5 million dollar decision. I can almost guarantee that no amount of lost revenue from seating next year is making up 6.5 million dollars especially since if we made the move we'd almost certainly have to make a bargain bin hire that wouldn't re-energize the fans anyways.

Also, going into year 4 of a 7 year contract isn't running out the string.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

The difference in firing Collins now than a year from now is the following.

Following next year. 2.4 mil for every year he has remaining so 7.2 Million.
Now - full rest of the contract which would be 13.8 million.

That is 6.6 million more we'd be paying him. Now, you might say that 7.2 should also include the 3.3 he'll make next year, which is true but then we would also need include the price of a new coach in the 13.8 million case. Pretty much no matter how you slice it, it's a 6.5 million dollar decision. I can almost guarantee that no amount of lost revenue from seating next year is making up 6.5 million dollars especially since if we made the move we'd almost certainly have to make a bargain bin hire that wouldn't re-energize the fans anyways.

Also, going into year 4 of a 7 year contract isn't running out the string.

Running out the string is when everyone in the program, everyone in the stadium, and even the casual college football fan in Peoria, knows that Collins is going to be fired at the end of the season but you go through the motions anyway. I worked for a few years in a college on the president’s cabinet and my colleagues were in the development office. Trust me when I say this, one of the things you want to avoid at all cost is treating your supporters with contempt or giving the impression that you think they are stupid. It can take years to build back donor support if you do that and cost you hundreds of millions of dollars over time before you get back to your projected budget numbers for revenue. TStan’s letter to supporters was a disaster and I think he is realizing it. I suspect he already has his next letter written if and when he needs to fire Collins in the middle of the year.

 

[lv20gt]

You're right. It will be worth 3.3 million to fire him 6 games quicker to absolutely no practical benefit. Believe what you want.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

You're right. It will be worth 3.3 million to fire him 6 games quicker to absolutely no practical benefit. Believe what you want.

The practical benefit is you keep from destroying the fan and donor base for years to come just because you stubbornly cling to a mistake. Yes, that is what I believe. We will see how this turns out.

 

[acedarney]

I chuckle reading all this. Everyone thinks Stansbury had a plan to rebuild the roster, then start building up the coaching staff, all while doing a great job in the non-revenue sports. I'm sure he did have a plan, and he gambled it all with the 7-year contract. A few comments:

• This idea of a historic rebuild is a lie...it's gaslighting so you will lower your expectations. This was a 7 or 8 win team with a consistent top-30 or so offense. It's been followed by three years of historically bad teams, not because they needed to, but because they chose to. They chose to not play winning football so they could play "pro-style" football. These three teams are probably the worst Tech teams in 25 years.
• Unless the school starts bringing in an order of magnitude more money, the improvements, fundraising, etc. are just treading water. Stop acting like Stansbury has done some great job as an AD. He's been average outside of football.
• The seven-year contract...for a coach without previous success...based on his ability to market himself. He gambled 5 years of Tech football on a snake oil salesman. In college sports, football is king, not the non-revenue sports. You can't, as an AD, ruin a decent football team for half a decade and expect to keep your job. Period. It doesn't matter if women's volleyball could win the Olympics, if football is unwatchable, that athletics department will not survive.

 

[GTLorenzo]

I chuckle reading all this. Everyone thinks Stansbury had a plan to rebuild the roster, then start building up the coaching staff, all while doing a great job in the non-revenue sports. I'm sure he did have a plan, and he gambled it all with the 7-year contract. A few comments:

• This idea of a historic rebuild is a lie...it's gaslighting so you will lower your expectations. This was a 7 or 8 win team with a consistent top-30 or so offense. It's been followed by three years of historically bad teams, not because they needed to, but because they chose to. They chose to not play winning football so they could play "pro-style" football. These three teams are probably the worst Tech teams in 25 years.
• Unless the school starts bringing in an order of magnitude more money, the improvements, fundraising, etc. are just treading water. Stop acting like Stansbury has done some great job as an AD. He's been average outside of football.
• The seven-year contract...for a coach without previous success...based on his ability to market himself. He gambled 5 years of Tech football on a snake oil salesman. In college sports, football is king, not the non-revenue sports. You can't, as an AD, ruin a decent football team for half a decade and expect to keep your job. Period. It doesn't matter if women's volleyball could win the Olympics, if football is unwatchable, that athletics department will not survive.

Preach it brother....

 

[GTjunkie]

I chuckle reading all this. Everyone thinks Stansbury had a plan to rebuild the roster, then start building up the coaching staff, all while doing a great job in the non-revenue sports. I'm sure he did have a plan, and he gambled it all with the 7-year contract. A few comments:

• This idea of a historic rebuild is a lie...it's gaslighting so you will lower your expectations. This was a 7 or 8 win team with a consistent top-30 or so offense. It's been followed by three years of historically bad teams, not because they needed to, but because they chose to. They chose to not play winning football so they could play "pro-style" football. These three teams are probably the worst Tech teams in 25 years.
• Unless the school starts bringing in an order of magnitude more money, the improvements, fundraising, etc. are just treading water. Stop acting like Stansbury has done some great job as an AD. He's been average outside of football.
• The seven-year contract...for a coach without previous success...based on his ability to market himself. He gambled 5 years of Tech football on a snake oil salesman. In college sports, football is king, not the non-revenue sports. You can't, as an AD, ruin a decent football team for half a decade and expect to keep your job. Period. It doesn't matter if women's volleyball could win the Olympics, if football is unwatchable, that athletics department will not survive.

A freaking men!

 

[RonJohn]

The practical benefit is you keep from destroying the fan and donor base for years to come just because you stubbornly cling to a mistake. Yes, that is what I believe. We will see how this turns out.

I am still and will remain a fan. However, I am not so sure that the fan and donor base hasn't already been damaged for years to come.

 

[Pointer]

Face it

TStan must be trying to keep the recruiting class together so that when the buy out is more affordable next year, the job looks more attractive to the next coach.

Only rational hope I have at this point.

 

[RamblinRed]

There are always multiple variables in play.

First, when you are not a destination job (and GT is certainly not) changing coaches after three years is not going to be attractive to other coaches.
Second, You as an AD have to balance all the money factors, including the contract.
Third, the most important thing from a money standpoint isn't the 'fanbase', its the 'big donors' who pay for big changes. It was the big donors who wanted to change from the previous offensive scheme to the current one and were not going to be willing to put in the money to help unless that change was made. When the big donors decide they are willing to pony up to make a change - that is when the change will happen. They provided the money to support the new staff with more money for coaches, more money for recruiting, etc (that they were not giving to the previous staff).

When the donors who were largely behind getting the current staff hired decide it is time for them to go, that is when it will happen. If they want to pay out the extra money to get rid of the staff early and help pay for a new one, then it will happen. If they don't it won't.

 

[Pointer]

There are always multiple variables in play.

First, when you are not a destination job (and GT is certainly not) changing coaches after three years is not going to be attractive to other coaches.
Second, You as an AD have to balance all the money factors, including the contract.
Third, the most important thing from a money standpoint isn't the 'fanbase', its the 'big donors' who pay for big changes. It was the big donors who wanted to change from the previous offensive scheme to the current one and were not going to be willing to put in the money to help unless that change was made. When the big donors decide they are willing to pony up to make a change - that is when the change will happen. They provided the money to support the new staff with more money for coaches, more money for recruiting, etc (that they were not giving to the previous staff).

When the donors who were largely behind getting the current staff hired decide it is time for them to go, that is when it will happen. If they want to pay out the extra money to get rid of the staff early and help pay for a new one, then it will happen. If they don't it won't.

For the first time, I am wishing we joined the big ten when we had the chance

 

[Jmonty71]

Signing an untested HC to 7 years based on someone's hot air, is and will be TStan's downfall. I am not sure what Collins was selling but TStan sure bought it.

 

[BleedGoldNWhite21]

Hooting and hollering that gmail put this in the “SPAM” section of my email lmaoooo

 

[ibeattetris]

changing coaches after three years is not going to be attractive to other coaches.

I don’t know how college coaches think, but would they really think a job is less attractive because they fired a coach for nine wins in three years?

 

[JacketOff]

I chuckle reading all this. Everyone thinks Stansbury had a plan to rebuild the roster, then start building up the coaching staff, all while doing a great job in the non-revenue sports. I'm sure he did have a plan, and he gambled it all with the 7-year contract. A few comments:

• This idea of a historic rebuild is a lie...it's gaslighting so you will lower your expectations. This was a 7 or 8 win team with a consistent top-30 or so offense. It's been followed by three years of historically bad teams, not because they needed to, but because they chose to. They chose to not play winning football so they could play "pro-style" football. These three teams are probably the worst Tech teams in 25 years.
• Unless the school starts bringing in an order of magnitude more money, the improvements, fundraising, etc. are just treading water. Stop acting like Stansbury has done some great job as an AD. He's been average outside of football.
• The seven-year contract...for a coach without previous success...based on his ability to market himself. He gambled 5 years of Tech football on a snake oil salesman. In college sports, football is king, not the non-revenue sports. You can't, as an AD, ruin a decent football team for half a decade and expect to keep your job. Period. It doesn't matter if women's volleyball could win the Olympics, if football is unwatchable, that athletics department will not survive.

Have you ever heard about those places called Kansas, Duke, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Villanova, Arizona, UConn, Mississippi State, UCLA, and Virginia? Incredible they're about to win and compete for national titles in other sports while having mediocre to terrible football teams.

 

[Root4GT]

I don’t know how college coaches think, but would they really think a job is less attractive because they fired a coach for nine wins in three years?

They look at GT and all the issues GT has vs most schools and don't see a lot of upside. CPJ was great but not many schools were willing to give his system a try at the P5 level. It's not the record that deters coaches from GT, its GT and what it is as a university and it's athletic challenges. Changing at the 3 year mark likely gets you no better options than CGC and you lose all recruting momentum. Changing coordinators has a chance, frankly a much better chance than tossing the staff and starting over. Any new coach worth a damn would want to bring in the staff he wants, not the staff currently here.

 

[Towaliga]

Here is a suggestion for TStan. If he truly believes things are improving and next year we will see an uptick in the number of wins, he should make the following offer to keep season ticket holders from bailing. Give us the number of wins he expects upfront prior to the time for season-ticket renewals. Also, make the offer that if that number is not reached, season-ticket holder’s will get a 50% refund at the end of the year. By doing so, he is letting us know what HE deems to be a realistic win total from the coaching staff he has faith in, but he’s also putting his (GT’s) money where his mouth is. This shows he’s going all-in with his belief in CGC.

 

[ibeattetris]

Here is a suggestion for TStan. If he truly believes things are improving and next year we will see an uptick in the number of wins, he should make the following offer to keep season ticket holders from bailing. Give us the number of wins he expects upfront prior to the time for season-ticket renewals. Also, make the offer that if that number is not reached, season-ticket holder’s will get a 50% refund at the end of the year. By doing so, he is letting us know what HE deems to be a realistic win total from the coaching staff he has faith in, but he’s also putting his (GT’s) money where his mouth is. This shows he’s going all-in with his belief in CGC.

I would prefer Stansbury not make more dumb decisions with regards to money.