Stansbury

[slugboy]

Pretty stand for contracts to start at 5 years, and get incremental extensions. GC was NOT a proven coach. Giving him 7 years with no performance criteria was absurd.

I’m not the only poster who gave an example of a coach getting hired at the same time who got a 6-year contract. It looks like 6 years is the new 5 years

Head coaching contracts are pretty absurd, and they make a coach hard to fire in the first few years.

I have seen performance bonuses, but I can’t think of a P5 head coaching contract with any performance requirements. I think that a contract with those terms would be the AD-friendliest contract in all of P5, and maybe D1.

 

[GTLorenzo]

With 4-6 losing seasons as the price to pay. No thank you. Collins hasn't proven he can coach a fat kid at a buffet line. As for recruiting......there is 11 that have placed in the top 25 at least 4 of the last 5 years that are not ranked.....which is more than those that have and are.....it is a fools errand to have needlessly sacrificed all these years for a hope that has better than even odds of NOT happening.

Ahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

Fat kid better not wear a skinny suit or he won't fit in it......

 

[Northeast Stinger]

So, you have inside information or are you brokering rumor?

It was publicly reported that these two other candidates were interested. It was also publicly reported that they were not wined and dined, for whatever reason. Which is why (read carefully) I said, “rightly or wrongly” in my original post. So the idea that “no one was interested” is absolutely false.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Tech athletics overall is in a much better position today than it was in December 2018.

We went from slightly revenue positive (I’m guessing $1-2M/yr) to losing $9M/yr and having obliterated the rainy day fund (iirc $5M). You call that much better? Just wondering how you arrived at that conclusion.

 

[Richard7125]

Or if he kept winning fewer games than his predecessor, as he did in Years 1 and 2 at Temple, he wouldn't have been the HC at Temple much longer..... I don't think he had too much leverage. I think he had a good agent. No one else in the country with a big time program was going to hire Collins after his two years at Temple. Stansbury bought the argument that it was the greatest transition in the history of the world and feel for it. Should've been a five year deal with a look back after 3 or so to add years if going in the right direction. He was too much of a risk to give a 7 year contract and the current situation is showing why right now. If we were improving each year, in play and wins, I don't think many would be questioning the hire. With all of the issues with this staff and team, the 7 year contract looks comical.

I hate to say it, but Tech is not a "big time program". There are 62 teams in the P5. Collins salary ranks 56. Big Time programs hire Scott Frost for $5m/year and a $20m buyout.

 

[GTLorenzo]

I hate to say it, but Tech is not a "big time program". There are 62 teams in the P5. Collins salary ranks 56. Big Time programs hire Scott Frost for $5m/year and a $20m buyout.

So they pay more and don't get really any better results....

I really want Collins to work out despite all of the weird things he does. He WANTS to be here. That is the first obstacle for so many coaching searches at Tech. We don't pay too well, but are well located in ATL and it a great recruiting area. You really need someone who wants to be here and doesn't see it as a stepping stone. Perhaps if Collins had 5 more years of head coaching experience, he would be a better head coach and had figured some of this stuff out. I think Stansbury bought the salesmanship of "I want to be there and I can change the culture so we can recruit better athletes, I've done it there before" and gave him too long of a deal for his real world experience. With 5 years of experience at a G5 school, maybe a lot of growing pains would be gone and he could've come in and hit the ground running.

 

[UgaBlows]

This is an encouraging and optimistic post. I hope you are correct.

The only thing I take issue with is the suggestion that Tech was not an attractive coaching destination because of CPJ. Frankly, Tech hasn’t been an attractive coaching destination for the last 48 years. Look it up.

I really don’t understand why we can’t have a positive, encouraging, optimistic post about CGC and the virtues of being patient without slipping into slandering CPJ. It always makes me think people are trying to pad their case because subconsciously they have some serious doubts.

I don’t think he meant that as a slight at all to CPJ, but it is undeniable that it was an extremlely undesirable job because of the roster and the roster was built that way to play CPJ’s offense. That’s just a fact.

 

[BCJacket]

This is an encouraging and optimistic post. I hope you are correct.

The only thing I take issue with is the suggestion that Tech was not an attractive coaching destination because of CPJ. Frankly, Tech hasn’t been an attractive coaching destination for the last 48 years. Look it up.

I really don’t understand why we can’t have a positive, encouraging, optimistic post about CGC and the virtues of being patient without slipping into slandering CPJ. It always makes me think people are trying to pad their case because subconsciously they have some serious doubts.

I'm sorry if it came across that way. I didn't mention Coach Johnson or blame him at all. I loved CPJ as our coach. I respect him a lot and appreciate everything he did here. The parts of the program that he could control were largely left in good shape. If anything, he proved that you can win 10+ games and the ACC here. That's a tough act to follow.

Transitioning the offensive roster from the flexbone to anything else was always going to be a tall task when Paul left. But the state of the program in 2018 had more to do with Bobinski's (and DRad's) mismanagement of the support structure around the program, IMHO. TStan had been here about 2 years and was only just starting to implement his fundraising and improvement plans. He'd started to give CPJ the resources he'd been asking for for years - like recruiting support and the renovated locker room. And, as you point out, Tech has always been a tougher coaching job than most.

Tech is/was a relatively unattractive job. But that's not CPJ's fault.

 

[Richard7125]

So they pay more and don't get really any better results....

I really want Collins to work out despite all of the weird things he does. He WANTS to be here. That is the first obstacle for so many coaching searches at Tech. We don't pay too well, but are well located in ATL and it a great recruiting area. You really need someone who wants to be here and doesn't see it as a stepping stone. Perhaps if Collins had 5 more years of head coaching experience, he would be a better head coach and had figured some of this stuff out. I think Stansbury bought the salesmanship of "I want to be there and I can change the culture so we can recruit better athletes, I've done it there before" and gave him too long of a deal for his real world experience. With 5 years of experience at a G5 school, maybe a lot of growing pains would be gone and he could've come in and hit the ground running.

That was kind of my point. Scott Frost was the hottest thing after going 13-0 at UCF. Geoff Collins' contract is peanuts compared to Scott Frost's contract (and his is ranked #17).

 

[GoJacketsInRaleigh]

With 4-6 losing seasons as the price to pay. No thank you. Collins hasn't proven he can coach a fat kid at buffet line. As for recruiting......there is 11 that have placed in the top 25 at least 4 of the last 5 years that are not ranked.....which is more than those that have and are.....it is a fools errand to have needlessly sacrificed all these years for a hope that has better than even odds of NOT happening.

You realize someone was going to have to transition from the 3O to a different style and it's not Collins' fault that CPJ is no longer here? Or you just don't care because you're still butthurt about CPJ?

 

[Skeptic]

It's too good an offense to die at the P5 level. Somewhere, some day, it will reappear - and probably be even more successful. I think someone who can run it well, who has a good recruiting budget and decent DC will be highly successful. Think Monken with Tenuta.

The problem one has withe triple option, and always will have, is recruiting elite running backs by telling them they will get 4-5 touches a game and the rest of the time, block. That is a hard sell to a RB who wants 20-25 touches a game and a potential NFL career at the end. I was/am a triple option fan and was excited when Johnson was hired, unhappy when somebody rolled a fork lift under him to get him gone. At the same time coaches at SC, Clemson, Georgia, Alabama, etc., were not thrilled that now they had to compete in recruiting elite players with a team that had ceded that territory with Johnson. Never mind that in year three we still cannot recruit those players to a conventional system.

 

[MidtownJacket]

And we were one procession away from winning most games in 2015......but that is held up as the benchmark of CPJ faire, and now used as the bench mark of GC's " success" Just because someone makes a lot of money and donates it, doesn't mean they aren't morons. I can point to all kinds of examples in other fields of the same stupidity. Would you be agreeable to tanking the program for the next two decades if someone contributed a billion dollars to AA because they demanded a certain way of doing things? If so, then anything less is just a matter of negotiation.....if no, then it is not acceptable what has happened in the last 3 years.

No argument from me that wealthy people can't be ignorant or make bad choices. There certainly are plenty examples out here in the real world of all of that but I just am saying I don't buy that the folks with the treasure are TRYING or MEANING to do harm.

If the program doesn't come around soon than I agree we need to make a change, but some on here are suggesting the money people explicitly chose form over function and I just don't buy it. I do believe and understand many here and supporting the program wanted to move away from the option based sets we ran under CPJ. I think it is also clear that we as a program chose to be more player focused and less scheme focused, but the idea that boosters at any donor level would be pleased with what they got is laughable. CGC does some marketing things that rub me wrong but he has recruited better than we have previously and in a time where we are further behind our relative and geographic peers than ever before.

We have to get better execution, and often better schemes. That part is clear to everyone and hopefully something we can all agree on. It is just the weird "I hope the money people are happy with this mess" commentary that I was reacting to. Probably should have been more specific in my original post that was driving my response.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

We all hope Collins can figure it out. We do. No one dislikes him as a person. He seems like a guy that would be fun. But to date his words haven’t matched the field. And that’s not wins and losses. It’s the process. We just had a 4 game stretch of mediocre opponents. If we had gone 0-4 but saw positives from week to week I think many of us would still be on board. But we went 1-3 and there was no consistency in any aspect of the team from week to week. We are the exact same team on Nov 1 as we were on Oct 1. And what’s worse is that at the end of the season we’ll realize we played only 2 ranked teams (ND and UGA) so this should have been a year where we should have taken a big step which would have kept recruiting going. Instead, we are now left to pray that between now and next September that our staff figures it out because another year of this and the recruiting door will shut.

 

[BCJacket]

We went from slightly revenue positive (I’m guessing $1-2M/yr) to losing $9M/yr and having obliterated the rainy day fund (iirc $5M). You call that much better? Just wondering how you arrived at that conclusion.

That loss was a one-time hit due to covid and a loss of ticket sales. And that was a big hit. But, as of the last update I saw, Tech was on pace for a ~$2 million surplus for this year.

In 2018, we were still paying Hewitt and Gregory. We were still with Russell Athletic for apparel until mid-2018.

Tech raised $175.39 million through AI 2020 ($50+ million over the goal). Which is improving facilities without adding to the already burdensome debt. Also added to the endowment. Revenue from the ACC network is increasing. The MBS deal brings in additional money. The multimedia deal with Legends is supposed to bring in significant revenue.

I don't have clear info on the debt, but I believe it's declining. The covid hit was a setback. But, overall, long-term Tech's financial position is on a more positive trend than it was a few years ago.

 

[lv20gt]

It's not hard to see the logic behind Collins' contract. It is structured in a way to pretty much guarantee 5 years. Year 1 would be before his first full class would get here. Year 2 would be where that class would be freshman. Year 5 is the year where his first full class would be seniors. That represents a full cycle, at least symbolically as redshirts extend it a little but that isn't really relevant. I imagine almost any somewhat qualified candidate we could have landed would have negotiated for something to pretty much guarantee 5 years. Otherwise it wasn't worth the risk that the job came with at the time

And the reality is, no matter what some of the screaming heads here want to believe, this year likely doesn't mean anything for Collins' long term future here. Barring firing for cause he won't be let go until after year 5 and at that point what he did in years 1, 2, and 3 (and potentially 4) won't really be considered. And if you don't believe me all you have to do is look at Pastner on the basketball side of things. At the end of year 3 Pastner was 14-18 (6-12) and recruiting was a big ? to many. At the end of year 5 he was getting an extension.

 

[yeti92]

I hate to say it, but Tech is not a "big time program". There are 62 teams in the P5. Collins salary ranks 56. Big Time programs hire Scott Frost for $5m/year and a $20m buyout.

Why are you so stuck on Collins' salary relative to other P5 coaches? I guess Notre Dame must not be a big time program since per your previously referenced link they only pay Brian Kelly $2.6m a year.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I'm sorry if it came across that way. I didn't mention Coach Johnson or blame him at all. I loved CPJ as our coach. I respect him a lot and appreciate everything he did here. The parts of the program that he could control were largely left in good shape. If anything, he proved that you can win 10+ games and the ACC here. That's a tough act to follow.

Transitioning the offensive roster from the flexbone to anything else was always going to be a tall task when Paul left. But the state of the program in 2018 had more to do with Bobinski's (and DRad's) mismanagement of the support structure around the program, IMHO. TStan had been here about 2 years and was only just starting to implement his fundraising and improvement plans. He'd started to give CPJ the resources he'd been asking for for years - like recruiting support and the renovated locker room. And, as you point out, Tech has always been a tougher coaching job than most.

Tech is/was a relatively unattractive job. But that's not CPJ's fault.

Sorry that I misread your post.

 

[mts315]

I'm not sure why people are saying they don't see improvement in the 2021 team. I get the frustraction with the D as I think they should be better, I also see the frustration with the play calls on O. This boils down to the coordinators to me.

But to the improvement. Just ran the percentages here but in 2019 we lost 9 games by an average of 22.4 points, in 2020 we lost 7 games by an average of 24.85 points, to date in 2021 we have lost 5 games by an average of 11 points. In 2019 we lost all but 2 games by double digits, in 2020 we lost every game by double digits, and in 2021 we have only lost 1 of our games by double digits.

The fact is that we are far closer to winning than we were in the previous two season. Do the losses hurt? Yeah they hurt but if you don't see improvement, then you aren't looking.

 

[MidtownJacket]

The problem one has withe triple option, and always will have, is recruiting elite running backs by telling them they will get 4-5 touches a game and the rest of the time, block. That is a hard sell to a RB who wants 20-25 touches a game and a potential NFL career at the end. I was/am a triple option fan and was excited when Johnson was hired, unhappy when somebody rolled a fork lift under him to get him gone. At the same time coaches at SC, Clemson, Georgia, Alabama, etc., were not thrilled that now they had to compete in recruiting elite players with a team that had ceded that territory with Johnson. Never mind that in year three we still cannot recruit those players to a conventional system.

I know it was probably meant to be TiC, but stud RBs got a lot more carries than that under CPJ.

They also had chances to show pass catching via the ABack Route. Here are some of the years from CPJ just to show. I did this quickly, but a featured back could get their touches for sure, CPJ went to the hot hand. It is what some of the bigtime WR we got under CPJ said too. Yes you have to block a lot (which incidentally the NFL Likes Seeing) but you also got favorable 1on1 match ups. The whole scheme was predicated off of getting guys good looks to beat their guy and take it to the house.

Season	Featured BBack	Season Carries and Game Count	Attempts per game
2008	Dwyer	200 Carries in 13 Games	15.38
2009	Dwyer	235 Carries in 14 Games	16.78
2010	Ant Allen	240 Carries in 14 Games	17.14
2011	Committee (Sims (135) and Lyons (57) Combined)	192 Carries in 12 Games	16
2012	Committee (Sims (135) and Laskey (133) Combined)	168 Carries in 14 Games	19.14
2013	Laskey - but we really used ABacks Heavily	84 Carries in 13 Games	6.46
2014	Laskey	171 Carries in 11 Games	15.55

 

[Vespidae]

It is just the weird "I hope the money people are happy with this mess" commentary that I was reacting to.

I think I know where you are coming from, so let me jump in. We often see ourselves, our self-concept, as better (richer, more attractive, smarter, etc) than we really are. Others, through an objective lens, might actually paint a more accurate picture.

I ran a division of a Fortune 50 company. Interviewing the engineering team, I asked how our products stacked up against the competition. "Oh, we are much, much better. We have a superior product. We should really be telling this to customers. We will win the technical argument." As it happens, I had worked as an engineer in the leading competitor and knew their capabilities and production facilities very well. I knew first-hand that we sucked compared to that company. I changed the marketing strategy (scheme) from best product to customer relationship and we rocked from also ran to world leader.

In football, Florida thinks it is a Top 10 team and in the same league as Georgia, Alabama, etc. Other SEC coaches think Florida is lazy, undisciplined and poorly coached. But if you ask FLORIDA, they think they are awesome.

How does this apply at Tech? I'm sure the $$$ guys watch games and probably attend Falcons, ATL United, and other events and think ... "We could do that. It isn't that hard." Well, it is. Someone probably needs to whisper in their ear just how much effort and dollars it takes and .... what are the probabilities Tech can get there. Jim Collins once said, "If you want to be the best, be the best at ONE THING." But you also have to be realistic as to what that one thing is.

The Milwaukee Brewers will never win the World Series. They know it. They are in a small market with limited resources. Does that mean they can't have fun and field a good product? No. On the contrary, they have a great game day experience. But they also know they can't win by trying to copy what the New York Yankees are doing. That's impossible.

So ... it's really about, knowing yourself and what you are realistically able to achieve ... and then selecting your strategy. I have no illusions whatsoever that Tech will ever crack the Top 10 again. And neither will about 100 other programs. So now what do you do? I do believe we have to differentiate through scheme ... we just don't have the horses. But, others have made the argument ... let's go get them. I just don't think we will win that race competing against the factories.

That's how I interpret that comment.