I can’t speak for anyone else but my point about doing a better job phrasing the letter had everything to do with the way the leader or our athletic department sounded. It had nothing to do with it doing anything to convince anyone of anything about our coach.
Could he have phrased it better? Maybe. It wouldn't have made any significant difference. But the idea that it was the phrasing and not the content of the letter that invoked the reaction it got is just silly.
If he says nothing or just a short token response people would complain that he isn't communicating at all.
If he was brutally honest and said the things that are said here about the season, then said he was keeping Collins regardless, people would have been just as pissed and wonder how he could justify keeping Collins if the rest was true.
If he flat out came out and said that we don't have the money to fire collins and find a good replacement, and only kept him because we wouldn't be able to lure anyone else, well anyone want to argue that would be better?
His letter wasn't gaslighting anyone. He wasn't insulting anyone's intelligence (as a tangent, the only people who I've ever met concerned with having their intelligence insulted, grossly overestimated how much they had to begin with). He didn't make things worse or pour fuel on the fire. I know you aren't the one that said those by the way.
He made the decision to keep Collins. That is what pissed people off and no matter what he wrote, as long as that was the case, people were going to nitpick it and act like it was a poorly worded letter. We have people who are heavily critcial of stupid stuff that makes no impact as well as down right petty things like Collins' choice of jeans. If you don't think they'd find something to complain about in the letter then you're dreaming. Let's look at the parts of the letter that people are most likely to complain about.
"Our performance in the final two games of the season were especially disappointing and were a step back. However, progress was still apparent at many points during the course of the season, highlighted by the fact that we had the ball with a chance to win or tie the game in the fourth quarter of six of our losses. That does not make the final results any less frustrating or disappointing, but the margin for error has been shrunk significantly. We now need to close it.”"
People have responded to his claim that he saw progress in the games prior to our last two by pointing to the last two games. That doesn't make any sense. It's like if I said my diet has gotten better because I've cut out wings and pizza and the response is no it hasn't because I still drink beer. There was progress. And there was a dumpsterfire two games afterwards. Those two aren't mutually exclusive statements like some want to believe.
TStan made the point that the progress he saw this year was that in 6 of our losses we had a chance to take the lead in the fourth quarter. Last year in our losses that was true of just the NCSU game I believe. So we were closer this year to winning those games we lost than we were last year. That is progress. As he pointed out, the progress wasn't enough to turn those from losses to wins which is the ultimate goal, but that is why he stated that we need to close that it. And if it's untrue then correct me. If it's not untrue though then what are people complaining about? You can argue whether it's enough progress to justify keeping Collins for another year, but that doesn't make what he said inaccurate, misleading or anything else of the sort.
People are annoyed because of the talk over recruiting, and the infrastructure talk, but he's not wrong. Two of the three classes under Collins, as of the time of the post, were a step up in recruiting. Even if you think he's terrible, that much isn't really up for debate. He has shown we can attract more talent to GT than some argued before. And that is a very relevant point considering the obvious focus of the hire initially was to do exactly that.
People complain about the references to Pastner and the others that took time, and scoff at it but in year 3 with Pastner we were under .500 overall and 6-12 in conference. Then to start year 4-5 including an 18 point blow out loss to Ball State. People were complaining not just about the performance, but the relative lack of recruiting, etc etc etc. A year and a half later we're cutting down the nets and have a very well put together roster. And now people will say "yeah but this and yeah but that" and at the time, very few people were defending Pastner. I'll let you guess who one of them was though. So again, it's relevant to talk about because the timing was similar and that is in a sport that is much easier to turn around quick because of the smaller number of players involved. I know some people have a visceral reaction to the word transition because they break out in hives at anything that could possible be construed as a slight against Johnson. That is on them not TStan.
Hell, we've had people claim that TStan blamed us when he did the exact opposite. He bent over backwards to give credit to the fanbase for donations to help level the playing field as one of his reasons for optimism.
The criticisms of his phrasing are akin to those who complain about "money down" the "ATL chart" and the like about Collins. It's meaningless complaints because they want something else to complain about that if fixed wouldn't change anything other than making those same people look for the something else petty to complain about.
). I know I probably seem like a "dinosaur". Believe me, I feel like one sometimes.
