Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Stansbury
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MidtownJacket" data-source="post: 836370" data-attributes="member: 959"><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MidtownJacket, post: 836370, member: 959"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What's the good word?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Stansbury
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top