Where the Program stands

[GoldZ]

+

I think the program is in better shape than 1979-83. I was there during that time and the discussion was to end the athletics program. The facilities were awful (remember the old Navy Armory?), the current Edge had not even been built.

Today, we have the 2020 Initiative and a new Edge underway. Fundraising in general appears ok and we have upgraded many of our coaches (still have one to go). I get the fact that whoever followed CPJ was going to undertake the Greatest Transformation in the History of the Earth, so let's just put an exclamation point there.

Geoff's time will end and a new coach will take over. Butch is gone at UT (Geoff reminds me of Butch a lot) and Heupel has them on a good, steady path. Are we in a bad spot? Yes. Are we as bad as 79-83? Not yet.

Good post Vespidae. My take having lived thru the '79-'83 period too, is that the current money grab of the sport is a much bigger obstacle for GT than the previous period, and that says a lot because the previous period was definitely dire. Your "not yet" is the key. Chaos tends to be unpredictable, and if it goes the way some are concerned about, then the current situation is indeed much worse than the previous. If sanity through regulation is heaped upon NIL/TP, there's hope. If we land somehow some way in the BIG, there's hope. If we downsize, turnout the lights. If we stand pat in the ACC as it is now, the lights will flicker, but IF we last long enuf for us over 50 crowd to die off, we may survive. Bottom line, we are about to draw against a 16 with the dealer showing an Ace.

 

[JacketFan137]

Mack Brown stabilized UNC as soon as he stepped on campus. Bronco Mendenhall had UVA in shape from his second year on. Jamey Chadwell has back to back 11-win seasons after winning 5 his first year.
Not saying it's easy, but there's also no reason for a traditionally bowl-eligible team to bottom out for 3 years straight.

the fact that you’re comparing any of them to what was going on at tech is kind of a stretch. they were not tasked with anywhere near as drastic of a change as collins. mack brown was also making 5 mil and bronco was being paid 4.5 mil a year. they had better staff and more financial backing.

chadwell is playing at a different level of football and also shouldn’t be compared

 

[Vespidae]

Good post Vespidae. My take having lived thru the '79-'83 period too, is that the current money grab of the sport is a much bigger obstacle for GT than the previous period, and that says a lot because the previous period was definitely dire. Your "not yet" is the key. Chaos tends to be unpredictable, and if it goes the way some are concerned about, then the current situation is indeed much worse than the previous. If sanity through regulation is heaped upon NIL/TP, there's hope. If we land somehow some way in the BIG, there's hope. If we downsize, turnout the lights. If we stand pat in the ACC as it is now, the lights will flicker, but IF we last long enuf for us over 50 crowd to die off, we may survive. Bottom line, we are about to draw against a 16 with the dealer showing an Ace.

Random thoughts ...

• Sanity being heaped upon NIL ... the jury is still out here. What I read/hear is that almost no one (except Jimbo Fisher) is happy with NIL infecting CFB the way it has. I'm confident things will eventually converge towards something more equitable, but ... that may not be for a decade. CFB desperately needs a Commissioner and a professional management team, not the university presidents who have almost no background in sports management or even care.
• Landing in the BIG ... I don't see this happening. Changing conferences is a huge undertaking and if we can't win in the ACC (or at least be competitive), changing conferences will be a distraction. Not only that, Tech doesn't exactly add much. Probably as much as Tulane.
• Downsize ... I don't see this happening at all unless the ACC just implodes. Cliff Ellis, when he was head basketball coach was faced with the same issue at South Alabama and IMPLORED the university leadership not to do so. Ellis argued that "once you go down, you will never climb back." Thankfully, they stuck it out and Ellis promptly lead them to a Sweet 16 run. Combine that with their (at that time) excellent baseball team under Eddie Stanky, and South Alabama had name recognition far beyond the state.

I suppose of the issues you mentioned, the dying alumni is the biggest issue. When I had season tix, everyone in my section was Class of 60, 62, 64, 66, 72, 78, 82 ... etc, etc. Those guys are in their 80's now and have a hard time getting around the stadium. So we can expect them to tail off and ... will the younger alumni pick up the challenge and buy tickets, give money, and hate UGA as much? I suspect not ... but we shall see.

Tulane still has an athletics program after all these years and I can see Tech remaining committed to "fielding" a team. But developing a championship team these days is an order of magnitude tougher. I walked by the new Auburn Indoor Football facility ($90M dollars) and the money is just everywhere. We've never had that level of support and the game is changing faster than we can adjust.

But we aren't the only ones.

 

[g0lftime]

Under the current situation ND still has a shot at the 4 team playoff. Clemson has a better shot in the playoff staying in the ACC. The only motivation to leave the ACC is more tv money. So Clemson must decide which is more important to them: a shot at a national championship from the ACC or risking a 7 or 9 win season and no shot. Playing UGA Bama UF Tenn Tx Oklahoma LSU TA&M is no picnic week in and week out. The AD would like the money for other sports but the FB coach may not. I think our Clemson UGA + sometimes ND schedule has kept some HC candidates from being interested.

At some point Saban will retire. How long after the Bear left before they got back on top. NIL has really thrown a wrench into the mix and now teams ate buying players. If it gets too one sided without some sort of controls, I will only watch the NFL where they at least have a draft system to try and maintain balance.
As long as I am alive I will always follow the Jackets regardless of who they play.

 

[FlatsLander]

the fact that you’re comparing any of them to what was going on at tech is kind of a stretch. they were not tasked with anywhere near as drastic of a change as collins. mack brown was also making 5 mil and bronco was being paid 4.5 mil a year. they had better staff and more financial backing.

chadwell is playing at a different level of football and also shouldn’t be compared

UNC and UVA were 2-win programs before Brown and Mendenhall came onboard. We were competitive and bowl-bound basically every year, especially the 3 years before CGC came on board. There was no need to lose all ability to be competitive on the field.

Besides, the OP said that no one has ever built a program in 3 years. There are 2 in our division that did it in 2 years.

 

[alagold]

I've always understood the "elephant in the room" phrase to be something hat people are aware of but tapdance around or avoid speaking of directly. In this case, I don't think CGC's coaching abilties can qualify as the "elephant in the room." 95% of the posts here are around this issue,

I don't evade the issue.After 2 yrs of bumbling ,I had my doubts about GC.After 3 there are no doubts,he is over his head in P5 coaching.It will be close to a miracle for him to elevate enough to stay.

 

[GoldZ]

Random thoughts ...

• Sanity being heaped upon NIL ... the jury is still out here. What I read/hear is that almost no one (except Jimbo Fisher) is happy with NIL infecting CFB the way it has. I'm confident things will eventually converge towards something more equitable, but ... that may not be for a decade. CFB desperately needs a Commissioner and a professional management team, not the university presidents who have almost no background in sports management or even care.
• Landing in the BIG ... I don't see this happening. Changing conferences is a huge undertaking and if we can't win in the ACC (or at least be competitive), changing conferences will be a distraction. Not only that, Tech doesn't exactly add much. Probably as much as Tulane.
• Downsize ... I don't see this happening at all unless the ACC just implodes. Cliff Ellis, when he was head basketball coach was faced with the same issue at South Alabama and IMPLORED the university leadership not to do so. Ellis argued that "once you go down, you will never climb back." Thankfully, they stuck it out and Ellis promptly lead them to a Sweet 16 run. Combine that with their (at that time) excellent baseball team under Eddie Stanky, and South Alabama had name recognition far beyond the state.

I suppose of the issues you mentioned, the dying alumni is the biggest issue. When I had season tix, everyone in my section was Class of 60, 62, 64, 66, 72, 78, 82 ... etc, etc. Those guys are in their 80's now and have a hard time getting around the stadium. So we can expect them to tail off and ... will the younger alumni pick up the challenge and buy tickets, give money, and hate UGA as much? I suspect not ... but we shall see.

Tulane still has an athletics program after all these years and I can see Tech remaining committed to "fielding" a team. But developing a championship team these days is an order of magnitude tougher. I walked by the new Auburn Indoor Football facility ($90M dollars) and the money is just everywhere. We've never had that level of support and the game is changing faster than we can adjust.

But we aren't the only ones.

Yeah, that's why I emphasized your "not yet". The NIL/TP is the biggest issue imo, and no, the younger alumni are really unlikely to support the program much. As for the BIG, I wouldn't underestimate our academic rep, location (recruits being able to see a BIG play and come home to play in front of family/friends is additive to the BIG recruiting here already), and our historical role in CFB (dated as it is). Tulane doesn't offer this as much.

 

[cthenrys]

the fact that you’re comparing any of them to what was going on at tech is kind of a stretch. they were not tasked with anywhere near as drastic of a change as collins. mack brown was also making 5 mil and bronco was being paid 4.5 mil a year. they had better staff and more financial backing.

chadwell is playing at a different level of football and also shouldn’t be compared

lol, dude...

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

UNC and UVA were 2-win programs before Brown and Mendenhall came onboard. We were competitive and bowl-bound basically every year, especially the 3 years before CGC came on board. There was no need to lose all ability to be competitive on the field.

Besides, the OP said that no one has ever built a program in 3 years. There are 2 in our division that did it in 2 years.

The 5 recruiting classes prior to Mack Browns return to UNC were ranked 23, 30, 22, 28, and 23.

The 5 recruiting classes prior to Bronco Mendenhall coming to UVA were ranked 43, 41, 28, 27, 25.

The 5 recruiting classes prior to CGC coming to Tech were ranked 53, 41, 67, 39, 47.

I'm guessing they weren't hurting nearly as bad for talent as CGC was, especially considering CGC was trying to install a completely different offensive system.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

The 5 recruiting classes prior to Mack Browns return to UNC were ranked 23, 30, 22, 28, and 23.

The 5 recruiting classes prior to Bronco Mendenhall coming to UVA were ranked 43, 41, 28, 27, 25.

The 5 recruiting classes prior to CGC coming to Tech were ranked 53, 41, 67, 39, 47.

I'm guessing they weren't hurting nearly as bad for talent as CGC was, especially considering CGC was trying to install a completely different offensive system.

Talent it turns out was among the least of Coach Collins' worries. I don't think it was talent that caused us to suffer losses to The Citadel and Northern Illinois. Nor was it talent that resulted in a historic beat down at Clemson and talent was not the only reason for failing to score any points the last two games of the year while giving up 100.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Talent it turns out was among the least of Coach Collins' worries. I don't think it was talent that caused us to suffer losses to The Citadel and Northern Illinois. Nor was it talent that resulted in a historic beat down at Clemson and talent was not the only reason for failing to score any points the last two games of the year while giving up 100.

I was with you on the front side, but you totally lost your mind on the backend. Talent was absolutely the reason for the Clemson beat down and was almost 100% the reason we didn't score in the last two while giving up 100.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Talent it turns out was among the least of Coach Collins' worries. I don't think it was talent that caused us to suffer losses to The Citadel and Northern Illinois. Nor was it talent that resulted in a historic beat down at Clemson and talent was not the only reason for failing to score any points the last two games of the year while giving up 100.

There I think you are wrong. I think not having the right talent in the right spots is exactly why we lost to the Citadel. The talent gap is also why I think we suffered those two humiliating losses last year. The NIU game was a mix of bad coaching and bad play from our team that night, but talent on the field has tons to do with CGC's slow start.

The biggest argument against him IMO isn't his record so far but the recruiting rankings that were supposed to be much higher with him. That, to me, is what I am worried about.

 

[cthenrys]

I was with you on the front side, but you totally lost your mind on the backend. Talent was absolutely the reason for the Clemson beat down and was almost 100% the reason we didn't score in the last two while giving up 100.

Talent accounts for the losses to Clemson, ND and UGA. It does not account for the magnitude of the beat downs. I'd give some relief on the ND / UGA games due to injuries (which i guess is talent available but everyone deals with injuries). For Clemson, we tried to play hurry up against a vastly superior foe, who also was very motivated to deliver a beat down in response to the CGC hype machine. It would be like Princeton trying to full court press and play run and shoot vs Kansas. That ain't talent - that's preparation and strategy and it resulted in a historic beat down.

For the ND / UGA games I'd give the excessive margin of victory to lack of prep and sadly a lack of motivation on our side. We weren't going to win any of the three games due to talent, but the talent on the field alone didn't drive the embarrassing final margins...

 

[jojatk]

Talent accounts for the losses to Clemson, ND and UGA. It does not account for the magnitude of the beat downs. I'd give some relief on the ND / UGA games due to injuries (which i guess is talent available but everyone deals with injuries). For Clemson, we tried to play hurry up against a vastly superior foe, who also was very motivated to deliver a beat down in response to the CGC hype machine. It would be like Princeton trying to full court press and play run and shoot vs Kansas. That ain't talent - that's preparation and strategy and it resulted in a historic beat down.

For the ND / UGA games I'd give the excessive margin of victory to lack of prep and sadly a lack of motivation on our side. We weren't going to win any of the three games due to talent, but the talent on the field alone didn't drive the embarrassing final margins...

I know I'm quoting your post, @cthenrys but this question isn't really addressed to you as you've already answered it. But is there anyone out there that really thinks our problems the last three years have been talent ALONE? Or is it a pretty safe bet that everyone knows that at least some of the problem has been coaching. I'm not suggesting there's any agreement about how much of our problem was coaching vs athletes. But I just can't believe that anyone out there really thinks our coaching staff the previous three seasons was doing the best job any coaching staff could possibly do and getting the most out of the players we had on the field. I'm a pretty open-minded person but I'll say that I can't be convinced that we couldn't have won 3 out of the losses against BC, Miami, UVA, and VT and that those were totally due to a lack of talent.

So relating that back to the original premise of the thread; we're clearly at a crossroads from a CGC head coaching perspective. Regardless of the impact of NIL and the craziness around conference realignment going on everywhere we need to get a lot more out of the talent we DO have on the roster this season. And regardless of how the positions opened up we have a lot of new coaches. They have to align tightly with each other and do a better job of teaching the players so they can maximize what the kids wearing GT uniforms can do when they get on the field this fall. I don't know into how many wins that would translate but without that happening we'll be starting with a new head coach and if CGC can't lead these guys to better play and more wins then so be it.

 

[cthenrys]

I know I'm quoting your post, @cthenrys but this question isn't really addressed to you as you've already answered it. But is there anyone out there that really thinks our problems the last three years have been talent ALONE? Or is it a pretty safe bet that everyone knows that at least some of the problem has been coaching. I'm not suggesting there's any agreement about how much of our problem was coaching vs athletes. But I just can't believe that anyone out there really thinks our coaching staff the previous three seasons was doing the best job any coaching staff could possibly do and getting the most out of the players we had on the field. I'm a pretty open-minded person but I'll say that I can't be convinced that we couldn't have won 3 out of the losses against BC, Miami, UVA, and VT and that those were totally due to a lack of talent.

So relating that back to the original premise of the thread; we're clearly at a crossroads from a CGC head coaching perspective. Regardless of the impact of NIL and the craziness around conference realignment going on everywhere we need to get a lot more out of the talent we DO have on the roster this season. And regardless of how the positions opened up we have a lot of new coaches. They have to align tightly with each other and do a better job of teaching the players so they can maximize what the kids wearing GT uniforms can do when they get on the field this fall. I don't know into how many wins that would translate but without that happening we'll be starting with a new head coach and if CGC can't lead these guys to better play and more wins then so be it.

100% agree with the last paragraph and I will give credit to CGC and ADTS for making some what appear to be impactful hires. I also think they did about as well as they could to get talent in that could help now. CGC has heard the message about shutting off the hype machine and he appears to be focused on coaching. He's betting on himself with keeping Thacker on board - he has to think that gives him the best chance of being successful and saving his job and career as as a HC. So, as tough as I have been on him since game 1, I think he has done all he could have done since the last seconds of the UGA game. Will it be enough remains to be seen. It's on him - either he turns it around (significantly) or we start over next year.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I know I'm quoting your post, @cthenrys but this question isn't really addressed to you as you've already answered it. But is there anyone out there that really thinks our problems the last three years have been talent ALONE? Or is it a pretty safe bet that everyone knows that at least some of the problem has been coaching. I'm not suggesting there's any agreement about how much of our problem was coaching vs athletes. But I just can't believe that anyone out there really thinks our coaching staff the previous three seasons was doing the best job any coaching staff could possibly do and getting the most out of the players we had on the field. I'm a pretty open-minded person but I'll say that I can't be convinced that we couldn't have won 3 out of the losses against BC, Miami, UVA, and VT and that those were totally due to a lack of talent.

So relating that back to the original premise of the thread; we're clearly at a crossroads from a CGC head coaching perspective. Regardless of the impact of NIL and the craziness around conference realignment going on everywhere we need to get a lot more out of the talent we DO have on the roster this season. And regardless of how the positions opened up we have a lot of new coaches. They have to align tightly with each other and do a better job of teaching the players so they can maximize what the kids wearing GT uniforms can do when they get on the field this fall. I don't know into how many wins that would translate but without that happening we'll be starting with a new head coach and if CGC can't lead these guys to better play and more wins then so be it.

Talent ALONE is not the problem, but the talent issue is a LOT of the problem. I have strong doubts about CGCs coaching ability, but our talent issues would have been a chore for anyone. It's why I have been more willing than others to give him an extra year or two. Until we right the talent gap no coach without a decided schematic edge is going to suddenly fix our issues.

 

[billga99]

Talent ALONE is not the problem, but the talent issue is a LOT of the problem. I have strong doubts about CGCs coaching ability, but our talent issues would have been a chore for anyone. It's why I have been more willing than others to give him an extra year or two. Until we right the talent gap no coach without a decided schematic edge is going to suddenly fix our issues.

except the talent doesn't appear to be getting better based on our recruiting rankings since 2020..ie 2021 and current and losses in the transfer portal. At best we are even and more likely sliding. So if recruiting isn't improving and coaching is suspect, not exactly a recipe for success.

 

[RamblinRed]

IMO there are 3 equally important pieces to running a successful college football program.
One is recruiting. What level of talent do you bring in?
Second is player development. How good are you at taking that raw talent and developing it into legitimate college football players?
Third is coaching - both preparation and game day. How good are you at making a game plan for an opponent and how good are you at using that game prep and making changes during the game as situations unfold?

I don't see any of those as being more significant than the others. All 3 are legs of a stool that need to be strong.
The best programs excel at all three. Good programs tend to do well at 2 of them. Those that are good at fewer than 2 of them tend to be poor programs.

IMO CGC was hired almost exclusively for the first leg. He was expected to be an excellent recruiter but didn't have enough experience to provide much insight into whether he would be good at the other 2 legs. Unfortunately the results of that first leg have been good but not great (I wouldn't classify his program as being outstanding at recruiting). For the other 2 legs I would say CGC's program has been flat out poor.

From Augusta Jacket (in parentheses is the rank among ACC schools that year)
"The 5 recruiting classes prior to CGC coming to Tech were ranked 53(9), 41(8), 67(13), 39(8), 47(11)."


This year's recruiting suggest leg 1 is going to go pretty poorly so we absolutely have to be alot better at legs 2 and 3 just to have a chance to improve at all over the next few seasons.
Collins first 4 classes have been 43(8) -this is partially CPJ's recruits, 25(5), 48(11), 52(9). Currently the 2023 class is ranked 47(12).

CPJ's last 5 classes avg 10th in the ACC. Collins first 4 avg 8th and when you look at the current likely outcome of 2023 (based on avg ratings) it will probably slide to closer to 9 for the first 5 classes.
So there has been modest improvement but hardly earthshaking and it is really based almost entirely on one class that has not been replicated before or since (and has had 2 of its 4 highest rated recruits transfer away).

If you want to take into account transfers 247Sports is trying to do that now. With transfers the 2022 class moves from #52(9) to #44(7). Some improvement, but overall it keeps the avg numbers pretty close to where they are.

If GT doesn't over perform on the field this year than recruiting is likely to be at or below the previous regimes recruiting both this year and next (if the current staff is retained).

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

Those who want NIL to go away have short memories. So, we should go back to a system where schools pay players under the table and then random people at the NCAA or “League Commissioners” office gets to decide that we won’t investigate Alabama or Georgia or Florida but we’ll investigate Georgia Tech. How did the Cam Newton investigation work out? I’ll tell - you can go see the Natty any time you want in Auburn, Alabama. I’ll take NIL and paying players out in the open than the old system every day. Any school now has a chance to get better if you are willing to pony up. Those of you who don’t like NIL really should just say the truth - you are tired of being fans of a cheap a@@ school. That’s really what you mean.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

except the talent doesn't appear to be getting better based on our recruiting rankings since 2020..ie 2021 and current and losses in the transfer portal. At best we are even and more likely sliding. So if recruiting isn't improving and coaching is suspect, not exactly a recipe for success.

I said that above in the post that this was a reply to.