Which is better

[Vespidae]

Interesting.

How many got "processed" out?

90%.

 

[smokey_wasp]

I heard it from you.

“Yes, let's get rid of the one thing that is attracting recruits to our program currently, the culture and fun. Then we can both lose and be boring doing it!

Teams that are already winning can afford the business-like approach. We can't.”

And I disagree with this.

Gene Stallings won a Natty at Alabama in 1992. Dabo played for Stallings.

Stallings was once asked how he did it. He built a board with 20 metrics. He compared team performances to plan. He said “If we get close to these numbers, we’ll win it all.” They did.

His mentor? Tom Landry. Trained as a engineer. It’s inputs - process- outputs. Simple really.

It sounds like we are already doing something close to what you suggest, though, and none of that has anything to do with the juice crew or spiking the football. I think you misunderstood what I meant by "business-like". I am just saying our model requires hype to recruit the necessary talent to compete. You can demand excellence, but it will only go as far as the talent is physically able to go.

 

[Vespidae]

It sounds like we are already doing something close to what you suggest, though, and none of that has anything to do with the juice crew or spiking the football. I think you misunderstood what I meant by "business-like".

I would eliminate all that crap. Winning is all that matters. I operated in almost 150 countries and success translates better than any other drug. If people buy in to what you ask them to in order to win ... they’ll do it. And bring their friends.

 

[smokey_wasp]

I would eliminate all that crap. Winning is all that matters. I operated in almost 150 countries and success translates better than any other drug. If people buy in to what you ask them to in order to win ... they’ll do it. And bring their friends.

I added an addendum while you were typing your response. Winning is all that matters, but you need the talent to do it. Athletic talent vs business talent really isn't a great comparison. Guys have physical ceilings that no amount of demanding excellence can raise.

 

[LibertyTurns]

I added an addendum while you were typing your response. Winning is all that matters, but you need the talent to do it. Athletic talent vs business talent really isn't a great comparison. Guys have physical ceilings that no amount of demanding excellence can raise.

People also have talent in business that no amount of demanding excellence can raise. They also have varying degrees of desire, ethics, etc. Do you punish the whole while you try to goose Johnny into trying his best, applying his self-advertised talent, etc or oust Johnny because he’s a slacker, non-contributor, incompetent, etc? @Vespidae is correct. You have to have the backbone to hold people accountable or they figure you out damn quick & minus a few dogged self-starters will gravitate to whatever you tolerate. It’s not cut & dry though, sometimes the taste of small failures has turned an individual’s career around.

We’ll see with this staff. Do they have it?

 

[4shotB]

I would eliminate all that crap. Winning is all that matters. I operated in almost 150 countries and success translates better than any other drug. If people buy in to what you ask them to in order to win ... they’ll do it. And bring their friends.

You said that you replaced those who didn't perform. I agree with this.However, comparing your situations in business to what our Coach is going through is a bit disingenous. Do you think 3 games in is enough for him to have effected change in the personnel? I have been involved in some of the same situations you describe in my earlier career. Game 3 is the same as your first 3 weeks on your new assignment....you have an idea of what you have, just not enough time to do what needs to be done.

 

[Vespidae]

I added an addendum while you were typing your response. Winning is all that matters, but you need the talent to do it. Athletic talent vs business talent really isn't a great comparison. Guys have physical ceilings that no amount of demanding excellence can raise.

I disagree. Lombardi didn’t have the best talent as much as the best trained talent.

I’d rather have a 3 star with common sense, anticipation and someone I can train than a 5 star who can’t spell cat,

 

[Vespidae]

You said that you replaced those who didn't perform. I agree with this.However, comparing your situations in business to what our Coach is going through is a bit disingenous. Do you think 3 games in is enough for him to have effected change in the personnel? I have been involved in some of the same situations you describe in my earlier career. Game 3 is the same as your first 3 weeks on your new assignment....you have an idea of what you have, just not enough time to do what needs to be done.

You go to war with the army you have, not the one you hope to have.

 

[LibertyTurns]

You go to war with the army you have, not the one you hope to have.

Well said Rummy!

An equally appropriate quote for our situation:

Those that think they know, but are mistaken, and act upon their mistakes, are the most dangerous people to have in charge.

 

[smokey_wasp]

I disagree. Lombardi didn’t have the best talent as much as the best trained talent.

I’d rather have a 3 star with common sense, anticipation and someone I can train than a 5 star who can’t spell cat,

Well, we are working on that with strength and conditioning and "developmental program" but there are limits there. It's telling that you keep going back half a century with these analogies. College football today is a talent arms race pure and simple. Well-trained 3 stars are never going to beat 5 stars with any consistency and neither will briliant x an o coaching. You may catch the more talented team napping once in a while, but 90 percent of the time, you'll lose. Recent results vs Clemson and uga should tell that story. A good mix of high 3 stars and 4s that have that little extra? Maybe. If hype helps get them here, so be it.

But again, I just fail to see where our staff isn't demanding the best of our players exactly as you suggest. They seem to be all about that.

 

[GTFLETCH]

Tech needs the bye week to find out what they want to do on the field. Play football? Or dance?

Bear Bryant famously banned spiking the football or celebrating TDs. The team was aghast. Why not? "Because", the Bear quipped, "We're Alabama. We're supposed to be in the end zone."

Spot On.... Next

 

[Vespidae]

Well, we are working on that with strength and conditioning and "developmental program" but there are limits there. It's telling that you keep going back half a century with these analogies. College football today is a talent arms race pure and simple. Well-trained 3 stars are never going to beat 5 stars with any consistency and neither will briliant x an o coaching. Recent results vs Clemson and uga should tell that story. A good mix of high 3 stars and 4s that have that little extra? Maybe. If hype helps get them here, so be it.

You should tell TStan. He had said as much that Tech will never recruit 5 stars.

 

[smokey_wasp]

You should tell TStan. He had said as much that Tech will never recruit 5 stars.

He also said he was tired of Tech being outmanned and undersized and always punching above their weight And I didn't say 5 stars. I said high 3's and 4's.

 

[Vespidae]

He also said he was tired of Tech being outmanned and undersized and always punching above their weight And I didn't say 5 stars. I said high 3's and 4's.

Fair enough.

 

[TheSilasSonRising]

I would eliminate all that crap. Winning is all that matters. I operated in almost 150 countries and success translates better than any other drug. If people buy in to what you ask them to in order to win ... they’ll do it. And bring their friends.

Wow.

“Winning is all that matters”

“Processing” out 90%.

I do not disagree at all, I just wonder if you realize how many here have crucified CGC for even (although not really) intimating such concepts?

Very unTech man like wouldn’t you say?

 

[smokey_wasp]

90%.

It's been an interesting discussion and I hate to open a can of worms, but given this comment, how comfortable are you with this approach to our current situation?

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

Ok we have a bye this week is it better to have a game next week or a bye and why . ( Do not use injuries to say just if it's better after a game like this )

Under ordinary circumstances, following a loss players and coaches want to play again but these are not ordinary circumstances. We needed a bye week in the worst way both to heal and to figure out who is going to play and who is going to sit.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

Lol. And we should sell Coca Colas and hamburgers for ten cents. I like where your heads at.

Maybe we should try what he suggests: what we are doing now is not getting it done.

 

[iceeater1969]

90%.

Had to destroy it to save the widget factory is a common need.

I hired at those pipiline engrs like ae s dad and put them in place to win as engr consultants. People were what we sold. Kind of like a football team we competed against the other companies for contracts.

I found being firm, fair, and friendly won in short and long haul.
Yea , we fired a few but found most needed better team organization.

Our little company grew at average of 15% per year for 20 years.

 

[Vespidae]

Had to destroy it to save it.

Not really. I asked each senior executive (e.g., member of the coaching staff) ... "Are you personally committed to this plan?" And if the answer was no, "adios".