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
Why Geoff Collins's Georgia Tech Rebuild Starts With a Rebrand
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="takethepoints" data-source="post: 541238" data-attributes="member: 265"><p>It wasn't that Paul didn't do whatever he could to build a "positive national perception of the program." He did. The problem was that other programs had every incentive to try to create a negative perception of Tech. There were, I think, two reasons for this. </p><p></p><p>First, there was the <em>Rocky III</em> problem. If you recall, Mick didn't want Rocky to fight Clubber Lane because he was the wrong kind of fighter for him to go up against. By the same token, Tech had a hard time getting out-of-conference teams scheduled. Anyone who looked at the results when we took on a team that hadn't played an option running team in some time could see that it was likely that we would a) win and b) embarrass them in the process. How do you excuse this? By saying as much negatively about Tech as possible and by the old "They cut block! They're a dirty program!" stuff. That way you don't have to fight Clubber.</p><p></p><p>Second, there was the "OMG! What if Tech got a collection of good players together regularly?" Like, say, the players we had from 2008 - 2010. Well, that would be bad news for everybody Tech played. So do whatever you can to diss Tech football to recruits. To some extent, this is SOP; to a large extent, football recruiting <em>is</em> negative recruiting. Oth, the use of the spread option and Tech's fearsome academic rep made it easier to negatively characterize the program, especially to players who were looking for an excuse not to study (a substantial majority, imho) or had deceived themselves into thinking they were NFL material, an illusion coaching staffs readily pounced on. </p><p></p><p>Well, that did have an effect, though not so much on the field. And it was hard for Paul to overcome to the extent some Tech fans wanted. I was willing to live with it since I had seen what we could do with a good QB and BB combo, like we would have had this next season. But Paul seemed to have lost his fire for the job. Now we'll see what happens.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="takethepoints, post: 541238, member: 265"] It wasn't that Paul didn't do whatever he could to build a "positive national perception of the program." He did. The problem was that other programs had every incentive to try to create a negative perception of Tech. There were, I think, two reasons for this. First, there was the [I]Rocky III[/I] problem. If you recall, Mick didn't want Rocky to fight Clubber Lane because he was the wrong kind of fighter for him to go up against. By the same token, Tech had a hard time getting out-of-conference teams scheduled. Anyone who looked at the results when we took on a team that hadn't played an option running team in some time could see that it was likely that we would a) win and b) embarrass them in the process. How do you excuse this? By saying as much negatively about Tech as possible and by the old "They cut block! They're a dirty program!" stuff. That way you don't have to fight Clubber. Second, there was the "OMG! What if Tech got a collection of good players together regularly?" Like, say, the players we had from 2008 - 2010. Well, that would be bad news for everybody Tech played. So do whatever you can to diss Tech football to recruits. To some extent, this is SOP; to a large extent, football recruiting [I]is[/I] negative recruiting. Oth, the use of the spread option and Tech's fearsome academic rep made it easier to negatively characterize the program, especially to players who were looking for an excuse not to study (a substantial majority, imho) or had deceived themselves into thinking they were NFL material, an illusion coaching staffs readily pounced on. Well, that did have an effect, though not so much on the field. And it was hard for Paul to overcome to the extent some Tech fans wanted. I was willing to live with it since I had seen what we could do with a good QB and BB combo, like we would have had this next season. But Paul seemed to have lost his fire for the job. Now we'll see what happens. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
How many points did Georgia Tech score against Cumberland in 1916?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Why Geoff Collins's Georgia Tech Rebuild Starts With a Rebrand
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