Someone is interested in CPJ

Bull. He could recruit defensive players who don't have to be Rhodes scholars at Kansas. I guaranteed Kansas would improve under PJ, and Georgia Tech will decline or hold par under WHOEVER they hire next.

The problem isn't the coaches. It's the program.
 
veerbone said:
Bull. He could recruit defensive players who don't have to be Rhodes scholars at Kansas. I guaranteed Kansas would improve under PJ, and Georgia Tech will decline or hold par under WHOEVER they hire next.

The problem isn't the coaches. It's the program.
Click to expand...
Maybe we will find out soon. It looks like there is decent interest in CPJ that he can be hired easily elsewhere. Probably a step down from GT though.

It's funny that his two former assistants can hinder CPJ's ability to get hired as they might get the job instead.
 
will be surprised if he leaves within the next 5 years. When you look at change you balance the risk/reward of potential change.

I find it unlikely another coach will come into GT and take 7/8 wins and turn them into 9/10 wins a season.

If Roof can improve recruiting we have more potential to go up with PJ then new coach IMO.

But I am an old guy now. I remember people wanting O'leary fired (I was one of them after fridge left and then beat us). Then you move to the people that wanted Gailey fired. I did not want Gailey fired. Now we have the people that want PJ gone. GT has been fortunate to keep bowl streak and stay above .500 during these coaching changes but that luck will run out eventually. IMO
 
Wanting a particular coach is a lot different from being able to hire him. It takes an elite program like UF to bring in a genius like Will Muschamp. CPJ is probably the best fit for us; hopefully he doesn't get wanderlust.
 
You know, I was one of those who wanted to get rid of Gailey, I'm glad we did, because I like Paul Johnson as our HC.

But people are delusional if they think that getting a new head coach will do much to improve GT football.

The problem isn't our coaching staff. It is the way the Institute views the role of sports. Either GT should recognize and do what it takes to win big, or it should drop to DIII. Everytime I say this people get really mad. But GT wants to run the program like it is a DIII program---if that's the case, why not do it? Our athletic department loses money--once you count the student-financed student athletic fee, the tuition discounts, and the loss of donation dollars to sports. It also poses a major risk to the academic reputation, without the upside of a big publicity year to boost the quality and number of applicants. Either that, or decide to run a real program, recognizing that we are one of less than a dozen schools that try to do it the right way. Doing it the right way is going to yield good, not great, results at Stanford. A Rose bowl every 2-4 years. But GT is not Stanford, and the recruiting effect will never be the same. At GT, doing it the right way in every case, rather than figuring out what compromises we can live with appears to yield mediocre results.

If Duke, Vanderbilt, UNC, and Virginia, all top academic and research universities, are willing to do it, we should consider it too. I think we'd have far more success given that we have a winning tradition absent a bleak period from the late sixties to early and mid 80's. Duke is doing it with someone who wanted to coach at Georgia Tech. And I still think we made the better hire, because Duke's admin is doing what it takes to win at football. We can be a 9 win program every year, with some special seasons.

We're already winning most of our conference games with two hands tied behind our back. If we make the necessary changes, and it won't happen overnight, then we cna do better.

One reason we should stick with Paul Johnson has nothing to do with the results on the field: the faculty and admin appear to trust him, as evidenced by the rumored demise of a few recruiting restrictions. A new coach would have to win that trust, and we'd have to find a good coach who wants to do that.
 
cyptomcat said:
Maybe we will find out soon. It looks like there is decent interest in CPJ that he can be hired easily elsewhere. Probably a step down from GT though.

It's funny that his two assistants can hinder CPJ's ability to get hired as they might get the job instead.
Click to expand...

Which two assistants? Someone would hire the worst head coach in Duke's football history to be a head coach (a bad head coach can still be a good coordinator)?
 
law_bee said:
will be surprised if he leaves within the next 5 years. When you look at change you balance the risk/reward of potential change.
Click to expand...
Well, Bobinski extended Gregory preseason last year, but no such extension for Johnson yet, so seems like the AD might be waiting for better results this season to give an extension.
 
veerbone said:
I guaranteed Kansas would improve under PJ, and Georgia Tech will decline or hold par under WHOEVER they hire next.
Click to expand...

What makes you think Johnson could recruit well at Kansas. Where has he ever recruited well at the FBS level?

Of course the next coach will struggle because CPJ has emptied the cupboard. This is the least talented team we've had in 25 years.
 
TechSBP said:
Which two assistants? Someone would hire the worst head coach in Duke's football history to be a head coach (a bad head coach can still be a good coordinator)?
Click to expand...
Sorry, I meant the two former assistants that the linked article discussed.
 
cyptomcat said:
Well, Bobinski extended Gregory preseason last year, but no such extension for Johnson yet, so seems like the AD might be waiting for better results this season to give an extension.
Click to expand...

AD needs to be focused on the graveyard that is the student section at all home games, as well as the annual gold seat problem.
 
Flywheel said:
AD needs to be focused on the graveyard that is the student section at all home games
Click to expand...

because student attendance makes money and wins games?

post FAIL

i dont think you know what the responsibilities of an AD are
 
Flywheel said:
AD needs to be focused on the graveyard that is the student section at all home games, as well as the annual gold seat problem.
Click to expand...

What problem? They sell out every year and the GTAA gets extra revenue from the seats. But but but it looks kinda bad on TV. :rolleyes:
 
TechSBP said:
The problem isn't our coaching staff. It is the way the Institute views the role of sports. Either GT should recognize and do what it takes to win big, or it should drop to DIII.
Click to expand...

What, specific, actions has "The Hill" taken to impact GT Football?

Relaxing academic standards? Minimum academic standards are set by the Board of Regents (and are the same at GT and UGA). The Hill has already give the AA carte blanche to request as many exceptions as they want for football from the Board of Regents.

Majors? GT has to ask the Board of Regents for authorization to add new majors. I imagine there's not much of a business case to add a Physical Education major at GT. Adding a major that *might* apply to athletes, like Sports Management, Social Media Marketing/Digital Communications, or Kinesiology is a very daunting task and takes more than football to justify it.

The REAL issue is the GT fanbase. We're terrible. UGA's logo is plastered all over every store in the metro area. If we, as a fanbase, stood up and voted against this action with our wallet, we would see fewer UGA advertisements, more GT advertisements, and we wouldn't be the little brother. If WE invested more in our program, we'd have an 80,000 seat stadium, CPJ could attract 4-star and (gasp) 5-star talent. If we want to see change in The Hill, an organized campaign from alumni directed at Bud Peterson could get virtually anything we want, including new majors and/or eased academic standards.

If we want GT football to be a powerhouse, it can be. We just need to try.
 
gtphd said:
What, specific, actions has "The Hill" taken to impact GT Football?

Relaxing academic standards? Minimum academic standards are set by the Board of Regents (and are the same at GT and UGA). The Hill has already give the AA carte blanche to request as many exceptions as they want for football from the Board of Regents.

Majors? GT has to ask the Board of Regents for authorization to add new majors. I imagine there's not much of a business case to add a Physical Education major at GT. Adding a major that *might* apply to athletes, like Sports Management, Social Media Marketing/Digital Communications, or Kinesiology is a very daunting task and takes more than football to justify it.

The REAL issue is the GT fanbase. We're terrible. UGA's logo is plastered all over every store in the metro area. If we, as a fanbase, stood up and voted against this action with our wallet, we would see fewer UGA advertisements, more GT advertisements, and we wouldn't be the little brother down the street in Atlanta. If WE invested more in our program, we'd have an 80,000 seat stadium, CPJ could attract 4-star and (gasp) 5-star talent. If we want to see change in The Hill, an organized campaign from alumni directed at Bud Peterson could get virtually anything we want, including new majors and/or eased academic standards.

If we want GT football to be a powerhouse, it can be. We just need to try.
Click to expand...

Shutup.
 
does our publix even stock crab legs? c'mon guys, this is amateur stuff.
 
05GTCorndog said:
Shutup.
Click to expand...

:ambh:

"The Hill" is to blame for all your problems, just like "The Government", "The Police", and "The Man". While we're at it, let's blame "Congress", "Corporations", and "CEOs" as well.

Nothing is your fault - it's someone holding you down. No reason to try to fix it.
 
our fanbase is one of the worst in college football no doubt about it, but we're also very small comparatively speaking to other schools we view as our main rivals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top