Bill Shanks interviews PJ

johncu said:
Yes, we absolutely did short the program under CPJ.

Spending on Football Program in 2017:
  1. Florida State (No.2): $42.46 million
  2. Notre Dame* (No. 4): $38.97 million
  3. Clemson (No. 10): $34.67 million
  4. Virginia Tech (No. 16): $31.15 million
  5. Miami (No. 25): $28.47 million
  6. Duke (No. 36): $23.47 million
  7. North Carolina (No. 37): $23.46 million
  8. Louisville (No. 38): $23.43 million
  9. Syracuse (No. 39): $23.22 million
  10. Pittsburgh (No. 40): $23.13 million
  11. Boston College (No. 48): $21.35 million
  12. Virginia (No. 51): $20.33 million
  13. NC State (No. 54): $19.19 million
  14. Georgia Tech (No. 61): $17.38 million
  15. Wake Forest (No. 63): $16.61 million
Click to expand...
Interesting numbers, do you have the source? Or know how it was calculated? When I've looked into this myself in the past, it has been very difficult to compare apples-to-apples, because every school reports things differently.

For example, if the school charters a plane every time the football coach needs to make in-home appearances in four states in one day, it is pretty easy to put that cost in the football column. But if they've got a school plane that's used by the entire school (President and all coaches and so forth), but 27% of the time for football, they may or may not make the effort to divide the annual operating cost among the various sports. They may just put the entire cost into a 'general' or 'shared' bucket. And then it looks like the plane-chartering school is spending less on football than the plane-owning school, even though the opposite is probably true.
 
Tampa Jacket said:
PJs interview was interesting. I don’t disagree with anything he said. But he never acknowledged the obvious truth. And that was his triple-option system was as big as a handicap to his ability to recruit good players as the lack of money, alumni support or the size of our stadium.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. I am a big fan of CPJ for game management and winning big games but I agree some acknowledgement from him that the TO hurt recruiting would make me like him more. #1 is to win games, however I think it does matter that you have some players of NFL caliber. We weren't putting any in the NFL late in his career. Hand grenades will be rocks every time.
 
Tampa Jacket said:
PJs interview was interesting. I don’t disagree with anything he said. But he never acknowledged the obvious truth. And that was his triple-option system was as big as a handicap to his ability to recruit good players as the lack of money, alumni support or the size of our stadium.
Click to expand...

79tech said:
I agree with you. I am a big fan of CPJ for game management and winning big games but I agree some acknowledgement from him that the TO hurt recruiting would make me like him more. #1 is to win games, however I think it does matter that you have some players of NFL caliber. We weren't putting any in the NFL late in his career. Hand grenades will be rocks every time.
Click to expand...

Saying the offense was a hindrance would be foolish. His job is/was to overcome that perception with success. He argument is that we overachieved with what we had. Give him better tools to work with the results would be even better. Why would you then undermine yourself and say your success is limited by your offensive scheme? I'm sure PJ fully believes he could win a NC without having the resources of Clemson or Alabama. He proved he could do more with less. If we could have landed a handfull of 4*'s each year I think the results would have been Top 10 consistently. That success would change the narrative.
 
GT to AZ said:
Saying the offense was a hindrance would be foolish. His job is/was to overcome that perception with success. He argument is that we overachieved with what we had. Give him better tools to work with the results would be even better. Why would you then undermine yourself and say your success is limited by your offensive scheme? I'm sure PJ fully believes he could win a NC without having the resources of Clemson or Alabama. He proved he could do more with less. If we could have landed a handfull of 4*'s each year I think the results would have been Top 10 consistently. That success would change the narrative.
Click to expand...
“IF”
But he couldn’t land 4 stars, and not even good P5 3 stars towards the end. And his scheme was a large part of that problem. It would have been nice to hear him say it. But instead he throws 100% of the blame on GT.
 
ElCidBUZZingFAN said:
You again just said money wouldn’t help.

That’s dumb.

I can pull up quotes from Marco Coleman and Nate Burton when they were hired about how nice the new locker room is. They have perspective of old vs new Tech.

You actually think potential recruits didn’t share the same feeling thereby helping CPJ and staff close? That’s dumb but have fun with your PJ Derangement Syndrome.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think that fancy locker rooms were going to make top OL and DL talent want to chop and flop in the PJ offense for 4 years. That recruiting never budged under PJ is proof of that.

No amount of money would've made that scheme more attractive to the type of talent required to be really successful with it (Gailey's 07 class).

It's not dumb to be glad that stupid scheme and mediocre recruiting is gone. It's strange to still pine for it though.
 
GT to AZ said:
Saying the offense was a hindrance would be foolish. His job is/was to overcome that perception with success. He argument is that we overachieved with what we had. Give him better tools to work with the results would be even better. Why would you then undermine yourself and say your success is limited by your offensive scheme? I'm sure PJ fully believes he could win a NC without having the resources of Clemson or Alabama. He proved he could do more with less. If we could have landed a handfull of 4*'s each year I think the results would have been Top 10 consistently. That success would change the narrative.
Click to expand...

The scheme was a big reason why we did NOT land a handful of 4*s each year. You can't separate the scheme from recruiting - they go hand in hand.
 
This football season has not been as enjoyable without watching GT option football. I hope cpj coaches a few more years.

It is very possible that Collins might be on a similar arc as Chad Morris.
 
Tampa Jacket said:
“IF”
But he couldn’t land 4 stars, and not even good P5 3 stars towards the end. And his scheme was a large part of that problem. It would have been nice to hear him say it. But instead he throws 100% of the blame on GT.
Click to expand...

He did land some, just not enough. And then we'd lose some for various reasons (academics, drugs). His argument is that if he had the funding of his peers recruiting would have been better. Not a guarantee, but its a fair argument and valid point that he could have used more support.
 
Lion82 said:
This football season has not been as enjoyable without watching GT option football. I hope cpj coaches a few more years.

It is very possible that Collins might be on a similar arc as Chad Morris.
Click to expand...

Hopefully we aren't stupid enough to fire a coach partway through his second season.
 
johncu said:
Yes, we absolutely did short the program under CPJ.

Spending on Football Program in 2017:
  1. Florida State (No.2): $42.46 million
  2. Notre Dame* (No. 4): $38.97 million
  3. Clemson (No. 10): $34.67 million
  4. Virginia Tech (No. 16): $31.15 million
  5. Miami (No. 25): $28.47 million
  6. Duke (No. 36): $23.47 million
  7. North Carolina (No. 37): $23.46 million
  8. Louisville (No. 38): $23.43 million
  9. Syracuse (No. 39): $23.22 million
  10. Pittsburgh (No. 40): $23.13 million
  11. Boston College (No. 48): $21.35 million
  12. Virginia (No. 51): $20.33 million
  13. NC State (No. 54): $19.19 million
  14. Georgia Tech (No. 61): $17.38 million
  15. Wake Forest (No. 63): $16.61 million
Click to expand...
How the öööö öööö fuckity öööö did ööööing god damn ööööing dick sucking no count maggot cunt bitch DUKE SPEND MORE THAN US.

ööööing DUKE CAN EAT SHIT öööö. THEM
 
BigDanT said:
How the öööö öööö ööööity öööö did ööööing god damn ööööing dick sucking no count mag cunt bitch DUKE SPEND MORE THAN US.

ööööING DUKE CAN EAT öööö öööö. THEM
Click to expand...
This is what I imagine CPJ actually wanted to say.
 
18in32 said:
Interesting numbers, do you have the source? Or know how it was calculated? When I've looked into this myself in the past, it has been very difficult to compare apples-to-apples, because every school reports things differently.

For example, if the school charters a plane every time the football coach needs to make in-home appearances in four states in one day, it is pretty easy to put that cost in the football column. But if they've got a school plane that's used by the entire school (President and all coaches and so forth), but 27% of the time for football, they may or may not make the effort to divide the annual operating cost among the various sports. They may just put the entire cost into a 'general' or 'shared' bucket. And then it looks like the plane-chartering school is spending less on football than the plane-owning school, even though the opposite is probably true.
Click to expand...
https://www.syracuse.com/orangefoot...ollege_football_where_does_syracuse_rank.html
 
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/
Equity in athletics data, easy to compare spending and revenue between schools.
My quick scan, appears Clemson football operating expenses 3x GT, recruiting expenses 2.5x GT.
I did the compare 4 schools thing with various programs in ACC.
Looks to me like pretty much nobody spends like we do and gets better results. Plenty spend a lot more with same or worse results.
 
pianoman said:
Looks to me like pretty much nobody spends like we do and gets better results. Plenty spend a lot more with same or worse results.
Click to expand...
Yup exactly. Giving more money doesn't mean we would have guaranteed success, but the current level of money meant we were operating at our ceiling. Hopefully, TStan keeps helping with funding and CGC is capable of making good use of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top