Bill Shanks interviews PJ

johncu said:
The more money and staff you have to focus on scouting and recruiting, the more your coaches can focus on coaching and just serve as closers when it comes to recruiting. Obviously money wouldn't solve all our problems, but it would absolutely make a difference.

You love to harp on the fact that Duke caught up to us in football, but are completely ignoring the fact that they are outspending us by a wide margin and have been for years. Are you really that ignorant, or are you being willfully blind? Dabo's a great guy, but don't you think all that money pouring into IPTAY has a pretty big effect on their recruiting?

The rest of your post is so pathetic it's not even worth a response. Your little rants like this are every bit as bad as the GT fans celebrating our losses because they're butthurt about CPJ leaving.
Click to expand...

Mostly agree, but were we spending significantly more pre-CPJ when we had the 2007 class? Are we spending significantly more now to be recruiting the way we are?
 
savbandjacket said:
I salute those who became Tech fans with Johnson and stayed.

But this group of option enthusiasts who arrived with Johnson and have more or less departed with Johnson (save staying around to crap on Tech) can get bent. That group of “fans” is like locusts.
Click to expand...

The bolded part is what's most annoying. If you were only interested in PJ's offense, fine, but you don't need to stick around and let everyone know that you're no longer a fan.

If you break up with someone, hopefully you're not following them around to point out that you don't want them back.
 
18in32 said:
No, it was detected while CCG was coach, but the infractions occurred overwhelmingly under GOL's tenure. Here's the NCAA press release if you care to investigate further.
Click to expand...

While the incident of 11 (10 football and 1 other) athletes being declared academically ineligible in (May 2003, what I refer to as "Flunkgate") and the probation (November 2005) both occurred under Gailey, I have always understood them to be two totally separate incidents that seem to get conflated here and elsewhere. For "Flunkgate", there were 10 football players declared ineligible to play unless their academic standing was improved. To my knowledge, they never played while ineligible. I could certainly be wrong. The probation was obviously for actually playing academically ineligible players mainly due to credits issues which many associate with the quarters to semesters transition and improper certification by our Compliance folks. If there is some overlap between the 10 football players declared ineligible in 2003 and the 11 cited by the probation handed down from the NCAA, then I am open to an enhanced history lesson.

You are correct that the infractions cited by the NCAA for the probation largely occurred under O'Leary.

However, my point was that the loss of 10 football players in 2003 (again, what I call "Flunkgate") occurred under Gailey potentially affecting his tenure here and not affecting O'Leary's. The probation penalties also potentially affected Gailey's tenure as well I would think.

Anyway, if I am improperly separating the two, please enlighten me. Being serious.
 
johncu said:
The more money and staff you have to focus on scouting and recruiting, the more your coaches can focus on coaching and just serve as closers when it comes to recruiting. Obviously money wouldn't solve all our problems, but it would absolutely make a difference.

You love to harp on the fact that Duke caught up to us in football, but are completely ignoring the fact that they are outspending us by a wide margin and have been for years. Are you really that ignorant, or are you being willfully blind? Dabo's a great guy, but don't you think all that money pouring into IPTAY has a pretty big effect on their recruiting?

The rest of your post is so pathetic it's not even worth a response. Your little rants like this are every bit as bad as the GT fans celebrating our losses because they're butthurt about CPJ leaving.
Click to expand...
I am amazed that Duke is outspending us unless their basketball program is subsidizing the football program.
 
AugustaJacket said:
While the incident of 11 (10 football and 1 other) athletes being declared academically ineligible in (May 2003, what I refer to as "Flunkgate") and the probation (November 2005) both occurred under Gailey, I have always understood them to be two totally separate incidents that seem to get conflated here and elsewhere. For "Flunkgate", there were 10 football players declared ineligible to play unless their academic standing was improved. To my knowledge, they never played while ineligible. I could certainly be wrong. The probation was obviously for actually playing academically ineligible players mainly due to credits issues which many associate with the quarters to semesters transition and improper certification by our Compliance folks. If there is some overlap between the 10 football players declared ineligible in 2003 and the 11 cited by the probation handed down from the NCAA, then I am open to an enhanced history lesson.

You are correct that the infractions cited by the NCAA for the probation largely occurred under O'Leary.

However, my point was that the loss of 10 football players in 2003 (again, what I call "Flunkgate") occurred under Gailey potentially affecting his tenure here and not affecting O'Leary's. The probation penalties also potentially affected Gailey's tenure as well I would think.

Anyway, if I am improperly separating the two, please enlighten me. Being serious.
Click to expand...
This is some distant, obscure history, but I guess we should try to get it right. The long and short of it is that Flunkgate is the term we used to describe the entire situation.

CCG's first year was 2002. In May 2003, the school announced that 11 S/A's (10 of them football players, including fairly important players Tony Hollings and Tony Hargrove) would be ineligible for the entire 2003 season. (Both then went pro, Hollings via the Supplemental Draft, Hargrove via the regular draft.)

The NCAA investigated Tech, however, and concluded that GT's 2003 investigation was inadequate. We had overlooked a bunch of stuff, and not recognized the magnitude of the problem – all of which is what led to the 2005 penalties. (From the NCAA press release: "The report also noted that the institution investigated the matter in 2003, but failed to uncover the full scope of the problem. It was only after an investigation by the NCAA enforcement staff that the full details of the case came to light.")

The specific players identified by Tech as ineligible in 2003 (10 of the 11 being football players), and the specific players identified by the NCAA in 2005 as having been ineligible in the 1999-2005 time period (11 of the 17 being football players) would presumably have had some overlap. But that's kinda beside the point...

For purposes of the term "Flunkgate," it would have been the same systemic/administrative/procedural failure to ensure progress-toward-degree that got them all in trouble, both under GOL and under CCG. So I don't see any reason to distinguish Tech's voluntary forward-looking declaration of ineligibility in 2003 from the NCAA's backwards-looking declaration of ineligibility in 2005. It's all Flunkgate, man.

As for which coach deserves blame, the problem began under GOL. CCG arrived and inherited processes which were inadequate. Obviously as the head coach CCG's responsible for all of it, but it is easier to see why he might have given our processes the benefit of the doubt since they'd been in use for years under the previous coach.
 
gtfan088 said:
Mostly agree, but were we spending significantly more pre-CPJ when we had the 2007 class? Are we spending significantly more now to be recruiting the way we are?
Click to expand...
I think we can agree that the 2007 class was an outlier. Every one of our other post-APR classes has been very similar.

And I'm pretty sure we have started spending more and hiring more staff than we did under CPJ. I seem to remember multiple new positions being hired under CGC, and it's about damn time. Obviously the recruiting uptick is more about marketing our new direction, but monetary backing certainly doesn't hurt, and it will be crucial if we want to recruit top 25 classes regularly.
 
18in32 said:
This is some distant, obscure history, but I guess we should try to get it right. The long and short of it is that Flunkgate is the term we used to describe the entire situation.

CCG's first year was 2002. In May 2003, the school announced that 11 S/A's (10 of them football players, including fairly important players Tony Hollings and Tony Hargrove) would be ineligible for the entire 2003 season. (Both then went pro, Hollings via the Supplemental Draft, Hargrove via the regular draft.)

The NCAA investigated Tech, however, and concluded that GT's 2003 investigation was inadequate. We had overlooked a bunch of stuff, and not recognized the magnitude of the problem – all of which is what led to the 2005 penalties. (From the NCAA press release: "The report also noted that the institution investigated the matter in 2003, but failed to uncover the full scope of the problem. It was only after an investigation by the NCAA enforcement staff that the full details of the case came to light.")

The specific players identified by Tech as ineligible in 2003 (10 of the 11 being football players), and the specific players identified by the NCAA in 2005 as having been ineligible in the 1999-2005 time period (11 of the 17 being football players) would presumably have had some overlap. But that's kinda beside the point...

For purposes of the term "Flunkgate," it would have been the same systemic/administrative/procedural failure to ensure progress-toward-degree that got them all in trouble, both under GOL and under CCG. So I don't see any reason to distinguish Tech's voluntary forward-looking declaration of ineligibility in 2003 from the NCAA's backwards-looking declaration of ineligibility in 2005. It's all Flunkgate, man.

As for which coach deserves blame, the problem began under GOL. CCG arrived and inherited processes which were inadequate. Obviously as the head coach CCG's responsible for all of it, but it is easier to see why he might have given our processes the benefit of the doubt since they'd been in use for years under the previous coach.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I appreciate the clarification. My original comment was not at all in the context of who deserved blame. You had disagreed with the idea that GT could not consistently finish ranked (Top 25/Top 10) and offered CGO's record as proof. Another poster chimed in and stated that O'Leary also had Flunkgate with the apparent implication that not only did his teams finish well, but that he also had to deal with the effects of Flunkgate. My point was that the loss of 10 players occurred in 2003 "under Gailey" i.e. during his time as HC thereby potentially affecting his teams' record on the field. It did not affect O'Leary IOW.
 
johncu said:
I think we can agree that the 2007 class was an outlier. Every one of our other post-APR classes has been very similar.

And I'm pretty sure we have started spending more and hiring more staff than we did under CPJ. I seem to remember multiple new positions being hired under CGC, and it's about damn time. Obviously the recruiting uptick is more about marketing our new direction, but monetary backing certainly doesn't hurt, and it will be crucial if we want to recruit top 25 classes regularly.
Click to expand...

I brought up 2007 more to imply that the difference in recruiting is largely related to Collins. It's probably fair to say that not just anyone can recruit top 25 classes to Tech, especially given where we've generally stood financially.
 
johncu said:
The more money and staff you have to focus on scouting and recruiting, the more your coaches can focus on coaching and just serve as closers when it comes to recruiting. Obviously money wouldn't solve all our problems, but it would absolutely make a difference.

You love to harp on the fact that Duke caught up to us in football, but are completely ignoring the fact that they are outspending us by a wide margin and have been for years. Are you really that ignorant, or are you being willfully blind? Dabo's a great guy, but don't you think all that money pouring into IPTAY has a pretty big effect on their recruiting?

The rest of your post is so pathetic it's not even worth a response. Your little rants like this are every bit as bad as the GT fans celebrating our losses because they're butthurt about CPJ leaving.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah? Well you love to harp on the fact that Duke has been "outspending us by a wide margin and have been for years." yet their recruiting rankings are very similar to ours.

For all the money Duke is spending, they haven't become a factory. They've not cracked the top-40 in recruiting. Yet, this similarly-talented team has absolutely dominated us since 2014. Are you willfully ignorant that PJ's scheme was no longer any sort of advantage for us against similar-talent teams like Duke, UVA, and Pitt? Or are you willfully blind?

The rest of your post is so pathetic, it's not worth a response. Just more personal nonsense to try to cover up the fact that, with 2 exceptions (one of which included an ass-beatdown by Duke and the other with Gailey's recruits), PJ wasn't the Jesus Christ Savior of our program that so many Johnsonians wish to believe.

And again, no amount of money spent was going to get the stench of that scheme off the program's ability to recruit, esp. on the OL and DL. We weren't beating the mutts nor Clemson again, as long as PJ was HC. No amount of money was gonna change that either.
 
gtfan088 said:
I brought up 2007 more to imply that the difference in recruiting is largely related to Collins. It's probably fair to say that not just anyone can recruit top 25 classes to Tech, especially given where we've generally stood financially.
Click to expand...
That's fair. We hired him to recruit, and he's doing exactly that. I'm just saying that more financial support absolutely could have mitigated some of the recruiting issues we had under CPJ, and it would absolutely help CGC recruit at an even higher level.
 
AugustaJacket said:
Thank you. I appreciate the clarification. My original comment was not at all in the context of who deserved blame. You had disagreed with the idea that GT could not consistently finish ranked (Top 25/Top 10) and offered CGO's record as proof. Another poster chimed in and stated that O'Leary also had Flunkgate with the apparent implication that not only did his teams finish well, but that he also had to deal with the effects of Flunkgate. My point was that the loss of 10 players occurred in 2003 "under Gailey" i.e. during his time as HC thereby potentially affecting his teams' record on the field. It did not affect O'Leary IOW.
Click to expand...
Ok, that makes sense.

And, FWIW, I don't intend to offer GOL's record as proof we could finish in the Top 10 consistently. I was just commenting on the obscure but interesting fact that GOL's record of 5 straight postseason AP finishes was the best in GT history.
 
RamblinWreck92 said:
Oh yeah? Well you love to harp on the fact that Duke has been "outspending us by a wide margin and have been for years." yet their recruiting rankings are very similar to ours.

For all the money Duke is spending, they haven't become a factory. They've not cracked the top-40 in recruiting. Yet, this similarly-talented team has absolutely dominated us since 2014. Are you willfully ignorant that PJ's scheme was no longer any sort of advantage for us against similar-talent teams like Duke, UVA, and Pitt? Or are you willfully blind?
Click to expand...
This is such a stupid argument. You were all about us getting "dominated" by VT until we started beating them, and now you've flipped to Duke.

Yes, Duke owned us the last few years. Cutcliffe outcoached CPJ, just like he outcoached CGC and co. this year. But we had beaten UVA 2 of the last 3 years and 5 of the last 7. We're 3-3 against Pitt since they joined the ACC.

I don't know what to say to you regarding the scheme not helping. We went from perennially being one of the top 3 offenses in the ACC running the 3O to one of the worst offenses in all of Power 5. The scheme is pretty much the ONLY reason we won as much as we did. We can go back and forth all day long about its effect on recruiting, with some legitimate arguments to be made for both sides. It's a pretty tired argument at this point, though.

The fact is, we didn't do shit from an administrative level to support our recruiting efforts. It's pretty clear that MBob did not want CPJ as coach, and was not willing to shell out for upgraded facilities, better assistant coaches, or an expanded recruiting office. Duke did all of that for Cutcliffe, and their program went from bottom-dweller to mediocre, and even won a division title in the process. That's an embarrassment that Duke, with basically no history whatsoever, would support their program more than us.
 
johncu said:
You love to harp on the fact that Duke caught up to us in football, but are completely ignoring the fact that they are outspending us by a wide margin and have been for years.
Click to expand...

FWIW, even though we struggled with Duke starting in 2014, we still finished ahead of them in the conference standings all but one year (2015). So even with the increased spending, I'd argue that they didn't catch up to us in the grand scheme; they just had our number (although the spending certainly helped close the gap).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlantic_Coast_Conference_football_standings
 
Last edited:
RamblinWreck92 said:
The lack of money is just another excuse. The guy refused to get in his SUV and recruit metro ATL effectively. He was more interested in Xs and Os than what it took to run a top-notch P5 program. We aren't Navy and we sure as öööö ain't Southern.
For all the $$ Duke is spending, they're recruiting at a very similar level to us, yet dominated PJ's last half of his time here.
No amount of $$ was going to get a 2008-type class to commit to playing in PJ's scheme nor on any of his defenses. We were going to be a QB Keeper offense with small OL guys diving at ankles, ignored WRs, ööööty PKs, dismal defense, ignored ST, and people complaining about Sewak for as long as PJ was here, I don't give a crap if we gave him a billion $$$.
The excuse making got old - glad it's over and we have a guy in there now who at least talks positively rather than the negative BS all the time.
Click to expand...

Funding at Clemson pre-2009 vs Funding at Clemson 2010 forward.

I rest my case.
 
veerbone said:
OK, O Leary had success, but it was a down period for college football as a whole, and no one outside of Atlanta doesn't consider Colorado the 1990 national Champs.

There won't be another period like that again. The bluebloods are committed to spending whatever it takes to stay on top.
Click to expand...
I think others have debunked this, but this is not accurate. Lee Corso said a couple of times that he felt Tech should not have had to split, being they were the only unbeaten and I think others have the same feeling. My point is, I'm sure you can find a person who would agree with you and say that Colorado is undisputed. Hey, I'm sure there are a lot of people like that in Boulder! But, if no one outside of Atlanta believed Tech was a worthy #1, they would have been voted #2. In fact, so many coaches were uncomfortable with Colorado's resume that Tech was the first program in HISTORY to jump a sitting #1 after the #1 had won a bowl game.
 
johncu said:
I think we can agree that the 2007 class was an outlier. Every one of our other post-APR classes has been very similar.

And I'm pretty sure we have started spending more and hiring more staff than we did under CPJ. I seem to remember multiple new positions being hired under CGC, and it's about damn time. Obviously the recruiting uptick is more about marketing our new direction, but monetary backing certainly doesn't hurt, and it will be crucial if we want to recruit top 25 classes regularly.
Click to expand...

Yeah that class really is an outlier. It was sort of incredible how good it was. It was a legit top 15 class with 3 guys that seemed like sure NFL players (and were).

Now O'Leary was consistently around the 20-30 range I think and something good was going on around 1990 because it isn't only that we won that year but a ton of those guys made the NFL.

My hope is that Collins is around 25 a year (or better), with few classes lower than 30 (some years the ratings are very tight so it might not matter) but can land a top 15 class maybe once every 4 years. Not sure it is possible or probably but that is my "goal".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top