I have a direct (hopefully simple) question on the coaching situation...

I'm not sure what he said would make you think any different.

If the only reason is "Because we always have" that's bad.

Now obviously, if there is a good reason to be doing something, "Because we always have" isn't the only reason.

Simple logic, my friend.
 
When my boss comes in and says, "why are you always reading about GT on the computer?"...I will automatically say, "because I always have".
 
Re: I will, if you promise not to put words in my mouth.

TechinItEasy said:
what he was trying to say is that if there is no good reason, and the only reason is "b/c we always have" then it needs to change.
Click to expand...

You don't make a change just because you (or anyone) don't know why it is being done. The only reason you would do that is if you don't know what to change, but you know the result you are getting is bad.

Additionally, sometimes longevity is a reason unto itself. If I knew nothing about designing cars, but I had the first 40 years worth of Jeeps to look over, I would probably choose an old leaf spring suspension.

Not that any of this has anything to do with DRad. That appears like he wanted to streamline the AA, which is good.
 
Re: I will, if you promise not to put words in my mouth.

WracerX said:
You don't make a change just because you (or anyone) don't know why it is being done. No but that should be a big reason to figure out why it is being done, and if the only reason you have is "Because we always have" then maybe it's time to look for a change(ie, the original argument)

The only reason you would do that is if you don't know what to change, but you know the result you are getting is bad. Bad like GT Football under the brainiac and chandler?

Additionally, sometimes longevity is a reason unto itself. If I knew nothing about designing cars, but I had the first 40 years worth of Jeeps to look over, I would probably choose an old leaf spring suspension. That why we hire people who have proper experience...

Not that any of this has anything to do with DRad. That appears like he wanted to streamline the AA, which is good. Agreed[/quote]
nt
Click to expand...
 
I'm beginning to wonder if we might not be better off not worrying about whether someone "understands how unique Tech is" as either a coach or AD.

I work with hospitals all over the mid Atlantic states and no matter what you want to talk about they will immediately tell you how different they are. Well, they are, but that doesn't mean bad processes and unsound practices are okay.

I'm more worried about whether a new AD or new coach knows what he's doing than whether they've bought into how we all think Tech should do things. If what we all think was right, we wouldn't have been in the hole financially and we wouldn't be complaining about our football program. Maybe it's time to worry about actual talent and then teach them what we think is different about Tech so they can craft a solution around the real diffferences not the perceived ones.
 
You might be right, nc.

Maybe success does translate across tiers of schools; maybe the learning curve can flatten quickly. It might be worth taking a chance on someone like Pat Hill (Fresno), who's a helluva coach who has never had to recruit or coach kids like those who come to GT. Can he do it? We'll never know if we don't go out on that kind of limb. Will our influential alums let us take that chance? That's a question for another post...
 
Coaches that do not want to deal with academics will not come to GT. We just need to make sure that coaches that are interested understand academic requirements for recruits and that they can be successful on the football field with these requirements. History suggests that we have been more successful than many other BCS programs that only have the minimum academic requirements.
 
I think we explain the do's and don'ts, the academic requirements and the support system in place, and let coaches self select. We can't assume a guy can't deal with that just because he never has and we limit our field if we do. I mean, Ross came from MD, which is a good school depending on the program, but obviously doesn't have the academic limitations Tech does.
 
I trust DRad to make the decision, but I also have a picture in my mind of the type of coach we may get. There are those saying he'll do what's best for GT on and off the field in picking a coach. I think he sees them as one and the same like many others here - winning at a consistently high level puts butts in the seats which eases the GTAA issues (CPH better start seeing that).

But there are two facets of his personality that I think will affect his selection. First, he always seems to want the outward appearance of making a favorable impression. It's almost Political Correctness, but with a marketing spin. Shined shoes, always knotted tie, perfect hair. He's going to look for an individual that fits the same mold. Second, while he is capable at public speaking, DRad always appears uncomfortable in more spontaneous social situations like he doesn't know the right thing to say or ask when gladhanding the fans, alumni, and donors. He's going to need a HC that can step into that position as an amiable point man.

Finding someone that can be a consistent winner requires speculation and projection. Coming up with someone that meets those other qualities is much less subjective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top