Paul Johnson's 2-Year Contract Extension Prompts State Of The Program Debate

We already know why 2015 was so bad. Even UF ran into some very down years after having a natty in the last decade. Significant injuries can hamper a team quickly. 17 was more of an issue, particularly with all of the seniors.
 
eg1 said:
I still have the t-shirt. The NCAA can come pry it from my cold, dead hands ... :infu:
Click to expand...
NjEyNWQ1ZjA2YSMvTEdsNFdsMWdpYWhEYjIwOGEtc21kRXZuTmFJPS84eDg6NDM2OHgyNzU4LzgwMHg0NTAvZmlsdGVyczpmb3JtYXQoanBlZyk6cXVhbGl0eSg4MCkvaHR0cHM6Ly9zMy5hbWF6b25hd3MuY29tL3BvbGljeW1pYy1pbWFnZXMvYzE1ODhkMWUzN2FhOTA3YzdlZjgyYWVkY2M1MDVmYjBjNzM3YmZiMmI3N2JhMTVkOTNhMDFmYWRhMmM2NGUzZS5qcGc.jpg
 
GTFLETCH said:
Q. So you think Johnson’s extension is the right move?

A. I think Georgia Tech has a future Hall of Fame coach on campus and he has earned the right to lead the program.[/QUOTE]

Hells yess!! Who is this guy. Lets get him on the staff!!
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
BrentwoodJacket said:
I do not agree with the comparison to Vanderbilt and the other private schools. They have much more flexibility than we do, Vanderbilt merged with the Peabody Teachers College years ago. They can recruit anyone who meets the NCAA minimums. I suspect the other private schools have the same low threshold. The only schools with the same academic restrictions are the service schools.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Private schools can pretty much do whatever they want as long as it doesnt violate their conference minimum or their academic accreditation (e.g. UNCheat). Only a handful of non-academy schools can really compare to GT's restrictions, namely ND and Stanford (both of whom recruit very well, ironically). I'm not familiar with Duke's restrictions but I would guess they are similar to ours too.
 
"Does this mean TS is all in on Johnson?"

$h!t - What dweeb would say that someone is on Johnson?
 
TampaBayJacket said:
Exactly. Private schools can pretty much do whatever they want as long as it doesnt violate their conference minimum or their academic accreditation (e.g. UNCheat). Only a handful of non-academy schools can really compare to GT's restrictions, namely ND and Stanford (both of whom recruit very well, ironically). I'm not familiar with Duke's restrictions but I would guess they are similar to ours too.
Click to expand...
It is not, and never has been, about the academic restrictions. It is about the curriculum and the lack of courses/majors that can be used to move athletes along toward graduation. Tech has nothing like "Parks & Recreation" or "Exercise Theory" that all liberal arts schools, whether they be Notre Dame or UAB, have. Admissions has to predict how a recruit will perform taking Tech's curriculum. If, based upon their tests scores and their high school transcripts, they can't reach a minimum expectation, they don't get in, can't be offered. Same kid projects as a Dean's List performer at Clempsen or Ole Miss. Cum Laude at LSU. It is what it is.
 
Yukonwreck said:
It is not, and never has been, about the academic restrictions. It is about the curriculum and the lack of courses/majors that can be used to move athletes along toward graduation. Tech has nothing like "Parks & Recreation" or "Exercise Theory" that all liberal arts schools, whether they be Notre Dame or UAB, have. Admissions has to predict how a recruit will perform taking Tech's curriculum. If, based upon their tests scores and their high school transcripts, they can't reach a minimum expectation, they don't get in, can't be offered. Same kid projects as a Dean's List performer at Clempsen or Ole Miss. Cum Laude at LSU. It is what it is.
Click to expand...
I believe ND and Stanford have similar curriculum challenges in that they dont have "athlete friendly" courses. Even a liberal arts degree like History at Stanford is a legit major with significant work. Thus, these athletes are real students. ND and Stanford recruit very well, but they definitely have a niche market over GT (ND is the destination school for all catholics while a Stanford degree sells itself).

Edit: I stand corrected on Stanford. They have the infamous <insert topic> Studies degree programs, including the UNCheat special, African Studies.
https://majors.stanford.edu/majors/31
 
I think it was a very fair and well written article.
Like it or not, most of it was true.
 
EffinDane said:
I, too, would like to take Tech private.
Click to expand...

Why? To what end?

How do we know this will help GTAA?

It will hurt us P/R wise, not unlike leaving the SEC.

And, as probable as not, would give the Hill Nerds carte Blanche to do what they want.

Before ever going “private”, I would want to see certain things carved into stone and sanctified by blood.
 
I like CPJ, but I don’t like the 3O. It kind of reminds me of hockey. There’s a lot of activity going on and then a red light goes on. I guess somebody did something good, but I don’t know what they did or how they did it, just all of a sudden that red light goes on and everybody starts cheering. Maybe if they made the hockey puck a lot bigger so you could see it, things would be different.
 
GTFLETCH said:
The result was an interesting discussion from Tech fans on the state of the program. So let's weigh in:

Q. Does this mean athletics director Todd Stansbury is all in on Johnson?

A. At this point, yes. But it also has become customary in the business for coaches to carry at least four years on their contracts so they will be able to look at recruits and parents and tell them they are signed for the same length of time the recruits will be on campus. It’s a tougher recruiting sell if the coach is carrying less than four years.

Q. Are Tech fans on board with this decision?

A. The fan base is split, but that’s not unusual for any program after having two losing seasons in three years. If there's a wild guess, the Tech split appears to somewhere in the 65-35 range, with 65 percent in favor of the extension. Those who have been with the program for years seem to have a better grasp of reality vs. expectations. And Paul Johnson’s performance at Tech has given him a much longer rope than some of the other coaches who have led the program. Tech fans don’t enjoy losing seasons, but Johnson has given the program two ACC titles (I know, one was taken away), two Orange Bowl appearances and has beaten Georgia three times in Athens. In short, for every bad moment Johnson has had at Tech, he's provided two, sometimes three, good ones.

Q. You mention expectations. Why are they so low?

A. I don't know if low is the right word. It's more reality-based. Because of the academic workload and available curriculum, Nick Saban could take over the Tech program tomorrow, and in three years, still be an underdog against half the schedule. Opposing fans will tell you they don’t want to hear Tech play the “academic card,” but the central factor is this: The Tech program simply cannot recruit many of the athletes our competitors are signing. That is a known fact. There is a reason why Tech sometimes mirrors the football programs at Stanford, Duke, Virginia, Vanderbilt, etc.

Q. But wouldn’t Tech have a better chance recruiting kids who do qualify without the spread-option offense that Johnson runs?

A. Perhaps. Athletes who are considering Tech run into constant negative recruiting by other schools, and much of it is pointed toward Johnson’s offense and Tech’s academic workload. The kids are told they will not make it to the NFL after playing in Johnson’s system. But more than 20 Tech players have been drafted by NFL teams since Johnson arrived at Tech, and a host of others have been invited to NFL camps. Nine of the 22 came through Johnson’s offensive system – linemen, wide receivers and running backs. Oddly enough, most of the negative recruiting has been pointed at those positions.

Q. So you think that Johnson has a better chance to win at Tech than a young coach with a new system?

A. The tendency is to say yes, but after the Virginia-Duke debacles last season, you have to take a second look and wonder if ACC defenses are beginning to catch on. That said, you also have to wonder if Tech’s 3-stars can beat another team’s 5-stars by running the same offense that the other team is running. Would Army and Navy have the success they have had without the spread-option? Would Georgia Tech?

Q. Given the negative recruiting toward the offense and academics, what can Tech do to fix that?

A. The donor who gave $200,000 toward recruiting last week certainly didn't hurt the program. That gift jump-started a donor effort to bolster the overall recruiting effort. I think Stansbury gets it. He’s a former player who went through the athletic-academic gauntlet and knows what a degree from Tech can mean. He believes Tech needs to brand the Tech degree and the football program, rather than shy away from both. The key is identifying the qualified athletes earlier in the process and letting them know there is a perfect fit in Atlanta. The donor program will be a huge help. If you recall, Tech put much-needed resources toward recruiting a few years back, and the results are showing. Some really strong players signed with Tech in the 2017 and 2018 classes.

Q. So you think Johnson’s extension is the right move?

A. I think Georgia Tech has a future Hall of Fame coach on campus and he has earned the right to lead the program. Who are you going to get to replace him? The kids are graduating, and for the most part, have been great citizens. He has given Tech fans some enjoyable, big-time football seasons. There’s one other thing worth mentioning. Each year, TV announcers and opposing coaches go to great lengths to describe how much pressure Johnson’s offense puts on defenses throughout the ACC. They never mention how much pressure the Georgia Tech defense puts on the Georgia Tech offense. If new defensive coordinator Nate Woody can give Tech a top-notch defense, suddenly those 15-play, 9-minute drives and those one-play, 79-yard drives start looking pretty good. And the three-and-outs don’t kill you.

Link
http://thewhiteandgold.com/johnsons...mpts-state-of-the-program-debate-p565-250.htm
Click to expand...
 
77GTFan said:
I am concerned about the state of the program based on the fact that we have had two seasons out of three with a losing record and no bowl game. This comes after being able to avoid that outcome, sometimes just barely, for about an eighteen year run. I think we have to ask why the bottom has dropped a little. We need to look at issues of recruiting, player development, morale, energy, schemes, staff, etc. I don’t think it is time for a head coaching change, but it is time for evaluation and correction by CPJ and his staff.
Click to expand...

Very good comment.
One of the problems that few folks think about in regards to recruiting is--how many of those recruits are lost (for WHATEVER reason) from the program before they graduate.? This makes average recruiting even worse.From '13 -16 , we lost over 35% of the guys recruited into those classes.There was some talent going out the door.Think of Mills and Marshall being at Tech for 4 yrs possibly like the 2 tailbacks at uga this yr!
btw--just for fun I looked up a comparison.dook lost only 3 of 18 from '14 class. ( for those counting that's a bit better than our record) Those upperclassmen still there helped beat us this yr. hmmm
 
There is a reason why Tech sometimes mirrors the football programs at Stanford, Duke, Virginia, Vanderbilt, etc
Click to expand...
Uh, all of those mentioned schools, while outstanding academic institutions, have plenty of majors to hide athletes. Granted I'm sure basket weaving at Stanford is much harder than basket weaving at UGA, it's still basket weaving. Even Stanford has the infamous African Studies major.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top