Stephen Hill just declared for the NFL draft.

[TechPreacher]

His 7th year in the program? You're nuts if you think that. If we miss bowl games the next two years, he doesn't deserve a 7th. He needs to be above Chan standards or we'll hire Bill O'Brien when PSU fires him after 3 years. If he hasn't put things in place by year 5, when all of the players are his recruits, the leash gets really short.

Yes, because, under CPJ, the scheme was so radically changed that, in effect, the "program" is only 4 years old right now. To fire him after 6 years and bring in anyone other than Jeff Monken is to start all over again at Year 0 in the program. Be realistic. Players only age one year at a time, and Tech will not have a senior-laden team with quality backup depth until 2014.

 

[GT1992]

Yes, because, under CPJ, the scheme was so radically changed that, in effect, the "program" is only 4 years old right now. To fire him after 6 years and bring in anyone other than Jeff Monken is to start all over again at Year 0 in the program. Be realistic. Players only age one year at a time, and Tech will not have a senior-laden team with quality backup depth until 2014.

He better produce decent results until then because the converse of that argument is that if we have to rebuild away from his system, we're better off starting now. So far, the results have been fine, so I expect him to still be here, but to make a blanket statement that it takes 7 years to create a successful program that had already been making bowl games isn't realistic in today's college football culture. Just look at Turner Gill, he wasn't even allowed to get his recruits on the field.

 

[jacketup]

Yes, because, under CPJ, the scheme was so radically changed that, in effect, the "program" is only 4 years old right now. To fire him after 6 years and bring in anyone other than Jeff Monken is to start all over again at Year 0 in the program. Be realistic. Players only age one year at a time, and Tech will not have a senior-laden team with quality backup depth until 2014.

Unfortunately, you are correct. As I said when PJ was hired, he was a risky hire that was a threat to the program. GT's Sagarin ranking under PJ is worse than Gailey's for year 3 and year 4 of their respective regiemes. Next year is likely to be the same. Your 2014 number assumes good recruiting, and it's not happening.

GTAA can't afford to fire the guy, since he is paid $2,4MM a year and attendance is getting worse. As you point out, if they do fire him, recruiting to a different scheme would mean almost starting over.

The big donors' decision to override Radakovich on the coaching hire is a decision that involved taking a huge risk, and it is a risk that may haunt GT for years to come. Contrary to what some people will interpret, I don't blame PJ for this situation. The problem is the leadership vacuum that occured when Homer retired and Kim King died.

 

[ncjacket]

3 years with mostly CCG's players, early attrition, and recruiting busts. We are just now beginning to see what CPJ can do, with the 2011 and 2012 classes coming on board. I agree with you, once the program is established; however, the program is no where near being, what I would call, established. 2014 will be the first year of "establishment" under CPJ.

No one will buy taking that long to establish your program. I agree that by then he should be rolling pretty consistently, but he has to start showing more beginning next year. You will always have strengths and weaknesses, but we need to see continued improvement.

 

[GT1992]

If he loses both to UGA and a bowl the next two years in a row, there won't be a year seven.

 

[refrigeratormover]

If he loses both to UGA and a bowl the next two years in a row, there won't be a year seven.

Why?

 

[GT1992]

Why?

Same reason Chan was run out of town. I guess if he went to an ACC Championship he might get another, but not beating our primary rival and losing every bowl game has really started to leave fans a bad taste in their mouth for the 8 months before next season. You're already starting to see some of the fans start to doubt the direction and a couple more repeats would point toward Johnson's early success be at least partially attributable to Gailey's recruiting.

Personally, I'm not giving up yet, but I hadn't given up on Chan either just one year removed from an ACC Championship appearance. I'd also have to see when his contract runs out. That could buy him another year. My expectation is that we win double digit games two years from now making the discussion moot.

 

[TechPreacher]

2-9, 3-8, 6-4-1, 6-5, 5-6, 2-8-1. Do you know what those numbers are? Beamer's records in his first 6 seasons at vpi. Need I tell you what his records are in his last 18 seasons at vpi? Tech fans need to ask themselves this question: Isn't suffering through 5, 6, 7, or even 8 seasons of disappointments worth it, if it means that, for the following decade or longer, we will have a winning program that competes at the highest level? For me, the answer is simple. I believe that CPJ is the right coach for Tech for the next 10 - 15 years. What a novel idea -- actually keeping a winning coach long enough to build something of value. Or, we could always just do what we always have done. We could get another 9 HCs in the next 45 years, and see where that gets us. Sounds like insanity to me....

 

[Malone]

Preach it, TechPreacher!

Amen!

 

[lonestarjacket]

Yep, all those arguments were being made to keep Chan as well. Did not work.

And if Beamer's replacement whenever he retires starts out like Beamer did after winning seasons under Beamer then he will not last four years. Times have changed.

If you truly think our team will not improve much in the next two years and look forward to a long successful tenure by CPJ then prepare to be disappointed. I do not expect him to be canned, but only because I DO expect improvement in the next two years.

Another premature defection to the NFL is not an additional excuse, if anything it may be an additional problem.

 

[TechSBP]

2-9, 3-8, 6-4-1, 6-5, 5-6, 2-8-1. Do you know what those numbers are? Beamer's records in his first 6 seasons at vpi. Need I tell you what his records are in his last 18 seasons at vpi? Tech fans need to ask themselves this question: Isn't suffering through 5, 6, 7, or even 8 seasons of disappointments worth it, if it means that, for the following decade or longer, we will have a winning program that competes at the highest level? For me, the answer is simple. I believe that CPJ is the right coach for Tech for the next 10 - 15 years. What a novel idea -- actually keeping a winning coach long enough to build something of value. Or, we could always just do we always have done. We could get another 9 HCs in the next 45 years, and see where that gets us. Sounds like insanity to me....

There are very few Frank Beamers. By this logic, Bill Lewis, would still be head coach at GT if we had only not fired him. Ron Zook would still be at UF or alternatively, Illinois. Bob Davie would still be at Notre Dame. And I venture to say, by those standards, Mike Locksley would be the head coach at Texas by now.

A coach should get six years to show what they can do. So far, I'm optimistic about Johnson.

But six years is generous, appropriate, and more than enough time.

I think he'll do well enough to earn a few more years, and you can then see what year seven is like.

 

[GT1992]

2-9, 3-8, 6-4-1, 6-5, 5-6, 2-8-1. Do you know what those numbers are? Beamer's records in his first 6 seasons at vpi. Need I tell you what his records are in his last 18 seasons at vpi? Tech fans need to ask themselves this question: Isn't suffering through 5, 6, 7, or even 8 seasons of disappointments worth it, if it means that, for the following decade or longer, we will have a winning program that competes at the highest level? For me, the answer is simple. I believe that CPJ is the right coach for Tech for the next 10 - 15 years. What a novel idea -- actually keeping a winning coach long enough to build something of value. Or, we could always just do we always have done. We could get another 9 HCs in the next 45 years, and see where that gets us. Sounds like insanity to me....

Insanity is what Dave Braine, who kept Beamer and saddled us with Hewitt's contract, is all about. Dooley left VT under a cloud of controversy and Beamer (a popular VT alum) was given time, like Gailey was, to fix it. The real question is whether this offense can work at a BCS school without the recruiting. Chan eventually figured it out and I think Johnson will too, but so far, we haven't seen his players (which were on the field this year) be able to physically compete with strong/big teams.

I don't think any of us are calling for his head, but if we can't win pissant bowl games and compete with Georgia over the next couple of years, the logical conclusion will be that he isn't the right fit given both his own recruiting and on field performance. Six years is enough to determine whether it is working. So far, we're beating the teams that Chan did, having one or two big wins per year, and losing games at the end of the year just like Chan. The difference being that we've had Mississippi State and Kansas as our big OOC opponents instead of Auburn and Notre Dame.

In the meantime, our best players seem to be leaving as soon as they can, even when they aren't predicted to be drafted. That's the downside of CPJ's system, on offense, it doesn't help the players looking at the NFL.

We're not his enemies, we're the canary in the mine. If the problems don't get fixed in the next couple of years, it will be time to move on. That's a lot more time than Gill, Neuheisel, and a host of other coaches have been given. What more do you want? Blind faith will only take you so far.

 

[ncjacket]

2-9, 3-8, 6-4-1, 6-5, 5-6, 2-8-1. Do you know what those numbers are? Beamer's records in his first 6 seasons at vpi. Need I tell you what his records are in his last 18 seasons at vpi? Tech fans need to ask themselves this question: Isn't suffering through 5, 6, 7, or even 8 seasons of disappointments worth it, if it means that, for the following decade or longer, we will have a winning program that competes at the highest level? For me, the answer is simple. I believe that CPJ is the right coach for Tech for the next 10 - 15 years. What a novel idea -- actually keeping a winning coach long enough to build something of value. Or, we could always just do we always have done. We could get another 9 HCs in the next 45 years, and see where that gets us. Sounds like insanity to me....

That was a long time ago. Things have changed in college football since then if you haven't noticed. I am not suggesting we need to be thinking about a coaching change, but to suggest it takes 6 years to get a program going is just wrong. I think we will start seeing a real change in the team next year simply because QB play has been holding us back. I expect TW to take the next step because if he doesn't he won't be the starter and that we will start to see the offense as it can be.

 

[Lee34102]

Insanity is what Dave Braine, who kept Beamer and saddled us with Hewitt's contract, is all about. Dooley left VT under a cloud of controversy and Beamer (a popular VT alum) was given time, like Gailey was, to fix it. The real question is whether this offense can work at a BCS school without the recruiting. Chan eventually figured it out and I think Johnson will too, but so far, we haven't seen his players (which were on the field this year) be able to physically compete with strong/big teams.

I don't think any of us are calling for his head, but if we can't win pissant bowl games and compete with Georgia over the next couple of years, the logical conclusion will be that he isn't the right fit given both his own recruiting and on field performance. Six years is enough to determine whether it is working. So far, we're beating the teams that Chan did, having one or two big wins per year, and losing games at the end of the year just like Chan. The difference being that we've had Mississippi State and Kansas as our big OOC opponents instead of Auburn and Notre Dame.

In the meantime, our best players seem to be leaving as soon as they can, even when they aren't predicted to be drafted. That's the downside of CPJ's system, on offense, it doesn't help the players looking at the NFL.

We're not his enemies, we're the canary in the mine. If the problems don't get fixed in the next couple of years, it will be time to move on. That's a lot more time than Gill, Neuheisel, and a host of other coaches have been given. What more do you want? Blind faith will only take you so far.

Just a flat out excellent post which pretty much perfectly characterizes the realities of the situation right now. The insight and logical analysis outlined here is simply undeniable.....kudos!................

 

[gt_thwg]

Insanity is what Dave Braine, who kept Beamer and saddled us with Hewitt's contract, is all about. Dooley left VT under a cloud of controversy and Beamer (a popular VT alum) was given time, like Gailey was, to fix it. The real question is whether this offense can work at a BCS school without the recruiting. Chan eventually figured it out and I think Johnson will too, but so far, we haven't seen his players (which were on the field this year) be able to physically compete with strong/big teams.

I don't think any of us are calling for his head, but if we can't win pissant bowl games and compete with Georgia over the next couple of years, the logical conclusion will be that he isn't the right fit given both his own recruiting and on field performance. Six years is enough to determine whether it is working. So far, we're beating the teams that Chan did, having one or two big wins per year, and losing games at the end of the year just like Chan. The difference being that we've had Mississippi State and Kansas as our big OOC opponents instead of Auburn and Notre Dame.

In the meantime, our best players seem to be leaving as soon as they can, even when they aren't predicted to be drafted. That's the downside of CPJ's system, on offense, it doesn't help the players looking at the NFL.

We're not his enemies, we're the canary in the mine. If the problems don't get fixed in the next couple of years, it will be time to move on. That's a lot more time than Gill, Neuheisel, and a host of other coaches have been given. What more do you want? Blind faith will only take you so far.

+1 The honeymoon is over - it's time to put up or shut up. Personally, I like CPJ and I think he's a good fit for GT, but he has to get some results. He's still winless in bowl games - and not just against good teams anymore - and his solitary UGA win is starting to look like a fluke. CPJ isn't outsmarting anybody anymore, so now he's got to show that he can bring in the horses and take care of business.

 

[BioJacket06]

Anyone consider that this may be the product of the hill locking down who the coaches can and can't enroll? I don't think coaching is the problem.

 

[The Champ]

The real question is whether this offense can work at a BCS school without the recruiting. Chan eventually figured it out and I think Johnson will too, but so far, we haven't seen his players (which were on the field this year) be able to physically compete with strong/big teams.

I don't think any of us are calling for his head, but if we can't win pissant bowl games and compete with Georgia over the next couple of years, the logical conclusion will be that he isn't the right fit given both his own recruiting and on field performance. Six years is enough to determine whether it is working. So far, we're beating the teams that Chan did, having one or two big wins per year, and losing games at the end of the year just like Chan. The difference being that we've had Mississippi State and Kansas as our big OOC opponents instead of Auburn and Notre Dame.

In the meantime, our best players seem to be leaving as soon as they can, even when they aren't predicted to be drafted. That's the downside of CPJ's system, on offense, it doesn't help the players looking at the NFL.

We're not his enemies, we're the canary in the mine. If the problems don't get fixed in the next couple of years, it will be time to move on. That's a lot more time than Gill, Neuheisel, and a host of other coaches have been given. What more do you want? Blind faith will only take you so far.

+1

 

[TechSBP]

Anyone consider that this may be the product of the hill locking down who the coaches can and can't enroll? I don't think coaching is the problem.

I don't expect to be a consistent 10 win team because of the Hill. We need 8-10 exceptions per year. Just like under O'Leary.

The value of my degree was not diminished by flunkgate.

So long as we don't commit academic fraud, a few players with less ability is fine. We should hire someone from a good school to help oversee that and continue to help those players perform in the classroom.

Quite frankly, I believe having future professional athletes is good for the rest of Georgia Tech. By way of example, I've seen some of those guys lend their names to a friend's non-profit to help with fundraising. Without that player getting a special admit (and he openly admitted that he was), my friend would have never met him, and not been able to work with that former player to raise money to build a great organization.

Good football players with lower scores is no different that great musicians with lower scores, alumni legacy preferences with lower scores, and children of powerful people with lower scores. It benefits the student body.

 

[TechPreacher]

Good points. I wonder if anyone regrets firing CCG, now that it's been four years with CPJ. Since CCG seemed to hit his recruiting stride near the end of his tenure, would he have been able to do the same thing that CPJ did (ie. finally beat ugag in '08 and win the ACC in '09) with his own players? And would that have spurred more success for these last two seasons? I'm just applying my own logic to the what-if scenario of CCG still being here. Personally, I wanted CCG fired; however, I also realize that new coaches every 5-7 years is no way to build a program back to national prominence, so, at some point, we have to stick with someone. Just my thoughts.

 

[gtphd]

You know I'm as pro-academics as it comes, but I agree. The Hill should lighten up and give more special admits.

Why? Programs at Tech are lightening up. Management and Ivan Allen no longer require Calc I and II, there's CS for non-technical majors, they have chemistry for non-chemistry/chemical engineering majors, etc. All of these course changes should make Tech a place where it's easier for a highly motivated, but less prepared student to succeed.

However the problem is...

We should hire someone from a good school to help oversee that and continue to help those players perform in the classroom.

The GTAA needs to overhaul the academic component of their department. Right now, the advisors and professors have a poor relationship. This is because the advisors a) come across as not knowing what they're doing and b) the advisors are much more concerned about making sure a student qualifies than learns (which I understand, but you can't openly admit that). Overhaul it, form a partnership with the educators, and line up students for programs where they can succeed. Then you allow the special admits.