ThomsonJacket
I don't know
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2002
- Messages
- 22,552
The names after the article says alot.He will take anything and put a negitive spin on it to make us look bad.
Tony Barnhart comment on recruiting
- Thread starter 71YellowJacket
- Start date
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Ahso, sometime the buck has to stop with the boss. After this year we may well be looking for another GOL to come in and clean up the mess. Do you really look at the schedule and look forward to the 2003 season? Do you really believe the seats will be filled with our fans or the enemy this year? Last year I had high expectations. This year I don't. You can blame BOB all you want but he didn't drop the passes, he didn't throw the interceptions, he didn't run the crappy routes. And if you think that leadership issue is his intstead of the boss then you will really be disap[pointed this year. 8 wins will be a stretch.
Dave Tech, I agree on "the buck stops here" philosophy as a general rule, and, this coming football season, I think we can make some solid determinations of Gailey.
I have seen the same thing happen way too many times when a new coach comes in with leftover staff members and players disappointed that one of their pseudo parents (Mac) is given the boot.
The bad feelings toward the new coach dissapates quickly if the team does well. However, when a team does run into problems, as Tech did last year, those emotions begin to make themselves visible in the players, and they can react negatively against the new coach and sympathize with the old coach (O'Brien).
For this one reason, I am willing to give Gailey the benefit of the doubt this year. He will now have all of his own coaches in place, a years worth of re-indoctrination into college football, and two years of his own recruited players.
If he does not perform well this year, I will be most vocal against him staying. It is not clear at this point as to the real cause of our ineptness on offense and less than enthusastic play in the last two games by some of our players.
We can judge him rightly this coming season, because it will be his team totally.
I am trying to look at the situation realistically with observed history to come to a reasonable and objective view of Gailey and Tech at this time.
By the way, we have a great schedule this year with the home advantage on some of the crucial games. We have Auburn, Clemson, NCSU, Maryland, NC, and UGA at home. We have some of our weaker opponents on the road, Duke, WF, and BYU.
And yes, I think the stands will be full for the Auburn game and then from then on if we do well.
I have seen the same thing happen way too many times when a new coach comes in with leftover staff members and players disappointed that one of their pseudo parents (Mac) is given the boot.
The bad feelings toward the new coach dissapates quickly if the team does well. However, when a team does run into problems, as Tech did last year, those emotions begin to make themselves visible in the players, and they can react negatively against the new coach and sympathize with the old coach (O'Brien).
For this one reason, I am willing to give Gailey the benefit of the doubt this year. He will now have all of his own coaches in place, a years worth of re-indoctrination into college football, and two years of his own recruited players.
If he does not perform well this year, I will be most vocal against him staying. It is not clear at this point as to the real cause of our ineptness on offense and less than enthusastic play in the last two games by some of our players.
We can judge him rightly this coming season, because it will be his team totally.
I am trying to look at the situation realistically with observed history to come to a reasonable and objective view of Gailey and Tech at this time.
By the way, we have a great schedule this year with the home advantage on some of the crucial games. We have Auburn, Clemson, NCSU, Maryland, NC, and UGA at home. We have some of our weaker opponents on the road, Duke, WF, and BYU.
And yes, I think the stands will be full for the Auburn game and then from then on if we do well.
71Bee, my post was not intended to be an official
statement of the intervening events that led to two staff members leaving and I thought I made that clear in the closing of my post. However I did hear RUMORS before BOB left that he was leaving. NO DETAILS were advanced but since it came to pass I thought it was worth mentioning
that perhaps neither of them were being deceitful
and to address your suggestion that THE POWERS THAT BE could have been withholding information
until after signing day I don't feel is justified.
I have a very high opinion of the gentlemen on the athletic board and I would dismiss any suggestion that they were complicit in duping high school athletes. I don't even remember the date of the meeting or how much time elapsed between the meeting and the letter to us. And yes, I understood the intent of your post.
But a lots of things happened in short order and
it is natural to wonder if what you heard beforehand was facts or speculation.
I think everyone on this board know that I have deep reservations about Chan's ability to successfully lead our program butI do think he is an honorable manand would never involve himself
with any ploy to mislead young athletes.
statement of the intervening events that led to two staff members leaving and I thought I made that clear in the closing of my post. However I did hear RUMORS before BOB left that he was leaving. NO DETAILS were advanced but since it came to pass I thought it was worth mentioning
that perhaps neither of them were being deceitful
and to address your suggestion that THE POWERS THAT BE could have been withholding information
until after signing day I don't feel is justified.
I have a very high opinion of the gentlemen on the athletic board and I would dismiss any suggestion that they were complicit in duping high school athletes. I don't even remember the date of the meeting or how much time elapsed between the meeting and the letter to us. And yes, I understood the intent of your post.
But a lots of things happened in short order and
it is natural to wonder if what you heard beforehand was facts or speculation.
I think everyone on this board know that I have deep reservations about Chan's ability to successfully lead our program butI do think he is an honorable manand would never involve himself
with any ploy to mislead young athletes.
There is a lot to be considered on this issue.
First there is the issue of a school trying to recruit and control the damage from the previous year started by O'Leary. We then have the controversy between Mac and the institution because he could not hi-jack the head coaching job.
We then have a season in which there is some rumored problems between the head coach and an offensive coordinator who was in some regards pushed upon the head coach. We then end up with a disorganized team and a disastrous finish.
We go into the recruiting process against these odds and have to make a decision about minimizing damage to the recruiting effort. If many of the board members and many other alumni felt there should be a change in the OC, it is not beyond reason, the head coach and administration also knew a change would be effected.
Some decision had to be made to minimize the past two years effects on this year's recruiting. It is very possible, everyone involved agreed to wait until after recruiting was finalized to talk about or consider any changes in the coaching staff. Good business decision!
Many have complained about contents on the board and its effect on recruits. If this is so, then the recruits should know O'Brien's job was in question. I and others have made no secret about the need for a change in the OC on this board.
I do think there should be some clause giving a recruit an "out", if the head coach leaves. I don't think he should have an option if a staff member leaves. Staff members are coming and going every year and most teams lose staff members before and after recruiting each year.
Yes, it would be nice if all the coaching decisions were finalized prior to the signing of the recruits, but sometimes it is not practical. I feel GT has a good case for the practical side of their move because of damage control required due to the GOL, Mac, O'Brien/Gailey, and disastrous season finish.
In our particular case, I doubt any of the recruits would change their minds due to the departure of any of our assistants. I think most of our recruits are looking for an opportunity for early playing time and the coaching changes will not affect them in this regard.
I agree in part about the morality issue, but see the practical side of including some damage control at Tech this year. I really don't care about any comments from the fish wrapper.
I was going to end this on the last sentence but have a nother thought to offer.
It is ironic that all of our problems have stemmed from the last coaching staff at Tech. We had the O'Leary fiasco, then the attempted Mac hi-jack, then possible problems between O'Brien and Gailey. Since all of the original players are gone, maybe all of the problems are gone with them.
First there is the issue of a school trying to recruit and control the damage from the previous year started by O'Leary. We then have the controversy between Mac and the institution because he could not hi-jack the head coaching job.
We then have a season in which there is some rumored problems between the head coach and an offensive coordinator who was in some regards pushed upon the head coach. We then end up with a disorganized team and a disastrous finish.
We go into the recruiting process against these odds and have to make a decision about minimizing damage to the recruiting effort. If many of the board members and many other alumni felt there should be a change in the OC, it is not beyond reason, the head coach and administration also knew a change would be effected.
Some decision had to be made to minimize the past two years effects on this year's recruiting. It is very possible, everyone involved agreed to wait until after recruiting was finalized to talk about or consider any changes in the coaching staff. Good business decision!
Many have complained about contents on the board and its effect on recruits. If this is so, then the recruits should know O'Brien's job was in question. I and others have made no secret about the need for a change in the OC on this board.
I do think there should be some clause giving a recruit an "out", if the head coach leaves. I don't think he should have an option if a staff member leaves. Staff members are coming and going every year and most teams lose staff members before and after recruiting each year.
Yes, it would be nice if all the coaching decisions were finalized prior to the signing of the recruits, but sometimes it is not practical. I feel GT has a good case for the practical side of their move because of damage control required due to the GOL, Mac, O'Brien/Gailey, and disastrous season finish.
In our particular case, I doubt any of the recruits would change their minds due to the departure of any of our assistants. I think most of our recruits are looking for an opportunity for early playing time and the coaching changes will not affect them in this regard.
I agree in part about the morality issue, but see the practical side of including some damage control at Tech this year. I really don't care about any comments from the fish wrapper.
I was going to end this on the last sentence but have a nother thought to offer.
It is ironic that all of our problems have stemmed from the last coaching staff at Tech. We had the O'Leary fiasco, then the attempted Mac hi-jack, then possible problems between O'Brien and Gailey. Since all of the original players are gone, maybe all of the problems are gone with them.
71Bee, okay I think I understand. I guess things are a little to touchy on this board to deal with philosophical issues when they may touch on our staff.
I suppose my thinking on this is divided. If a HC leaves I think there should be some leeway for recruits to rescind their LOI and sign somewhere else. However that could devastate a program that didn't do anything wrong. Just because a coach uses you as a stepping stone should that basically wipe out your recruiting class?
I don't think position coaches, coordinators, etc., are as important. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but no matter what a kid thinks about the coach who primarily recruits him, the HC is the most important in his world and I think most kids understand that.
Now, if a coach knows he is leaving but continues to recruit that does pose some ethical problems to me. I would think the most honorable approach would be to stay on campus and leave the recruiting to others.
However, I wonder if in most cases things are so cut and dried. Coaches may have an idea they might be leaving but it isn't a done deal yet. They are sort of in limbo, they can't stop working for their current school but don't have another job yet.
Bottom line I guess is caveat empteur. Kids hide things from coaches, coaches hide things from kids. Both sides know its a business and play it to the hilt. I would like to think it can be done honorably but opinions on what that means will differ.
I suppose my thinking on this is divided. If a HC leaves I think there should be some leeway for recruits to rescind their LOI and sign somewhere else. However that could devastate a program that didn't do anything wrong. Just because a coach uses you as a stepping stone should that basically wipe out your recruiting class?
I don't think position coaches, coordinators, etc., are as important. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but no matter what a kid thinks about the coach who primarily recruits him, the HC is the most important in his world and I think most kids understand that.
Now, if a coach knows he is leaving but continues to recruit that does pose some ethical problems to me. I would think the most honorable approach would be to stay on campus and leave the recruiting to others.
However, I wonder if in most cases things are so cut and dried. Coaches may have an idea they might be leaving but it isn't a done deal yet. They are sort of in limbo, they can't stop working for their current school but don't have another job yet.
Bottom line I guess is caveat empteur. Kids hide things from coaches, coaches hide things from kids. Both sides know its a business and play it to the hilt. I would like to think it can be done honorably but opinions on what that means will differ.
bellyseries
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2001
- Messages
- 4,229
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">71, the moral issue would have to be on the question of lying, deceiving, or misleading a recruit, his parents or his coaches about your school's program and any other school's program, and the kid's place in it. Do you have any evidence that anybody from Tech lied? Or even a reasonable suspicion that someone did?
Beyond that issue is the legal question of whether or not the scholarship contract is executed in good faith. Do we offer scholarships with clauses naming the coaches for the contract's duration?
I don't think Barnhart has turned up anything more serious than, as Dwight Yoakum has it, "Well, baby, things change."
Jerry the Jacket
Jolly Good Fellow
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 1,641
Ahso, I think as to your last point you are doing some wishful thinking. O'Leary and his staff did not create any problems that could not have been successfully managed by the new regime. The new regime's inability to effectively manage the problems of last season leave a great deal of doubt in my mind as to their ability to right the ship and get back to respectability in 2003. I hope they do but I remain skeptical, yet hopeful.
Go Jackets!
Go Jackets!
GTTerrific
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2001
- Messages
- 4,023
71bee, The differences between the O'Brien situation and Erickson's are great in my opinion.
First of all Erickson was a head coach. I'd be hard pressed to believe Erickson wasn't telling these kids he was going to be there late in the recruiting game while things where in the works with Frisco. Maybe he didn't. Don't know for fact obviously.
O'Brien only met with Reggie Ball one time in all of his recruitment. At that point he didn't see not being at GT for 2003 season.
Can see Maryland and O'Brien working out something in 48 hours after signing day. It doesn't seem to matter to Reggie Ball.
Now for those recruits that signed a letter of intent thinking that Erickson was going to be their head coach that's a completely different ball game in my opinion. Do you think any of those recruits are concerned? My guess and it's only a guess is that some are while some aren't. I don't think any of GT's recruits are too concerned about O'Brien going to Maryland. Again, because I believe O'Brien wasn't unethical it makes a huge difference. The Erickson deal sure seemed to be in the works prior to signing day.
An example of this is what happened at Bama. Of course Barnyard is a SEC homer, so he wasn't going to bring this one up. The situation where Coach F left to A&M really upset some players and recruits. Now Bama seemed to weather that storm well. But, there was still a lot of questions in players and recruits minds over what took place. I feel the same type of questions are going on at OR with players and recruits.
With O'Brien leaving it's not that big of a deal. The head coach always plays a key roll in recruiting. O'Brien didn't recruit any of these guys from start to finish. Yes, he did play a roll as all coaches do.
That's the main differences I see.
First of all Erickson was a head coach. I'd be hard pressed to believe Erickson wasn't telling these kids he was going to be there late in the recruiting game while things where in the works with Frisco. Maybe he didn't. Don't know for fact obviously.
O'Brien only met with Reggie Ball one time in all of his recruitment. At that point he didn't see not being at GT for 2003 season.
Can see Maryland and O'Brien working out something in 48 hours after signing day. It doesn't seem to matter to Reggie Ball.
Now for those recruits that signed a letter of intent thinking that Erickson was going to be their head coach that's a completely different ball game in my opinion. Do you think any of those recruits are concerned? My guess and it's only a guess is that some are while some aren't. I don't think any of GT's recruits are too concerned about O'Brien going to Maryland. Again, because I believe O'Brien wasn't unethical it makes a huge difference. The Erickson deal sure seemed to be in the works prior to signing day.
An example of this is what happened at Bama. Of course Barnyard is a SEC homer, so he wasn't going to bring this one up. The situation where Coach F left to A&M really upset some players and recruits. Now Bama seemed to weather that storm well. But, there was still a lot of questions in players and recruits minds over what took place. I feel the same type of questions are going on at OR with players and recruits.
With O'Brien leaving it's not that big of a deal. The head coach always plays a key roll in recruiting. O'Brien didn't recruit any of these guys from start to finish. Yes, he did play a roll as all coaches do.
That's the main differences I see.
71YellowJacket
Damn Good Rat
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2002
- Messages
- 1,262
First of all, I want to thank everyone who participated in this class, "College Recruiting, Doing What’s Right ". Everyone who participated by posting gets a passing grade and hopefully, those of you who audited the course will benefit in some way from the discussion here as well.
All to often high pressure, competitive environments bring out the worst not the best in human nature. No, no one here has accused anyone on the GTAA staff of acting less than honorably this past recruiting season. But as BigBuck pointed out, “lots of things happened in short order and it is natural to wonder if what you heard beforehand was facts or speculation.” And, as several of you have noted, it’s a slippery slope down to dishonorable actions as evidenced at Oregon State, Alabama, etc.
Just what do colleges offer as a package? Is it just the school and academics or is this just a part of it? If it’s just the school the kids are binding themselves too perhaps we should send some of the teaching staff on recruiting visits. A few past professors come to mind; boy that would be a hoot!
IIRC, Ahsoisee and ncjacket both suggested if a coaching change occurs, the NCAA should offer the kids a window out, if they choose to take it. This seems like a reasonable approach, so I won’t hold my breath waiting for the NCAA to adopt it.
As Tech grads and Tech fans, I do believe we have a responsibility to watch out for our school to ensure all who represent it conduct themselves to a higher standard than what's required by law or by the Latin phrase " caveat empteur". Let’s not forget in our competitive zeal to sign the best possible players that the buyers, in this case are 18 year old kids without the benefit of legal counsel, and I suspect too often good parental guidance. No kid should be surprised when a coaching change takes place 48 hours after signing day for whatever events preceded it.
All to often high pressure, competitive environments bring out the worst not the best in human nature. No, no one here has accused anyone on the GTAA staff of acting less than honorably this past recruiting season. But as BigBuck pointed out, “lots of things happened in short order and it is natural to wonder if what you heard beforehand was facts or speculation.” And, as several of you have noted, it’s a slippery slope down to dishonorable actions as evidenced at Oregon State, Alabama, etc.
Just what do colleges offer as a package? Is it just the school and academics or is this just a part of it? If it’s just the school the kids are binding themselves too perhaps we should send some of the teaching staff on recruiting visits. A few past professors come to mind; boy that would be a hoot!
IIRC, Ahsoisee and ncjacket both suggested if a coaching change occurs, the NCAA should offer the kids a window out, if they choose to take it. This seems like a reasonable approach, so I won’t hold my breath waiting for the NCAA to adopt it.
As Tech grads and Tech fans, I do believe we have a responsibility to watch out for our school to ensure all who represent it conduct themselves to a higher standard than what's required by law or by the Latin phrase " caveat empteur". Let’s not forget in our competitive zeal to sign the best possible players that the buyers, in this case are 18 year old kids without the benefit of legal counsel, and I suspect too often good parental guidance. No kid should be surprised when a coaching change takes place 48 hours after signing day for whatever events preceded it.
bellyseries
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2001
- Messages
- 4,229
That would be "caveat emptor", plus, I think I should get extra credit for quoting a country song.
71YellowJacket
Damn Good Rat
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2002
- Messages
- 1,262
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">bellyseries,
Dwight Yoakum has it, "Well, baby, things change."
Is that what that was???
bellyseries
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2001
- Messages
- 4,229
Roger, 71Bee