Re: I respectfully dissent.
The fb hc controls 85 scholarship players and 20 or so non-scholarship players. The USN&WR ranking looks at student retention rates and graduation rates in determining its rankings. ccg is said (and I have no reason not to believe that he is) to be bringing in sa's that can cut the academic mustard and graduate. He is not asking for concessions such as jock friendly majors, etc. GT will remain d-1a and will strive every year to win division, conference, and national championships in every sport we compete in, but will do so within the constraints of GT academics, including those that exceed the minimums set by the ncaa. As long as ccg (and ph, and dh, and mj, and all of the other GT hc's) is (are) willing to operate in that environment, he (they) will be in the favor of the administration.
As has been discussed, ccg plays not to lose, and is good at it. He is now 10 games over .500 (as I calculate it), and I expect that, given our competition in our division and some of the ooc scheduling we are doing, he will never have a season with less than 5 or 6 wins. (That is one of the many reasons that we will never willing leave the acc.) As long as he stays in that zone, and brings in players who graduate and stay out of trouble, he will be viewed as a successful coach. He will not be fired.
While I believe that the uga game is our most important game of the year (my reasons for that belief are beyond the scope of this discussion), that belief is not shared (at least with the same passion that I have towards it) by those whose opinion counts when it comes to judging the performance of coaches. When I have brought the issue up with the GT reps that come to the alumni club meetings that I attend, the stock answer (and therefore the "corporate position statement") on that issue is that, "There is so much more to Georgia Tech than beating uga." I don't very much expect that 6, 7, 8, 9, or more consecutive losses to the mutts would be a major deciding factor in a decision to retain or not retain a head coach. After all, we have been told multiple times that we want to beat uga, not be uga.
As for the marketing of the product, the real gut check will be whether or not we, the supporters, will continue to support the program at its current level, and pay more and more to support it. If some, or lots of us, become unhappy because we don't beat uga, win the acc, got to a bcs bowl, etc. and indicate our unhappiness by not buying tickets, or not sending money to the AT fund, then the administration may be forced to react. By not sending the band to away games. By not funding cub sports at all. By increasing the student academic fees even more. By eliminating certain non-revenue men's sports. By allocating more seats to the visiting team. By selling more three-packs. By giving away more cokes and hot dogs. By getting more corporate sponsors. By firing an assistant coach here or there. But I seriously doubt that any head coach with an overall winning record, a "clean" team, and an acceptable graduation rate, would be fired. Look at how long it took after his team hit the skids to resolve the SHW situation.
If you don't understand that everything that happens on and around the GT campus is governed by the academic and research goals and aspirations that have been expressed by the GT administration, then, in my opinion, you don't understand GT
B said:
The fb hc controls 85 scholarship players and 20 or so non-scholarship players. The USN&WR ranking looks at student retention rates and graduation rates in determining its rankings. ccg is said (and I have no reason not to believe that he is) to be bringing in sa's that can cut the academic mustard and graduate. He is not asking for concessions such as jock friendly majors, etc. GT will remain d-1a and will strive every year to win division, conference, and national championships in every sport we compete in, but will do so within the constraints of GT academics, including those that exceed the minimums set by the ncaa. As long as ccg (and ph, and dh, and mj, and all of the other GT hc's) is (are) willing to operate in that environment, he (they) will be in the favor of the administration.
As has been discussed, ccg plays not to lose, and is good at it. He is now 10 games over .500 (as I calculate it), and I expect that, given our competition in our division and some of the ooc scheduling we are doing, he will never have a season with less than 5 or 6 wins. (That is one of the many reasons that we will never willing leave the acc.) As long as he stays in that zone, and brings in players who graduate and stay out of trouble, he will be viewed as a successful coach. He will not be fired.
While I believe that the uga game is our most important game of the year (my reasons for that belief are beyond the scope of this discussion), that belief is not shared (at least with the same passion that I have towards it) by those whose opinion counts when it comes to judging the performance of coaches. When I have brought the issue up with the GT reps that come to the alumni club meetings that I attend, the stock answer (and therefore the "corporate position statement") on that issue is that, "There is so much more to Georgia Tech than beating uga." I don't very much expect that 6, 7, 8, 9, or more consecutive losses to the mutts would be a major deciding factor in a decision to retain or not retain a head coach. After all, we have been told multiple times that we want to beat uga, not be uga.
As for the marketing of the product, the real gut check will be whether or not we, the supporters, will continue to support the program at its current level, and pay more and more to support it. If some, or lots of us, become unhappy because we don't beat uga, win the acc, got to a bcs bowl, etc. and indicate our unhappiness by not buying tickets, or not sending money to the AT fund, then the administration may be forced to react. By not sending the band to away games. By not funding cub sports at all. By increasing the student academic fees even more. By eliminating certain non-revenue men's sports. By allocating more seats to the visiting team. By selling more three-packs. By giving away more cokes and hot dogs. By getting more corporate sponsors. By firing an assistant coach here or there. But I seriously doubt that any head coach with an overall winning record, a "clean" team, and an acceptable graduation rate, would be fired. Look at how long it took after his team hit the skids to resolve the SHW situation.
If you don't understand that everything that happens on and around the GT campus is governed by the academic and research goals and aspirations that have been expressed by the GT administration, then, in my opinion, you don't understand GT
