First off ... it's pretty clear that Pastner's staff is leaps and bounds better at teaching a team to play like a team than Gregory's staff was. They've already passed their expected pre-season ACC win total. To my shock, Dennis Scott said in the FSS show "Driven - Bring Back The Buzz" that Pastner reminded him of a young Cremins: infinite energy, a bit quirky, and with heavy GT ties on the staff so that they understand how things work at GT already.

Second ... Paul Johnson was hamstrung by The Hill and an absolute skeleton crew on recruiting. These issues are now removed since PJ has had a very high APR rating leading to The Hill allowing him as many exemptions as he wants PROVIDED he makes sure they stay eligible and graduate on time. And the recruiting staff is much more robust now, though still lacking in comparison. PJ has been wanting a new locker room for years now. And Stansbury has made public hints that that will be addressed quickly.

Third ... the marketing at GTAA, notoriously awful under Bobinski, has been rebooted and rebooted quickly. They're doing things they should have been doing for years now. Lethal Weapon 3 autograph poster night. Matt Harpring bobbleheads. Etc, etc.



I may have to add Purdue to my holiday card list. It was so nice of them to make Bobinski go away.

Two things would make Stansbury a legend if he gets them done:

1) Get all GT merchandise the correct shade of gold. Also, get more gold merchandise in general. It seems we have more merchandise that is white, navy, or grey. That's why GT attendance looks even worse when most people aren't wearing any form of yellow/gold.

2) Dump Russel Athletic. I would love to see Adidas.

I am glad to see Pastner getting an opportunity like GT. I believe he can get it done there. I always rooted for Bobby and Tech because of family connections to the school.
CJ

(01-23-2017 04:16 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  First off ... it's pretty clear that Pastner's staff is leaps and bounds better at teaching a team to play like a team than Gregory's staff was. They've already passed their expected pre-season ACC win total. To my shock, Dennis Scott said in the FSS show "Driven - Bring Back The Buzz" that Pastner reminded him of a young Cremins: infinite energy, a bit quirky, and with heavy GT ties on the staff so that they understand how things work at GT already.

Despite your initial skepticism of the Pastner hire, I think he'll turn out to be great in the long run for GT.

Dude can flat out recruit. The other thing that I like about him is that he's self-aware of his shortcomings (he's admitted he's struggled with X's and O's) and surrounded himself with quality assistants. Bringing on Eric Reveno was an excellent move, and his hiring has really done wonders for this GT team.

That's encouraging. I think the message is clear now in the ACC...get with the program or get buried.

A year or two could be a fluke...four years now...Clemson and FSU aren't going away any time soon like they did in the 2000s (and for Clemson, the 90s as well).

But it's more than just Clemson and FSU being back. I really think the GT title in 1990, and the fact that UVA a lot of that season at the top of the polls, really mind-f---ed this conference into thinking you could do it "the ACC way" and succeed. I really wonder if that set Clemson back a little bit, not knowing if they should act like an ACC school or a football school, and trying to do both.

But it's different now. When FSU dominated in the 90s, the reaction was mostly "ho hum, well of course, but they're a football factory. We'll keep doing things exactly as we always have." I don't know if it is the fact that Clemson hits a lot closer to the heart of the ACC and steps on more toes geographically, or if it's the existential threats of realignment, but it at least appears to be different now.

I still think Duke's commitment changed the game a bit, and this time it doesn't appear that schools are going to just roll over and concede football. Obviously there are going to be limits by program due to resources, but there doesn't appear to be this silent agreement any more that all the other schools are just going to roll over and let FSU (or FSU and Clemson) do all the football.

We'll see.

(01-23-2017 05:48 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  That's encouraging. I think the message is clear now in the ACC...get with the program or get buried.

A year or two could be a fluke...four years now...Clemson and FSU aren't going away any time soon like they did in the 2000s (and for Clemson, the 90s as well).

But it's more than just Clemson and FSU being back. I really think the GT title in 1990, and the fact that UVA a lot of that season at the top of the polls, really mind-f---ed this conference into thinking you could do it "the ACC way" and succeed. I really wonder if that set Clemson back a little bit, not knowing if they should act like an ACC school or a football school, and trying to do both.

But it's different now. When FSU dominated in the 90s, the reaction was mostly "ho hum, well of course, but they're a football factory. We'll keep doing things exactly as we always have." I don't know if it is the fact that Clemson hits a lot closer to the heart of the ACC and steps on more toes geographically, or if it's the existential threats of realignment, but it at least appears to be different now.

I still think Duke's commitment changed the game a bit, and this time it doesn't appear that schools are going to just roll over and concede football. Obviously there are going to be limits by program due to resources, but there doesn't appear to be this silent agreement any more that all the other schools are just going to roll over and let FSU (or FSU and Clemson) do all the football.

We'll see.

Good observations, Lou. Yes, I think it's easier for old school ACC teams to dismiss FSU than it is to dismiss Clemson, but there is another factor at work which might have been the kicker.

When the ACC added Miami, VT and BC, they thought it would be Miami vs. FSU... but instead it was VT vs. BC (2 years in a row!). Syracuse and Pitt were added, and Syracuse was an immediate success in basketball while Pitt is doing well in football. Louisville joined and immediately started winning. So that's the other message: old school ACC teams not named Clemson and FSU have struggled to beat the newcomers - which implies that a lot of teams out there were better than Duke, UNC, NC State, Wake Forest and UVA (at least 3 years ago).

(01-23-2017 05:48 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  That's encouraging. I think the message is clear now in the ACC...get with the program or get buried.

A year or two could be a fluke...four years now...Clemson and FSU aren't going away any time soon like they did in the 2000s (and for Clemson, the 90s as well).

But it's more than just Clemson and FSU being back. I really think the GT title in 1990, and the fact that UVA a lot of that season at the top of the polls, really mind-f---ed this conference into thinking you could do it "the ACC way" and succeed. I really wonder if that set Clemson back a little bit, not knowing if they should act like an ACC school or a football school, and trying to do both.

But it's different now. When FSU dominated in the 90s, the reaction was mostly "ho hum, well of course, but they're a football factory. We'll keep doing things exactly as we always have." I don't know if it is the fact that Clemson hits a lot closer to the heart of the ACC and steps on more toes geographically, or if it's the existential threats of realignment, but it at least appears to be different now.

I still think Duke's commitment changed the game a bit, and this time it doesn't appear that schools are going to just roll over and concede football. Obviously there are going to be limits by program due to resources, but there doesn't appear to be this silent agreement any more that all the other schools are just going to roll over and let FSU (or FSU and Clemson) do all the football.

We'll see.

Clemson's problem was a combination of complacency and a deep rift between the university admin and IPTAY over how the Danny Ford firing went down and the subsequent hiring of Ken Hatfield. For all his faults in gameday coaching and inconsistent levels of play Clemson owes Tommy Bowden a great deal of respect and gratitude for finally opening the eyes of the administration in regards to how far behind we had truly fallen in facilities and for repairing the relationship between the administration and IPTAY.

(01-23-2017 08:36 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 05:48 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  That's encouraging. I think the message is clear now in the ACC...get with the program or get buried.

A year or two could be a fluke...four years now...Clemson and FSU aren't going away any time soon like they did in the 2000s (and for Clemson, the 90s as well).

But it's more than just Clemson and FSU being back. I really think the GT title in 1990, and the fact that UVA a lot of that season at the top of the polls, really mind-f---ed this conference into thinking you could do it "the ACC way" and succeed. I really wonder if that set Clemson back a little bit, not knowing if they should act like an ACC school or a football school, and trying to do both.

But it's different now. When FSU dominated in the 90s, the reaction was mostly "ho hum, well of course, but they're a football factory. We'll keep doing things exactly as we always have." I don't know if it is the fact that Clemson hits a lot closer to the heart of the ACC and steps on more toes geographically, or if it's the existential threats of realignment, but it at least appears to be different now.

I still think Duke's commitment changed the game a bit, and this time it doesn't appear that schools are going to just roll over and concede football. Obviously there are going to be limits by program due to resources, but there doesn't appear to be this silent agreement any more that all the other schools are just going to roll over and let FSU (or FSU and Clemson) do all the football.

We'll see.

Good observations, Lou. Yes, I think it's easier for old school ACC teams to dismiss FSU than it is to dismiss Clemson, but there is another factor at work which might have been the kicker.

When the ACC added Miami, VT and BC, they thought it would be Miami vs. FSU... but instead it was VT vs. BC (2 years in a row!). Syracuse and Pitt were added, and Syracuse was an immediate success in basketball while Pitt is doing well in football. Louisville joined and immediately started winning. So that's the other message: old school ACC teams not named Clemson and FSU have struggled to beat the newcomers - which implies that a lot of teams out there were better than Duke, UNC, NC State, Wake Forest and UVA (at least 3 years ago).

Great points

The economics of college athletics changed too. Back in the 90s Basketball was close to 50% of the media contracts.

As we got into the late 2000s in was football 75%-85%.

In 1993 the need to be good at football wasn't as urgent as it became in 2013.

Swofford saw the writing on the wall 15 years ago, as he tried to bring in better football programs.

He made other mistakes, but he was right in principal about that

It literally meant the conference's survival that it became competitive at football, and I do think most ACC schools preferred the conference stay in tact.

In 2017, the ACC has never been better positioned for the future.

Just about every talking head had the ACC as the #1 football conference for 2016.

It's been over decade that someone overtook the SEC without the debate in a single year.

Positive press for the ACC...

(01-23-2017 08:36 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(01-23-2017 05:48 PM)Lou_C Wrote:  That's encouraging. I think the message is clear now in the ACC...get with the program or get buried.

A year or two could be a fluke...four years now...Clemson and FSU aren't going away any time soon like they did in the 2000s (and for Clemson, the 90s as well).

But it's more than just Clemson and FSU being back. I really think the GT title in 1990, and the fact that UVA a lot of that season at the top of the polls, really mind-f---ed this conference into thinking you could do it "the ACC way" and succeed. I really wonder if that set Clemson back a little bit, not knowing if they should act like an ACC school or a football school, and trying to do both.

But it's different now. When FSU dominated in the 90s, the reaction was mostly "ho hum, well of course, but they're a football factory. We'll keep doing things exactly as we always have." I don't know if it is the fact that Clemson hits a lot closer to the heart of the ACC and steps on more toes geographically, or if it's the existential threats of realignment, but it at least appears to be different now.

I still think Duke's commitment changed the game a bit, and this time it doesn't appear that schools are going to just roll over and concede football. Obviously there are going to be limits by program due to resources, but there doesn't appear to be this silent agreement any more that all the other schools are just going to roll over and let FSU (or FSU and Clemson) do all the football.

We'll see.

Good observations, Lou. Yes, I think it's easier for old school ACC teams to dismiss FSU than it is to dismiss Clemson, but there is another factor at work which might have been the kicker.

When the ACC added Miami, VT and BC, they thought it would be Miami vs. FSU... but instead it was VT vs. BC (2 years in a row!). Syracuse and Pitt were added, and Syracuse was an immediate success in basketball while Pitt is doing well in football. Louisville joined and immediately started winning. So that's the other message: old school ACC teams not named Clemson and FSU have struggled to beat the newcomers - which implies that a lot of teams out there were better than Duke, UNC, NC State, Wake Forest and UVA (at least 3 years ago).

Yeah, there's something to that. But there's got to be more as well.

There was some magical idea that adding FSU to the league in 92 was going to improve ACC football, but it didn't happen. Yes, FSU just continued to be FSU during a dominant decade, but if anything, the rest of ACC football regressed if anything.

I don't know if it was "Great, now we don't have to do anything in football because FSU is doing it" or that FSU was SO SO far ahead in those early days that nobody really thought it worth trying to keep up, but nobody in the ACC starting acting like football programs when FSU showed up.

Then, to a lesser extent but similarly, VT came in and was the class of the league as well. Still...I don't see any of the other ACC football programs clearly changing their game. I didn't see a lot of "Oh my gosh, we've got to catch up, look what these newcomers are doing!"

Someone can claim that Swofford saw the importance of adding football programs (even though he didn't want VT, which makes that claim dubious - and Swofford didn't add FSU), but there was zero culture shift around it. I don't know if people thought the culture shift would come naturally with football additions, or, as I suspect, adding football programs was considered a way for the traditional ACC schools to AVOID having to make a culture shift...we don't want to do football, let's bring in someone else willing to debase themselves with football.

There's something more that has turned around in the past few years, when you start seeing big time facilities investments, and serious investment in coaches and staffs. And now finally mostly rational out of conference scheduling.

I've got to think that the realignment drama and Maryland leaving was a big part of it. Maybe it was the PAC TV contract. Clemson bouncing back. Duke no longer willing to play into the "Well, at least we're not Duke" rationalizations for every other mediocre team.

I just wish it hadn't taken so long. This was easily called for in the mid 00s in the midst of a wretched 1-10 or whatever BCS run that should have been a wake up call. By the mid 2000s, it was more than clear that basketball was fading. That Miami was not going to be Miami. I know at that time, the ACC was still at or near the top of the money chain, but it was pretty clear something had to be done.

But it is what it is, I'm glad things seem to be aligned now.

Stansbury is live at the Georgia Tech National Signing Day coverage. First time I've heard him speak at GT. And right off the bat he started pimping the A-T Fund. Maybe he'll even kill the TECH Fund and turn the A-T Fund into the more IPTAY-esk program it needs to be.

Dude has a vision and is capable of articulating it. That alone is a huge upgrade over Bobinski.

http://georgiatech.blog.ajc.com/2017/02/...rgia-tech/