(11-28-2018 05:14 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 05:06 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 04:06 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 03:40 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 02:24 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  I know South Carolina has no intention of dropping Clemson and Clemson likes playing 2 SEC schools/year so that series is safe.

I could see UGA/GT ending things at some point but not sure Kirby has the cache to do that (yet). Also GT will be hiring a new coach and who know what his thoughts will be.

The State of Georgia also has a Legislature that does appropriations to state universities, including powerful alumni of both schools. Kirby Smart ain't changing that.

Officials and fans of Alabama, Auburn, Miss. State, Ole Miss., Arkansas, Missouri, and LSU can easily exclaim they want nine conference games. They don't have other P5 schools in their respective states that don't exist or are already.in the SEC. The other seven do or can resume doing so (T a&m).

Look guys we are on the slow track to 12 P games. A step to 9 conference games will mean a step to 10 P games. If Texas joins the SEC at some point then A&M is a non issue. If Kansas ever joins then Missouri is a non issue. Should Florida State and Clemson ever join then those are dead issues as well.

The problem with Georgia Tech is simply compatibility. And I agree with both Kirby and with AllTideUp, there is no reason to continue that game from a competitive, profile, or recruiting stand point.

If the next round of realignment lands us two prizes from the Big 12 the pressure on Clemson and Florida State will become immense. Squeezing the scheduling is just a form of ratcheting up the pressure to secure the SEC as the sole football conference in our region, and in doing so securing the SEC's top spot nationally for the sport. And as the Southeast grows politically it would be advantageous to have these state schools under one banner. The business ties between the states, research endeavors growing out the expansion of business in the Southeast, and the synergy of those ties will be increasingly important to establish and maintain.

For those reasons and those we stated in establishing a qualitative difference between flagships and the rest, I look for an eventual intentional move for Texas, Florida State, and North Carolina. Oklahoma could be a bonus but isn't essential. We probably would be amenable to Clemson and/ or Virginia/VaTech.

I could easily see the SEC topping out at 20 and I think that is the sweet spot for attaining a cohesive grip over the Southeastern United States.

Obviously North Carolina is the alpha dog of the ACC, but they would establish their dominance over their region much more completely with a move to the SEC. Like Texas their sports have gotten weaker due to having 3 other North Carolina peers.

The case for Virginia is much less obvious and in a lot of ways Va Tech would be the better fit, but for the political connections and business/academic ties UVa would still likely be the primary target.

Higher Ed is going to be consolidating. Eventually some very well established schools are going to see the need to separate themselves from some of their old peers. If sports is going to continue to be a solid revenue stream, a great advertisement for the school, and the region is going to experience solid growth, then I expect the organizing principles of conferences to change. Indeed, I believe our realignment picks are indicative of that already.

Pulling in the regional schools would be a huge economic advantage.

My thought for a long time has been that the SEC will use the opportunity to "annex" territory from the Big 12 region and maximize their reach. Texas would be the top target there, but I think Oklahoma and probably Kansas have a place as well in that sort of strategy. The latter 2 schools both have national fan bases that will make it easier to grow exposure for the other brands in the conference.

OK is a growing state albeit still a small one. KS appears to be slowly shrinking, but KU is still an AAU school and the state is still strong economically. It's just that they don't have a terribly diversified set of industries. The weather doesn't help them, but as long as agriculture is important in the US then I think a state like KS still wields some influence. I guess what I'm saying is it's an easy way to grab 2 more Senators and make the coalition bigger.

I'm not sure we can get around both VA schools and possibly 3 NC schools because of their profile.

I think the move with regard to Virginia and North Carolina is to try to lure UNC and accept either of the Virginia schools but probably not both. Of course the Big 10 would be content to help out with regards to North Carolina and Virginia as states.

Clemson and F.S.U. would be simply protecting our brand in the Deep South.

So at 20 I think we would be quite pleased with Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, North Carolina and Florida State. If we couldn't land a Virginia school Clemson makes a solid 20.

What I forgot to mention earlier is that I think part of the strategy for annexing Big 12 territory is creating an economic center of gravity that makes pulling in the other regional schools that much easier.

But I also wanted to say that annexing each significant school in those states would keep the B1G out. If a school is attractive to the B1G then we may need to take them to maintain full control of the bloc.

I think this may be more what JR is looking at, long-term. Think superconference. Not just SEC, but Big Ten, ACC, Pac 12, and Big 12 too!!!

https://247sports.com/college/oklahoma/A...118642101/

It is in this type of a league, I can see Vandy and Mississippi State getting left out, over Alabama's, Auburn's, and LSU's objections. Amazon is gonna say, "You want our $$'s, you leave those three schools behind, or you can forget our $$'s." Georgia would probably have to end the GT series, and UK would have to wave bye-bye to UL. I have to wonder if ESPN would attempt to counter that.

(11-29-2018 02:22 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  I think this may be more what JR is looking at, long-term. Think superconference. Not just SEC, but Big Ten, ACC, Pac 12, and Big 12 too!!!

https://247sports.com/college/oklahoma/A...118642101/

It is in this type of a league, I can see Vandy and Mississippi State getting left out, over Alabama's, Auburn's, and LSU's objections. Amazon is gonna say, "You want our $$'s, you leave those three schools behind, or you can forget our $$'s." Georgia would probably have to end the GT series, and UK would have to wave bye-bye to UL. I have to wonder if ESPN would attempt to counter that.

I think we'll keep the conferences, but mostly because ESPN and FOX are going to try to move some schools around early so that they renew existing contracts with extensions.

I think the realignment will occur in two stages. In 2023-5 we'll see the top programs of the Big 12 leave for the SEC and Big 10. It's possible the PAC could suffer a loss or two in the same process.

Personally I like the odds that Texas and Kansas might head to the SEC while Oklahoma and either Iowa State or long shot Colorado head to the Big 10. I think the Big 10 however will make another run at Notre Dame to be paired with Oklahoma. It doesn't mean they'll get them but the money will be significant. Either way the Big 12 pretty much folds. With new teams on board, particularly if the moves occur two years ahead of the current contract expiration, we'll see extensions signed for the Big 10 and SEC that remove them from any FAANG plans.

Plus right now the FAANG stocks aren't fairing well and the economy moving forward is sketchy at best.

Where the FAANG people in this article overplay their hands is in the desires of the schools. Yes money moves the needle, but so too do familiar foes and stable schedules. After all the TV money is dwarfed compared to ticket sales and donations for ticket priority.

The AAC gets raided by the remnants of the Big 12 they get a new contract and we wait for 2035. Then the same process is repeated with the division of the still underpaid ACC. The prizes head to the Big 10 and SEC and the remnants fold into the a retooling Big 12. Maybe somewhere in the midst of this covering those 12 years the PAC either gets it together and actually expands, or the split too. We'll see about that one.

I think we keep the traditional TV times for T1 because we love the exposure. I think we keep the SECN because we like that format for delivery of the T3, and I think buying a complete Sports package will be offered like the movie channels and will be available via TV or streaming.

But consolidation will occur utilizing the Big 10 and SEC as the basis for two super conferences. The remnants in the Big 12 will grow and become a part of this but at a reduced rate, but also getting a slot in the CFP.

(11-28-2018 06:41 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 06:38 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(11-28-2018 06:20 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Very interesting post.

P.S. Y’all should totally hire Tony Elliott from Clemson. He would be a great hire, a big loss for Clemson, and if successful bad for UGA as well. Would be a win on all fronts

If we're playing "neuter the rival and help yourself" Dell McGee is an even stronger hire IMO.

Along those lines, my magic wand proposal:

HC: Scott Satterfield
AHC, RC: Dell McGee
OC: George Godsey
DC: Nate Woody

Satterfield would be very strong as well

What's interesting to me about Amazon bidding on the 22 RSNs is that they are preparing to alter the landscape.

Amazon-owned RSNs? What could the consumer get?

My hunch is that Disney would not want to sell those properties to Amazon unless they truly believe regional broadcasting isn't a worthy investment. With Amazon bidding though, I have a hard time believing they don't have a good plan to monetize them.

Anyway, if Amazon wins then they have more than a foot in the door.

I've thought for a while that FAANG is not all it's cracked up to be.

Facebook is a terrible platform to show sports on...not friendly to the consumer and they've lost half their traffic in the last couple of years at that. On the one hand, that could motivate them to take risks to increase their business, but the bottom line is the dam is broken when it comes to people understanding that Facebook was more of a data aggregator than a social network. If their advertising platform were worth a flip then standard companies would use it to get in front of all those eyeballs, but by and large they don't.

Apple hasn't really gotten into the content business. They sell hardware and provide options to buy a variety of entertainment files through their products. That makes their products more valuable and more consumer friendly, but it's a HUGE step between that and content creation. Sports would be another leap and I doubt it's on their radar.

Google is an interesting prospect. You can do a lot with YouTube. They have their own streaming service as it is, and with YouTube TV you have a cable option as well. I would think the cable option is something they'd rather invest in though. Again, Google is more of a hardware company to a certain degree...laptops, Google Fiber, and more recently Google Fi for cell service. Getting into sports is something they could probably afford to do, but it would be a significant departure from their business model. That and YouTube TV's value/potential would take a hit if ESPN, FOX, and the like decided they didn't want to be on the platform because they felt encroached upon.

Netflix is more interesting to me because of their delivery method. They could do it, but haven't shown any interest to date. I suspect the profit margin is not in keeping with what they're used to doing. What I would bet on though is their long term outlook would be dependent upon Amazon's foray into the market. If Amazon jumps in and is successful then I think Netflix will feel compelled to compete. After all, Netflix is purely an entertainment platform. They're not like the other companies that built their reputation on a different business.

And that brings us to the final "A." Amazon is the threat here because they've already shown a desire to get in the business and they could possibly gain other advantages from utilizing sports.

What Amazon can do that others can't is something they've already accomplished on a smaller scale. Their platform is a thing of beauty for several reasons, but one of them is their ability to both deliver and advertise content to the same customers. They could add to that platform by driving traffic with live sports. They would essentially cut out the middle man. They'll certainly give other companies the privilege of advertising on their platform during sports broadcasts, but only if Amazon is the retailer that sells the products. Their ability to target audiences according to any demographic you can imagine will also play into that because small, medium, and large companies will have an option to get in on the game...as long as Amazon is getting a cut of the retail business. Amazon could give the viewer the option to buy something immediately as soon as they've seen an ad for it. It's brilliant actually and that's what makes Amazon a factor.

Live sports drives traffic > fans watch said content > advertisers of all sizes clamor to get in front of that audience which drives up the value of ad buys > Amazon gets a cut of everything sold because their primary business is retail

Amazon will get something extra for all the new subscriptions to Amazon Prime they sell, but I think all that is gravy to be honest. Their real business is retail.

Back to the subject at hand, and perhaps looking at the short term problems, it would be problematic for UGA to drop GT or even move that game to week 1 or 2 simply because they would have nobody to play on rivalry weekend.

SC/Clem
UF/FSU
UK/Louisville

UT/Vandy
Missouri/Arkansas
TAMA/LSU
UM/MSU
Ala/Auburn

If UK/Louisville decided to split too then that creates a natural opponent. Perhaps UGA would opt to keep that week open (in anticipation of playing in the SECCG perhaps). A&M could begin playing Texas, but that doesn't help UGA much unless the SEC wants to break up Arkansas/Missouri as well. Basically, things get sticky.

I could totally see UGA/UF trying out home campuses more often, perhaps even on a rotational basis. Personally I would get annoyed at a neutral site game every season.

(11-29-2018 08:46 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Back to the subject at hand, and perhaps looking at the short term problems, it would be problematic for UGA to drop GT or even move that game to week 1 or 2 simply because they would have nobody to play on rivalry weekend.

SC/Clem
UF/FSU
UK/Louisville

UT/Vandy
Missouri/Arkansas
TAMA/LSU
UM/MSU
Ala/Auburn

If UK/Louisville decided to split too then that creates a natural opponent. Perhaps UGA would opt to keep that week open (in anticipation of playing in the SECCG perhaps). A&M could begin playing Texas, but that doesn't help UGA much unless the SEC wants to break up Arkansas/Missouri as well. Basically, things get sticky.

I could totally see UGA/UF trying out home campuses more often, perhaps even on a rotational basis. Personally I would get annoyed at a neutral site game every season.

Actually, it's now against bylaws for a school to take the week off before the SEC championship game. Alabama and Auburn used to do it all the time, but the rules were altered. It's an unfair advantage for any school that makes the title game.

I do think it will be difficult politically to get rid of Georgia Tech from the schedule, however, I wouldn't rule out the idea that Paul Johnson was pushed out. Didn't he just sign a long extension last season?

If UGA threatened to drop the game unless GT altered their makeup then the move makes a little more sense. GT could be just as good as Duke under Cutcliffe or Northwestern. I see no reason GT can't play a more traditional game and create value within their program.

Because frankly, they've lost a lot of value the last 10 years or so. There was a time they had must-see players like Calvin Johnson, and now they are more of a novelty on the field.

(11-29-2018 08:46 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Back to the subject at hand, and perhaps looking at the short term problems, it would be problematic for UGA to drop GT or even move that game to week 1 or 2 simply because they would have nobody to play on rivalry weekend.

SC/Clem
UF/FSU
UK/Louisville

UT/Vandy
Missouri/Arkansas
TAMA/LSU
UM/MSU
Ala/Auburn

If UK/Louisville decided to split too then that creates a natural opponent. Perhaps UGA would opt to keep that week open (in anticipation of playing in the SECCG perhaps). A&M could begin playing Texas, but that doesn't help UGA much unless the SEC wants to break up Arkansas/Missouri as well. Basically, things get sticky.

I could totally see UGA/UF trying out home campuses more often, perhaps even on a rotational basis. Personally I would get annoyed at a neutral site game every season.

This is a pipe dream, but in a scenario where UGA/GT no longer played on Thanksgiving weekend, I think matching them up with UT and Vandy would be awesome. Most UT fans I know could care less playing Vandy (no win situation), but how sweet of a match-up would UT/UGA be on Thanksgiving and have Vandy/GT match up, as well? I have always thought that Georgia Tech is a much better cultural fit for Vandy (metropolitan, stringent academic requirements, similar priority on athletics, cultural overlap, etc.) than any other current SEC school. Vandy lost their two most obvious peers in the SEC decades and decades ago... it should be rekindled!

If we expand East one day then I'm not opposed to a scenario where we basically rebuild the old Southern Conference. Georgia Tech back in the SEC does not bother me.

At this stage, Georgia Tech is not a high caliber program, but they could be better and they could provide an interesting regional opponent for a lot of the current SEC teams.

In the future, I believe we'll end up with 12 Power opponents, but there's really no reason each opponent has to be elite. Might as well throw in some mediocre and lower quality programs as long as they can meet certain metrics and provide value in other ways.

Florida State, Georgia Tech, Clemson, UNC, NC State, Duke, Virginia, and Virginia Tech.

If we want to build a bloc then all of these may be politically necessary.

(11-29-2018 09:13 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I do think it will be difficult politically to get rid of Georgia Tech from the schedule, however, I wouldn't rule out the idea that Paul Johnson was pushed out. Didn't he just sign a long extension last season?

If UGA threatened to drop the game unless GT altered their makeup then the move makes a little more sense. GT could be just as good as Duke under Cutcliffe or Northwestern. I see no reason GT can't play a more traditional game and create value within their program.

Because frankly, they've lost a lot of value the last 10 years or so. There was a time they had must-see players like Calvin Johnson, and now they are more of a novelty on the field.

This is ridiculous. He said in the interview with the AJC when signing the extension that he didn't think he'd make it to the end (2022) before retiring. He took a LOWER buyout in that extension.

If you measure the game by razzle dazzle, sure GT has less of that than they (very VERY briefly) had under the end of Gailey. If you measure the game by wins and losses ... Paul Johnson was leaps and bounds better and the best since Dodd. If you measure the game by how big you win (titles, championships, major bowls) then Paul Johnson was the best since Bobby Ross.

How quickly you forget how that high school offense torched the Dawgs and Miss. State for over 100 points just 4 years ago. The problem was always getting a good defense (the new DC has actually made progress on this front) and recruiting (very mediocre consistently ... the real knock against PJ ... granted Bobinski gave PJ absolutely no help whatsoever on that front).

(11-29-2018 09:13 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Actually, it's now against bylaws for a school to take the week off before the SEC championship game. Alabama and Auburn used to do it all the time, but the rules were altered. It's an unfair advantage for any school that makes the title game.

Interesting, thank you. SC actually used to play Clemson the week before Thanksgiving as well but switched it up when we joined the SEC. We occasionally played games after that week as an independent, which always seemed strange to me, but I guess I’ll get a taste of it this week against Akron

(11-29-2018 11:25 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 08:46 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  Back to the subject at hand, and perhaps looking at the short term problems, it would be problematic for UGA to drop GT or even move that game to week 1 or 2 simply because they would have nobody to play on rivalry weekend.

SC/Clem
UF/FSU
UK/Louisville

UT/Vandy
Missouri/Arkansas
TAMA/LSU
UM/MSU
Ala/Auburn

If UK/Louisville decided to split too then that creates a natural opponent. Perhaps UGA would opt to keep that week open (in anticipation of playing in the SECCG perhaps). A&M could begin playing Texas, but that doesn't help UGA much unless the SEC wants to break up Arkansas/Missouri as well. Basically, things get sticky.

I could totally see UGA/UF trying out home campuses more often, perhaps even on a rotational basis. Personally I would get annoyed at a neutral site game every season.

This is a pipe dream, but in a scenario where UGA/GT no longer played on Thanksgiving weekend, I think matching them up with UT and Vandy would be awesome. Most UT fans I know could care less playing Vandy (no win situation), but how sweet of a match-up would UT/UGA be on Thanksgiving and have Vandy/GT match up, as well? I have always thought that Georgia Tech is a much better cultural fit for Vandy (metropolitan, stringent academic requirements, similar priority on athletics, cultural overlap, etc.) than any other current SEC school. Vandy lost their two most obvious peers in the SEC decades and decades ago... it should be rekindled!

You read my mind, big blue, you read my mind!! And I agree with you too. IMO, UGA-UT on Thanksgiving would be huge!!! And I would not mind playing Tech the week before either. GT-Vandy also used to be rivals, and played for a rivalry trophy too!! I believe it was a bell.

(11-30-2018 01:20 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  [quote='AllTideUp' pid='15716720' dateline='1543544023']
I do think it will be difficult politically to get rid of Georgia Tech from the schedule, however, I wouldn't rule out the idea that Paul Johnson was pushed out. Didn't he just sign a long extension last season?

If UGA threatened to drop the game unless GT altered their makeup then the move makes a little more sense. GT could be just as good as Duke under Cutcliffe or Northwestern. I see no reason GT can't play a more traditional game and create value within their program.

Because frankly, they've lost a lot of value the last 10 years or so. There was a time they had must-see players like Calvin Johnson, and now they are more of a novelty on the field.
[/quote
This is ridiculous. He said in the interview with the AJC when signing the extension that he didn't think he'd make it to the end (2022) before retiring. He took a LOWER buyout in that extension.

If you measure the game by razzle dazzle, sure GT has less of that than they (very VERY briefly) had under the end of Gailey. If you measure the game by wins and losses ... Paul Johnson was leaps and bounds better and the best since Dodd. If you measure the game by how big you win (titles, championships, major bowls) then Paul Johnson was the best since Bobby Ross.

How quickly you forget how that high school offense torched the Dawgs and Miss. State for over 100 points just 4 years ago. The problem was always getting a good defense (the new DC has actually made progress on this front) and recruiting (very mediocre consistently ... the real knock against PJ ... granted Bobinski gave PJ absolutely no help whatsoever on that front).

I agree Swagger. PJ got Tech very competitive, unlike Gailey and that guy you try to forget...hmm...wasn’t his name Bill Lewis, lol.

(11-30-2018 01:20 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 09:13 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I do think it will be difficult politically to get rid of Georgia Tech from the schedule, however, I wouldn't rule out the idea that Paul Johnson was pushed out. Didn't he just sign a long extension last season?

If UGA threatened to drop the game unless GT altered their makeup then the move makes a little more sense. GT could be just as good as Duke under Cutcliffe or Northwestern. I see no reason GT can't play a more traditional game and create value within their program.

Because frankly, they've lost a lot of value the last 10 years or so. There was a time they had must-see players like Calvin Johnson, and now they are more of a novelty on the field.

This is ridiculous. He said in the interview with the AJC when signing the extension that he didn't think he'd make it to the end (2022) before retiring. He took a LOWER buyout in that extension.

If you measure the game by razzle dazzle, sure GT has less of that than they (very VERY briefly) had under the end of Gailey. If you measure the game by wins and losses ... Paul Johnson was leaps and bounds better and the best since Dodd. If you measure the game by how big you win (titles, championships, major bowls) then Paul Johnson was the best since Bobby Ross.

How quickly you forget how that high school offense torched the Dawgs and Miss. State for over 100 points just 4 years ago. The problem was always getting a good defense (the new DC has actually made progress on this front) and recruiting (very mediocre consistently ... the real knock against PJ ... granted Bobinski gave PJ absolutely no help whatsoever on that front).

Retiring one season after a 7 year extension? You don't think that's a little odd? It's one thing to retire before the end of the contract, but it's another to leave almost immediately after signing the deal. If he was that close to getting out of the game then why bother with a new contract at all?

At that, why would you take a lower buyout in exchange for a contract you had no desire to fulfill? Just let things run their course and leave on your own terms. Sounds to me like the AD wasn't particularly interested in keeping him around.

A nice win every now and then looks good, but GTS, you know that's not what we're talking about. Georgia Tech has not been a nationally relevant program in a long time. Johnson's win totals might be slightly above average, but that doesn't say much for the average. Realistically, there aren't that many competitive programs in the ACC right now. If GT had occasionally given Clemson or Florida State a run for their money then it might be different, but you're hanging your hat on the occasional upset rather than the occasional title run. For that matter, how many top notch teams from around the country have bothered scheduling Tech in recent years? It's rare.

It doesn't solely come back to the the triple option, but there's a reason programs like Navy and Army run systems like that. It's because they have no chance to get the best athletes and the option is the only way to be relatively competitive on the field.

I'm actually not trying to down GT here. My entire point is that they can be better, but Johnson was more a hindrance than a help.

I should add here that GT looking at Ken Whisenhunt is proof they want to go in a very different direction.

(11-30-2018 01:49 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(11-30-2018 01:20 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 09:13 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I do think it will be difficult politically to get rid of Georgia Tech from the schedule, however, I wouldn't rule out the idea that Paul Johnson was pushed out. Didn't he just sign a long extension last season?

If UGA threatened to drop the game unless GT altered their makeup then the move makes a little more sense. GT could be just as good as Duke under Cutcliffe or Northwestern. I see no reason GT can't play a more traditional game and create value within their program.

Because frankly, they've lost a lot of value the last 10 years or so. There was a time they had must-see players like Calvin Johnson, and now they are more of a novelty on the field.

This is ridiculous. He said in the interview with the AJC when signing the extension that he didn't think he'd make it to the end (2022) before retiring. He took a LOWER buyout in that extension.

If you measure the game by razzle dazzle, sure GT has less of that than they (very VERY briefly) had under the end of Gailey. If you measure the game by wins and losses ... Paul Johnson was leaps and bounds better and the best since Dodd. If you measure the game by how big you win (titles, championships, major bowls) then Paul Johnson was the best since Bobby Ross.

How quickly you forget how that high school offense torched the Dawgs and Miss. State for over 100 points just 4 years ago. The problem was always getting a good defense (the new DC has actually made progress on this front) and recruiting (very mediocre consistently ... the real knock against PJ ... granted Bobinski gave PJ absolutely no help whatsoever on that front).

Retiring one season after a 7 year extension? You don't think that's a little odd? It's one thing to retire before the end of the contract, but it's another to leave almost immediately after signing the deal. If he was that close to getting out of the game then why bother with a new contract at all?

At that, why would you take a lower buyout in exchange for a contract you had no desire to fulfill? Just let things run their course and leave on your own terms. Sounds to me like the AD wasn't particularly interested in keeping him around.

A nice win every now and then looks good, but GTS, you know that's not what we're talking about. Georgia Tech has not been a nationally relevant program in a long time. Johnson's win totals might be slightly above average, but that doesn't say much for the average. Realistically, there aren't that many competitive programs in the ACC right now. If GT had occasionally given Clemson or Florida State a run for their money then it might be different, but you're hanging your hat on the occasional upset rather than the occasional title run. For that matter, how many top notch teams from around the country have bothered scheduling Tech in recent years? It's rare.

It doesn't solely come back to the the triple option, but there's a reason programs like Navy and Army run systems like that. It's because they have no chance to get the best athletes and the option is the only way to be relatively competitive on the field.

I'm actually not trying to down GT here. My entire point is that they can be better, but Johnson was more a hindrance than a help.

That kinda explains why Nebraska moved away from the option offense. IMO, in a way, Texas coerced the Huskers to do it, because Texas did not care to play option teams. So, basically what Texas did was give the Huskers a choice: either dump the option or leave the Big XII. Nebraska chose the latter. Texas used Nebraska’s rivals to force the issue. Nebraska chose to leave, only finding out when they got to their new conference, that they would not be able to run the option anyway. Btw, all of this is strictly conjecture, and did not really happen, but it’s how I could see it play out. I think too that Texas was shocked that a well known powerhouse actually still believed in the option with no intentions of phasing out.

(11-30-2018 01:49 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Retiring one season after a 7 year extension? You don't think that's a little odd? It's one thing to retire before the end of the contract, but it's another to leave almost immediately after signing the deal. If he was that close to getting out of the game then why bother with a new contract at all?

At that, why would you take a lower buyout in exchange for a contract you had no desire to fulfill? Just let things run their course and leave on your own terms. Sounds to me like the AD wasn't particularly interested in keeping him around.

A nice win every now and then looks good, but GTS, you know that's not what we're talking about. Georgia Tech has not been a nationally relevant program in a long time. Johnson's win totals might be slightly above average, but that doesn't say much for the average. Realistically, there aren't that many competitive programs in the ACC right now. If GT had occasionally given Clemson or Florida State a run for their money then it might be different, but you're hanging your hat on the occasional upset rather than the occasional title run. For that matter, how many top notch teams from around the country have bothered scheduling Tech in recent years? It's rare.

It doesn't solely come back to the the triple option, but there's a reason programs like Navy and Army run systems like that. It's because they have no chance to get the best athletes and the option is the only way to be relatively competitive on the field.

I'm actually not trying to down GT here. My entire point is that they can be better, but Johnson was more a hindrance than a help.

It wasn't a seven year extension. You've gotten every detail you've mentioned of his extension completely wrong. And worse -- you then conjecture outta your arse about the real motivations. Here ... read up:

It was a 2 year extension: https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional...LS1eAXEiO/

Johnson openly ponders retiring after executing the 2 year extension: https://www.myajc.com/sports/college/pau...eU66OJN9L/

Note the 2-year extension was the minimum to keep the "recruiting safety blanket" on. He had 3 years left ... that took him to 5.

He said in his own retirement presser (it's on YouTube) that he would have retired sooner if Stansbury hadn't become AD. Without naming him directly he crapped all over Bobinski in that presser.

(11-30-2018 01:55 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I should add here that GT looking at Ken Whisenhunt is proof they want to go in a very different direction.

That's largely the media pulling that outta their arse. They're going to interview him and they should. But mark my words there's no way in hell he gets the job. Not after Gailey. Not this soon. No way ... no how.

(11-30-2018 05:11 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(11-30-2018 01:49 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Retiring one season after a 7 year extension? You don't think that's a little odd? It's one thing to retire before the end of the contract, but it's another to leave almost immediately after signing the deal. If he was that close to getting out of the game then why bother with a new contract at all?

At that, why would you take a lower buyout in exchange for a contract you had no desire to fulfill? Just let things run their course and leave on your own terms. Sounds to me like the AD wasn't particularly interested in keeping him around.

A nice win every now and then looks good, but GTS, you know that's not what we're talking about. Georgia Tech has not been a nationally relevant program in a long time. Johnson's win totals might be slightly above average, but that doesn't say much for the average. Realistically, there aren't that many competitive programs in the ACC right now. If GT had occasionally given Clemson or Florida State a run for their money then it might be different, but you're hanging your hat on the occasional upset rather than the occasional title run. For that matter, how many top notch teams from around the country have bothered scheduling Tech in recent years? It's rare.

It doesn't solely come back to the the triple option, but there's a reason programs like Navy and Army run systems like that. It's because they have no chance to get the best athletes and the option is the only way to be relatively competitive on the field.

I'm actually not trying to down GT here. My entire point is that they can be better, but Johnson was more a hindrance than a help.

It wasn't a seven year extension. You've gotten every detail you've mentioned of his extension completely wrong. And worse -- you then conjecture outta your arse about the real motivations. Here ... read up:

It was a 2 year extension: https://www.ajc.com/news/state--regional...LS1eAXEiO/

Johnson openly ponders retiring after executing the 2 year extension: https://www.myajc.com/sports/college/pau...eU66OJN9L/

Note the 2-year extension was the minimum to keep the "recruiting safety blanket" on. He had 3 years left ... that took him to 5.

He said in his own retirement presser (it's on YouTube) that he would have retired sooner if Stansbury hadn't become AD. Without naming him directly he crapped all over Bobinski in that presser.

Ok, technically 7 years was wrong. That was the number I had in the back of my head, but I'm not wrong about the other details. My point was not that he signed a 7 year deal. My point was that he had 7 years left although clearly it was only 5.

The other issues remain the same.

1. Why do you voluntarily take a lower buyout if you have no desire to fulfill the contract? If you don't want to do it anymore then just take your money and go home. You're going to have to give me some semblance of a rational explanation there.

2. Why do you sign an extension in March? Because frankly the given reason makes no sense. Signing Day was long gone. You're telling me that as recently as March, Paul Johnson had absolutely no idea he would only coach one more season? That makes no sense. How much recruiting did he have time to do since March? That and there's the abundantly obvious question...triple option offense doesn't depend on high caliber players. Who exactly were they worried about impressing?

3. Typically, when a coach is ready to retire, these things are settled before the season is over. There's a goodbye tour, a nice warm sendoff maybe...because you sure as heck know what you're going to do before the final game is played. It's notable that Johnson retires within a few days of the last game. It's almost as if some discussions had to occur that may or may not have been dependent on the season's record and/or the result against Georgia.

4. I never said Paul Johnson would certainly fulfill the contract. I did not contradict your assertion that he openly speculated about retiring. What I said is that you don't sign an extension and then immediately leave if you never had any intention whatsoever of serving out the contract.

5. Why would you interview a guy like Ken Whisenhunt? This is the question you danced around. I'm not a GT administrator and won't proclaim to know whether the guy definitely gets hired, but he's not your "top candidate" as reported by Adam Rittenberg if you have no issue with Paul Johnson's philosophy. Rittenberg went on to report that Clemson OC Tony Elliott is in the mix. If GT wants to continue with the option that has allegedly served them so well then there aren't many guys that run that system and the first thing you do is start talking to guys that have the same pedigree as Paul Johnson. You don't start talking to prominent NFL guys with essentially no college background within 2 days of your coach retiring.

Now, I'm speculating on why GT was no longer interested in Paul Johnson just as you are speculating that they have no interest in Ken Whisenhunt despite the fact they're interviewing him out of the gate and everyone's reporting they're interested. So there's nothing coming out of the old arse except some reasonable questions.

To be fair though, I don't think our positions are mutually exclusive. Perhaps it was simply a matter that Tech wanted to give Paul Johnson more time, but wanted to do it under more favorable terms. Everyone including Johnson knew he wasn't going to coach forever, but he wasn't ready to call it quits either. After another season, the program was still not trending up and that's a problem given newfound health and wealth in Athens. He wasn't getting the job done so they decided to part ways and no one looks bad in the process.

But if it was simply the ceremonial passing of the torch then there are a lot of details that don't add up.

(12-01-2018 02:51 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  1. Why do you voluntarily take a lower buyout if you have no desire to fulfill the contract? If you don't want to do it anymore then just take your money and go home. You're going to have to give me some semblance of a rational explanation there.

You voluntarily take a lower buyout because you have no leverage renewing after losing seasons. You're renewing anyway because with only 3 years left on the contract you're going to have to explain to recruits exactly who it is going to be coaching that last year. You also take a lower buyout if you're not really interested in coaching elsewhere. In his retirement presser in his own words he was "taking a break" to, among things, follow his daughter's career now that she just became a professional opera singer. To say nothing of time with his wife.

(12-01-2018 02:51 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  2. Why do you sign an extension in March? Because frankly the given reason makes no sense. Signing Day was long gone. You're telling me that as recently as March, Paul Johnson had absolutely no idea he would only coach one more season? That makes no sense. How much recruiting did he have time to do since March? That and there's the abundantly obvious question...triple option offense doesn't depend on high caliber players. Who exactly were they worried about impressing?

As he said in the 2nd linked article, while signing the extension he was unsure about how much longer he wanted to keep coaching. He said in the presser had Bobinski still been here he would have already retired.

(12-01-2018 02:51 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  3. Typically, when a coach is ready to retire, these things are settled before the season is over. There's a goodbye tour, a nice warm sendoff maybe...because you sure as heck know what you're going to do before the final game is played. It's notable that Johnson retires within a few days of the last game. It's almost as if some discussions had to occur that may or may not have been dependent on the season's record and/or the result against Georgia.

Not necessarily. There was no farewell tour for Bill Snyder up in the Little Apple either. There was no farewell tour for Cremins in hoops. Plenty of coaches think they have more in the tank until, at the end of a brutal season, they just don't. If farewell tours is more your thing I recommend MLB.

(12-01-2018 02:51 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  4. I never said Paul Johnson would certainly fulfill the contract. I did not contradict your assertion that he openly speculated about retiring. What I said is that you don't sign an extension and then immediately leave if you never had any intention whatsoever of serving out the contract.

He didn't immediately leave. He coached an additional season ... one that saw him star out hideously at 1-3 with self-inflicted losses to USF and Pitt. The second of those two proved decisive in keeping him out of the ACC CG. In addition he's never looked more inept against the inbreds. When Chan Gailey had his blood letting against the leg humpers his team just flat gave up in the middle of the game. They weren't giving up and the score coulda been just as bad.

(12-01-2018 02:51 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  5. Why would you interview a guy like Ken Whisenhunt? This is the question you danced around. I'm not a GT administrator and won't proclaim to know whether the guy definitely gets hired, but he's not your "top candidate" as reported by Adam Rittenberg if you have no issue with Paul Johnson's philosophy. Rittenberg went on to report that Clemson OC Tony Elliott is in the mix. If GT wants to continue with the option that has allegedly served them so well then there aren't many guys that run that system and the first thing you do is start talking to guys that have the same pedigree as Paul Johnson. You don't start talking to prominent NFL guys with essentially no college background within 2 days of your coach retiring.

He is an alumni. He is a letter winner. He was looked at last time because at the time he was HC of the Cardinals, headed for a Super Bowl apperance, and a rising coaching star in the NFL. He has since had a hideous stretch with the Titans full of futility. That takes a lot of luster off. But you still interview him as a common courtesy because, again, he's an alumni and letter winner. If Saban retired and Julio Jones wanted the job would he get it? No. Would he be extended the common courtesy of an interview since he was an alumni and letter winner? Yes. It's the polite way to say "not now, but maybe later."