AJC > Sports > Tech > Blog > Archives > 2006 > November > 07
Tuesday, November 7, 2006
Surprised by Hewitt
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Holy smokes … a lot to say,
First, from the world of the surprising …
Count me on that list with regards to Paul Hewitt saying that it was no fluke that freshman Zach Peacock started at center against Morehouse in the exhibition, and that he also will start the season opener against Elon because he’s beaten out Ra’Sean Dickey.
I even blogged as much yesterday. I was admittedly at a disadvantage because I didn’t get to see Saturday’s scrimmage, let along talk to Hewitt afterward, as I was in Raleigh with the football team. Still, gadzooks, Batman!
From listening to Hewitt, and by process of extrapolation, it seems to me that since the coach feels that he has plenty of players who can score yet has stated concerns about defense, Peacock gets the nod - at least for now.
Hewitt admits Peacock is not as good with his back to the basket as Dickey, but is better, “playing face up.” He also said this will not change anything they do offensively. And Hewitt couldn’t say enough about what a physical presence Peacock provides, raving about his defense and work on the boards. Yes, he’s a couple inches or so shorter than Dickey, but apparently very strong and willing to use the muscle.
For those who wonder, a lion’s share of the recruiting work on Peacock was done by assistant Charlton Young.
Two more basketball notes: Hewitt raved about Crittenton’s physical conditioning, saying he’s the best on the team already, “which is hard for a freshman,” but, “mentally, he has a lot to learn.” Also, in general, he loves how hard his freshmen are practicing.
I’m not surprised that Brad Sheehan is going to red-shirt. Hewitt said he needs to get a lot stronger.
Looking back to a story in Tuesday’s paper about AD Dan Radakovich saying there are going to be some “paradigm shifts” in fund-raising/gathering at Tech.
Wow, this was a lively topic on The Hive today, at least until the Peacock news hit. Some reactions:
First, the very first post states that that article is “vague,” and asks for reliable information.
The article is no more vague than Radakovich. As he said, some changes will begin rolling out within a few weeks. Other than to suggest that the Alexander-Tharpe fund will focus more on sizable donations and smaller contributions may be funneled through another arm of the AA, he was general in his comments. If he’d been more willing to be specific, the story would’ve been moreso as well.
I, too, would have preferred more specifics, but it’s Radakovich with the keys to the palace, so to speak. If he doesn’t want to roll out details before their time, it’s his call. Perhaps he’ll have more to say this week. I’ll try to check.
Secondly, somebody (nickname DoddDude) suggested the story was “second-hand information at best.” Wanna explain that? Do you think I just guessed that Radakovich said there were paradigm shifts coming? Or maybe that I taped what he said in the meeting, and asked more questions afterward?
If you can’t guess the answer, e-mail me and I’ll clue you in.
Yes, as mentioned, Radakovich was vague. That’s just the way it was. But the suggestion that changes are coming is not second-hand. It’s coming from the athletics director. There is, um, a big difference, huh?
Third, a whole lot of people on those threads seem ready to operate on assumptions driven by rumors — either on the internet (I haven’t seen them) or elsewhere — that there will be a “right-to-buy” tickets fee, and/or ticket increases and more.
Some even suggest the article in the paper suggests these things. It does not suggest any of this in any way, shape or form. I’m not going to report such a thing without knowing it. I have absolutely no information that these things are or are not coming.
People need to realize that much of the chatter on this topic is based on rumor and innuendo, growing like a wind-stoked wildfire.
I’d suggest patience. Answers will avail themselves eventually.
Lastly, as for the suggestion made by someone that the athletics budget deficit could be pulled in line by whacking programs that drain the budget … to maintain Division I status, an athletics program must have at least 16 sports, including some very specific breakdowns as to male-female opportunities provided.
Tech has 17. If a sport gets cut, it’d almost certainly have to be a mens sport (this is why wrestling’s all but dead at the D-I level in the Southeast, for example) - a varsity sport, not club. So which one would you whack? Tennis? Golf? Track and field? Swimming and diving. Cross country? Baseball?
Tough one to answer, eh? My answer: none. No way a Division I school, in the ACC, in Atlanta, should run a bare-bones athletics department. No way, whatsoever. So, you either find other ways to trim costs, and/or add revenue.
Why not wait and see what specifics the athletics department and Radakovich have in mind before blowing up?
