post on GT $$$'s and coaching changes....

[law_bee]

posted on the hive...

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=140&f=2938&t=1406054&sto=pagestart#s=140&f=2938&t=1406054

Here's a pasted comment from gt1951 concerning our football program. It is very candid, and written by someone who has been very close to the program for many, many years:

..................................................................................
".... I am older than you and most on the board, so maybe you think I am one of those that accept mediocrity. WRONG.

.... There is no benefit in everyone getting so worked up about a possible change. As Harry Truman said when he fired Douglas MacArthur, "he may be indispensible, but he is not irreplacable" None of us are, as painfiul as that sounds.

The question is what is right for Tech?

I have met with Rad on a number of occasions, and he has my full confidence. Unquestionably the fan base is divided, but not as much as evident on this board. Chan has not helped, because he is not the warm and outgoing type.

Rads MAY make the decision to let Chan go, but it will be to hopefully unify the fan base and focus on getting GT athletics in better financial shape. As much as some fans don't want to hear it, unless certain other changes are made, the w/l results won't be drastically different. By the way, everyone mentions 7 wins as Chan's legacy, but neglects the 9 win 2006 season.

Tech alumni are very generous in supporting Tech financially--in the academic area. We had no problem recently in raising nearly a billion dollars over 5 years for Techs academic campaign for bulidings, faculty salary supplements, etc. We had no problem in funding the dismissal of President Crecine.

GOL asked me to assist GTAA in raising $35 million for the stadium expansion and Chandler field. We workd our butts off and came up a little short. Tech big dollar alumni have a different philosophy in giving money to Tech academics vs Tech athletics, with a few exceptions, and this was during GOL's best years. I have tried to support Tech academics AND athletics.

Aside from the financial constraints, and believe me, the resources are not limited because of w/l records, but because of sports interest (lack) by many successful alumni and those alumni not living in the Atalanta area. These two factors limit our fund raising.

Rad knows where the money comes from and IF he chooses to let Chan go, it won't be easy to raise the funds, but by squeezing and calling in a lot of chits, he could do it. The problem is we still don't pay competitively if we want to be ranked in the top 25. The financial situation at GTAA is better, but still not solvent and will take about 3-5 years of better income. Even then we still are not competitive in revenue to the top 25 that some aspire ( Florida with a $95 million budget and UGAG with about $85 million versus ours at $40 million) We are at the lower quartile in the ACC.

That is one part of the equation, then the second and equally important, is academics. I have posted this before ad naseum, the faculty controls the curriculum and will not agree to ANY consideration of adding degrees or changing requirements. Their rationale is that their compensation is based on research dollars , which supplement their income, and Tech has one of the higher research dollar commitments of any public College. Tech has an excellent reputation in research, and the faculty has not allowed anything to jeopardize that reputation.
Even Clough has little influence with the faculty.

Academic restrictions DO affect our recruiting. Going Nationwide, which is more costly, allows us to CONSISTENTLY bring in about 15 top athletes, but far short of the 25 that most other schools do. Bobby Ross was not upset at the " old alumni", but even with his academic background, he was frustrated with the restrictions AND the limited budget he had to work with. He drove Homer Rice crazy always wanting more money for various programs, which we didn't have.

Bobby Dodd told many alumni, including me, with the academic AND limited financial resources, we just could not compete with the major schools. GOL also found it out, and even if ND didn't come calling, he was extremely frustrated, by those limitations, including stadium expansion, indoor facilities, and most likely would have jumped at an offer, such as one that nearly came from Auburn.

So what is my point. Rad MAY let Chan go to relieve some of the turmoil. but it won't change the reality of our situation, becaue, irrespective how talented the idividual he brings in, the limitations listed above will still be there. We have to solve the root causes. Even in good times, ie. Bobby Ross and GOL, GTAA could not raise enough money to provide what is necessary. Our alumni and supporters have not been willing to step up to the plate in athletics as they do for academics.

If we can solve that problem and Homer tried, without success as did Dave Braine, then we need to focus on how we can recruit 25 top athletes that meet our requirements, because the season is long, some don't make it, etc. That will be a big challenge. Rad is working to improve the relationship with the administration, but it is going to take longer than most of us would like.

By the way, for those of us that think we stack up with UGAG, look at the last 10 recruiting classes of each school. That is why I focus on the ACC. While I want to beat UGAG, it takes more than changing coaches. I do not let the UGAG game determine the success of Tech athletics...."

This post explains why some coaches at GT have failed and others have moved on or have not met expectations.

Hopefully we will win for the next couple of weeks and put all this to rest.

 

[midatlantech]

I appreciate the real definition of what's going on with Tech football. I have only two comments:

1) If in fact, we need to focus on the ACC instead of UGA, then we should be playing UGA the first game of the year and not the last. We would win more often and when we lose, the game would just not be as hurting to the program in the state and for our post bowl game interest level.

2) If in fact, DRad chooses to keep Chan long term, something I completely understand considering everything (probation included), then all he needs to do is come clean a bit and/or remind the fans what Chan has had to deal with and what a good job he has done with his hands tied.

 

[BarrelORum]

I have about as much respect for GT1951's viewpoint of our program as I do Jesse Jackson's. GT1951 is clearly a Gailey supporter. His viewpoints typically fall into the line of: whoever the coach is, you absolutely must support him. But let me address a couple of his points.

His statement that the fan base outside the message board is clearly not as divided is misleading but I would say correct. The MAJORITY of our fans are for replacing Gailey. Allthough the way he wants you to believe it is that outside the message boards, there simply just isn't a lot of talk about replacing Gailey, and that is complete BS. There are a ton of unhappy alumni and especially ex-players. To put it bluntly, I have yet to speak with an ex-player that didn't play for Gailey that has good things to say about the program and I have spoken to 15 or so players who played from the 1970's all the way to 1999. Most of them have said that they just don't think Gailey is all that good of a motivator and just an ok college coach. All of them expressed that we needed to make a change if not to try and improve our situation at least in an attempt to generate excitement around the program. With each passing year, more and more people are becoming complacent about whether they care enough to support the program.

Which leads me to my next comment about raising money for the GTAA. I sat on a board that helped raise money from young alumni towards the GTAA that was very successful even in the era when every other school saw their giving drop tremendously, ours stepped up. To say that it is tough to raise money for athletics at GT just isn't correct. Its getting tougher because most people, myself included, don't want to keep giving money to the GTAA when we know that our coach is consistently going to be slightly better than average. It grows old and if the excitement isn't there, sure its going to be tough to raise money. However, overall, this is more of a symptom of our ex-AD's efforts and the fact that many would like to see our football and even basketball programs venture in new directions.

Having spoken with Dan myself, he has assured me and others that "$ is not an issue". So I am somewhat suspicious of GT1951's assertion that money is an issue when we have an AD that privately has stated on more than one occassion that it is not. Who should I believe?

Overall though, I think change is mandatory at this point. Its going to become much tougher road for DRAd and the new improved GTAA to raise GT athletics into a new eschelon when your fanbase is not all that excited about the current ball coach.

Also, if you take the Majority of Gailey's supporters, you would find that many of them are from the old school. What I mean by that is that they have seen the best and the worst of GT football. They witnessed much like GT1951 the ascension and the almost demise of our football program, and don't think for one second that they are not very fearful of making change because they have seen first hand change kick us in the ass.

I can respect that, but these people are flat out wrong. How much have we accomplished over the last ten to twenty years that has created a strong foundation for our athletics programs to thrive? We are night and day different and better off than we were 10, 20 and even 30 years ago. To draw comparison of our situation now to those hard times is completely ridiculous and just not applicable.

These people like GT1951, have been through the best and seen the worse, but many of them are too afraid of progression for fear of being something similar to what they have experienced before. Respectfully, these people need to be quiet, step aside, and understand that we all want what is best for GT and we will never reach that if we are constantly worried about falling short when making change.

We have the foundation and a solid nucleus to make change and expect better.

 

[beej67]

1) If in fact, we need to focus on the ACC instead of UGA, then we should be playing UGA the first game of the year and not the last.

Yup.

 

[oldfoggy]

BOR, I'm in complete agreement with you. People are afraid of change. That will hold back the program more so than anything. I have spoken to many x-players and they say the same as you have heard. I am old and I've seen the best and the worst. But I want change, Tech and it's proud history need change and need it now!

Whats funny I prior to Dodds death spoke with him many time and never heard him say we couldn't compete with big boys (the Ohio SU's OK, Fla etc). Not saying he didn't say it but he never said it to me!

 

[JonnyGT]

1) If in fact, we need to focus on the ACC instead of UGA, then we should be playing UGA the first game of the year and not the last. We would win more often and when we lose, the game would just not be as hurting to the program in the state and for our post bowl game interest level.

Uggh. Not this idea again. Of course, I'm one who believes that a successful season cannot include a loss to UGA.

 

[midatlantech]

Jonny, I have held strong on moving the UGA game because it changes the playing field a little. There is nothing wrong with doing that. In fact, every SEC team does this already, we just need to start learning.

Playing UGA first will help us in wins (we struggle to go deep into the season because depth has been and always will be a problem for us). It will also create fans in the state.

Playing UGA first will make it easier to schedule fun OOC teams like ND. We can use the national aspect of our program to our advantage.

We could play Miami the last week, while Duke played UNC and UVA played VPI.

BOR/Foggy, this is not an issue of people being afraid of change. It's more an issue that we (until the VPI loss) were growing as a program during probation. Historically, on a national basis, that is a very impressive sign. Good talented kids want to play for Gailey, that's a good sign too.

I grant you that Chan has his weaknesses, just about every coach since Dodd has. Nobody is running away from decision making however because we're afraid. Quite frankly, it's a whole easier to make a decision to run (building in an excuse of turnover when failure occurs), then it is to stay the course.

 

[hiveredtech]

Jonny, I have held strong on moving the UGA game

I have to agree with midatlantech on this one. There is absolutely no negative to moving it to Labor Day weekend each year....or even the second weekend in September...and there is a multitude of positives.

 

[flushed 01]

I am from the real Old School, back in the days of Chick Graning, Billy Williamson and i do not want to endure another ho-hum season with this HC.

 

[BarrelORum]

BOR/Foggy, this is not an issue of people being afraid of change. It's more an issue that we (until the VPI loss) were growing as a program during probation. Historically, on a national basis, that is a very impressive sign. Good talented kids want to play for Gailey, that's a good sign too.

WAH?? Could you tell me what point you were trying to make because I can't make any sense of what you just wrote.

 

[flushed 01]

What SEC team plays the state rivalry game at the beginning of the season.

 

[Stick]

BOR, folks like gt1951 can't just go away because the $$$ goes with them. He's one of the people who would be approached for buyout dollars. He has walked the walk for more years than most of us have been alive. He is a HEAVY HITTER in every regard, so he's not going away. And he is very representative of the majority of the heavy hitters.

Also, didn't Rad abolish that organization on whose board you sat?!?

 

[floridajacket]

Yeah, playing the UGA/GT game at the beginning of the year somehow seems high schoolish to me. If you look at the in-state rivalries that actually do that, such as Colorado and Colorado State, they all should be a tier below the GT/UGA rivalry. Trying to move it to the beginning of the season would almost admit defeat in making it a substantial and important rivalry.

 

[hiveredtech]

Yeah, playing the UGA/GT game at the beginning of the year somehow seems high schoolish to me. If you look at the in-state rivalries that actually do that, such as Colorado and Colorado State, they all should be a tier below the GT/UGA rivalry. Trying to move it to the beginning of the season would almost admit defeat in making it a substantial and important rivalry.

All I care about is what is best for GT...I could care less what others do or do not do.

Moving it to the beginning would be the best for us....and for UGA also actually.

 

[goldmember]

I am very suspicious of the financial angle being played many of the Chan supporters. I've read these boards for 10 years now and I've never heard that we didn't have the resources. If it is a new problem then fine, but to say that it was a problem all along doesn't wash with me.

To recruit nationally doesn't require a large athletic budget, it requires a large recruiting budget. I distinctly remember an article in the AJC that stated that our recruiting budget was larger than uga's. Their overall athletic budget includes money for equestrian and other crap we don't spend money on and is not relevant. If we don't have the money to hire good assistants then that is clearly a problem, but again you don't need a 95MM athletic budget to hire a quality coaching staff.

Finally the academic versus athletic fund raising is totally disingenuous. The vast majority of that billion dollars was CORPORATE money.

I am not saying that there aren't some nuggets of truth in there but it was clearly a slanted if not decietful post designed to scare people.

 

[floridajacket]

I am very suspicious of the financial angle being played many of the Chan supporters. I've read these boards for 10 years now and I've never heard that we didn't have the resources. If it is a new problem then fine, but to say that it was a problem all along doesn't wash with me.

To recruit nationally doesn't require a large athletic budget, it requires a large recruiting budget. I distinctly remember an article in the AJC that stated that our recruiting budget was larger than uga's. Their overall athletic budget includes money for equestrian and other crap we don't spend money on and is not relevant. If we don't have the money to hire good assistants then that is clearly a problem, but again you don't need a 95MM athletic budget to hire a quality coaching staff.

Finally the academic versus athletic fund raising is totally disingenuous. The vast majority of that billion dollars was CORPORATE money.

I am not saying that there aren't some nuggets of truth in there but it was clearly a slanted if not decietful post designed to scare people.

The recruiting budget mainly consists of travel expenses for recruits. It does not include more important expenses in determining recruiting, such as the money spent on facilities or the money paid to get assistant coaches better at recruiting. While we have to recruit more nationally and thus spend more on travel, I would say UGA spends much more on facilities and coaches.

BTW, you have a good point about athletic budgets. Due to the ratio, Tech isn't as burdened by Title IX obligations like UGA and doesn't have to have all their synchronized swimming sports.

 

[beej67]

Trying to move it to the beginning of the season would almost admit defeat in making it a substantial and important rivalry.

Duh. That's the point. Recall midatlantech's insightful post:

1) If in fact, we need to focus on the ACC instead of UGA, then we should be playing UGA the first game of the year and not the last. We would win more often and when we lose, the game would just not be as hurting to the program in the state and for our post bowl game interest level.

So the question is, what's more important? ACC or UGA? Answer that, and you answer where the UGA game should go.

 

[GTKyle]

I've heard from 3 insiders including demjackets that the money is not an issue.

 

[BarrelORum]

Also, didn't Rad abolish that organization on whose board you sat?!?

Nope, it still exists as a major tool to generate $ and involve young alumni.

 

[JTS]

If you take GT's winning % for each of the following periods and multiply that by 13 games, you get following average wins per season:

Gailey to Present = 7.08
'90 to Gailey = 7.75
'80 to Gailey = 7.25
'70 to Gailey = 7.27 [7.56 ex-80's]
'40 to Gailey = 8.03 [8.28 ex-80's]

1980-1989 = 6.42

What does this tell me?

1. The 80's Sucked for GT - If you think that talking about a coaching change hurts recruiting, just imagine what talking about dropping to D-IAA would do. Guess what, you don't have to just look at the 80's. The only decade in which we had a winning % lower than 0.563. It took us almost a decade to rebuild our credibility as a school committed to atheletics. If you look at the big picture, the 80's are an aberration on an otherwise solidly winning tradition, but it is the bogey man that everyone fears. IMO, we will not ever go back to the 80's because of the one-off events that caused it and the fact that we were able to recover from Bill Lewis is proof of that.

2. Gailey's Below Average - He's not Bill Lewis, but we have done better more often than not. Gailey's winning percentage is lower than the winning percentage in every decade individually except the 80's and if you look over any time period ending with Gailey's hire we have a higher winning percentage even if you include the 80's.

3. There is no reason we should not be winning 8+ games more often. But JTS we have not won 8+ historically? Well we also haven't played 13 games per season historically. Adjusted to a 13 game schedule, we averaged 7.75 wins per season from 1990 to 2001 and that included a 1-11 season. If you exclude that 80's, we have average better that 7.5 wins per season based on a 13 game schedule historically which means we should be winning more than 7 games a lot more than 1 in 6 seasons.

4. I wonder how much when you started following GT impacts your perception of Gailey. I would think that if you started following GT in the glory days or the 90's that you would view Gailey's performance as solidly falling short of expectations based on your personal experience. However if you started following GT in the late 60's, 70's or 80's, you might not be thrilled with Gailey, but he has come relatively close to matching your personal experience and Gailey is still way better than the 80's.