Bad Stats for GT email I received...

wesleyd21

wesleyd21

Dodd-Like
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
16,547
think its been discussed here but what the heh...

some facts as far as the NFL Talent are very disputable but here it is:



This year

1. 2 passing TD's in 9 games; 8 INT's
2. In 9 games, GT has 14 turnovers

3. Defense gave up over 400 yards to VT, over 500 yards to BC & almost 500 yards to Maryland.

4. Hokies ran for 185 yards...they came into the game ranked 96th in the nation in rushing offense.

5. The three GT QB's have a combined 50.0% completion rate.

6. GT third down conversion rate = 34%

7. Fourth down conversion rate against GT defense = 82% (9 out of 11)

8. Red zone touchdown rate = 52%



Overall

1. GT is 3-7 in their last 10 games against BCS opponents.
2. We've paid Chan Gailey and John Tenuta combined approximately $9-10 million dollars over the last 6 years, and we will have no Top 25 finishes in the final poll during that time. Not one top 25 finish! Additionally, we have ZERO wins against UGA over that time period as well.

3. GT postseason record under Chan 2-6 (includes 2006 ACC Championship)



NFL Potential

1. Andrew Gardner

2. Tashard Choice

3. Mike Cox

4. Durant Brooks

5. Jamal Lewis

6. Travis Bell

7. Adam Oliver

8. Michael Johnson

9. Morgan Burnett

10. Jon Dwyer



Others

11. Philip Wheeler

12. Colin Peek (6'6", 250 lbs.)

13. Bebe Thomas (6'3", 220 lbs.), still just a redshirt freshman, right?



And my dark horse, based solely on the Clemson game, is AT Barnes.



The Offense

2002
Total Offense - 57th
Scoring Offense - 94th
QB Rating - 88th

2003
Total Offense - 94th
Scoring Offense - 90th
QB Rating - 93rd

2004
Total Offense - 80th
Scoring Offense - 85th
QB Rating - 89th

2005
Total Offense - 78th
Scoring Offense - 103rd
QB Rating - 95th

2006
Total Offense - 67th
Scoring Offense - 54th
QB Rating - 87th

2007 (post Army game)
Total Offense - 63rd
Scoring Offense - 57th
QB Rating >100th
 
wesleyd21 said:
t
2. We've paid Chan Gailey and John Tenuta combined approximately $9-10 million dollars over the last 6 years, and we will have no Top 25 finishes in the final poll during that time. Not one top 25 finish! Additionally, we have ZERO wins against UGA over that time period as well.
Click to expand...


I've seen the money brought up several times. "He makes a million dollars for blah blah blah." I suppose its to feed the worst feelings in people or grind salt into their wounds. Mostly it demonstrates immaturity.

I'd just like to point out that this is not a lot of money for a coach these days. (Not saying I agree with the market. I personally think its insane.) The salary paid is, in fact, a below average rate for a BCS conference program. So one could easily argue that we get what we pay for. Or maybe we get more than we pay for. Whatever.

Since I'm on this topic, and it is very relevant to the whole coaching situation, lets do some quick numbers:

1. Chan gets fired -> Tech owes him about $4 million dollars over 4 years.

2. Tech wants a better coach. Be prepared to offer an 8 year, $3 million dollar contract/year at a minimum. (Barnhart reporting that Tubberville could get over $3 MM/yr offer from TX A&M or Ark or LSU)

3. That's $4 million per year for coaching over the next 4 years. Rad better have somebody really good (like the next Bob Stoops - guaranteed) lined up before he pulls that trigger.

4. A combination of Tech Fund, PSLs and ticket prices will all go up accordingly (4x).

Be careful what you ask for.

This is one of the primary reasons why GT will not fire Gailey if we get to 7-6 this year. We cannot afford to fire a coach that essentially guarantees a winning season and a bowl trip. No matter how lousy the bowl is. No matter if he loses to Georgia by less than a touchdown again. No matter if we pounded on national TV at home twice in a season.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news to those that desperately want a new coach.
 
Last edited:
wesleyd21, how did you...

come up with this stat?

3. GT postseason record under Chan 2-6 (includes 2006 ACC Championship)

He has only had 5 postseasons!

:rolleyes:
 
A-buzz it includes the ACC CG in 2006...Which we played in ass well as bowl game that year 6 postseason games in 5 years
 
Good post wesley... very informative and puts things into perspective well...kirbee I see your point as well...again we can't fire chan that way and pay that 3 million a year unless we have a BIG name coach waiting
 
We've paid Chan Gailey and John Tenuta combined approximately $9-10 million dollars over the last 6 years, and we will have no Top 25 finishes in the final poll during that time.
Click to expand...
Any "Chan is not a good bargain" arguments are meaningless without comparison information, to see what a good bargain actually is. Go back and farm last year's top 25 teams for coaches salaries, as well as maybe the 25-50th teams, so we can see how he actually sizes up. You may have a salient point, but you may not, and the only way to tell is with data that's appropriately benchmarked.

fwiw, I'm going to have a lot of fun at the end of this year, compiling some "$/win" numbers for coaches, to see exactly what the bargains really were.
 
So kirbee, what are we supposed to do? Just throw in our cards and say that 7-6 or 7-5 is going to be or destiny in the football world? I can't accept that.
 
kirbee, I think you're overstating the salary issues. Chan is below the avg in the ACC from what I've seen, but not decidedly so. Plus not all that money, for any coach, comes from salary. Some have much more lucrative outside deals.

But to my point, buyout money will likely come from outside sources if it comes to that. I'm sure there are boosters who would take care of it, as UVA boosters did to get rid of Jeff Jones. Plus there's no reason to think we would need to pay $3M per for a new coach, particularly if we don't try to outbid others for the "hot" names. There are coaches right now who would look at Chan's deal as pretty good or at least on in the $1.5M range.
 
Anyone remember that link that went around a while ago which actually did all the calculations for you? Showed all coaches, their salaries and records - calculating the cost per win?

Answered my own questions - here it is for the '06 season...

http://www.coacheshotseat.com/2006CostPerWin.htm
 
Last edited:
2. In 9 games, GT has 14 turnovers


We only had 9 turnovers in the first 8 games. It's amazing how one game can change the outlook of a statistic...Kind like our 69 point offensive pad that Samford gave us. Imagine our offensive ratings without that.
 
ncjacket said:
kirbee, I think you're overstating the salary issues. Chan is below the avg in the ACC from what I've seen, but not decidedly so. Plus not all that money, for any coach, comes from salary. Some have much more lucrative outside deals.

But to my point, buyout money will likely come from outside sources if it comes to that. I'm sure there are boosters who would take care of it, as UVA boosters did to get rid of Jeff Jones. Plus there's no reason to think we would need to pay $3M per for a new coach, particularly if we don't try to outbid others for the "hot" names. There are coaches right now who would look at Chan's deal as pretty good or at least on in the $1.5M range.
Click to expand...

Not really. If you Can Chan you damn well better bring someone in that can do better than 7 or 8 wins! Because 1) you can do a lot worse, 2) 7 wins for $1 million is a friggen bargain, 3) Chan has demonstrated he can get to the ACCCG (with Calvin Johnson), and 4) Why would you pay $1.5 million for someone that you don't know could do better? Change for change sake?

There has been too much oversell of "Chan sucks" by an emotional fan base weeping from open wounds of embarrassing losses. If you step outside of the situation you realize that Chan could put together a good (not great) resume. Factor in extenuating circumstances like probation and flunkgate and a solid case for Chan can be made. Not without holes, mind you (see Bulldogs, UGA for exhibit A of Z exhibits).

If you're going to hire somebody with commensurate or better experience and qualifications you're going to pay $3 million a year. That's the market. We're talking someone with a record like Tubberville, Frentz, Belloti, etc. Not saying one of those guys specifically, but on that same level. Someone clearly better than Chan, but not the top of the heap that has a MNC (like Stoops, Spurrier, Tressel, or Nick The Liar).

Without that, you're looking at an assistant coach with no head coach experience or a lower division coach that isn't too hot. Forget about signing the next Urban Myer because too many big boys with deep pockets will be in play. To sell this type of coach, you are required to believe in a new faith called the "New Direction." Both of these faith-based options are decided gambles. Do you want to pay off Chan's 4 years plus pay more for a decided gamble that could be a lot worse? Tough decision to make.

The third option is the fall back, yet probably the cheapest. That is with good reason. Now we have "Tech Man" to save the day. Many will love this choice blindly -- forever, no matter what. When we hire obscure, questionably qualified "Tech Man" we surely will learn what accepting mediocrity is all about.
 
Last edited:
kirbee said:
I've seen the money brought up several times. "He makes a million dollars for blah blah blah." I suppose its to feed the worst feelings in people or grind salt into their wounds. Mostly it demonstrates immaturity.

I'd just like to point out that this is not a lot of money for a coach these days. (Not saying I agree with the market. I personally think its insane.) The salary paid is, in fact, a below average rate for a BCS conference program. So one could easily argue that we get what we pay for. Or maybe we get more than we pay for. Whatever.

Since I'm on this topic, and it is very relevant to the whole coaching situation, lets do some quick numbers:

1. Chan gets fired -> Tech owes him about $4 million dollars over 4 years.

2. Tech wants a better coach. Be prepared to offer an 8 year, $3 million dollar contract/year at a minimum. (Barnhart reporting that Tubberville could get over $3 MM/yr offer from TX A&M or Ark or LSU)

3. That's $4 million per year for coaching over the next 4 years. Rad better have somebody really good (like the next Bob Stoops - guaranteed) lined up before he pulls that trigger.

4. A combination of Tech Fund, PSLs and ticket prices will all go up accordingly (4x).

Be careful what you ask for.

This is one of the primary reasons why GT will not fire Gailey if we get to 7-6 this year. We cannot afford to fire a coach that essentially guarantees a winning season and a bowl trip. No matter how lousy the bowl is. No matter if he loses to Georgia by less than a touchdown again. No matter if we pounded on national TV at home twice in a season.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news to those that desperately want a new coach.
Click to expand...
Darn, we'll just have to stick with this old boring-ass loser then... give me a break...He's 48th on the salary list, O'leary 47th and Paul Johnson 48th coincedentally-makes more than BC Head Coach, June Jones at Hawaii, and I bet about 2-3x more than Chris Hatcher at GSU. I would say 1.5MM/year we could get a better coach than this old fart. Offer Hatcher 1.1MM + incentives or Jones 1.4MM+ or Johnson 1.4+ and we would be an exciting team to watch in year or 2- fill up the stands which miracuously would bring money into the AA! Offense puts people in the stands. Those are my three instead of sitting around watching this old codger and saying "we are stuck..."- What a loser mentallity that is...
 
Bull, you aren't going to pay $3M to replace Chan unless you just want to. Those coordinators with no HC experience or lower level coaches who you think aren't that hot may actually be much better coaches than Chan in terms of getting production from college players. Methinks the problem is you have too high an opinion of Chan's quality. He's average. He's been average wherever he's been and he'll be average when he leaves Tech.
 
Well if he's 48th on the salary list, and we finish the season in the 40s, then technically we're not overpaying him.

Just saying..

Thanks for the link, SMoney, that rules. For 2006, we paid $124,167 per win. 50 teams paid more per win than we did. Unfortunately, that number is likely to get worse this season. By comparison, Ted Roof and Al Groh were both in the top ten worst bargains for 2006, at 370k per win and 357k per win.

I'll be interested to see how Bama fares in this year's results. But clearly Weis is going to take the cake. And the donuts. And the bacon.
 
What is acceptable

While we are discussing, what does everyone feel is an actual acceptable level to pay per win? At $4 million per year, even if Bama were to roll their way to 12 wins, they would still be paying $333k per win. In a bad season of 5 wins, that drops to $800k per win. Extremely wide swing...don't think you can really put an acceptable number on it.

In the corporate world, everything is now about pay for performance. Shift from fixed pay to more variable. More pay tied in bonus plans and long term incentives. In sports, for both coaches and players, it is all about pay for PAST performance. Do well during your "contract year" and teams have to pay you the big bucks regardless of output once the contract is signed. Coach a team to a great record and another team will pay you big bucks because of what you have done, regardless of how you do once you get to the new school.

It would be great (although it will never happen), if coaching contracts became much more performance focused - lower base salaries (guaranteed pay), and higher variable pay (higher levels of pay for each win, beating rivals, winning bowls, etc).

Just imagine a contract that paid something like 400k guaranteed salary. Then provided 100k per victory. Additional 50k for victory over rival. 50k for bowl win, 100k if bowl is BCS, 500k if BCS championship.

I think you could then inspire a "play to win" attitude that we all desire...
 
Re: What is acceptable

SMoney said:
While we are discussing, what does everyone feel is an actual acceptable level to pay per win? At $4 million per year, even if Bama were to roll their way to 12 wins, they would still be paying $333k per win. In a bad season of 5 wins, that drops to $800k per win. Extremely wide swing...don't think you can really put an acceptable number on it.

In the corporate world, everything is now about pay for performance. Shift from fixed pay to more variable. More pay tied in bonus plans and long term incentives. In sports, for both coaches and players, it is all about pay for PAST performance. Do well during your "contract year" and teams have to pay you the big bucks regardless of output once the contract is signed. Coach a team to a great record and another team will pay you big bucks because of what you have done, regardless of how you do once you get to the new school.

It would be great (although it will never happen), if coaching contracts became much more performance focused - lower base salaries (guaranteed pay), and higher variable pay (higher levels of pay for each win, beating rivals, winning bowls, etc).

Just imagine a contract that paid something like 400k guaranteed salary. Then provided 100k per victory. Additional 50k for victory over rival. 50k for bowl win, 100k if bowl is BCS, 500k if BCS championship.

I think you could then inspire a "play to win" attitude that we all desire...
Click to expand...

Like you and others have mentioned, I think the incentive based contract is a great idea although I'm sure a few details would have to be fleshed out to put it into practice. I agree that no established coach would accept the idea, but I would be willing to bet that an up-and-coming guy might take a deal like that, esp. if the base pay was a reasonable raise over what he's currently making. Get a few guys to accept a deal like that, and I think you'd have a lot of other schools follow suit.

It wouldn't entirely eliminate the power of the football factories because they'd be able to offer more in terms of base salary AND per win incentives, but it would keep AA's from having several million tied to a guy when they're ready to make a change.
 
beej67 said:
I'll be interested to see how Bama fares in this year's results. But clearly Weis is going to take the cake. And the donuts. And the bacon.
Click to expand...

Now that's funny! I don't care who you are.

:laugher::laugher::laugher:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top