beej67....nervous?

kirbee, that may be the most depressing thing I've read in sometime.

So basically you think that Chan should be fired, but the logisitics just aren't in place for him to be fired this year? So as long as he wins 7 games period he'll be back? I will put a bullet in my head if that happens.
 
I will not put a bullet in my head, but I will buy kirbee some booze to drown our sorrows in. Hence the bet. BOR can come.
 
beej67 said:
I will not put a bullet in my head, but I will buy kirbee some booze to drown our sorrows in. Hence the bet. BOR can come.
Click to expand...

Da**it guys --don't go mixing booze and bullets. Next thing you know the 2008 season will roll around and we'll all be wondering what happened to beej67 and BOR.

There will then be more space for Old Foggy and the 'imposter' beej's to post --and that's just not a good thing at all.
 
fwiw, I think the other beej was here first.



beej67,
giving credit where credit's due
 
beej67 said:
fwiw, I think the other beej was here first.



beej67,
giving credit where credit's due
Click to expand...

My humblest of apologies to Mr. BeeJ --shouldn't have lumped him in w/ Ol' Fog anyway --that was very 'Chanesque' of me.
 
I hope, I trust, I PRAY, that DRad does not decide to keep or fire Gailey based on emotion. That's BAAAAD mojo.

You keep a coach because it's in the best long-term interest of the program. Likewise, you fire a coach because it's in the best long-term interest of the program. Not because we lost and you're mad.

Emotion matters only when it affects ticket sales and contributions negatively, over an extended period, and despite what people say is gonna happen if we lose to Georgia and Gailey isn't fired, I don't see either of those things happening now. In fact, quite the opposite.
 
elwoodGT said:
Emotion matters only when it affects ticket sales and contributions negatively, over an extended period, and despite what people say is gonna happen if we lose to Georgia and Gailey isn't fired, I don't see either of those things happening now. In fact, quite the opposite.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...well what does it say about "emotion" affecting ticket sales when we dropped like $40,000 to have Big Boi at half-time, on prime time national TV against a conference/division rival ranked in the top 10 and we still couldn't sell out the game? That pretty much summarizes that emotions and attitudes of the GT fanbase right now.

The majority of Tech fans would like to see Gailey go, I've seen many converts jump to the can chan ship in the last few weeks, even after lousy wins. Not all of us drink the Kool-Aid and are blinded to reality by our yellow tinted sunglasses.
 
kirbee said:
Seriously, GT is going to have to get destroyed twice for Rad to get serious about firing him. It could happen, but as long as #22 is on the field its as likely as the cheerleader scenario.

:ugh:
Click to expand...

I'm surprised no one's going to tack a huge sign on the AA for Chan and the campus to see either tomorrow or before the football game in the middle of the night...it would say something to the effect of "Beat UGA or leave."
 
WreckTheRest said:
I'm surprised no one's going to tack a huge sign on the AA for Chan and the campus to see either tomorrow or before the football game in the middle of the night...it would say something to the effect of "Beat UGA or leave."
Click to expand...

Rad should play that "Don't Drink and Drive" clip w/ Chan in it around the 3rd quarter or so to gauge the fan bases opinions on the matter...well nevermind, that wouldn't work because I forgot BDS will be half full of red and they will definitely cheer for Chan, they love that guy.
 
Kirbee,

I agree with your post and your logic. Next year is probably when the bowl streak stops and would give the next coach a bunch of young talent. I also agree that we would fall off a lot of talented coach's lists when the story is reported that we fired a coach who took us to a bowl and is one year removed from the ACC championship game.
 
kirbee said:
Thanks. You make a sound case.

Two points:

1) You say we're top 20-25 team but then prove we're not. Are you saying we COULD BE top 20-25 with the right coach? I'm not sure we have the offensive weapons at WR and QB when you throw in the injuries to our best offensive player #22. Add that up and you get a couple of heartbreaking conference losses on the road early in the season, which can be easily assigned to execution mistakes by players.

2) One of the main criticisms of Chan's program over the years is the roller coaster ride. Beat Auburn, lose to Duke. It appears to me that since he got his own players in the program the variability has stabilized over the past 3 seasons. I can only think of 1 game that Tech had no business losing the last 3 years, and that was against Utah in the Emerald Bowl. On the other hand there are several wins on the slate that maybe we shouldn't have: Miami (first one), Auburn, VT. Now that the consistency has been somewhat rectified, its interesting to me that this is seen as a negative also. I see, as you note, this season we don't have a signature win....but we still have a chance.
Click to expand...

point 1 - yes, I think we're a top 25 team as far as talent (especially with our seniors and the QB had been around the program 4 years). sorry for not being more clear.

point 2 - I have never really agreed with that stuff. We are typically 1 top 35-45 team under Chan and rarely beat people in the top 25 and rarely lose outside the top 55. There is almost no standard deviation with Chan. The only true extreme outlier was the duke game in 03.

now a few of the losses have been really bad BUT a few of the wins (the 2 auburn wins, MIA in 05) have been as impressive as the really bad losses. I think Chan is as consistent of a coahc in the country in a lot more ways than 1. It would be nice to beat a good team by more than a TD and look good doing it occasionally but Chanball makes everything look average, even Calvin at times.

BTW, I only completely fell off the Chan wagon at MD and a win over Ugag would prop me back up for one more year.
 
BarrelORum said:
kirbee, that may be the most depressing thing I've read in sometime.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to hurt you BOR. Just trying to look at things realistically.

BarrelORum said:
So basically you think that Chan should be fired, but the logisitics just aren't in place for him to be fired this year?
Click to expand...

No. I actually haven't decided if I think Chan should be fired. If he beats GA and wins a bowl game, no way in hell. If he gets blown out by GA and again in the bowl, then yeah. If its somewhere in between its a tough call. It depends. It also depends on things I do not and cannot know (but Rad can and should).

The assumptions about next year are the way I see things as of right now. I think you have to look forward as well as back to make the decision. To ignore the near future is foolish.

BarrelORum said:
So as long as he wins 7 games period he'll be back? I will put a bullet in my head if that happens.
Click to expand...

That's not what I was saying and Tech sports is not worth the wasted ammunition. ;)
 
GT1992 said:
I also agree that we would fall off a lot of talented coach's lists when the story is reported that we fired a coach who took us to a bowl and is one year removed from the ACC championship game.
Click to expand...


I doubt it, especially if he is 0-6 against your biggest rival. Doesn't seem to be a problem for other coaches who got jobs following guys that weren't popular with the fan base.
 
Any coach who refuses to come to Tech because he doesn't think he could do better than 0-6 vs Georgia is a coach I don't want.
 
GT1992:
I also agree that we would fall off a lot of talented coach's lists when the story is reported that we fired a coach who took us to a bowl and is one year removed from the ACC championship game.
Click to expand...

BarrelORum said:
I doubt it, especially if he is 0-6 against your biggest rival. Doesn't seem to be a problem for other coaches who got jobs following guys that weren't popular with the fan base.
Click to expand...

Actually I think Chan's success (limited as it is) will be a selling point for a new coach. It demonstrates that there is a culture of winning at GT and it can be done. There aren't bands of media singing the praises of Chan as a coach.

Rather, the things I see that may sour potential coaches are 1) the budget is substantially smaller than the primary competition, 2) the facilities are substandard to the primary competition, 3) the pool of recruitable talent is substantially smaller, 4) the previous coach had his hands tied by academic mishaps that were unforeseeable.
 
Losing to UGay and Chan Gailey not being fired is a 1-2 nutpunch I'm not sure I could handle.
 
Hey kirbee... Even though BC had alot of players coming back, they have a new coach and a new system. They are 9-2 and ranked in the top 15 and are in for the ACCCG. Look at what their new coach has did... Maybe a new coach for GT after this year would be a positive? We will still have talent but it will be young talent.
 
kirbee said:
Rather, the things I see that may sour potential coaches are 1) the budget is substantially smaller than the primary competition, 2) the facilities are substandard to the primary competition, 3) the pool of recruitable talent is substantially smaller, 4) the previous coach had his hands tied by academic mishaps that were unforeseeable.
Click to expand...

on #2 - I don't think our facilities are substandard - they were recently upgraded - am I wrong? Unless you're talking about the size of the stadium...

on #4 - perhaps a better term than "unforeseeable" would be "avoidable" ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top