Being the Tech coach ain't that great.

[ncjacket]

Carson made his mark as a DC didn't he? Not as a HC. Bill Lewis has had a good career as an assistant, he just wasn't HC material on the big stage.

 

[GT65_UGA89]

Carson made his mark as a DC didn't he? Not as a HC.

Carson was DC for the Steelers in the early-to-mid 70's. He had successful stints with the Rams and Eagles --among other teams-- definitely did make his mark as an NFL DC.

 

[goldmember]

Maybe, but you are a Tech fan, like me.....prone to dream.
Bobby Johnson at Vanderbilt would not leave for Tech.
Gary Patterson would not leave TCU for Tech.
Hell, Mike Price wouldn't leave UTEP for Tech. The Texas Tech wouldn't trade.
I still maintain that the top 50 head coaches would stay put rather than head to Tech--therefore making our only realistic choice somebody's untried coordinator, a Division II coach , or some re-tread like Dan Reeves, or like Chan was.

I am sorry but that is an asinine way to determine that GT is not a top 50 job. Even if those coaches would stay put (your opinion)it doesn't mean that those schools are better jobs. Would Chan leave to go to Vandy or TCU? Would he leave to go to any other college job? I just hate it when out own fans tear our program down.

 

[JTS]

There are very jobs that an established BCS conference HC would leave for. There are also coaches that would never want to coach at an academic school. None of these things make GT a less desirable than TCU, UTEP, Vandy, etc.....

Houston Nutt turned down Nebraska to stay at Arkansas. Schiano turned down Miami to stay at Rutgers. Rodrigez turned down Alabama to stay at WVU. By your argument Alabama, Nebraska, and Miami are less desirable jobs than Arkansas, Rutgers, and Miami. Does that make sense? I don't think so.

 

[Essobee]

All of us need to axe ourselves why, since Bud Carson was fired and went on to coaching immortality elsewhere, why have four of the last six coaches to leave Tech have left by there own volition? Fulcher, Curry, Ross, and O'Leary basically said "I've enjoyed all of this I can stand." It is not a good gig.

First, Bud was a fine defensive coach at Tech and the pros. He was a good recruiter as well. However, he followed Dodd and that was not a great postion to be in. Frank Howard used to call Dodd "Old Syrup Mouth" for good reason. Bud's personality fell short.

Next, Fulcher left for personal reasons and did not pursue a coaching career.

Curry left for one of the great coaching positions in America (at the time) and with the idea of combining athletics and academics at an athletic instution. He probably could have stayed if he had chewed tobacco and beat Auburn.

Ross always wanted to give the pros a try. His coaching track record, by the way, was usually five years and on to another coaching job.

O'Leary left for one of the great coaching positions in America (at the time) and had the name to go with the university. Too bad he lost Friedgen. Too bad his recruits had academic problems. Too bad about his resume.

Finally, none of the above named people coached at the Georgia Tech of today. Far from it. 21st Century Tech now has excellent facilities, a great TV market, outstanding recruiting location, and I would like to say a super conference but that would be really overreaching at this time. Still, it is a much better conference than it was in 1990.

Georgia Tech is an excellent gig with a fine athletic tradition and a beautiful, compact campus. Atlanta is an exciting city and will love and support a winner (witness the Braves). Institute leadership and support from the alumni base is evident in great facilities and world-recognized academic reputation.

 

[gnats67]

Halfassed argument. It used to be an uphill climb but facilities, etc., are much improved. It's largely been the Hill's lack of respect for football and it's considerable support base.