Can the AA afford $1.8 million?

GTKyle said:
yeah, but chan inherited a team that was 8-5, GOL inherited a team that was 1-10
Click to expand...

What that tells us is that Bill Lewis sucked.

You could just as easily say O'Leary took a 10-2 team with a Heisman Trophy candidate QB and turned them into mediocrity.

O'Leary got better results than Chan, clearly. But the biggest distinction between them was UGAg wins, which O'Leary got to pluck from Jim Donnan.



(If one were feeling devilish, he could argue that Chan is so far our version of Jim Donnan. Donnan had a winning record every year, went to a bowl every year, had some big wins, some dumbfounding losses, and the biggest complaint against him was performance against his in-state rival.)
 
mm42 said:
What that tells us is that Bill Lewis sucked.

You could just as easily say O'Leary took a 10-2 team with a Heisman Trophy candidate QB and turned them into mediocrity.

O'Leary got better results than Chan, clearly. But the biggest distinction between them was UGAg wins, which O'Leary got to pluck from Jim Donnan.



(If one were feeling devilish, he could argue that Chan is so far our version of Jim Donnan. Donnan had a winning record every year, went to a bowl every year, had some big wins, some dumbfounding losses, and the biggest complaint against him was performance against his in-state rival.)
Click to expand...
We'll see at the end of the season how Gailey has performed. If a majority of the fanbase is dissatisfied with him I'm sure he'll get canned. I'm just glad demjackets has assured me that we have the financial power to do so.
 
ramblinwise1 said:
Actually the 1990 Citrus was equal to a BCS bowl because it featured the ACC Champ.
Click to expand...

Well, not really. They still played the four BCS bowls that year along with the Cotton and we weren't in them. Plus, to be a BCS team, you have to be ranked in the top 12 I think and if Nebraska was top 12 it was barely.By definition of BCS bowls they are Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, and Rose and we haven't been to one in 40+ years. Now your point is well taken in that the ACC's bowl tie-ins have always sucked as I said meaning we get crappy bowls even when we're great. So using bowls as a criteria in how we evaluate our coaches seems illogical to me.
 
It's a been awhile since that comment, but I used Miami as an example because they were getting mediocre attendance even during their glory years. Except for the FSU game, the dump they call the Orange Bowl is about half full.

thwg, I believe GT was invited to play Colorado in the Orange but the ACC champion was contractually obligated to play in the Citrus at that point. It's also worth noting that GT beat Nebraska a whole lot worse than Colorado did that year.

Damn fifth down. Damn "clipping" call.
 
Re: 1990

Notre Dame had locked into the Orange Bowl in late October, so we could not have gone there no matter what.

Without being locked in to the Citrus Bowl, our most likely destination would have been the Sugar Bowl, rather than Virginia.

There was an "out" clause in the ACC-Citrus Bowl contract that Clemson insisted be put in, that allowed the ACC champ to go elsewhere if ranked #5 or higher on Nov. 5. We were ranked #6 on that day.



I think the OP meant that going to the Citrus Bowl was the equivalent of going to a BCS bowl, since we were ACC champs, not that the bowl itself was equivalent.
 
GYKyle said
"Louisville has passed us up, yes. They made it to a BCS bowl game and have been in the top 10 consistently. They have had defensive problems this year, but we have had our problems as well. Petrino also left, of course.

IAlso of note: BC, Kentucky, WVU, Rutgers.[/quote]"

First of all how do you define less support Kyle? I would argue that every team you mention except BC has much more support in terms of fan base, dollars, etc. than Tech has. Those are all big schools with huge followings.

To mention WVU blows your whole argument anyway. Maybe it's youthful ignorance, but football has been king at WVU forever. On Saturday's, the whole state stops to follow what's going on with the Mountanieers (except for Marshall fans).

Louisville has been on the rise every since the Papa Johns' money has been pouring in. Much like Oregan it's amazing what a rich benefactor can do for a college program.

BC is BC. They've been pretty good for quite a while and while they are ahead of Tech this year, I'd argue that we're pretty similar over the long haul.

Rutgers has long been the sleeping giant of the east. It's the state univ of NJ and someone finally found the key to keeping kids home and building a program. We'll see how long Schiano stays and if he leaves how they do then.

Finally, to point at KY and say they've passed us is just stupid unless you're definition of where a program is is based on one or two years. KY has been decent in the past and it hasn't lasted. Let's see how they do this time.
 
thwg said:
Well, not really. They still played the four BCS bowls that year along with the Cotton and we weren't in them. Plus, to be a BCS team, you have to be ranked in the top 12 I think and if Nebraska was top 12 it was barely.By definition of BCS bowls they are Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, and Rose and we haven't been to one in 40+ years. Now your point is well taken in that the ACC's bowl tie-ins have always sucked as I said meaning we get crappy bowls even when we're great. So using bowls as a criteria in how we evaluate our coaches seems illogical to me.
Click to expand...

No there is no definition of BCS bowls that equates to 1990 bowl matchups.
 
You could just as easily say O'Leary took a 10-2 team with a Heisman Trophy candidate QB and turned them into mediocrity.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Look at the 1999 team. Heisman runner up, TWO NFL caliber wide outs, the best line since 1990, and lost 4 games. Lost to unranked and wretched Wake Forest while we were in the Top Ten.

GoL "progressed" until we were in the 7-9 win range, we cracked 10 once, then hovered in the 7-9 win range. Chan kept us in the 7-9 win range, and Reggie Ball kept us from cracking 10 last year.

If there's anything you can complain about for Chan, it's not 'mediocrity' unless your expectations are seriously screwed. You can complain about the UGA loss streak. That's what you can complain about. All other complaints are dumb.

The truth, as much as it may sting your ears to hear it, is that essentially all football programs except for a very few factories, cannot realistically set every-year-expectations higher than regularly landing in the7-9 win range.

Factories: Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Miami, FSU, VT, OSU, Penn State, Michigan.

Those schools are allowed to call a decade of winning seasons 'mediocrity.' Nobody else is. Deal with it.
 
GTKyle said:
6-5
5-6
7-5
10-2
8-4
9-3
8-5

The difference was the program progressed under O'Leary. He had to clean up a Bill Lewis team that had gone 1-10 the previous season. Chan took over a program that was already 8-5 the previous season.
Click to expand...
Is the level of competition the same now (as it was then)?
 
GTKyle said:
yeah, but chan inherited a team that was 8-5, GOL inherited a team that was 1-10
Click to expand...
Since GO'L inherited a 1-10 team and brought it to a consistent 8-5 level team his predecessor should increase by at least 7 more wins to match the success. I get it.

15 win seasons or you're out, buddy!
 
GTKyle said:
6-5
5-6
7-5
10-2
8-4
9-3
8-5

The difference was the program progressed under O'Leary. He had to clean up a Bill Lewis team that had gone 1-10 the previous season. Chan took over a program that was already 8-5 the previous season.
Click to expand...

O'Leary told me face to face he didn't have to rebuild after Lewis he had to Refocus the team. He admitted he had very good talent when he took over. Please stop apologizing for him.
 
Big Johm, I also never really bought into the common assumption that Ross had to do a massive rebuilding. Seemed to me there was plenty of talent on that team but it didn't mesh with Ross' philosophies in some way.
 
While i'm not a O'leary fan, it's easy for a lot of fans to kick the previous coach when they are gone.

There's a lot of ignorance on this board (me included) at times. I wish people would take time to think about what they are about to say.
 
refrigeratormover said:
While i'm not a O'leary fan, it's easy for a lot of fans to kick the previous coach when they are gone.

There's a lot of ignorance on this board (me included) at times. I wish people would take time to think about what they are about to say.
Click to expand...
Good post. I really appreciate what Oleary did for our program but he's gone now (his decision) and it's time for some to move on - like the rest of us did 6 years ago.
 
aeromech said:
Yes, and O'leary had an easier ACC to compete in, a UGA prior to Richt, and used players that were ineligible that later put us on probation. I liked O'leary when he was here; but I'm perplexed as to why people on the message boards hold him in such high esteem.
Click to expand...


Woah, woah woah, hold on cowboy. The 1998 team would have steam rolled through last year's schedule. That team may have lost only one game all year and we more than likely would have been a force in the BCS picture. If you think last year's competition was harder than 1998's competition, that is laughable. UGA in 1998 was a better team than UGA 2006.
 
BarrelORum said:
Woah, woah woah, hold on cowboy. The 1998 team would have steam rolled through last year's schedule. That team may have lost only one game all year and we more than likely would have been a force in the BCS picture. If you think last year's competition was harder than 1998's competition, that is laughable. UGA in 1998 was a better team than UGA 2006.
Click to expand...
In general, Donnan's teams were much more talented than last year's UGA team (proven by the number of guys in the NFL still contributing at a high level) but there was only one problem. They were Donnan's teams. More talented - certainly. Better teams - not necessarily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top