For what its worth....

[MsTechAnalysis]

The marketing of this institution to potential football players has many avenues. Coach O'Leary did a very good job in that respect. I can only say this because I followed recruiting closely during the O'Leary years. I paid to read what the SAs had to say about GT, facilities, coaches, history, fans and playing in the city of Atlanta.

O'Leary did a good job putting the whole package together. I use to constantly read after their visits how academics was important and that all the support given by the AA and academic side was a big factor - "a degree from GT was huge." They definitely sold this to these students because it was always mentioned and IT WAS IMPORTANT!

Also, their comments would also center around the facilities and how they have been enhanced, the stadium and campus smack dab in the middle of the beautiful, enegertic city of Atlanta.

They'd talk about the success the coaches then were having and many would talk about their position coaches and how important that was as well. They never failed to mention the successes on the field and all the bowl games. They'd mentioned past football history and fan support and the comment, 'up and coming program' was a given.

Somebody within the O'Leary camp did a great job with presenting this school and ALL its attributes to the Student Athletes in an exemplary fashion. Those who do this and do it well must also be that personality that believes it themselves, they have to be as diehard about what they are saying and doing to them as we are fans!

When I talk GT to my friends and family who are not around here - they can't believe I did not attend this school. I hear this ALL the time, I sell GT to them with my passion without even knowing it! These are the kinds of things we need in place in the AA - these kinds of people with a plan to be successful in all these areas.

 

[Father WASP]

Adding a broader curriculum doesn't necessarily mean you dumb a school down. The same high standards can be set within the context of a wider offering. Yes, the core can remain true to being a technology school, but alot of state's have their technology centered with ag schools, etc. True, we aren't other states, but we are darn sure comepeting with them on the football field. Even the military academies offer a fairly wide array of subjects.

I stick by my statement. Clough can raise all the money he wants for academics, the subject here is football. If your going to half-ass it, be fair to the young men trying to play it and drop a division if that's the philosophy of the school. I don't care whether it's art, computers or ping-pong, I think it says something about an institution that once it enters, does so half-assed.

We are not there yet, but let one generation of turtlenecked morons have their way and we can end up like Tulane, that decades ago had a solid football program, but about to drop it and become like Emory? Is that what you want? Then you can quote academic stats with each other at Starbucks and leave the rest of us to reminesce about what used to be the great Saturdays at the Flats, listening to Up With The White and Gold on scratchy CD's only.

Get real. The competition doesn't have the Carol Moore's and a narrow curriculum. And Im not just talking Georgia and Auburn. This is a pivotal time for the football program and I am real concerned the people in charge don't get it. You can have strong academics and strong athletics but you better have an administration with its act together to make it work .

 

[techsamillion]

Padre(Wasp)...... Thank you...have not read down the rest of the thread, but you kind man of the cloth have written something with which I agree 100%. Has not been so in many instances. Okay, I know you cry over this.
Anyway.....Good, boy howdy! on your post.

 

[jimbobGT]

Originally posted by Father WASP:
Adding a broader curriculum doesn't necessarily mean you dumb a school down.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">These kids would have failed out of basket-weaving if Tech made the major as thorough and rigorous as the rest of the school. Making it broader won't solve squat. To keep some of the kids in school, the curriculum has to be made easier. Period.

Originally posted by Father WASP:
be fair to the young men trying to play it

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">It would have nice if these young men told someone that they were having a hard time in class for at least a year (since it usually takes around 2 semesters before getting kicked out for academics), wouldn't it?

Originally posted by Father WASP:
You can have strong academics and strong athletics but you better have an administration with its act together to make it work

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">We agree here, we can do both. But your broader curriculum idea is simply to wussify the school. The people in charge of the GTAA definitely screwed up, but they had changed the system HOPING it would work out better for the SAs and coaches. Obviously it didn't work out and its being worked on now.

Originally posted by Father WASP:
Then you can quote academic stats with each other at Starbucks and leave the rest of us to reminesce about what used to be the great Saturdays at the Flats

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Excuse some of us turtlenecked morons for caring what the institute does not only on Saturdays, but also every other day of the week. Must suck to care for the whole institute instead of just sports.

 

[techrod]

You people MUST realize the ncaa's NEW requirement of asking sas to show progress toward their degree in the same amount of time as our REGULAR students show. The only thing is is that MOST FOOTBALL PLAYERS NEED MORE TIME TO SHOW THAT THEY ARE ON THIS TARGET HERE AT TECH. THIS IS WHAT IS GOING TO BE SO HARD FOR US TO KEEP UP WITH OUR COMPETITION! AS LONG AS CAROL HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT WE ARE DOOMED! Now if Chan get ahold of this situation then we might have a chance. He did say things were changing and he is going to be more involved! I do think he is good coach and right for this job as well as most anyone, but the academia part of Tech has GOT TO HELP in someway or another. I don't have answers, but it is imperitive that the 2 forces work together to keep our sports dept progressing right along with the academics. If the split in differences persist then there is NO HOPE FOR TECH FOOTBALL! IT simply TO TOUGH for football players to show this progress with there guidelines and also be competitive Georgia and the likes. Even Duke has courses with which athletes can get through in 4 years with not much ado. In football there is just not any support fot the team. I'm telling ya things as the way are now can't coexist and have excellence on the field. There are not enough of the fast and furious types to go around. So you academia first just don't get it if you can't understand this. I can't explain it any better! I say to you people if something is not sacrificed our program will go bankrupt in 5 years. THE NCAA HAS DONE IT TO US AND OUR ADMINISRATION HAS BEEN BLIND TO SEE WHAT HAS HAPPENED. IT JUST CAME ON TOO FAST! LET"S HOPE THE SCHOOL CAN GET A HANDLE ON THIS BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. I was analogized the way things are and here it tis again: WE TIED OUR OWN HANDS BEHIND OUR BACK AND THE NCAA PUT THE NOOSE AROUND OUR NECKS AND NOW WILL THE PLATFORM BE TRIPPED!!

 

[MsTechAnalysis]

Originally posted by ncjacket:
MsTA, great comments on recruiting and selling the whole GT experience. The only problem I have with it is that O'Leary was able to sell the total package, but very few of his recruits actually achieved it. IMO we have to figure out how to do both. Ross did a pretty good job of it and to me he's the one we should be trying to emulate, not O'Leary. I admire George for what he did, and supported him as our coach, but he did't complete the mission. I don't think Tech should accept mediocrity in either academics or athletics.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I have to find out a little more info on the O'Leary era and graduation rates because in the Feb. 2002 Recruiting get together at The Cobb Galleria Center that we attended - Coach Gailey's lst recruiting endeavor, he praised Coach O'Leary and shot down the NCAA and their formula(s) for determining these numbers.

To quote Chan, "Coach O'Leary got a bum wrap about these numbers. The regular student population of Georgia Tech graduates about 70+% of its students, so does the football program."

NCJ, this was not in answer to any question geared to him, it was a direct comment about what he inherited and the overall status of the program with regard to his predecessor and academics. Coaches stick together and he was clearing the air and he was definitely not pro-NCAA! He praised Coach O'Leary and his strong efforts in this area.

I know these numbers get put in the paper but the formula skews negatively because the NCAA says anyone transfering out and anyone transferring is counted against you and not for you. He made a LOT of negative comments about this and the NCAA.

 

[ncjacket]

MsTA, I do remember the comment and think it either had to do with the number of kids who transfered and eventually graduated from other schools or simply the percentage of those who stayed at Tech for 5-6 years. Either one could be true and still not meet NCAA guidelines. If it's the later then it actually proves my point I think. That is, if kid can stay in school they can graduate. But the numbers who quit, either due to grades or other reasons, was very high. Master B did some work a few weeks back and indicated we lost 35 in O'Leary's last 3 years. My guess (and only my guess) is that many of those who gave no reason for leaving were academic problems waiting to happen. If that's true then the only real difference from this year is the coaches knew it was going to happen and could plan around it.

Either way, if we pick the right guys and give them the support they need I feel confident we can be successful. I'm not asking for 80% graduation rates. If we're close to the student body as a whole I'll be satisfied.

 

[MsTechAnalysis]

Originally posted by ncjacket:
MsTA, I do remember the comment and think it either had to do with the number of kids who transfered and eventually graduated from other schools or simply the percentage of those who stayed at Tech for 5-6 years. Either one could be true and still not meet NCAA guidelines. If it's the later then it actually proves my point I think. That is, if kid can stay in school they can graduate. But the numbers who quit, either due to grades or other reasons, was very high. Master B did some work a few weeks back and indicated we lost 35 in O'Leary's last 3 years. My guess (and only my guess) is that many of those who gave no reason for leaving were academic problems waiting to happen. If that's true then the only real difference from this year is the coaches knew it was going to happen and could plan around it.

Either way, if we pick the right guys and give them the support they need I feel confident we can be successful. I'm not asking for 80% graduation rates. If we're close to the student body as a whole I'll be satisfied.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Another added scenario to O'Leary's recruits - he NEVER went after non-qualifiers!! That was a pre-requisite from him and I'm sure from GT they were all qualified before the signed on the dotted line.

Under the circumstances, I would find it difficult to realize until after the fact, those who might not make it ... just like the regular students...you get in, the question is can you STAY IN? O'Leary fulfilled his obligations here even after the fact.

I think O'Leary did the best in trying to find these students - we went more national in recruiting with Coach O'Leary then any other coach before him, something I believe is necessary for this academic environment. You've got to find those kids who can play and do the work to - lots of dollars need to go into the recruiting process.

O'Leary's success on the field made this a little easier because we were constantly on TV and winning - it helped this program tremendously - nationally! Being the only game on Thursday night through out the country was worth many unspent dollars recruiting!! Kids called Tech. It was rare getting kids from Minn., Calif., Texas and a few others.

I am an O'Leary advocate. He did many things here that were necessary to succeed for the whole program. He took the time to find out and implement is plan - his plan is what any coach here needs to get the job done and succeed. He did get a bum wrap on the academic side because when all was said and done, his plan WAS TO FIND qualifiers and then he oversaw their progress and make sure they were going to class and doing the work.

If the qualifier ends-up after all of this not capable, that's just like any other student and you have to continue to find those who will qualify and hope they will be able to maintain! I was recently told by a grad and a former player - that Coach O'Leary did it the best and his layout should be followed by any taking his place in order to succeed.

 

[ahsoisee]

The only problem with your post is the fact it is fatally flawed. Those coming after O'Leary cannot follow the same plan as O'Leary, because the administration has changed the system.

Since it is impossible to follow a system that is no longer allowed, it is impossible for a new coach to follow the same system. Thus, the plan is fatally flawed.

So, what O'Leary did while he was here has absolutely no bearing on the situation at present. It means nothing.

 

[MsTechAnalysis]

Originally posted by ahsoisee:
The only problem with your post is the fact it is fatally flawed. Those coming after O'Leary cannot follow the same plan as O'Leary, because the administration has changed the system.

Since it is impossible to follow a system that is no longer allowed, it is impossible for a new coach to follow the same system. Thus, the plan is fatally flawed.

So, what O'Leary did while he was here has absolutely no bearing on the situation at present. It means nothing.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Ahso: What I said it has to go back that way - I not going to get into any negative discussion here with you. In order to succeed here in getting SA's to come and hopefully stay this was what worked and how you have to work it. This is not the blind leading the blind - this is fact!

You need to start talking to some ex players that go back before O'Leary and after and let them tell you what it takes. One of these days if you want to take the time, I would be more then happy to introduce you to a load of them - to a person they ALL agree on the plan to make it work and they all agree it's going to take this kind of effort to be successful.

You knock down and disagree with me - but facts are facts and their is a lot going on and it's going to take a lot to make good things happen once again! And by the way, Dave Braine even said he made a mistake and would change the process!! Obviously, out illustrious AD GOOFED BIG TIME and I find that strange. He was on campus for all those years and had to have known what it's going to take to get the job done from all fronts - commons sense says, don't change it - just move the processes to the next guy!!

The paper ran a huge article a few weeks ago and contacted Coach O'Leary - what he said and what he had to do was all true. The process was even deeper then what was in the paper.

 

[ahsoisee]

I am using facts. The facts are the system was changed, and things are not the same as they were when O'Leary was here. Even the standards for entry have increased.

Those are facts. Even though Braine has stated the buck stops with him, and adjustments are being made to give Gailey more monitoring than last year, I doubt if the system has or will resort back to the same system as O'Leary was under.

So, again, the two cannot be the same again, and most likely never will be, regardless of which coach is at GT.

Even if O'Leary were to come back, which is impossible, the same system would not be here for O'Leary. He could not have the same levity with the academic program that he had in the past. So, dreaming of the past has no value here.

You stated O'Leary tried to recruit nationally, so is Gailey. What is the difference here?

In fact, Gailey will be recruiting nationally and extending the base of recruiting even more than O'Leary. That was his first question to the AD, "do we have the money and ability to recruit on a national basis?".

He has already targeted a few States with better educational stats than Georgia, and as his tenure progresses, I feel sure other States will be added for a higher degree of recruiting.

So, when we get into the discussion of recruiting more qualified SAs, I feel extremely confident, Gailey will completely excel over the records of O'Leary in getting more qualified SAs to attend Tech as the future unfolds.

Another fact about academics, sports, life, business, etc. is that they are ever changing. You cannot hold onto the past to expect to cope with the future. You must adapt as you go, to cope with current problems.

What past players say has only a small benefit for the future. I would quiz them for their thoughts, and then I would take my own analysis and adapt my program to suit the real needs. Anyone basing their total system on what a past player thinks will get left behind in the real world.

I had rather listen to all concerned, coaches, athletes, teachers, academic advisors, academic staff, etc., analyze the information, and come up with the best plan possible in today's environment. What someone else did in the past would only be one element in the solutions.

Another fact that remains is the 35 players lost in three years at Tech under O'Leary. Since many of the players that failed belonged to O'Leary's recruiting, lets give Gailey a count for the next three years after this year and then compare losses.

The big thing I see from your post and most of the lynch mob is the constant return to O'Leary, who quit on Tech, and how things used to be. Well things were not too good before Ralph came here, and quickly reverted backwards when Ralph left.

So, I don't think I would be using GOL's tenure to compare to Gailey's, especially when Gailey's record is superior to GOL's record in GOL's first 2 1/3 years.

I really could care less about going back and talking to past athletes and "what it took when they went through the school". The real issue at present is the solutions it will take in today's environment and the future academic environment.

It appears there are several major issues.

The first issue, which is a priority of Gailey's new staff, is to expand recruiting and get a bigger data base of more academic and athletically qualified athletes. This would alleviate much of the problem.

The second issue, which may already be resolved with possible future tweaking, is the insertion of Gailey and his staff in the monitoring process of the SAs academic progress.

The third issue is the possibility of broadening the degrees available at Tech without compromising the excellence of Tech's academic reputation.

The three items above are positive and any other ideas to build on those or to add to those would be helpful to the situation.

Degenerating back to comparisons of an outdated regime and new regime has no positive value as the two situations have drastically changed in the academic environment.

 

[MsTechAnalysis]

They sure do make a difference when one worked and the other one didn't!!

And I don't find "degenerating" back to something that works a negative in this instance, in my business or any other.

The only things changing at Tech since O'Leary is the academic standards - higher but the system he used is what worked, that's all folks. If he had that kind of system in place and we were already in a tough situation academically - I guess the future is to enhance on what worked and add to it!

And ASSUMING Gailey will be successful in his efforts to recruit nationally is what we're all doing right now. Just as you have said in the past - show me what you can do, don't tell me. Telling is worth nothing, results is worth everything.

 

[Wrecked]

MsTech, there is little point arguing over this with Ahso, because he refuses to admit one basic fact. O'Leary's methods for academic support at Tech worked because he knew what it took to run a college program. The kids have to go to class. What no supporter of Chan Gailey will admit is that he had no clue how to handle the off the field aspects of the job. And how could he as he is had been out of the college game for years and had never been a head coach at the 1-A level.

I think if Gailey were allowed to admit it publicly he would say he was in way over his head last year. Fine, last year is done. He made plenty of mistakes, some of which cost some young men their future. But he needs to move forward. He has made some positive statements toward change. I think he (along with alot of us) is fed up with Dave Braine and his staff and I would not be the least be surprised to see Braine moving on here in the near future. Of course he can't admit that publicly but academic changes are in the works. He got HIS coaches (another first year mistake). He is going to call his plays. He is going to play Bilbo as his QB. This is the year we will find out if he is worth his salary.

 

[MsTechAnalysis]

Originally posted by Wrecked:
MsTech, there is little point arguing over this with Ahso, because he refuses to admit one basic fact. O'Leary's methods for academic support at Tech worked because he knew what it took to run a college program. The kids have to go to class. What no supporter of Chan Gailey will admit is that he had no clue how to handle the off the field aspects of the job. And how could he as he is had been out of the college game for years and had never been a head coach at the 1-A level.

I think if Gailey were allowed to admit it publicly he would say he was in way over his head last year. Fine, last year is done. He made plenty of mistakes, some of which cost some young men their future. But he needs to move forward. He has made some positive statements toward change. I think he (along with alot of us) is fed up with Dave Braine and his staff and I would not be the least be surprised to see Braine moving on here in the near future. Of course he can't admit that publicly but academic changes are in the works. He got HIS coaches (another first year mistake). He is going to call his plays. He is going to play Bilbo as his QB. This is the year we will find out if he is worth his salary.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Wrecked: Total agreement here - time will tell us all!

 

[ahsoisee]

Wrecked, your first statement is not fact. It is an undeniable fact that O'Leary lost 35 players in three years. That is not knowing how to run the system, that is knowing how to run players off that are failing.

Another of your unfounded statements is "what no supported of Chan Gailey". If you are referring to me, I have never said I was a supporter of Chan Gailey. Another one of your false assumptions.

I have stated I want to see Gailey and any other coach get the same fair treatment that O'Leary and all Tech coaches have gotten. I support Tech and any coach we have. I am not a Chan Gailey fan. I am a Tech coach fan, and, at least, I am a fair one, not a member of a lynch mob.

Another stupid statement is that Gailey had no Division head coaching experience. Well, whooo-poopie-doo, neither did O'Leary when he became head coach. Another of your useless remarks.

You are just throwing innuendos with the remark about being over his head. You have no facts. He has not admitted that, and no one else has said that except you and members of the lynch mob. In fact he is less over his head than GOL, before Ralph came along.

You said he made plenty of mistakes that cost some young men their future. Another made up story by you that has no fact. Name what he did and give proof by facts that he made mistakes costing them their future.

He had zero control over the tutoring and monitoring system, and that is a fact backed up by the administration.

Your second statement shows a real lack of facts and knowledge. Chan Gailey's record in football is far superior to O'Leary's record when GOL came to Tech. In fact, O'Leary never played college football, even though he stated he did. Gailey's football record is still far superior to GOL's at this time.

I have proven with facts that GOL was 0-4 against UGA without Ralph. I have proven with facts that GOL was 11-14 in his first 2 1/3 years at Tech with no victories over UGA nor no bowl games. In his first year the facts are Gailey was 7-6 with a bowl game, which is superior to Gol's beginning.

I have proven O'Leary was 18-20 overall in his career without the Fridge with no bowl victories and no UGA victories without the Fridge. I have shown the proof that GOL took a top ten rated team the year after Fridge left and let the wheels fall off before he quit Tech.

You say Gailey got his coaches, which was another of his mistakes. Another unfounded remark by you. You have no facts to prove the new coaches are a mistake. I have some circumstantial evidence that Tech did poorly for the two years while BOB was the offensive coordinator. You don't even have any circumstantial evidence that Gailey's new coaches are a mistake.

The only thing you said that had any truth in it is, "this is the year we will find out if he is worth his salary.

Now, why don't you post something with substance instead of your guesses and innuendos.

 

[MsTechAnalysis]

Originally posted by ahsoisee:
I am using facts. The facts are the system was changed, and things are not the same as they were when O'Leary was here. Even the standards for entry have increased.

Those are facts. Even though Braine has stated the buck stops with him, and adjustments are being made to give Gailey more monitoring than last year, I doubt if the system has or will resort back to the same system as O'Leary was under.

So, again, the two cannot be the same again, and most likely never will be, regardless of which coach is at GT.

Even if O'Leary were to come back, which is impossible, the same system would not be here for O'Leary. He could not have the same levity with the academic program that he had in the past. So, dreaming of the past has no value here.

You stated O'Leary tried to recruit nationally, so is Gailey. What is the difference here?

In fact, Gailey will be recruiting nationally and extending the base of recruiting even more than O'Leary. That was his first question to the AD, "do we have the money and ability to recruit on a national basis?".

He has already targeted a few States with better educational stats than Georgia, and as his tenure progresses, I feel sure other States will be added for a higher degree of recruiting.

So, when we get into the discussion of recruiting more qualified SAs, I feel extremely confident, Gailey will completely excel over the records of O'Leary in getting more qualified SAs to attend Tech as the future unfolds.

Another fact about academics, sports, life, business, etc. is that they are ever changing. You cannot hold onto the past to expect to cope with the future. You must adapt as you go, to cope with current problems.

What past players say has only a small benefit for the future. I would quiz them for their thoughts, and then I would take my own analysis and adapt my program to suit the real needs. Anyone basing their total system on what a past player thinks will get left behind in the real world.

I had rather listen to all concerned, coaches, athletes, teachers, academic advisors, academic staff, etc., analyze the information, and come up with the best plan possible in today's environment. What someone else did in the past would only be one element in the solutions.

Another fact that remains is the 35 players lost in three years at Tech under O'Leary. Since many of the players that failed belonged to O'Leary's recruiting, lets give Gailey a count for the next three years after this year and then compare losses.

The big thing I see from your post and most of the lynch mob is the constant return to O'Leary, who quit on Tech, and how things used to be. Well things were not too good before Ralph came here, and quickly reverted backwards when Ralph left.

So, I don't think I would be using GOL's tenure to compare to Gailey's, especially when Gailey's record is superior to GOL's record in GOL's first 2 1/3 years.

I really could care less about going back and talking to past athletes and "what it took when they went through the school". The real issue at present is the solutions it will take in today's environment and the future academic environment.

It appears there are several major issues.

The first issue, which is a priority of Gailey's new staff, is to expand recruiting and get a bigger data base of more academic and athletically qualified athletes. This would alleviate much of the problem.

The second issue, which may already be resolved with possible future tweaking, is the insertion of Gailey and his staff in the monitoring process of the SAs academic progress.

The third issue is the possibility of broadening the degrees available at Tech without compromising the excellence of Tech's academic reputation.

The three items above are positive and any other ideas to build on those or to add to those would be helpful to the situation.

Degenerating back to comparisons of an outdated regime and new regime has no positive value as the two situations have drastically changed in the academic environment.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">O'Leary adminstration of his program got the kids here, HE THEN HIRED THE COACHES to make them better players and win! Believe me, Gailey knew this, that's why he made those comments at the Recruiting get together in 2002 I went to.

He knew enough then to know that his predecessor worked his butt off to find the kids and keep on top of the situation. He EVEN DEFENDED HIM IN THE GRADUATION RATE SCENARIO and said he 'GOT A BUM WRAP.' Chan brought O'Leary up not anyone there - he knows what O'leary did and he knew then what he would have to do - he didn't do it!!! Coaches stick together and I will give him credit - he praised our previous coach for this and his winning success at GT! No classes in 4 years time, not even in the Bobby Dodd era won more games then in O'Leary's tenure with the 2001 class - that was brought up by Chan! Obviously, Chan WANTED TO COMPARE WHAT HE WANTED TO DO HERE FROM WHAT WAS ALREADY DONE! Looks like he knew O'Leary's worth.

And now when I think back on that discussion he presented - what does that say about him doing what he needed to do - KNOWING THAT BACK THEN!! Somebody filled him in a lot. Someone gave him the scoop on what it was going to take and what the guy before him accomplished and how he went about doing it - Chan knew a lot more then you think!

 

[Geetee]

you are right...Chan HAD to have known about this. To say or think otherwise is ludicrous.

 

[MsTechAnalysis]

One more thing about our coach - at 900K per year - we seem to be saying a lot about what he didn't know or what someone didn't tell him, or that somebody took something away from his responsibility - Chan DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE ANY RESPONSIBILITY IN ALL THIS - GIVE ME A BREAK!! You take over an important job like this or any for that matter and you better not have your head in the sand - you won't last!

If we have that kind of coach - it seems to me his passiveness has him in the wrong place!

 

[ahsoisee]

MsTA, it makes little to no difference what the outgoing coach tells the incoming coach about the academic administration if it has been changed.

If the system had changed and the rules had changed, the information from O'Leary was outdated and meant nothing to Gailey.

If I was the incoming coach, I would also be nice and say nice things about the coach I was replacing. Only a foolish person would do otherwise. You sure do use poor examples.

I have used facts in presenting my case of O'Leary's beginning pitted against Gailey's beginning and the facts show Gailey's record to be superior to O'Leary's first 2 1/3 years of coaching at Tech. That is indisputable. It is record, it is fact.

Now, talk about someone having their head in the sand.

It is also an indisputable fact that Gaileys football background and record was far superior to O'Leary's when GOL came to Tech. It is also indisputable that GOL had never been a head coach of a Division I team when he came to Tech.

It is also undisputable Gailey had more experience playing football than O'Leary. So, with all the qualifications of fact being on Gailey's side instead of GOL, all of your comparisons are mighty weak, in fact, quite laughable.

So, you can blow smoke all you want to and continue on your vendetta with the lynching mob, but you have no statistics to back up any of your arguments. They are all weak.

It is evident to me, as posted many times, you and the lynching party have a terrible ego problem because your ego was all bottled up in GOL, BOB, and Mac. Your ego is destroyed because your hero GOL quit, and BOB and Mac were not good enough to get the job.

Whine, whine, whine.

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

ahso - you have carved out a rather nice little niche for yourself... You don't take a position one way or the other on gailey... all you say is you are going to wait & see after this year.. Which is fine... But by saying that you abdicate the right to criticize others who have the guts to express an opinion.. You haven't earned the right to criticize others until you come off the fence yourself... What you are doing I believe is called "Cheap Shotting"...