It is about results, but then it isn't.

[ncjacket]

Re: It is about results, but then it isn\'t.

BeeBad, I'm not comparing Ross to Gailey, but I am saying their first years results (not just W-L but overall) were similar. Ross had the advantage of having a staff he was more familiar with and more college experience. But on the other hand his results were a lot worse. We'll see how Gailey rebounds and can only hope it's as well as Ross.

 

[Axe]

Re: It is about results, but then it isn\'t.

BeeBad,

You might want to pull out the GT history book and review the first ACC game between GT and Maryland. I'll tell you this, Bobby Ross was certainly on the field and I guess you could say he whipped Tech if you wanted to.

 

[techsamillion]

Re: It is about results, but then it isn\'t.

Originally posted by BeeBad:
There's challenges at GT for a football coach... You have to fight the system, not go with the flow... Coming into Tech, one would assume that gailey would seek out counsel from many of the resources available to him to avoid initial mistakes... It is readily apparent he did not.. Is it because he felt he knew it all? Academics... as important as this is at Tech, one would assume that gailey would have sought out counsel on what it takes to keep players on track academically... He did not.... He has mentioned several times publicly that he didn't realize that college players need to be treated differently than pros, i.e., being held accountable... Noone told him this? The lingering questions is: Has he learned from his mistakes, or are these mistakes indicators of a perpetual pattern of, "If I only knew then what I know now"..... Lots of people standing in unemployment lines asking themselves the same question...

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">BeeBad, I know I have been insulting to you in the past. I apologize; I am sorry for being so, and I hope you will forgive me.
Also, your post above is one of the best if not the best(in my opinion and certainly is very fair) that you have ever posted.
I tend to agree that he must not have sought enough counsel, and if he did, it was from the wrong people. One thing I have notice about Head Coaches (as a rule) is that they are mighty hard-headed and stubborn: For instance, I have seen more than one coach lose his job because he was determined to stay with his choice of quarterback, no matter what. I am not referring here to Coach Gailey, although that may apply to some degree. But I do believe that stubborness on the part of head coaches feeds to their greatest detriment many times. I am sure there is a reason for it, but there is a fine line between being stubborn and accepting advice. That fine line needs to be "walked" in my opinion very carefully or disaster can easily strike.