Next years View In Lieu of Coaching Changes

[ahsoisee]

During the recruiting season, there were some posts concerned with the small quantity of recruits brought to Tech this year.

An explanation was offered by a poster that possibly many of the recruits were wiped off the table because the recruits had marginal grades and the present staff would not consider them.

We did not hire an OC, and I alluded to a possible shortfall in the budget. Someone posted a couple of days ago that we lost money last year.

Is it possible the lack of filling the OC job at this time and the limited number of recruits brought to Tech this past year were all affected by a tight budget and dwindling donations?

 

[mustard]

My areas of concern in priority order:
1. Chemistry
2. S&C
3. Throw and catch

I see #1 improving a bunch because of O'B leaving. If we just stay even on the remainder, we should win 4 games. If we gain in S&C, we could win 2 more. If we gain in T&C, we could win 2 more.

I would like for us to work on brute strength for our lines and LB's, endurance and flexibility for our backs.

Anybody know how this S&C works?

 

[1game@atime]

Ahso and Beeware,

Guys it is way too early to be down inside the bottle. It is only Tuesday. B'Ware, you sound like a guy deep in the Scotch with a major depression going on. Get your head out of your butt (or OLeary's butt) and start looking realistically at GaTech Football. While we have some talent and alot of character, there is no way a sane or sober person would saddle this team, UNDER ANY COACHING, with more than 7 victories. There are just way too many questions to be answered.

 

[ahsoisee]

Onegameatatime, I think you misread the intent of the post. There are some posters upset that we did not hire an OC. I am offering a reasonable possibility for not having an OC this year.

Why jump on Gailey for not hiring an OC when it may not have been economically feasable this year. Did we have to pay BOB for any subsequent years, or did he have a one year contract? These are not foolish questions if the athletic budget shows a loss for last year and the economy is not improving.

 

[71YellowJacket]

Originally posted by ahsoisee:
Onegameatatime, I think you misread the intent of the post. There are some posters upset that we did not hire an OC. I am offering a reasonable possibility for not having an OC this year.

Why jump on Gailey for not hiring an OC when it may not have been economically feasable this year. Did we have to pay BOB for any subsequent years, or did he have a one year contract? These are not foolish questions if the athletic budget shows a loss for last year and the economy is not improving.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Ahsoisee,

My take is a bit different, as I read it Football is making a very nice return, but GTAA overall lost some money (other programs). So, football is the cash cow supporting a bunch of losers

. If this is the case, and hiring a new OC protects your cash cow you do without giving it a second thought.

 

[ahsoisee]

71, it is true the majority of programs use the OC, but it seems evident Gailey wants to take full control of the offense play calling this year.

He may have easily agreed to forego an OC for this year, since he desires to make the offensive calls during the game. He probably wants more control over establishing the game plan too.

I doubt he was told he could not have an OC, but in lieu of the budget conditions and his plans for the offense, I can see the wisdom economically to forego one for this year. If the proposed strategy does not yield the desired results, he has Nix on board and could easily insert him as the OC.

I can see the wisdom of not bringing in a lot of recruits who have strong desires to attend other colleges or who have marginal grades if the overall budget has a losing trend. I am not stating any of this to be the truth, but only a possibility in lieu of the bottom line of the athletic budget.

I do not believe the administration would have tied his hands economically at this critical time, but restraints on the two items could have easily been accomodated if Gailey did not consider them to be important at this time.

This additional thought in this thread begs for another question. Since our overall athletic budget had a loss for last year, how will Tech be affected if some of the States pass laws and begin to pay their athletes?

This question appears to be serious and valid one at this time.

 

[GTTerrific]

Originally posted by ahsoisee:
71, it is true the majority of programs use the OC, but it seems evident Gailey wants to take full control of the offense play calling this year.

He may have easily agreed to forego an OC for this year, since he desires to make the offensive calls during the game. He probably wants more control over establishing the game plan too.

I doubt he was told he could not have an OC, but in lieu of the budget conditions and his plans for the offense, I can see the wisdom economically to forego one for this year. If the proposed strategy does not yield the desired results, he has Nix on board and could easily insert him as the OC.

I can see the wisdom of not bringing in a lot of recruits who have strong desires to attend other colleges or who have marginal grades if the overall budget has a losing trend. I am not stating any of this to be the truth, but only a possibility in lieu of the bottom line of the athletic budget.

I do not believe the administration would have tied his hands economically at this critical time, but restraints on the two items could have easily been accomodated if Gailey did not consider them to be important at this time.

This additional thought in this thread begs for another question. Since our overall athletic budget had a loss for last year, how will Tech be affected if some of the States pass laws and begin to pay their athletes?

This question appears to be serious and valid one at this time.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I honestly believe he, Coach Gailey, hired the best man for the job as he saw fit.

I do believe Coach Gailey will do most of the play calling next year. There will be imput from other.

I don't feel that this hire had much to do with budgets or money. In my minds this is not a less hire than hiring someone who has an OC tittle. The tittle someone has isn't as important as what he does. We have someone here at GT that did a great job his first year. He's shown what kind of coach he is. Makes a lot of sense if the head coach wants to do the "MAJORITY" of the play calling(of course before it's all over on StingTalk coaches words will be twisted and then he'll be drilled because people can't get all of what he says correct. They just take bits and peaces

) I like the idea of having one person in charge of planning the passing game and having one person planning the running attack If you have two that are capable of getting it done. Which I feel confident we do. Calling the plays is not the time demanding part. It's were experience plays a huge roll though. This will be a group effort as OC.

Ahsoisee, I hear your theory. While I believe it always can have some barring, $$$. Don't believe it was a huge issue in this hire. I honestly believe Coach Gailey hired the best man for the job as he saw it. It's just not what some people here wanted or had in mind. With Coach Gailey wanting to be more involved with the offense this year and calling the majority of the plays this hire makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[Big Buck]

Ahso, if my memory is correct it seems that Braine said at the time he hired CG that the first thing Gailey asked him is would he have a sufficient recruiting budget that would allow him to recruit nationally. Now I know I didn't quote Braine verbatim but the gist of his remarks were accurately reflected. Now if Braine assured CG that we had ample resources to recruit far and wide I wouldn't think money was the issue with our short haul. We were hearing all kinds of numbers as to the goal, numbers wise, of our intent for this season. It seems that many of our kids that we had targeted went elsewhere and Chan was left to take the best of what was left. Hence,
rather than sign kids that we had to reach for it seems that Chan decided to hold them for next year. From looking at the number of seniors on our 2003 class we could use the extra ships.