O'Leary's comments

[law_bee]

O\'Leary\'s comments

http://www.ajc.com/gatech/content/sports/gatech/0503/17gtfoot.html

Contacted Friday, O'Leary conceded that when it came to academics "I was very hands on to the point where I probably annoyed a bunch of people there. I knew when the tests were going to take place. I had people checking classes and study halls to make sure kids were there. I probably spent 50 to 60 percent of my time on academics. But that's how you have to do it because it is such a different situation academically."

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

 

[luckyjacket]

Re: O\'Leary\'s comments

How did Chan or Dave answer the same question? Never mind...

 

[ncjacket]

Re: O\'Leary\'s comments

They answered it basically by saying that the coaches have been taken out of the process. Not that that's a good answer but that's what DB said.

 

[the Sting]

Re: O\'Leary\'s comments

I love their answer that "it's a national trend to get the coaches out of the academic side due to the assumption that they may influence grades". That is a total crock! I guess the assumption is that all coaches act like SEC coaches. O'leary actually gave a crap about these kids.

 

[ncjacket]

Re: O\'Leary\'s comments

Well, I don't know if it's really a trend or not, but I can certainly see why academics might think they are being pressured if coaches are directly checking up on players. Even if that's not what the coaches are trying to do, although you know there are those who are. My concern is that if you assume that Braine did in fact take the coaches out of the picture, who was supposed to be taking care of it? And if they saw a problem with a player who was supposed to take action? Were they supposed to tell the coaches so they could address it with the players or were they supposed to somehow handle it themselves? Or, of more concern, did we just assume that they players didn't need oversight?

 

[hiveredtech]

Re: O\'Leary\'s comments

Guys

Are we paying attention here? Braine changed the reporting relationships upon O'Learys departure...thus removing the future head football coach from the picture in academics.

Gailey had no choice.

If we have a beef here...it is with Braine and Moore. My main beef is with the players who chose not to study, go to study hall, use the tutors, use the test simulation, etc.

 

[Father WASP]

Re: O\'Leary\'s comments

Facts are facts. O'Leary did a better job of overseeing the academics of the players. Gailey has been here one year and in one fell swoop has lost 10. Something else I'm curious about. O'Leary, our EX-COACH, is open an available for comment out of state, but it took days to get a clear picture and a response from our CURRENT coach? What is wrong with this picture?

 

[GoldZ]

Re: O\'Leary\'s comments

hiveredtech, MANY if not the vast majority of head coach hires with even a minimum of college (not as in Troy St.) experience would have fought tooth and nail with DB concerning his senior moment. THWG

 

[Wrecked]

Re: O\'Leary\'s comments

O'Leary's comment is actually troubling, not in what he said, but in the fact that we have him saying it. Where is the comments from our current head coach? I realize that he may have Braine and Moore speaking for the school, but if I was Chan Gailey and if MY football program had just lost 10 players I would want to step up and accept my own responsibility in the affair and show that I do truly run my football program.

 

[Father WASP]

Re: O\'Leary\'s comments

Aho, the original post above was about O'leary's quote, which I was responding to.

I try to make my agenda absolutely clear - I'm for excellence at Georgia Tech.

Apples and organges between OLeary era and Gailey? Better get used to that, sports fans will forever be comparing one year to another, one coach to another, one quarterback to another. Not sure why that bothers you so much.

Probably the reason the folks who posted above are curious is that a new coach comes in and suddenly the usual one or two failures or transfers who make the news turns into an entire unit. I'm not sure why that casts rays of sunshine on your outlook, but I for one would like to figure out just when we will get some tidbit of GOOD news.

As for comparing apples and organges, ok, I'll give you that one - this apple is rotten, let's throw it out.

 

[ahsoisee]

Re: O\'Leary\'s comments

No doubt about it, your agenda is perfectly clear.

 

[ahsoisee]

Re: O\'Leary\'s comments

Father Wasp, you are comparing apples with oranges.

If all this is true, O'Leary was in the chain of monitoring the SAs and had some responsibility.

It appears Gailey was told the coach was being taken out of the chain on purpose and could not be connected with that part of the program.

What if O'Leary had been removed from the chain and told he better not get involved with it.

You are looking at two different situations and trying to compare GOL and Gailey on the same basis when the situation was entirely different.

Your agenda is clear.

 

[Big Buck]

Re: O\'Leary\'s comments

Therein lies the problem Wrecked. I don't think Chan wants the responsibility that goes with running a college program. He has stated on a number of occasions that he didn't realize that there were so many things expected of a head coach
at the college level. From the getgo we have seen our player transformed from a neatly groomed group
of kids to a group of freaks. Not all the kids but
too many however. Along with a lack of any code on personal grooming we have seen a group of undisciplined kids that kept many of our opponents drives alive by some stupid personal foul penalty. These penalties were not an aberration but a characterization of our team. This is not a slam on our kids because youngsters
will take as much rope as you will tolerate and it became obvious to many of us that discipline wasn't a part of Chan's game plan. So why would it
surprise us to learn that he was not a major factor in monitoring the status of our kids? I have no idea how or why we have so many breakdowns
or who will ultimately take the hit for this mess
but the fingerpointing has to begin at the top and from what I have been reading Mr. Braine needs to accept full responsibility because if he just so desired he could light a fire under Chan
for any failures he may have been guilty of. Chan seems to be compliant to any of Braines ideas
since that would relieve him of the responsibility. It seems to me that it would do little good to change coaches unless we find a competent AD as well.

 

[rope45]

Re: O\'Leary\'s comments

To set the record straight: Coaches have not been allowed to "be in the picture" since before '84 and perhaps even before that. The academic staff interacted with faculty and reported information to coaches. (This is how it was before GOL and even back to Coach McKenna.) It was then the coaches' responsibility/perrogative to act upon the information. The academic staff handled academics, and had solid credibility with faculty. Under Carole Moore,the academic staff was NOT ALLOWED to contact or interact with faculty. All communications had to go through her (a pretty daunting task when you consider the number of SA's, as well as the number of faculty). When I say "interact", I do NOT mean "pressure"; I mean communicate on the status/performance of SA's. The advisor used the information to create a plan of action to assist the athlete. Sometimes it required tutoring, sometimes extra study hall time, sometimes weekly meetings between coach/advisor/SA and/or sometimes faculty, sometimes all of the above plus in some rare cases, even advanced testing/counselling.