Our current BCS Standing

I got your whine right here, bubba.

ooo! scary!

and by the way you conveniently didn't answer my question. If we win Thursday and our BCS ranking suddenly goes up 20 places are you suddenly going to be a Chan fan? My point is if you're going to use a stat to prove a point you have to use it both ways. Otherwise you look silly.
 
Last edited:
Re: One way the Hive is better than Stingtalk -

They have an ignore user feature and you would be a prime candidate. Fly away, be free

This board has it as well. Go into the User CP at the top there and ignore to your heart's content.
 
Thanks, Yukonwreck now ignored.
I think Yukonwreck is intitled to his opinion, but I don't need to read it.:D
 
Some of you deserve exactly the crappy coach we are going to end up with when Gailey leaves. The options for the next coach are the same 6 or 8 that everybody else who is dissatisfied will be looking at. Why, pray tell, would they pick Tech over any one of a number of other places? Every team's board spouts off BS like they are a slumbering giant if only the right coach will grace the sidelines with his presence. Here's a hint, I've been following Tech since I was there in the early 80's and we ain't no slumbering giant. If anything, the obsession some people have for wistfully pointing to the O'Leary years as some sort of benchmark shows how mediocre we are.
 
gthog: times have changed, smaller schools with less resources are having a lot of success because of changes in scholarships and recruiting. We have good resources but our academics and fan support made it difficult in the past to get big time players... not so much anymore if we're creative [see last 2 recruiting classes].

We have the ability to attract top level athletes, have decent facilities, and play in a BCS conference. That, plus coaching, is a good formula for success.
 
Oh yeah and the BCS is bogus when you get outside of the top teams because the rankings part of the equation gets distorted. Teams -- like our beloved Yellow Jackets -- that are unranked become the victims of crazy computer calculations and strengths of schedule data cooked up by some dude in his basement.

I wouldn't put too much stock in them unless we start getting some votes in one of the polls. We've also only played a couple teams (BC, Clemson) getting any love so our quality of opponents is way low...
 
Some of you deserve exactly the crappy coach we are going to end up with when Gailey leaves. The options for the next coach are the same 6 or 8 that everybody else who is dissatisfied will be looking at. Why, pray tell, would they pick Tech over any one of a number of other places? Every team's board spouts off BS like they are a slumbering giant if only the right coach will grace the sidelines with his presence. Here's a hint, I've been following Tech since I was there in the early 80's and we ain't no slumbering giant. If anything, the obsession some people have for wistfully pointing to the O'Leary years as some sort of benchmark shows how mediocre we are.

Let's be clear, I'm not calling for Gailey's head, but agree that he's getting himself into that territory. But you're basically saying we should be happy where we are and that we can't do any better. Gailey aside, that's a ridiculous attitude to have as a fan. O'Leary was changing the attitude and results at Tech, over his last few years we had moved the program to a different level than before and from where we are now.

There are tons of coaches out there. No one knows who the next "hot" commodity will be or where he is now. If you're happy with Chan then say that. If you're not but you're afraid it could get worse, then say that. But at this point all you seem to be is scared. That's sad.
 
You misunderstood, or perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant last years sniff of glory and a big payday means nothing to the "settle for Chan and mediocrity" crowd. My point was-I give Chan credit for establishing that we can be a big time program again, we can swing for the fences, we can be competitive at the highest levels of NCAA football---we have all the ingredients now except coaching. But it is the fear of 2-10 that will keep us from 10-2 and perpetually at 7-5 and on the Smurf-Turf. And I don't have an alternative universe, Dick. Live long and prosper.
No, sorry, Dick, you are ****ed in the head and living in an alternate universe when you can compare a program that hasn't had a losing season in 11 years, made it to a bowl game in each of the past 10, won their division last year, was one score from a BCS bowl, and is two field goals from a Top Ten ranking this season to a milquetoast collaborating at the end of a gun barrel with his sadistic occupiers that have overrun his country.

As much as you'd like to pretend that O'Leary's teams were somehow superior and Gailey isn't measuring up, George's last two teams were sent west and had to beg their way into the Peach Bowl (only to get their ass kicked). The one time they finished first, they were sent to the Gator, not the Orange Bowl. And while they beat Georgia, they never could get past F$U.

I don't accept mediocrity, and this program isn't mediocre. In addition to the well-documented obstacles that Gailey has had to face, he's had a learning curve to overcome as well. I think they proved last year that they are turning the corner. Unfortunately, the next lesson always seems to be getting smacked in the mouth, because you've forgotten the focus that is required from the outset in order to maintain that level. Hewitt's team experienced it the year after the Final Four. Our football team hit the same wall against UVA & UMd.

But recruiting has taken a major upturn over the last few years. We finally have a solid OC in place. The DBs are starting to figure what kind of work is required. Our QB is gaining the necessary experience. We're loaded enough at TB that we can lose our top 2 and not feel like the game is already lost to a Top 20 team. We're trying to establish a solid base for long term success.

That includes continuity at HC. Frankly, I don't like Gailey's game plan, but looking back, it is very similar to Dodd's, who had a 4-6 and a 5-6 season in his first six years before going 59-7-3 over the next six.
 
One point I'd make though clapper, is that if Chan's game planning is like Dodd's that says a lot right there. Dodd retired in 1967 and lots has changed about football since then. Yes, you still need to be able to run the ball and play defense, but the passing game is much more sophisticated and how teams run is much different as well. We're still too vanilla IMO to really be successful offensively.

But the 2 biggest issues I think many have with Chan is that his big year wasn't that big when all was said and done and his record against ugag. Yeah, we were one score from the Orange Bowl, but the fact is we didn't get it. Yeah we should have beaten ugag the last 2 years but we didnt. You can't judge a program on what they almost do at some point you have to do it.
 
One point I'd make though clapper, is that if Chan's game planning is like Dodd's that says a lot right there. Dodd retired in 1967 and lots has changed about football since then. Yes, you still need to be able to run the ball and play defense, but the passing game is much more sophisticated and how teams run is much different as well. We're still too vanilla IMO to really be successful offensively.

But the 2 biggest issues I think many have with Chan is that his big year wasn't that big when all was said and done and his record against ugag. Yeah, we were one score from the Orange Bowl, but the fact is we didn't get it. Yeah we should have beaten ugag the last 2 years but we didnt. You can't judge a program on what they almost do at some point you have to do it.
Understood. Which is why I said that one of the things that has been addressed is that we have an OC that can (supposedly) add that sophistication to the offense.

As for the 2 biggest issues, the fact that we were in position to contend for the Orange Bowl is neither an 'almost', nor is it mediocre. And if others hang their hat on losing one game to a football factory for fear of coworker chastisement, then I really don't care to have them making our coaching decisions any more than we need them suggesting that we burn a kid's RS season in the ninth game of the year because injuries have semi-depleted a deep position.
 
As for the 2 biggest issues, the fact that we were in position to contend for the Orange Bowl is neither an 'almost', nor is it mediocre. And if others hang their hat on losing one game to a football factory for fear of coworker chastisement, then I really don't care to have them making our coaching decisions any more than we need them suggesting that we burn a kid's RS season in the ninth game of the year because injuries have semi-depleted a deep position.

What? Being in position is clearly an "almost", I didn't say anything about mediocre Being 9-2 was great, being 9-5 does shift things back towards average (mediocre). Plus, I don't know what coworker chastisement has to do with anything nor do I know what making our coaching decisions does either. If you're trying to say is those who only want a change because they're getting too much grief from ugag fans shouldn't be listened to I get you. OTOH, if too many fans are not happy with the program, shouldn't that enter into the discussion?

As far as burning a RS, it depends entirely on what the team has available. RS decisions are changed at every program in the nation when a team's needs outweigh the value of the RS. I don't think we're there yet, but what if we have another injury?
 
Actually, ncj, I wasn't addressing that directly to you as much as responding to those around here with "The sky is falling" attitudes. I think you and I aren't that far apart in our opinions.
 
Back
Top