post on GT $$$'s and coaching changes....

[BarrelORum]

BOR, folks like gt1951 can't just go away because the $$$ goes with them. He's one of the people who would be approached for buyout dollars. He has walked the walk for more years than most of us have been alive. He is a HEAVY HITTER in every regard, so he's not going away. And he is very representative of the majority of the heavy hitters.

I also have to take exception to this. Although it is a very small pool of people, of the three "Heavy Hitters" I know, none of them are a fan of Gailey. So I have to disagree that he represents the majority of them.

And I would tell GT1951 or anyone else for that matter to let the AD do what is best for the program. That will probably be replacing Gailey.

 

[Stick]

Nope, it still exists as a major tool to generate $ and involve young alumni.

Oh? Who's the A-T contact, because rw.com still lists Amber Reed, who turned it over to Kelly Bitters 2+ years ago? Kelly's gone and it was my understanding that 1st and 10 was too...

 

[kirbee]

Having spoken with Dan myself, he has assured me and others that "$ is not an issue". So I am somewhat suspicious of GT1951's assertion that money is an issue when we have an AD that privately has stated on more than one occassion that it is not. Who should I believe?

Pfft. BOR you're not that simple minded.

Money is always an issue. When someone says "its not about the money" you can guess that its about the money. When someone says "its about the money" you can guess the same.

BOR, you may have a high opinion of yourself, but why would Dan let you really see behind the curtain? If he tells you $$ isn't an issue that means he can figure it out, which means he can do his job. If he says his hands are tied by $$ then he's telling you he's over his head.. He's not going to tell you and others that he's incompetent.

Just because he said what you claim does not mean that money is not a major consideration in the calculus of coach decisions.

 

[kirbee]

If you take GT's winning % for each of the following periods and multiply that by 13 games, you get following average wins per season:

Gailey to Present = 7.08
'90 to Gailey = 7.75
'80 to Gailey = 7.25
'70 to Gailey = 7.27 [7.56 ex-80's]
'40 to Gailey = 8.03 [8.28 ex-80's]

1980-1989 = 6.42

What does this tell me?

1. The 80's Sucked for GT - If you think that talking about a coaching change hurts recruiting, just imagine what talking about dropping to D-IAA would do. Guess what, you don't have to just look at the 80's. The only decade in which we had a winning % lower than 0.563. It took us almost a decade to rebuild our credibility as a school committed to atheletics. If you look at the big picture, the 80's are an aberration on an otherwise solidly winning tradition, but it is the bogey man that everyone fears. IMO, we will not ever go back to the 80's because of the one-off events that caused it and the fact that we were able to recover from Bill Lewis is proof of that.

2. Gailey's Below Average - He's not Bill Lewis, but we have done better more often than not. Gailey's winning percentage is lower than the winning percentage in every decade individually except the 80's and if you look over any time period ending with Gailey's hire we have a higher winning percentage even if you include the 80's.

3. There is no reason we should not be winning 8+ games more often. But JTS we have not won 8+ historically? Well we also haven't played 13 games per season historically. Adjusted to a 13 game schedule, we averaged 7.75 wins per season from 1990 to 2001 and that included a 1-11 season. If you exclude that 80's, we have average better that 7.5 wins per season based on a 13 game schedule historically which means we should be winning more than 7 games a lot more than 1 in 6 seasons.

4. I wonder how much when you started following GT impacts your perception of Gailey. I would think that if you started following GT in the glory days or the 90's that you would view Gailey's performance as solidly falling short of expectations based on your personal experience. However if you started following GT in the late 60's, 70's or 80's, you might not be thrilled with Gailey, but he has come relatively close to matching your personal experience and Gailey is still way better than the 80's.

JTS - interesting post.

I am curious if the difference between CCG and historical averages is within a standard deviation and therefore just "noise."

 

[Stick]

I also have to take exception to this. Although it is a very small pool of people, of the three "Heavy Hitters" I know, none of them are a fan of Gailey. So I have to disagree that he represents the majority of them.

And I would tell GT1951 or anyone else for that matter to let the AD do what is best for the program. That will probably be replacing Gailey.

I did not get from gt1951's post that he is an ardent Chan supporter, nor do I think gt1951 is trying to meddle in the AA's business. I think he was simply stating some reasons why it is so difficult to win big consistently at GT. I believe what he says, not only because it dovetails with my own knowledge but also because it comes from one of the top 5-10 supporters of Tech athletics over the past 40 years.

 

[midatlantech]

Hey JTS, do me a favor and go back and tell us what those years we were on probation in the 40's to 90's looked like for wins? That will be interesting to see. Thanks, Jim

BOR: "These people like GT1951, have been through the best and seen the worse, but many of them are too afraid of progression for fear of being something similar to what they have experienced before. Respectfully, these people need to be quiet, step aside, and understand that we all want what is best for GT and we will never reach that if we are constantly worried about falling short when making change."

Foggy: "People are afraid of change."

BOR, you asked me what I meant in my post. It's simple. I am not afraid of change. You choose to insinuate that folks that look at the whole current picture of Tech football are stupid, because we may not want change.

I, for one, am still not sure and won't make a decision until the season is over. But until then, I can still recognize that there have been factors hurting our cause.

Atlanta Jacket, you asked "what SEC team...". I believe that you (accidentally) twisted my thought. SINCE we are not in the SEC anymore, it makes no sense for us to finish with an SEC opponent, considering all of our post season hopes are ACC related. Miami and FSU had the best rivalry in football the last 20 years. They were not in the same conference and played early.

Regarding the SEC, Ga-FL is a good rivalry and they don't play it at the end. GA-AU took our spot as the longest in the south and they don't play at the end. I believe, by the way, that Tech-UGA didn't play it at the end in the early years either by the way.


The insinuation from some that we are trying to run away from anything is just silly. I was stating that the SEC schedules their games to their advantage all the time. They play easy easy early schedules, bark that they are the greatest and then try to hold on in the end.

There is nothing wrong with that. DRad wants us to learn from them and emulate them. IF that is how we feel and I'm sure it is (as opposed to a hard OOC schedule for example), then moving the UGA game to the beginning COULD be in line with that thinking.

There is certainly absolutely positively NOTHING wrong with trying to manipulate our schedule to best fit our needs. Arrogance does not win football games, smarts do.

I am frustrated that we don't have more wins right now too. But it just drives me crazy when people totally disregard the effects of probation on our or any program. It's a killer. Add in tougher standards than ten years ago, add in new NCAA progress rules, add in the big money and the allure of the NFL, etc. We've got it tough and some times through the LONG process, we have to be smart.

To ignore our $40M budget versus UGA's $80M budget is crazy. UGA football probably requires a donation of $1000 annually to get season tickets. (Someone here said LSU required $3000, so I'm guessing.) That money is what pays out the new going rate of $4M to get the top notch coach, plus extras given out to top notch recruiters, etc.

The extra money isn't needed to fly in a recruit. We bring in only a few dozen. It's for indoor facilities, personal trainers, marketing to get more money, etc.

Again I don't mind that people are frustrated. We are all, but the difference between us all is the amount of real data that we all choose to accept as part of decision making.

 

[midatlantech]

By the way, when 1951 was saying "money is an issue" he was talking about total money available to spend on making Tech football and other sports a success. Y'all took that to mean "money to pay off Chan". I just don't think that was what he we referring to you.

And I could be wrong, but BOR said "he spoke with Dan and that money wasn't the issue". I assume that comment was referring to Chan.

To say money is not an issue at Tech athletics right now throws right into the face of the recent PSL crap.

 

[law_bee]

If I knew for a fact we would go up as a program I would drive to ATL tonight and help CG pack, but I have concerns.

I will be sitting on the 50yd line next year no matter who is coaching GT.

I keep hearing $$$ is not an issue and I find that hard to believe. Fridge is making 700k more than CG and will probably not be going to a (EVEN A CRAPPY) bowl AGAIN.

Does that mean we are going to have to pay 2mil to have a winning program?

I really do hope we win the next 2. Would love to see CG run off 3 in a row against Ugag. I would be gloating EVERY WEEK.:hugelaugh:

 

[BarrelORum]

kirbee, maybe I'm just too gullible of what I hear from people I trust. I don't have a high opinion of myself. If you ever met me or met someone who knows me they would say that he'd give you the shirt off his back. What I do have is a very high expectation of what GT football can become and am quite sick and tired of hearing the "status quo" which in my opinion is a bad barometer to gauge our expectations by.

 

[BarrelORum]

As far as I know it still exists. Amber left and I don't know what happened to Kelly. Maybe the board is sitting in limbo, but I think I would have heard if it was disbanded, and from what I know people on the board are still going to board meetings.

 

[refrigeratormover]

kirbee, maybe I'm just too gullible of what I hear from people I trust. I don't have a high opinion of myself. If you ever met me or met someone who knows me they would say that he'd give you the shirt off his back. What I do have is a very high expectation of what GT football can become and am quite sick and tired of hearing the "status quo" which in my opinion is a bad barometer to gauge our expectations by.

XXXL Tall?

 

[BarrelORum]

I am frustrated that we don't have more wins right now too. But it just drives me crazy when people totally disregard the effects of probation on our or any program. It's a killer. Add in tougher standards than ten years ago, add in new NCAA progress rules, add in the big money and the allure of the NFL, etc. We've got it tough and some times through the LONG process, we have to be smart.

None of this explains Chan's underachieving this year, explains away the stupid sometimes mindnumbing gameday decisions, the complete ineptness over the years of our offense, or the fact that we have failed miserably to produce anything more than just a fart in the wind regarding QB play.

I understand probation, flunkgate, etc. Those do have its effects, but its getting old using this to prop up a coach who has shown that even in the face of adversity he can still manage to make a team look like complete sh!t on the field.

 

[BarrelORum]

XXXL Tall?

I'm actually a 42 long. I'm 6-2 190lbs, hardly the short fat guy that people tend to think I am based on my handle.

 

[Global Bee]

BOR, your posts are on target.

The UGa game is important to me and many Tech alumni. We can compete with Georgia and did actually beat them three straight years not too long ago.

Am I reading the previous posts correctly? Are people saying that losing to UGa every single year for more than 6 years is acceptable? Maybe it is time for people to clearly state their position on this.

Lowering expectations to meet the head coach’s level of performance is not a good idea. The head coach should raise his performance to meet reasonable expectations.

I hope that Chan whips UNC and UGa. That would be the best alternative (success and no change). But if Tech losses to UGa for the sixth straight year under Coach Gailey (7-5 or 6-6 season), the situation does deserve reevaluation.

 

[83jacket]

Not what GT 1951 is saying at all.....

Fact is, he is not talking about whether Gailey should be fired or not. However, what he is saying no matter who the coach is, if GT wants to compete with the likes of UGAG year in and year two things need to happen:

1) The administration needs to make athletic success a priority. Right now and with the exception of when John Crecine was GT's president, no GT president in the last 40 years has given a rat's ass about athletic success.

2) Alumni and supporters, including all on these boards, need to open their wallets and increase their giving to fund the program. We need to fully fund endowed scholarships for football, retire debt from football stadium expansion, and accumalate funds for future capital projects. GT fans as a broad group are notoriously cheap. The level of whining associated with the implemetation of the Tech Fund pointed that fact out loud and clear. The days of having a passionate alumus like Kim King, who understood what was required to be succesful, go out and raise the money needed from the heavy contributors to the school are gone. The average fan needs to be prepared to pony up more to the table if we want to compete on a regular basis.

 

[ramblinwise1]

I appreciate the real definition of what's going on with Tech football. I have only two comments:

1) If in fact, we need to focus on the ACC instead of UGA, then we should be playing UGA the first game of the year and not the last. We would win more often and when we lose, the game would just not be as hurting to the program in the state and for our post bowl game interest

While I don't agree the ACC is more important than the UGAg, I do agree we should work hard to move the UGag game to the front of the schedule. For the reasons cited above and because it would piss UGAg off to ask.

 

[goldmember]

The recruiting budget mainly consists of travel expenses for recruits. It does not include more important expenses in determining recruiting, such as the money spent on facilities or the money paid to get assistant coaches better at recruiting. While we have to recruit more nationally and thus spend more on travel, I would say UGA spends much more on facilities and coaches.

How much money do you need to hire a good recruiter? I would think a top notch recruiting coordinator would cost 250k on the upper end. That is more than a lot of coordinators make. Are you saying we can't hire a decent staff with a 40MM athletic budget? Doesn't make sense to me.

And our non-stadium facilities are very good after the renovation. What specifically do you think we are lacking?

I am telling you the spin doctors are using the money angle as a last, desperate attempt to deflect critisism from Gailey.

 

[goldmember]

top notch recruiters, etc.

The extra money isn't needed to fly in a recruit. We bring in only a few dozen. It's for indoor facilities, personal trainers, marketing to get more money, etc.

Neither uga or UF have indoor practice facilities. Personal trainers, are you serious?

 

[beej67]

Team pass to the Spring St. Ballet.

 

[KrazieJacket]

Just a quick comment on the beating uga vs. winning the ACC thing... imo uga has been the best team we have played the last few seasons. Wouldnt it be fair to guess that if in fact uga has been the best team on our schedule and we are good enough to beat them, then we should be able to win the ACC also?
As far as the money goes... i dont know anything about the current situation except for what i read on here...but for soneone to tell me that GT cannot find ways to pay the bills then we either
1) are not hiring GT grad. business ppl
or
2) GT's business school is not as good as many national rankings suggest
or
3) wont pony up the cash to hire quality people to run the program

if any of the 3 are true the somebody needs a kick in the rear. A chain is only as strong as it weakest link.