Provided DRad pulls the trigger

kirbee said:
Yeah. Beer*? What you got? 7-6 anyway you can and Chan is back.



*as long as you're of age
Click to expand...


I will bet my left testicle for the note on your house that if Chan goes 7-6 he will not be back. If he does return after a 7-6 season, I will cut a testicle off and eat it on the Jumbotron prior to the kick off.
 
beej67 said:
Pfft. Here's the definition of a 'chanesque' loss as I see it:

either a blowout loss,

or a close loss where players screwed up to give the game away on a few key plays,

or a close loss where key coaching decisions went wrong in hindsight

or a definitive loss to a team you thought you had better athletes than.

Right?

See, that encompasses probably half the losses experienced by any team this season, across the depth and breadth of college football. Seriously, pick 5 teams at random and look at their losses, and tell me none of them meet the 'chanesque' criteria. Florida, Georgia, Clemson, Auburn, and South Carolina, all fairly nearby teams, have all had losses this season that fit into one of the above baskets.
Click to expand...
You are trying to classify all loses as chanesque. To me a chanesque lose is one where you get beat by a team with inferior athletes for example UVA and Maryland this year. I would say our players are better than theirs. Or one where your players just come out flat and unfocused would be classified as chanesque to me.

Florida, Georgia, and Auburn all lost to teams with near the same talent level. I wouldnt classify any of those loses as being chanesque by any means.

I think to the outside world when they here the word chanesque football they think of boring and dull football. Maybe a 7-3 game with little to no offense.
 
JOJATK said:
I think you have it backwards here, BOR. I'm sure there were some in the know but I think it is probably safe to say most of us were caught a little off guard. In fact there has been a group who have been and still are so chapped that many of them will not support Gailey because he isn't their guy .

But to finish up my point, I think that many of the people who support Chan are EXACTLY the kind of people who will openly support a new coach no matter who he is because that's one of the same reasons they opened their arms to Chan when he came in.
Click to expand...


I don't doubt what you say but you knind of missed the point. I know those people you describe exist, but there is also the exact opposite, and if Chan Gailey is fired or replaced, you will have a faction of this fan base that will feel it is now their inheritable right to place strong expectations ont he new coach because their guy wasn't given a fair chance in their opinion.

I think that the majority will support a new coach, but there is a pretty vocal group of Chan lovers that cannot admit that they don't know dick about football or how to evaluate a coach's performance and therefore if he is replaced will kick their heels in the dirt and stick to their guns that they were right, so they won't be supporting a new coach. There are people posting everyday on the Hive that I'd be willing to bet do just that.
 
BarrelORum said:
I don't doubt what you say but you knind of missed the point. I know those people you describe exist, but there is also the exact opposite, and if Chan Gailey is fired or replaced, you will have a faction of this fan base that will feel it is now their inheritable right to place strong expectations ont he new coach because their guy wasn't given a fair chance in their opinion.

I think that the majority will support a new coach, but there is a pretty vocal group of Chan lovers that cannot admit that they don't know dick about football or how to evaluate a coach's performance and therefore if he is replaced will kick their heels in the dirt and stick to their guns that they were right, so they won't be supporting a new coach. There are people posting everyday on the Hive that I'd be willing to bet do just that.
Click to expand...

BOR, I got your point. I think that you've dramatically underestimated the people who support Chan Gailey and grossly misrepresented their motives. Without doubt there are people like the ones you describe. But the vast majority of people who support Chan will support a new coach, if one is brought in, simply because he is the GT head coach. It won't matter to them much once the die is cast.

Now don't get me wrong here. If a new coach is hired and he doesn't succeed THEN there is a certain group of Coach Gailey supporters who will feel and say "I told you so." But I think that that group is a VERY tiny minority.
 
Well, I don't have a favorite because I know I don't know enough to have one, so I'll support whoever the coach is.
 
BarrelORum said:
I don't doubt what you say but you knind of missed the point. I know those people you describe exist, but there is also the exact opposite, and if Chan Gailey is fired or replaced, you will have a faction of this fan base that will feel it is now their inheritable right to place strong expectations ont he new coach because their guy wasn't given a fair chance in their opinion.

I think that the majority will support a new coach, but there is a pretty vocal group of Chan lovers that cannot admit that they don't know dick about football or how to evaluate a coach's performance and therefore if he is replaced will kick their heels in the dirt and stick to their guns that they were right, so they won't be supporting a new coach. There are people posting everyday on the Hive that I'd be willing to bet do just that.
Click to expand...

JOJATK is right. And you telling everyone who disagrees with you that they don't know football is an assinine position to take. Based upon your inability to support an argument, I would have guessed that you're the emotional mess who doesn't understand football.
 
jts said:
So why is it that the local and national media have branded our team above all others as the most schizoid?
Click to expand...

Because of who we lose to, not how we lose. And because of who we win against. If we'd had no upsets and never been upset, then we'd not be branded 'schizoid.' (we'd also be a more boring team, IMHO)

But lonestar's right, that's totally different than what I'm saying. My point wasn't about how we play, it was about what's considered 'chanesque.' Repeatedly, here and elsewhere, people bitch and moan after losses by saying stuff like this:

We got blown out! That's so like Chan. Or,

We lost a close one because our players screwed up. I blame Chan for not getting our players ready to play. Or,

Chan should have called X instead of Y in hindsight. Or,

We were more talented than X, it's so like Chan to lose that kind of game.

Sound familiar? These are what we consider "Chan" losses. These are the losses we hang on Chan.

Well pick a team. Any team. Look over their losses. Southern Cal. Texas. Clemson. Georgia. I guarantee you the bulk of their losses could fit in those categories. Try it JT.

So when GT_LUVER says this:

Hire the right coach and hopefully you wont have to worry about chanesque type games.
Click to expand...

It's empty and silly and dumb, because any coach we hire is going to have games we call "Chanesque," because every coach in the country already has them. Unclebee is right when he says this:

Yea, right. That support will last until the new coach has a Chanesque type loss and/or a 7 win season, then it will be turmoil all over again. The Tech Nation will never be satisfied. I foresee turmoil for decades to come.
Click to expand...

That's the nature of Tech football forever, because we like to think we've gotten sick of a particular kind of loss, but really we've just gotten sick of losing. And every coach loses some games. Even Bungerhenry admits that.
 
bor said:
I will bet my left testicle for the note on your house that if Chan goes 7-6 he will not be back.
Click to expand...

See, my bet is something that actually might get paid up on if I lose. :P

luver said:
You are trying to classify all loses as chanesque. To me a chanesque lose is one where you get beat by a team with inferior athletes for example UVA and Maryland this year. I would say our players are better than theirs. Or one where your players just come out flat and unfocused would be classified as chanesque to me.
Click to expand...

So, the VT loss this year, Chanesque? The 51-7 UGA loss, Chanesque? (Recall that UGA team was vastly more talented than ours.) UVA loss was due to a muffed punt and a false start, Maryland loss was due to a hold, Chanesque? Maybe reclassify the Maryland loss due to play-calling for draw play, Chanesque?

Florida's loss to Georgia this year, Chanesque? UGA's loss to a not-really-that-good South Carolina team, Chanesque? Southern Cal's loss to Stanford? Auburn's loss to South Florida? Anyone's loss to UVA?

Seriously, take 5 teams, look at their losses.
 
beej67 said:
Florida's loss to Georgia this year, Chanesque? UGA's loss to a not-really-that-good South Carolina team, Chanesque? Southern Cal's loss to Stanford? Auburn's loss to South Florida? Anyone's loss to UVA?

Seriously, take 5 teams, look at their losses.
Click to expand...

Of the games you cite, only the USC-Stanford game seems Chan-esque. The other Chan-esque games this season that I can think of are Michigan's losses to Appalachian State and Oregon, Tennessee getting blown out by Florida, and Oklahoma losing to Colorado.

Here are some Chan-esque games:

- Worst Loss to UGA (51-7) in GT History

- Worst Bowl Loss (38-10 to Utah) in GT History

- Worst Loss in Series history to 4 out of 12 ACC opponents: BC, Clemson, Maryland, and Virginia Tech.

- Getting blown out by a barely over 0.500 mid-major (Fresno St.) that unexpectantly loss 6 starting players a couple of days before the game.

- Losing 42-17 to a Duke team that had not won an ACC game in about 4 seasons

Find me a coach with this kind of resume that still has a job.
 
Of the games you cite, only the USC-Stanford game seems Chan-esque.
Click to expand...
How is UGA's loss to South Carolina any different than our loss to Maryland? Be objective.

More to the point, pretend we have a team rated what UGA was, play against a team rated what South Carolina was, and we lose exactly how that game was lost. You know good and well everybody'd call that a "Chanesque" loss around here. Why? Because everyone called the Maryland loss a "Chanesque" loss.
 
I would say that UGAg's loss to Tennessee was very Chanesque. UGAg came out completely flat and unprepared for that game. Never had a chance - and I loved every second of it :)
 
BarrelORum said:
I will bet my left testicle for the note on your house that if Chan goes 7-6 he will not be back. If he does return after a 7-6 season, I will cut a testicle off and eat it on the Jumbotron prior to the kick off.
Click to expand...

You can have the note on my house. I'll notify Chase you'll be making the payments. :D

Save the gonad exhibition. I have no desire to see that. Feel free to what you wish in your own home, however. No pics, please. :eek:
 
beej67 said:
Clearly.

Shall we broaden it slightly, so that I lose if we go 7-6 or worse and keep him, and you lose if we go 7-6 or better and he gets fired?

What about whiskey shots at the bar down the street from Mover's house, loser buys?
Click to expand...

Yes that works for me.

I don't know this bar nor Mover's house. We can work it out.
 
I definitely want pics of BOR's disembodied testicle if he carves it off. That's quality discussion board fodder, right there.

So, VT's loss to GT last year, pretty Chanesque, eh? Clemson's loss to GT this year, pretty Chanesque loss too, wouldn't you say?
 
beej67 said:
I definitely want pics of BOR's disembodied testicle if he carves it off. That's quality discussion board fodder, right there.

So, VT's loss to GT last year, pretty Chanesque, eh? Clemson's loss to GT this year, pretty Chanesque loss too, wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...
South Carolina was ranked in the top 10 for sure maybe the top 5 at one point in the season, so them beating UGA not chanesque! Besides none of them have Chan so you cant classify them as Chanesque type teams.
 
South Carolina was ranked in the top 10 for sure maybe the top 5 at one point in the season, so them beating UGA not chanesque!
Click to expand...
VT was pretty highly ranked when they beat us this year. UGA was extremely highly ranked for 51-7. Those are both "Chanesque" losses, right? Is there any doubt that both of those teams are better than SC this year? What made those losses Chanesque and UGA-SC not?

Besides none of them have Chan so you cant classify them as Chanesque type teams.
Click to expand...
Soo... ...the reason we complain about losses is because Chan is our coach? And if we get a new coach we won't complain about losses because at least it wasn't Chan that lost? Or did you mean something else by that? I'm not following you.
 
I would say that VT loss to us last year is like our loss to UVA this year and don't consider either a Chan-esque type loss.

The Maryland game this year was definitely a Chan-esque loss in the respect that we were denied an opportunity to win because of a mental collapse at the end of the game.

I would not consider Clemson's loss to us Chan-esque at all. A close loss to a traditional rival on the road without any major mental errors or supremely flawed strategy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top