Serious question: If you think the new admisson

[The Gnome of Zurich]

Originally posted by ahsoisee:
Gnome, read my lips, I have no problem understanding your printed words. I do disagree with your printed words.

Yes, you have limited your description of the strict disciplinarian. You have stated the coach must be a strict disciplinarian in the mold of Ross or O'Leary.

I have stated that is not so, no coach has to have the same discipline as those two to succeed in the coaching arena.

I gave an exampled of Curry, who was a disciplinarian in the mold of Ross and O'Leary, but was not a greatly effective coach.

I gave an example of Dodd, who "was not" a strict disciplinarian, but his coaching record exceeds that of Ross or O'Leary.

Yes, absolutely, there would be occasions when a player could live off campus. Now, I doubt seriously, and would be willing to bet, there are conditions attached to living off campus. If there are conditions and rules, then there is supervision.

Supervision does not mean looking over one's shoulder all the time. The absolute best supervision is the assigning of responsibilities to a person according to the individual's personal traits.

If the individual performs well with the freedoms, you allow that individual additional freedoms. If the individual shows negligence with his freedom, you begin to restrict his freedom until he conforms to the rules assigned.

That is absolutely the best method of discipline to kids when they are growing up and adults in the workplace. It is probably the best method for a coach to use. Because all humans are different, each should be treated differently according to their understanding and abilities.

You can have tighter rules for some and more relaxed rules for others.

Personally, I would probably not let a freshman off campus, unless of extenuating circumstances. I would probably let a married player live off campus with his wife and family.

If a player was poor or had some extenuating circumstance, I would probably let them live off campus according to the circumstance. A poor player might have parents in the area and he would be better off there with certain rules.

A player might have an ailing parent in the area that needs his help. There could be numerous reasons for allowing players to live off campus. I would seriously doubt that Gailey lets any player live off the campus without supervision. Supervision merely means the person supervised adheres to the rules of the supervisor.

Supervision does not mean looking over one's shoulder. It means Gailey has laid out some rules. As long as the player/players abide by the rules and their effectiveness is not hindered on the football field, they can be allowed certain freedoms. If they abuse those freedoms, then the freedoms are curtailed.

That is not being a strict disciplinarian, but it is more effective than standing over a person all the time. It is the preferred method of supervision. If a person is taught self discipline, you do not have to expend wasted energy disciplining him continually.

You teach him to catch his own fish.

And you have just shown your true colors. You pretend you are only after Braine, when, in fact, most every post you display proves you have never liked Gailey, and you really don't want him to succeed.

As I said earlier, there are certain ones on the board who have another agenda, and it has nothing to do with the ability of Gailey to coach.

Since he won seven games in his first year, it is completely obvious the dislike is there for other reasons. If it was because of his coaching ability, we would not be having this discussion. You, plainly, do not like him.

Father Time

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">First, I believe he is a good man, has plenty of football experience, wants to win, and teach the kids good traits and morals. No one probably would argue with that. With that said, it is my opinion that Gailey is not the right coach for Georgia Tech. And it all started when I heard how laid back he was- which now I know means lax as far as true discipline in my book- and Greg Gathers' quote last August saying "he lets us police ourselves." Now, Gailey may have been really naive because he hadnt been around the 18-19 year old at a DIV I school (which is a lot different than even when Bill Curry coached). I'll grant him that. But that is one of the core reasons why underling my "disagreement", which is more or less you and I just have a difference of opinion on Discipline and its methods, and that is the failure of our AD to bring in someone who had the experience of Div I. That doesnt necessarily mean he had to have been the Head Coach (see Mark Richt, Bob Stoops,etc), but it does mean a lot more than being in the pros for the last ~20 years. It is totally different off the field. I have just used Ross and O'Leary only as examples, whereas Curry came into an almost DIV III football program (Dr Petit was looking at dropping us to Div III until Homer came to try and fix it). Curry was a good disciplinarian and probably had a tougher situation he came into than Ross. But Curry also probably could have won more games if he had the Assistants around him like a Ross. So I think Curry's strict style did absolutely help bring credibility back to the program-probably would have won more games with better assistants. I am sorry, but as much as we havent had longterm spells of consistent winning, what O'Leary did and of course with help from some great assistant, was put us back in as solid footing as we had ever been. In the meantime, quietly working up the totem pole in the NCAA agenda was the 40/60/80 rule and our AD and President were asleep at the wheel until it was way to late to try and be at the forefront of something that will make it tougher at GT to recruit (as Paul Hewitt said at Buckhead Rotary a few months back.) I look at that fact, I look at a lax set of rules, and an AD who admitted "the first 5 years were easy around here," and I see a very loose organization with people like you and me "trusting their every word." I think Tech is a hard place to attract a coach because of everything we know, so the pool of legitimate applicants will always be small, but with all the new NCAA rules and the "kids of today", I think our AD has not found the right coach for us. He has found a good man who should go back to the Pros where he may be happy. To be fair, these are obviously just my opinions and I do feel like you have to give him this year. Now, if we are 0-7 going into the Maryland game ( a la the 1-5 going into the Maryland game in 1994,) you know it wont be quiet around here for a good reason. But, as I stated in a post under the "what if this scenrio happens" on the message board, if he wins 5 and the team does show heart and has close games, you have to be fair to him and give him another year. My only hope at that time would for that AD who makes that decision be someone who is a leader and understands the Tact and skills to deal with the alumni, GT academia, marketing, etc. I know I intertwined my response with other points but they are very much tied to the hip as far as I am concerned. Just because I dont think he is the right coach doesnt mean I am not a supporter of us winning. I am just not one to ever have blind faith (which I am not saying about you at all) I just know more than I guess I wished to know. And yes, I rambled again.