Re: First of all, I warned about Maryland\'s talent
[ QUOTE ]
O'Leary's record his last 3 years was 26-12. Gailey's record is 21-17. That's a decline. A tricked up bowl streak doesn't change that.
[/ QUOTE ]
Techie,
For someone who claims posters distort facts and revise history, you have become the master of it.
First of all, at least get your numbers correct before distorting the results. O’Leary’s record over his last three seasons (1999-2001) was 24-12 not 26-12 (8-4 in 1999, 9-3 in 2000, and 7-5 in 2001). Even if you attempted to count the 2001 bowl game (which he did not coach—remember?), your number is still incorrect. By the way, I firmly believe that if O’Leary had remained at Tech in 2001, Tech would have lost the bowl game--but that’s my opinion.
Secondly, I loved how you manipulated the numbers and compared O’Leary’s last three years to Gailey’s first three. Remember it took O’Leary’s third season to transition from the previous regime before he got enough of his system and recruits in place to get the 7 wins which started that tricked-up bowl streak you mentioned. If you compare the first three seasons of both coaches, Gailey has a slight lead over O’Leary at 21-17 to 18-16. Notice I was nice enough not to include O’Leary’s 0-3 record from 1994. No distortion there.
And lastly, I am perplexed by what your definition of the word “decline” is. You and I have already had a disagreement on the definition of what a “blow-out” is. You think if a Tech team keeps the score close late into a game and then loses it by a score of 34-7, then it is not an embarrassing blow-out. Sorry I do, especially if it is to the team that Tech eventually shared the ACC title with. But I digress. If you look at O’Leary’s last three seasons at Tech, he went from 8-4 in 1999, to 9-3 in 2000, to a very frustrating regular season record of 7-5 in 2001. Do you see a downward trend here—especially since he was 10-2 in 1998? Now what was Gailey’s first regular season record in 2002? History tells us it was 7-5 (also very frustrating). Goodness, it was the same as O’Leary’s last season and Gailey did it with O’Leary’s recruits and without Godsey, Campell, Burns, and a few other stars. So now you see why I am curious as to what your definition of “decline” is, when the real decline actually started before Gailey arrived.
I admit I wrote this with a little TIC, but to also prove a point. I have always had the utmost regard for O’Leary and what he did for Tech. But he is not above criticism especially after he became successful here. In spite of what you may want to think or distort, I have never made excuses for Gailey’s loses or problems as you are prone to do for O’Leary. I have only defended Gailey’s right to have the same opportunity to become successful at Tech as was given to O’Leary. The difference between you and me is: I want Gailey to succeed because that means Tech succeeds. You just want Gailey to fail, and that’s no distortion.