Would a mew AD order Chan Gailey to bring in a new Offensive Coordinator.....
- Thread starter statelinejacket
- Start date
statelinejacket
Damn Good Rat
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 1,417
Ahso: No I did'nt say the AD's DO the hiring and firing....I suggested that the AD SHOULD clear out this offensive staff and hire an offensive coordinator. I suggested that Chan Gailey can except this change willingly or take a hike. I did'nt say that athlectic directors do the hiring and firing of assistant coaches as a matter of standard practice but only they step in as is neccessary, mostly when the head coaches job is at stake and the one way to preserve that head coaches said job is by doing whatever is neccessary with changing the assistant coaching staff and how the head coach interacts with it. It has been done...it will continue to be done whether you like it or not. Dare I say when Jim Donnan took the defensive coordinators job away from Kevin Ramsey after one year....after hiring him away from Tennessee....You don't think Vince Dooley had some rather strong input into that decision and that Gary Gibbs as the replacement hirid came with Dooleys blessing. Of course not, your right Ahso: Donnan and only Donnan realized he made a mistake and he went to Dooley and volunteered it as such. Yea Right. Dooley did everything he could do except demand he ditch Quincy as his quarterback in an attempt to save Donnans job inspite of himself. And that includes the manueverings of the defensive coorfinators job.
techsamillion
Flats Noob
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2001
- Messages
- 886
Plese forgive me for not sensing the spirit of this thread Statelinejacket, no disrespect to you.
It just seems to me the premise/question : "Would a mew AD order Chan Gailey to bring in a new Offensive Coordinator..... " is irrelevant. There is an over abundance of subjectivism that surrounds such a consideration. We have no hint whatsoever that any of this will ever matter since we have no inkling that it will come to pass.
It just seems to me the premise/question : "Would a mew AD order Chan Gailey to bring in a new Offensive Coordinator..... " is irrelevant. There is an over abundance of subjectivism that surrounds such a consideration. We have no hint whatsoever that any of this will ever matter since we have no inkling that it will come to pass.
statelinejacket
Damn Good Rat
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 1,417
Techamillion: Whether Chan Gailey is the right choice or not I don't know without seeing him give the offense to someone like Rob Spence of Toledo. Which is what should have been done last year. You would have no argument from me if Spence or someone with his current collegiate qualifications came aboard and Geis and Nix are either reassigned or discharged to make room for this new offensive coordinator with a totally new direction for the #112 offense in the nation. And Gailey needs to withdraw from placing his input on this new coordinator and concentrate on the overall running of the program. This thought will be more relevant if we stink it up against Vanderbilt saturday night, do you agree.
statelinejacket
Damn Good Rat
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 1,417
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">And you sir are sending up smoke in effort to blind yourself of what goes on in the real world of college football.Originally posted by ahsoisee:
Let's see Stateline, you keep throwing flak, but have yet to support your point with any proof.
There are two discussions going on here. The first is basically whether we should have a new OC. Bottom line is that will wait until the end of the year to address.
The other, about whether ADs hire and fire coaches is just stupid guys. Neither one of you can "prove" anything. ahso, the FACT is an AD can do whatever he wants to. The QUESTION is whether they do it in reality.
Most of the time I've seen references to an AD forcing the coach to make a change. Is this semantics? If the HC says no he's normally fired. Does the AD tell him which assistants to fire? Often yes. Does he tell him what assistant to hire? Don't know, but I'd guess yes in some cases. So TECHNICALLY if the HC makes the offer you are right, the AD did't hire the new coach. But IN REALITY the AD made the decision.
The other, about whether ADs hire and fire coaches is just stupid guys. Neither one of you can "prove" anything. ahso, the FACT is an AD can do whatever he wants to. The QUESTION is whether they do it in reality.
Most of the time I've seen references to an AD forcing the coach to make a change. Is this semantics? If the HC says no he's normally fired. Does the AD tell him which assistants to fire? Often yes. Does he tell him what assistant to hire? Don't know, but I'd guess yes in some cases. So TECHNICALLY if the HC makes the offer you are right, the AD did't hire the new coach. But IN REALITY the AD made the decision.
techsamillion
Flats Noob
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2001
- Messages
- 886
Yes Stateline, I would agree, that such moves would help (now thinking I get your drift, that you are actually talking about next year) It was when I was only focused on this year that I answered as to my consideration of the relevantcy
of the proposition. If we do not finish with a positive surge, I do indeed think we should always look for improvement and remedies.
If we "stink it up" against Vandy this week, I just cannot even begin to know the impending results on the fan base and coaching situation.
But, I hoestly look for us to play up to and coach up to our high potential this week.
of the proposition. If we do not finish with a positive surge, I do indeed think we should always look for improvement and remedies.
If we "stink it up" against Vandy this week, I just cannot even begin to know the impending results on the fan base and coaching situation.
But, I hoestly look for us to play up to and coach up to our high potential this week.
statelinejacket
Damn Good Rat
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2002
- Messages
- 1,417
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Ditto: Ahso I hope ncjacket made it plain enough to you. I never said I could give you the evidence you want....but reading between the lines when it comes to interpreting what is said at newsconferences of college and pro head coaches, athlectic directors, school presidents, baseball general managers and managers is done everday at virtually every newsconference involving hirings, firings, trades, suspensions, etc, etc, etc.
Who is NCJacket? Is he an AD that has hired or fired an assistant from under a head coach? If not, he has no more knowledge than you or I that an AD has hired or fired a coach. His is only an opinion and is no better than mine, Stateline, or Dave Tech's opinion.
That is more hilarious than you might think! This is true because NCJacket says it is true.
A person's opinion does not prove anything. It does not make a statement true if everyone on the board agrees on one item, and one person takes exception to it. It must be proven. Most of the world in the time of Columbus thought the world was flat, but Columbus beleived and gambled that it was round.
There have been many people in the minority, but that does not make them wrong.
However, my opinion appears to be backed up more by the lack of "ANY" cases ever having been aired or documented where the AD fired or hired an assistant over the objection of the head coach in college. I feel confident most any coach would quit or be fired over that kind of activity.
So, NCJacket's response is exactly the same as Stateline and Dave Tech, smoke, because none of the three have any proof that an AD has ever hired or fired an assistant when the head coach said no.
I still hold to my original opinion, which is the AD may indeed tell the coach he has to either be released or let certain assistants go. I still hold to my original opinion that the head coaches make the final decisions.
Would I ever want an AD to select or fire an assistant over the onjection of the head coach? The answer is no! Since part of a head coach's job is matching his coaching style with his assistants, the firing and selection should be his choice.
If he does not know how to select good assistants, his coaching will suffer, and he will ultimately be canned. That is the way it should be.
I wonder who will hire or fire the assistants for the Vanderbilt coach?
That is more hilarious than you might think! This is true because NCJacket says it is true.
A person's opinion does not prove anything. It does not make a statement true if everyone on the board agrees on one item, and one person takes exception to it. It must be proven. Most of the world in the time of Columbus thought the world was flat, but Columbus beleived and gambled that it was round.
There have been many people in the minority, but that does not make them wrong.
However, my opinion appears to be backed up more by the lack of "ANY" cases ever having been aired or documented where the AD fired or hired an assistant over the objection of the head coach in college. I feel confident most any coach would quit or be fired over that kind of activity.
So, NCJacket's response is exactly the same as Stateline and Dave Tech, smoke, because none of the three have any proof that an AD has ever hired or fired an assistant when the head coach said no.
I still hold to my original opinion, which is the AD may indeed tell the coach he has to either be released or let certain assistants go. I still hold to my original opinion that the head coaches make the final decisions.
Would I ever want an AD to select or fire an assistant over the onjection of the head coach? The answer is no! Since part of a head coach's job is matching his coaching style with his assistants, the firing and selection should be his choice.
If he does not know how to select good assistants, his coaching will suffer, and he will ultimately be canned. That is the way it should be.
I wonder who will hire or fire the assistants for the Vanderbilt coach?
Dave Tech, since you cannot read well, you should not try debating an issue. I never said I could prove any assistants were not hired or fired by an AD. Maybe you should find that item and copy it, where I have stated that.
I have stated my opinion is that all ADs leave the hiring and firing of coaches up to the head coach. You and Stateline are the ones that have stated the ADs do indeed hire and fire assistants. Yet, you provide no proof. I keep asking you for proof, and you keep blowing smoke without providing any proof.
I don't have to provide proof when I state my opinion is that the AD does not make the moves, but gives the coaches ultimatums. I still beleive the head coach is left with an ultimatum and has to make a decision.
When you find the proof to back your statements of facts, let me know.
I have stated my opinion is that all ADs leave the hiring and firing of coaches up to the head coach. You and Stateline are the ones that have stated the ADs do indeed hire and fire assistants. Yet, you provide no proof. I keep asking you for proof, and you keep blowing smoke without providing any proof.
I don't have to provide proof when I state my opinion is that the AD does not make the moves, but gives the coaches ultimatums. I still beleive the head coach is left with an ultimatum and has to make a decision.
When you find the proof to back your statements of facts, let me know.
Stateline, why do you continue to use pro head coaches, baseball general managers and etc., etc., etc. as proof when it has nothing to do with the college setup. You are still blowing smoke and have not provided one iota of proof to prove that college ADs have personally hired or fired an assistant coach over the objections of the head coach.
I have never heard of etc., etc., etc. proving anything. How far will you go to blow smoke before you admit you have no proof.
I have never heard of etc., etc., etc. proving anything. How far will you go to blow smoke before you admit you have no proof.
LLCoolJacket
Damn Good Rat
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2003
- Messages
- 1,233
Whenever you see a thread reach page 2, its a safe bet that ahso has embarked on another pointless debate regarding what is fact or opinion.
Pity to those sucked in.
Not me anymore!!
Pity to those sucked in.
Not me anymore!!
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I blame the Catholics and Canadians.Originally posted by LLCoolJacket:
Whenever you see a thread reach page 2, its a safe bet that ahso has embarked on another pointless debate regarding what is fact or opinion.
Pity to those sucked in.
Not me anymore!!
First of all ahso, I said my post was my opinion. I also said none of us can prove anything in this discussion since personnel matters are normally not disclosed publicly.
What I said normally seems to happen is exactly what you stated. That is, the AD give the HC an ultimatum. He can accept or not. I also said there could be cases where an AD hired or fired an assistant coach, since he is above the HC in the chain of command he has the power to do that. I never said I knew of a time when it happened, but that the chain of command would make it possible.
In case you haven't noticed, the president of an organization can fire the janitor if he/she wants to. They normally have someone else do it for them however. It doesn't make the person any less fired, nor does it change where the decision originated.
So tell me where the smoke is?
BTW, it IS true just because I say so. Haven't you figured that out yet?
What I said normally seems to happen is exactly what you stated. That is, the AD give the HC an ultimatum. He can accept or not. I also said there could be cases where an AD hired or fired an assistant coach, since he is above the HC in the chain of command he has the power to do that. I never said I knew of a time when it happened, but that the chain of command would make it possible.
In case you haven't noticed, the president of an organization can fire the janitor if he/she wants to. They normally have someone else do it for them however. It doesn't make the person any less fired, nor does it change where the decision originated.
So tell me where the smoke is?
BTW, it IS true just because I say so. Haven't you figured that out yet?
NCJacket, I was really using you to show how foolish Stateline and Dave Tech are for indicating, "it is true, because NCJacket said it is true".
Could an AD fire or hire an assistant if he really wanted to do so? Yes, but that is not the issue. The issue was Dave and Stateline says it has happened over the objections of a head coach, but they can not prove it has happened.
It is just their opinion it has happened, and that is no better than someone's opinion who doesn't think it has happened.
Any coach that would allow that to happen to him does not need to be a coach. If he does not have the ability or grit to hire and fire his own coaches, I sure don't want him for head coach.
Father Time
Could an AD fire or hire an assistant if he really wanted to do so? Yes, but that is not the issue. The issue was Dave and Stateline says it has happened over the objections of a head coach, but they can not prove it has happened.
It is just their opinion it has happened, and that is no better than someone's opinion who doesn't think it has happened.
Any coach that would allow that to happen to him does not need to be a coach. If he does not have the ability or grit to hire and fire his own coaches, I sure don't want him for head coach.
Father Time
LLCoolJacket, you like to pile on, but not make any tackles. Are you afraid you cannot handle a debate? You have just become a hit-and-run guy. Did you get a feeling of power and satisfaction by your post?
I am amazed at the words-of-wisdom from you! By the way, why did you make a post if you did not get sucked in?
Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life down here!
I am amazed at the words-of-wisdom from you! By the way, why did you make a post if you did not get sucked in?
Beam me up Scotty, there is no intelligent life down here!
LLCoolJacket
Damn Good Rat
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2003
- Messages
- 1,233
father time blurts out:
I am amazed at the words-of-wisdom from you! By the way, why did you make a post if you did not get sucked in?
ahso, my only responses to you will be of the "you are a lonely old man with nothing else to do" ilk.
Your act has gotten old and crusty.
Believe it or not, many people on this board are concerned about the fate of Ga. Tech football. Many of these people don't need to look up stats (facts) to form beliefs (opinions) about what is possibly unfolding. Many want to discuss the uncertainty (lack of facts) surrounding the program.
That is a fact, moron. (once again, only an opinion)
I am amazed at the words-of-wisdom from you! By the way, why did you make a post if you did not get sucked in?
ahso, my only responses to you will be of the "you are a lonely old man with nothing else to do" ilk.
Your act has gotten old and crusty.
Believe it or not, many people on this board are concerned about the fate of Ga. Tech football. Many of these people don't need to look up stats (facts) to form beliefs (opinions) about what is possibly unfolding. Many want to discuss the uncertainty (lack of facts) surrounding the program.
That is a fact, moron. (once again, only an opinion)