You Be the AD!

mm42

mm42

Dodd-Like
Joined
Jul 25, 2002
Messages
4,030
We have a lot of folks on this board clearly more qualified to be AD than Dave Braine, so let's have them audition!

Coach #1

Your team finishes 10-1 in one of its best seasons ever. You hire a new coach from a lesser program and he goes 8-3, 7-4, 8-4, 6-5, and 4-7. Do you fire the coach?

Coach #2

You just finished 7 consecutive winning seasons, including 9-2-1 last year. Your coach retires and you hire a new coach who goes 2-9, 3-8, 6-4-1, 6-5, and 5-6. Do you fire the coach?

Coach #3

Your last coach went 20-12-3 his last three years, then left for a higher profile job. You hire a new coach, but 3 games into his 3rd season he is 1-20 against Division I-A teams. Do you fire him?

Coach #4

You have a successful coach, but he may be past his prime. His record has slipped from 11-0 to 8-2-1 to 8-3 to 6-5 to 6-5-1, including 2 losses in a row to your in-state rival, including a 49-26 humiliation. Do you fire him?

Coach #5

You've just completed 10 consecutive seasons with 9 or more wins. Your coach leaves for the pros and you hire a new guy. He breaks the string his first year going 8-3, then inches up to 9-3 his second year, but plunges to 5-6 his third year with a humiliating 47-0 loss to your in-state rival. Do you fire him?

Please share your wisdom with us.
 
I'll bite, but not in the way you want.

More information is needed. What underlying issues are there with each scenario? What is the attitude of the fan base toward the program, and the coach?
Other than record, is the team getting stronger or weaker?
What type of manager is the head coach? How well does the HC and his staff work together to develop player talent?
Does your HC have the ability to make changes for the better, when needed? Does the coach graduate his players?

I am assuming that each of your scenarios are real, and that some of the coaches were fired. I guess that in those cases, it is debateable that the program slid further.

Each case is different, but issues other than record alone have to be considered.
 
The scenarios are deceptive

Coach #2 is Frank Beamer - Beamer inherited a mess from Bill Dooley. I believe they went on probation and they were other problems within the athletic department.

Coach #3 is Bobby Ross - It's well documented that some of Curry's players rebelled against Ross's more disciplined approach. The 1988 team was snakebit. They lost 4 games by 5 points or fewer and were in every single game except Clemson.

Coach #4 is Bear Bryant - After the 1970 season, Bryant brought in Emory Bellard to teach his staff the wishbone. Wow, a head coach making offensive adjustments. If Gailey ever changed his offense, I'd probably faint.

Coach #5 is Butch Davis - Miami was on probation when Davis took over. The reduced scholarships kicked in his 3rd year. However, anybody with football knowledge knew he had the program in the right direction. After the sanctions were lifted, he stockpile a truckload of talent.

Can't say who #1 is but the situation were different in each case. Gailey inherited a top #25 team. Not a team on probation.
 
As is the description of what Gailey inherited

[ QUOTE ]
Can't say who #1 is but the situation were different in each case. Gailey inherited a top #25 team. Not a team on probation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to debate in this post whether Gailey is doing a good job or not. However I think that the statement of Gailey inheriting a top #25 team not on probation is deceptive as well.

If I remember correctly we were able to sign 21 players in the recruiting season during which George O'Leary left Georgia Tech and Chan was hired. Most of those kids were recruited by George, though not all and Chan had some work to do to convince some of them to stick around and was unfortunately not successful with all of them. Certainly had he come in earlier he might have had a better chance of filling out that class but we'll never know that. However the point of that statement is that in year one Chan was already down 5 bodies (partly his fault and partly the outgoing regime's fault). That's equivalent or greater than what most schools lose when they get put on probation.

If that wasn't enough we also lost 10 more in flunkgate in the following year. For some of those kids the crisis was already in the making before Chan got here and since people have already been tried and convicted for whatever happened leading up to flunkgate the fact that we have to live with is that it cost us 10 players. So in two seasons we lost 15 players. That's more than most any school loses when it gets put on probation.

Is some of that Chan's fault? Of course it is and I'm not in any way trying to absolve him or anyone else of responsibility for their parts in losing or not bringing in that many players. But I AM pointing out that with Miami the stigma of being on probation was relatively meaningless. It was the inability to bring in enough players to have sufficient depth to compete every week with the kind of teams they were playing. Once they could bring in the full number their depth began creeping back upwards and you see what's happened as a result.

Well we weren't actually on probation but we felt the same kind of "sting" (pardon the pun) by losing out on tremendous depth and many were guys who were already or were counted on to become major contributors.

My whole point is that Chan didn't simply inherit a #25 program ready to just shoot off the launch pad into a perennial MNC contender. There were problems brewing that cost us 15 players in a 15 month span that had nothing to do with normal graduation/attrition. That's a pretty hefty handicap so don't try to sell that Chan inherited a program that was hunky dory. Perhaps a disaster wasn't looming but neither was skyrocketing success, folks.
 
Re: The scenarios are deceptive

[ QUOTE ]
Coach #2 is Frank Beamer - Beamer inherited a mess from Bill Dooley. I believe they went on probation and they were other problems within the athletic department.


[/ QUOTE ]

The anti-Chan crowd (yourself included) call that "excuses" and "satisfaction with mediocrity".

[ QUOTE ]

Coach #3 is Bobby Ross - It's well documented that some of Curry's players rebelled against Ross's more disciplined approach. The 1988 team was snakebit. They lost 4 games by 5 points or fewer and were in every single game except Clemson.


[/ QUOTE ]

The anti-Chan crowd (yourself included) call that "excuses" and "satisfaction with mediocrity".

[ QUOTE ]

Coach #4 is Bear Bryant - After the 1970 season, Bryant brought in Emory Bellard to teach his staff the wishbone. Wow, a head coach making offensive adjustments. If Gailey ever changed his offense, I'd probably faint.


[/ QUOTE ]

Bear adjusted, but it took him 5 YEARS to do it. The anti-Chan crowd, yourself included, has no such patience.

[ QUOTE ]

Coach #5 is Butch Davis - Miami was on probation when Davis took over. The reduced scholarships kicked in his 3rd year. However, anybody with football knowledge knew he had the program in the right direction. After the sanctions were lifted, he stockpile a truckload of talent.


[/ QUOTE ]

The anti-Chan crowd (yourself included) call that "excuses" and "satisfaction with mediocrity".

[ QUOTE ]

Can't say who #1 is but the situation were different in each case. Gailey inherited a top #25 team. Not a team on probation.

[/ QUOTE ]

The anti-Chan crowd, yourself included, do not recognize the flunkgate students and our tougher academic standards as being equivalent in terms of lost players to probation. OH CRAP, I MADE AN EXCUSE!

#1 was Bobby Bowden at West Virginia. You and the anti-Chan crowd would have fired them all, no matter what you claim.
 
[ QUOTE ]
More information is needed. What underlying issues are there with each scenario? What is the attitude of the fan base toward the program, and the coach?
Other than record, is the team getting stronger or weaker?
What type of manager is the head coach? How well does the HC and his staff work together to develop player talent?
Does your HC have the ability to make changes for the better, when needed? Does the coach graduate his players?


[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I call a cop out.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe, it depends on many factors you have left out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cop out #2.
 
Re: As is the description of what Gailey inherited

As I recall, CCG indicated at the time of his hiring that Tech had a strong program that he was coming in to take to improve on a good situation.

There was no suggestion by CCG that he would have to rebuild or bring Tech back to respectability.

No excuses.
 
Re: As is the description of what Gailey inherited

What you have said merits a bravo. No, not everything is CC's fault. However, much is. I do not blame CC for his lack of bring in players his 1st year. I do have a question tho, without having to look it up how many of those players are still in school, how many are starting, how many are on the 2 deep roster, and how many would you say are impact players? Do I blame CC for flunkgate, no not at all unlike others who said he should have had overall responsibility for the players. The brained one took that out of his hands or so it was reported. Do I blame CC for not hiring compentent position coaches yes I do. Do I blame CC for not getting a good OC here yes I do. Do I blame CC for our offensive woes yes I do (kinda reminds one of his Dallas days). He is the boss and the buck stops at his desk. It's time the AD looked at the overall situtation and make changes or at least force changes. For almost a million a year he needs to do his job. I don't want to hear again from his lips "we need to find a way to win". Thats a loser talking. Gees I could coach (for say 1/2 million) and say the same thing. That would save Tech about 1/2 million and help pay for the yellow seats.
 
Face it MM42, I exposed your arguments as lame

First of all, none of the situations comes close to Gailey's at Tech. Tech was not on probation. Tech was 8-5 and it was considered a disappointment. The 2001 team wasn't some senior-laden team that had nothing behind it like North Carolina. As far as flunkgate goes, Gailey shares some of the blame. O'Leary was like a drill sergeant making sure the players went to class. Bed checks were done by assistant coaches. Gailey was misled by Braine as well but I guarantee you 10 players would not have flunked out if O'Leary had stayed. Right now, 15 of 22 starters are O'Leary's recruits. Maybe you can answer the question that GEETEELEE and Blackwatch wouldn't. Where's all that great young talent that I hear Gailey is stockpiling?
 
I\'d like to play, too

Coach X.
A controversial but successful head coach departs midway through a rebuilding program. He is replaced by one who is regarded as an up-and-coming star and has had an execllent record as a HC in a lower level program. This new HC goes 10-12 through his first two seasons and is 1-7 through the first 8 games of his third with 2 out of the 3 remaining games scheduled against your second and first most bitter rivals. Please share your wisdom with us.

And remember, you have to work with only the facts you have been given. If you try and add anything to the above scenario, you will be branded a "cop out," assessed a 15 post penalty, and be required to recite, from memory, the play-by-play details for each of GT's possessions during the second half of last week's GT-VT game. Good luck.

We all know who this is. You and the no-matter-what- happens-he-is-a great-coach pro-chan crowd would have said he needed more time, etc., etc., etc. and kept him, no matter what you claim.

BTW, in response to JOJATK's post above, as I recall, in his second and third recruiting years, ccg did not use all his visits, and left 3 or 4 'ships unoffered the first year and 2 or 3 the second. That is what I recall, and I stand to be corrected if I am incorrect. But if I am correct, then that would add another 5-7 or so to the count. And while we might have lost 10 to "flunkgate", I believe only 4 or 5 of those had gotten and/or had any hope of getting significant future PT, and one of them had expressed his intent to go pro prior to "flunkgate" coming to light (Hollings-who was also injured). Again, I may be wrong, and I am certain that someone will bring it to my attention if I am.
 
[quote

That's what I call a cop out.

[/ QUOTE ]

MM, you ask a completely loaded question, and then tell me I copped out? I never should have taken the bait.

I stand by my answers to your loaded question. They are appropriate.
 
[ QUOTE ]
We have a lot of folks on this board clearly more qualified to be AD than Dave Braine, so let's have them audition!

Coach #1

Your team finishes 10-1 in one of its best seasons ever. You hire a new coach from a lesser program and he goes 8-3, 7-4, 8-4, 6-5, and 4-7. Do you fire the coach?

Coach #2

You just finished 7 consecutive winning seasons, including 9-2-1 last year. Your coach retires and you hire a new coach who goes 2-9, 3-8, 6-4-1, 6-5, and 5-6. Do you fire the coach?

Coach #3

Your last coach went 20-12-3 his last three years, then left for a higher profile job. You hire a new coach, but 3 games into his 3rd season he is 1-20 against Division I-A teams. Do you fire him?

Coach #4

You have a successful coach, but he may be past his prime. His record has slipped from 11-0 to 8-2-1 to 8-3 to 6-5 to 6-5-1, including 2 losses in a row to your in-state rival, including a 49-26 humiliation. Do you fire him?

Coach #5

You've just completed 10 consecutive seasons with 9 or more wins. Your coach leaves for the pros and you hire a new guy. He breaks the string his first year going 8-3, then inches up to 9-3 his second year, but plunges to 5-6 his third year with a humiliating 47-0 loss to your in-state rival. Do you fire him?

Please share your wisdom with us.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok I'll be the AD:
"I am going to retire like I should have when we actually hired Rick Smith, only to have a resume problem; 10 players failed out after I revamped the AA after O'Leary left; recommended the loss of 4 scholarships a year for the next 2 years because of MINOR violations. Yes, I am the man in charge so I must accept responsibility, not blame everyone else, and will do the right thing for the program and retire. Oh by the way, I still think we have a chance to sell more of those gold seats. I apologize for calling our alumni who had given millions and asked for another million to keep those seats on the 40. Oh, and thanks for all of those free tickets for the AA out to San Antonio by the way,w e had a blast. And at least now, I retire before Chan's 4 year deal is up (notice the other coaches' 5 year deals by the way) so the new guy you guys get for AD can make an honest assessment of the program (and more specifically, why the Offense really stinks)." How's that for doing what should have already happened?
 
Here you go mm2 you be the AD:

Scenario #1

Your HC has gone 6-6, 7-5, and 7-5 the past three years and has 3 consective losses to your in state rival including a 52-17 loss. Your program has never won a conference title in its entire history. Do stick with him?

Scenario #2

Your coach has gone 6-5, 6-6, and 7-5 the past three years including 3 consecutive losses to your in state rival. Do you stick with him?

Please enlighten me.
 
Re: Face it MM42, I exposed your arguments as lame

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, none of the situations comes close to Gailey's at Tech.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true - all of the new coaches I listed had LOSING records, unlike Coach Gailey.

[ QUOTE ]

Tech was not on probation.

[/ QUOTE ]

West Virginia was not on probation. GT '87 was not on probation. VPI was not on probation for SEVEN YEARS, which is how long it took Beamer to get things going his way. And the idea that Miami had an excuse to be non-competitive because they lost a few scholarships is just laughable.

[ QUOTE ]

Right now, 15 of 22 starters are O'Leary's recruits.


[/ QUOTE ]

Good teams start mostly juniors and seniors. I'm glad those players are playing for Coach Gailey instead of quitting on him like Ross' players did with Bill Lewis.

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe you can answer the question that GEETEELEE and Blackwatch wouldn't. Where's all that great young talent that I hear Gailey is stockpiling?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I would use the term "stockpiling" because of Gailey's first incomplete class and the number of guys he has used as true freshmen. So far I like the kind of players he has been bringing in. Most of them are not starting because they are not juniors and seniors.

Speaking of "lame", that's how I would describe your attempt to explain away every other coach who has had some bumps on the road to success.
 
Re: I\'d like to play, too

[ QUOTE ]
Coach X.
A controversial but successful head coach departs midway through a rebuilding program. He is replaced by one who is regarded as an up-and-coming star and has had an execllent record as a HC in a lower level program. This new HC goes 10-12 through his first two seasons and is 1-7 through the first 8 games of his third with 2 out of the 3 remaining games scheduled against your second and first most bitter rivals. Please share your wisdom with us.

And remember, you have to work with only the facts you have been given.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd have fired his butt. The trouble is, I probably would've fired many or all of the coaches in my list above, too. Do you actually claim you wouldn't have fired them all?

It's amazing to me that the anti-Chan crowd try to equate Bill Lewis' record with no winning seasons, no road wins against winning teams, and no wins against top 10 teams with Coach Gailey's record that includes all those things.

I don't claim to be omniscient and have perfect knowledge whether Coach Gailey will ultimately succeed or fail at GT. Right now, if it's up to me, Coach Gailey gets more time to take us where we want to go.

[ QUOTE ]

You and the no-matter-what- happens-he-is-a great-coach pro-chan crowd would have said he needed more time, etc., etc., etc. and kept him, no matter what you claim.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have not declared Coach Gailey a great coach. I am not convinced that he will ultimately succeed at GT. I do believe Dave Braine is a better judge of that than either of us, however, just as he was with Beamer when either of us would have fired him, just as he was with Hewitt when many turned on him.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Here you go mm2 you be the AD:

Scenario #1

Your HC has gone 6-6, 7-5, and 7-5 the past three years and has 3 consective losses to your in state rival including a 52-17 loss. Your program has never won a conference title in its entire history. Do stick with him?

Scenario #2

Your coach has gone 6-5, 6-6, and 7-5 the past three years including 3 consecutive losses to your in state rival. Do you stick with him?

Please enlighten me.

[/ QUOTE ]

You misunderstand - I don't claim to be omniscient and better able to make these decisions than the AD.
 
Re: I\'d like to play, too

Do you actually claim you wouldn't have fired them all?

Yes I do. Based only on the information you gave, I would not have made a decision on any of them. As I do not have complete knowledge of all of the factors that existed at the times in question, even in retrospect, I would not be able to make an informed call. Your statement that you would have fired many or all of them and your responses to those who disagree with you are illustrations of your knee-jerk go-into-attack-mode reactions to other people's opinions which don't fit into your view of how things should be.

I have not advocated that ccg be fired at this time. I however note that there are many obvious indications that his coaching approach and methods are not succeeding, to include, but not to be limited, to poor staff coordination, poor game time management, poor side line management, poor game planning and play calling, and poor player motivation and development. His time to correct these problems, all of which were evident in the VT game, is finite. His ability to correct these problems, based on the fact that they have existed since the first game he appeared as HC at GT, is highly questionable.

Your fear that if we replace him we might do worse, while certainly rational, is not justification for continuing our relationship with him if he fails to correct the problems that plague our football program at this time. Change always carries an element of risk. One would hope that the next time we go into the football HC market, our leaders will conduct a more through investigation of the potential hires, and will profit from the mistakes that were made the last time.

Under any scenario, ccg's time to successfully resolve the issues that face the program is running out. At this time, like DR. Football over on the other board, I can't say how I hope the it all comes out, other than to say that it must come out in GT's best interests. If ccg fixes things and stays, fine. If he doesn't and is booted, equally fine. But the time of decision is rapidly becoming sooner rather than later.

Have a great day.
 
Re: I\'d like to play, too

[ QUOTE ]
... your responses to those who disagree with you are illustrations of your knee-jerk go-into-attack-mode ...

Your fear that if we replace him we might do worse...

[/ QUOTE ]

I have expressed no fears and I have attacked no one, so it's not clear who you are trying to argue with.

Furthermore, based on your latest response you and I are not even very far apart on Gailey; neither is happy with where we are, but neither is ready to fire him today.

It's also not clear why you jumped in and tried to equate Gailey with Bill Lewis if you don't want him fired. In fact, it's not clear why you want to argue at all if you don't want him fired, because that was the point of this thread, a response to the "FIRE GAILEY NOW!" crowd.

My point has only been to illustrate that a good coach can go through bad patches in performance. However, that doesn't tell us Gailey is a good coach. To me it says that rushing to judgement can be a big mistake. There were plenty of folks ready to fire Ross early in his career here. He turned it around in year 3, but not everyone does, as in the above examples.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top