Tech

By Keith

November 15, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

How can you say Tech job is the third toughest in the country? Until recent additions to the ACC, Georgia Tech played in a very weak leaque with little expectations of winning. Nebraska made a change two years ago after an 9-2 campaign. For Georgia Tech, 7-4 is a good year. While the acadimic requirements are high, the expectations to win are not as high as other national programs.

By just another fan

November 15, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this

I think the point of the comment is to say that the combination of high academic requirements (not just to get in, but to actually make the grade while they are in school) and the fan expectations (yes there are other programs with winning traditions & higher expectations, but not that many) - make the job extremely difficult. I wouldn’t argue top 3 - but not far off.

I think the bigger issue for us now is managing expectations in a league where you have to beat out Miami & Va. Tech every year just to make a championship game where, oh yeah, you have to beat FSU or BC, et al to get to any BCS game. I don’t give up hope, but it will be challenging.

I am torn about the news - but I lean towards it being a good decision.

By Ralph

November 15, 2005 04:44 PM | Link to this

Let’s face it. Tech is a tough job because it’s in the State of Georgia, where the schools overall are on the low end of the strata.

All things considered, I think Tech opted for stability. This is what Braine did at VaTech for Beamer.

By GT Jim

November 15, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this

I think it is GREAT! It is well deserved and he will continue to do us proud. Most of us alumni couldn’t even get into Tech these days…times have changed yet we still have an athletics program that competes every single game. This is a tribute to the players whose character and ability never embarrass us and to a coaching staff led by Chan that understands who we are. Now…let’s go get the ‘canes.

By Rob

November 15, 2005 05:13 PM | Link to this

I say Army, Navy and Air Force are tougher places to recruit football players. Tech’s schedule is of course more difficult. Notre Dame…don’t think it is that difficult. Broader academic offerings and an easier schedule. And so far as Tech being competitive in every game; anyone remember 51-7, 51-7, 39-3 and 41-17 (to Duke of all people). Braine took the easy way out.

By JB

November 15, 2005 05:13 PM | Link to this

The assertion is absurd.

What about Navy? Northwestern? Stanford? Wake Forest? Boston College? Each of those programs faces some challenge in balancing academics with serious Div. I football. Ga Tech has never been its state’s flagship program and has, at best, a respectable but non-glorious history. Nothing in that history suggests that a Tech coach would face steep fan expectations for success.

As for recruiting, Ga Tech is a good school whose graduates should be proud of their degrees, but it’s not elite like any of those Div. I schools listed above (or a Vanderbilt or Duke). Tech athletes don’t need to major in electrical engineering to graduate — and most don’t, just as most football players at UGA aren’t majoring in physics. Sure, Tech has some great STUDENT-athletes, but let’s not pretend that the Yellow Jackets are only composed of such.

Dave Braine isn’t going to demean his coach or his program at an event that should be a celebration, so let’s just acknowledge the silliness of his statement and move on.

By GT

November 15, 2005 05:14 PM | Link to this

I think the myth that Tech is as tough as Army or Duke only self serves the people catching hell for Tech’s sorry ways. I use to believe Tech was a lost cause and along came Ross and O’Leary. Ross had just left Maryland where he had to coach a game from the sky box because he had become so emotional over a ref’s call. He got here with that same energy and when he yelled at sideline refs spit would fly from his bashed in face and shower the subject he was speaking to. O’Leary was an Irishman and his very DNA made him a bolt of lighting as a coach. These guys didn’t make excuses when they lost and after a while had the team where they lost seldom. Now comes Chan a refugee from the NFL looking for a paycheck. He coaches like a bored man that would rather be anywhere but on a sideline. A stranger would mistake him a maybe the team chaplin or some disinterested party with a sideline pass. Clough would love this school to have a reputation as one of the toughest to coach because the problem would be academics which he is in charge of. It would be like my wife complaining she is too shinny for her clothes. She is left handedly giving herself a compliment. My father use to say he would be happy with me making C’s if I could convince him it was the best I could do. In Tech’s case they were number 1 in their class not long ago, so making C’s just doesn’t get it and I wish my father was still alive to tell them so, but since he’s not I will.

By JB

November 15, 2005 05:15 PM | Link to this

And I wasn’t writing profanities in my earlier comment — I wrote a- “ssertion” but the filter edited out the word.

So, reread my last post to say that the “The statement is absurd”

By Rob

November 15, 2005 05:51 PM | Link to this

Duke’s academic reputation is a fraud so far as athletes go. They are all taking Sociology.

By CW

November 15, 2005 06:04 PM | Link to this

I’ll agree that Tech is one of the more difficult places to coach, but to say it is one of the three most difficult is beyond a stretch. GT’s post is dead on target. Recruiting is definitely a challenge, but that excuse is over-used. As far as fan expectations go, there are probably 30-40 schools with a fan base more rabid than Tech. There are plenty of Tech fans that are very happy with 6-6 and 7-5. And most of us that are critical of Coach Gailey aren’t unreasonably expecting him to go undefeated every season. What we ARE expecting is to see some improvement year to year, growth in players, greater consistency etc. What we’ve seen instead is a team that shows no consistency game to game (or quarter to quarter), and a team that shows up for key games lethargic and unprepared. While lack of depth is a hallmark of many Tech teams the last 30 years, this team has a significant amount of talent that doesn’t seem to be peforming up to potential. If this was the NFL, we’d say get better players, but in college it is the coach’s responsibility to recruit the best players he can and improve their level of play. Bobby Ross, George O’Leary and Ralph Friedgen have shown that Tech can be a succesful program regardless of academic limitations.

By GTfan

November 15, 2005 06:04 PM | Link to this

Is Tech a tough place to coach at? Yes. Is Dave Braine retarded? Yes.

By Jae Early

November 15, 2005 06:25 PM | Link to this

If there was any doubt about Tech’s commitment to mediocrity in football, there can be none after the Gailey contract extension.

Gailey took over a program that had won 35 games in the 4 years prior to his arrival (winning over 70% of our games), and Gailey promptly took us to basically a .500 program.

7-6-7-6,7-5 and mostly likely either 7-5 or 6-6 this year. He’s 0-3 against UGA (soon to be 0-4), will have another losing November record, his teams consistently do not play hard for him or say they just “weren’t ready to play” (as was the case against UVA), lose every year to at least one team they should have beaten (this year it’s two, NC State and UVA), and is a terrible recruiter. His recruiting classes have been ranked in the Duke and Wake Forest category since he has been at Tech.

The bottom line is that Tech’s administration (including our AD) have no intention of winning at Tech. They don’t want to win too much because they don’t want to be known as a “football factory”. That was the thinking when I was there in the ‘70’s, and this action proves it is still active today.

He’s a pro assistant coach who put the program on auto-pilot when he came and we had over 10 players flunk out of school.

We’ll, now fans who actually want to win are stuck with him for several more years. The results won’t change; in fact with his horrendous recruiting things will get worse.

I think the Tech’s administration ought to just come clean with the fans and prospective football recruits and tell them we have no intention of competing at the highest level.

It just amazes me that a place like Tech that is so acheivement driven would foster mediocrity in their football program.

Go figure.

By TKO

November 15, 2005 06:47 PM | Link to this

Here’s the way I see it: Chan Gailey is mediocre. Dave Braine accepts mediocrity. Dave Braine is mediocre. BUT, Reggie Ball, he his terrible.

By What a comment

November 15, 2005 06:50 PM | Link to this

“Georgia Tech can win nine or 10 games,” Braine said. “They will never do that consistently. That’s my feeling … because of the type of program this is.” Holy #$%@!!! Who says that? I am stunned.

By SteveO

November 15, 2005 07:40 PM | Link to this

Welcome Back, Houston. I hope he gets to play a whole lot.

By GreenJacket

November 15, 2005 07:45 PM | Link to this

Braine should answer the following questions:

1) Has Tech’s recruiting improved ? 2) Has Tech’s offense improved? 3) Has Ball improved? 4) Will Gailey beat UGA and keep Tech in the Top 25?

He did not answer these important questions which are important to the fans/alumni who spend their hard earned money on this football team. Most of us get paid and have a job due to the fact that we ADD VALUE to the company we work for.

By rambling_man5

November 15, 2005 09:16 PM | Link to this

For my opinion checkout ESPN Georgia Tech message board. Vote for BUZZ at www.capitalonebowl.com

By RamblinWreckCe

November 15, 2005 09:17 PM | Link to this

To Dave Braine:

I heard an extended cut of some of your comments about Gailey’s extension on the radio. The clip I heard led with you asking what would firing a coach that has gone 6-5 at, what he would call, one of the three most difficult schools in college football?

First of all who said he needed to improve or else? Oh yeah, that was you Dave! You were the one at the beginning of the year that laid down the gauntlet and said another 6-5 wasn’t good enough. You were the one that said we had to improve on 6-5 or else.

Dave, you were the one that set himself up such that not extending the contract would telegraph a firing and cause the instability in recruiting you are now afraid of happening.

Dave, if you had not said anything, or given the political lip service we all expect to a boss trying not to publically throw his employee under the bus, you could have done NOTHING. Afterall, he is under contract and you are a man of your word blah blah blah.

You could have even retired telling the world you’ve left The Institute in great shape, with a coach with four winning seasons and allowed your successor pick his own coach. There’s no scandal in that—maybe someone would have bought it.

However, you chose to make a stand at the beginning of the season. You wrote a check you weren’t willing to cash because you took a gamble that you wouldn’t need to.

Now you have a mess on your hands. A coach with a fat contract might be a plus for recruits. …but what would you call a backlash which represents the single-most impressive display of unity I’ve seen in Tech fans that I have EVER seen?

By the way, WHAT RECRUITS? Thanks to the GTAA screwing up some elective paperwork the recruits have been turned off by the possibility of NCAA sanctions or probation. …or was that a lack of leadership and motivation? The world may never know.

Have you checked out the recruiting sites? Don’t worry, you don’t have to pony up the $7.95/year to read all about them…you can see the ranks of the players that have committed or are even still entertaining Tech. Some schools already have 3, 4, and even five star players. You don’t have to go to the FSU’s or UGA’s…check out DUKE, WAKE, Stanford, etc. These are also academic schools whose coaches HAVEN’T gotten them to 6-5. What about less successful teams like Vandy, Mississippi State, & Kentucky—better recruiting classes. …and somehow those schools are better options than Tech?

Thanks for the mess, (Insert your name here) Disgruntled Georgia Tech Fan

By Ty

November 15, 2005 09:32 PM | Link to this

I’ll say it one last time (even I’m tired of thinking about it)……

Win one you shouldn’t, lose one you shouldn’t, be embarrased on the field once, be embarassed off the field once…..finish 6-5….go to Boise…..FIVE MORE YEARS!!

(we should probably go ahead and book the rooms in advance to save money)

By Confused GT Fan

November 15, 2005 11:38 PM | Link to this

About this whole mess, this is the best quote I have read: “My off-the-cuff reaction is, will people continue to pay for mediocrity? … I’m disappointed Georgia Tech would expect mediocrity in anything. We certainly don’t teach it in architecture or chemisitry or engineering. It’s kind of hard to build half a bridge.” I hope that Braine is right in that stability at the head coach position will be better for the program in the big picture. And in my non-expert opinion, there is no way that this is the 3rd hardest job.

By CW

November 16, 2005 12:13 AM | Link to this

Wow. Stunning comments by Braine. I think we all know that we can not expect to go undefeated every year. Only a very few programs (Oklahoma, FSU) consistently win 10+ games a year over more than 2-3 years. But to stand up in front of the world and say we aren’t good enough to expect 9-10 wins is unbelievable. How many top-level recruits want to come to a school where the AD doesn’t think his program is capable of winning 9-10 games? I mean since that is so unrealistic, should we just decide up front every year which 2-3 games we aren’t going to win and just forfeit? What a bonehead. When does he retire?

By John

November 16, 2005 05:39 AM | Link to this

Bottom line is that Ga Tech not only handicaps itself with higher standards, it gets little or no help from the sports media in this state.

When this very newspaper writes a big article a couple of years ago about some Gwinnett County high school star and basically “pushes” him into signing with UGA, how can Ga Tech compete with them for the same types of S/As? The hatred for Tech in this state is astounding considering what Ga Tech has provided our society.

Dave Braine, however, made a terrible choice of words and should have said that it is possible for this program to win big without sacrificing its academic integrity and not use “bag men” like UGA does to get its players.

John

By rgb

November 16, 2005 07:29 AM | Link to this

As a dawg fan, I’ve had to read all the crap the last few days about coach Richt. Best winning percentage the last 4 years in the SEC, in the SEC title game 3 out of last 4 years. A good coach. Tech has a good coach also. The ACC in tough and with the classroom requirments ya’ll have, damn hard to put the kind of players you need in the program. It would be HARD for Tech to find a better man than Chan. I’d say get behind him !

By tlaller

November 16, 2005 08:07 AM | Link to this

Attention all Tech fans, true fans only. I wasn’t really happy with yesterday’s new of the extension. There is nothing we can do now but support our team. I know that with Chan in charge we haven’t really went in the direction we all expected. My best friend is a UGA fan and they seem to be getting upset with their coaches as well. The only way we can get better is through recruiting. I think the best way to get players excited about coming to Tech is to show up week in and week out and support the team. I know that everyone wants to say that getting players her is tough due to the academic standards but I don’t see where it affects the basketball or baseball programs? These programs always seem to be at the top of the leauge every year. The only difference I see with the football program is that there isn’t alot of support with the fan’s. I hate to see my team lose but it is a part of the game, I didn’t see empty seats in Athens when they lost to Auburn. If they can show up to support their teams when they play teams like Boise State, UL Monroe, and the countless number of boaring games of the past why can’t Tech fan’s show up for games? We have a small stadium compaired to most upper tier teams but we still have trouble selling out game unless the visiting teams bring alot of fans? I admit that I don’t always show up for every game but I do attend most. If I were a high school player looking to play at a big time school I would find Tech a tough place to play just because of the lack of support. I have been to many other schools to watch games and they are packed with loud and crazy fans cheering on their teams. I think it is time we just shut up or put up, if your a fan show and support the team if not shut your mouth and find a new team. Life is too short and we can’t change what happen on Tuesday with Gailey. I say let move on, Tech play at UM on Saturday then we face UGA at home. I just hope that we can pull off one win or maybe two, I know no matter what I will continue to be a Tech fan. All you guys that are upset make sure you show up wearing your yellow to support the players that represent Georgia Tech. Don’t let UGA have home field in our own hose again.

By Murphy

November 16, 2005 09:00 AM | Link to this

JB… Did you attend Tech? If not, then shut your piehole.

Tech’s academic reputation around the nation is second to no one when comparing science and technology programs. As a Tech graduate, and an interviewee for positions all over the country, I know.

As for the respectable but non-glorious history of the Tech footbal, compare it with the “flagship” program in the state… National titles (more and more recent). Count the bowl wins. Count the number of victories and until a recently never even a hint of trouble with the NCAA.

As for Coach Gailey… Coach Ross only had three winning seasons and two of them were 6/7 wins. Coach O’Leary only had a single ten win season with a bunch of 7/8 wins thrown in. Coach Gailey has had a solid stay.

By John

November 16, 2005 09:21 AM | Link to this

How can Gailey be considered a good recruiter? He is unbelievably boring, lethargic, and almost completely inarticulate, searching for seconds for a two-syllable word.

By Navyfan

November 16, 2005 09:23 AM | Link to this

How about Navy? It has the same restrictions Army does. Paul Johnson has had winning seasons since he got there, and that’s after he had won a 1AA championship. Most of his players are fellows who the regular college teams would have on the bench. If his system can compete with the recruiting restrictions, he would be a world beater with the talent Tech or UGA has. It would be interesting to see what he could do at any college where he could recruit players who do not have to sign up for 10 years? I feel most certainly that he would not be satisfied with 6, 8, or even 10 wins every year.

By GT student

November 16, 2005 10:13 AM | Link to this

I don’t think academics should be an excuse for mediocre football season. just look at the job Paul Hewitt is doing with the basketball program.

By TheTruth

November 16, 2005 10:21 AM | Link to this

Uh, Murphy. I don’t think you want to start the comparison thing. Yep, count the victories since let’s say, 1970. Then count the losses. Comes out a little over .500. Not exactly glorious. UGA’s is over.700. Going to the Toilet Bowl repeatedly, not exactly glorious.UGA’s bowls are bigger and more lucrative. Some of the NCs everybody goes back to were in the Stone Age, and furthermore, can you say 1/2. UGA’s most recent NC was won on the field against a Dan Devine coached Notre Dame team. And to top it off, since 1980 the record against UGA is 7 wins and 18 losses. Go back another 10 years it gets uglier.

Chan has done an excellent job with the hand dealt him and the garbage left by O’Leary. When Tech fans improve and stop whining, making excuses, start supporting the program instead of sounding like a bunch of spoiled brats when times are tough and being so arrogant, maybe over time the program can become something more than mediocre. Yeah, all you “die hard Tech fans.” Quit buying season tickets. Keep whining and sniffling. And you can bet the stadium that things only get worse.

By wes

November 16, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this

I think Georgia fans seem to forget something about 1980: Georgia Tech also beat Notre Dame that year.

By Doug

November 16, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this

No they didn’t. It was a 3-3 tie.

By HistoryRepeats

November 16, 2005 11:06 AM | Link to this

Tech fans are very good with revisionist history.

By Red

November 16, 2005 11:33 AM | Link to this

Tough place to win, for sure. They don’t all have to take calculus at Notre Dame and Northwestern, nor at the “Poly Techs”. Taz has selective memory, though. Gailey’s record is about par for this course. The last 10 years of Bobby Dodd’s career his record was 64-36-5, which is, well, mediocre. But since he was also the AD, the issue of firing never came up. And Taz, he went to one bowl…and lost to Arkansas.

By ben

November 16, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this

I think any school that would hire Jim Harrick as their basketball coach tells us all we need to know about the “integrity” of their athletic program. The football factories will always be superior to Tech, so there is no need to argue about it. The question is can Chan(no pun intended) do what Ross and Hewitt have done and take lesser talent and compete for a national title?

By Chris

November 16, 2005 12:05 PM | Link to this

Tech will also be a mediocore program. They were a Top 10 team in the late 90’s becuase of the Fridge and a once in a generation QB in Joe Hamilton. The academic challenge is overrated. Stanford, Cal, Notre Dame, Boston College, and Northwestern are all just as hard in not harder and all of them, except Northwestern and ND over the past couple of years, win on a consistent basis. If Tech’s standards were that high, Reggie Ball wouldn’t be able to stay in schoool

By Ricky

November 16, 2005 12:07 PM | Link to this

Ben, you can always tell when someone is losing an arguement. Thats when they start bashing other people around them. Tech has no room to question the integrity of any other program, they all have their problems. Hewitt has not had lesser talent. All of his teams, with the execption of his first year, were very talented

By HistoryRepeats

November 16, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this

Thank you Chris. And none of those schools whine about or scapegoat academics when they lose.

By Mike

November 16, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this

The academic challenge is quite real…last time I looked, you had to pass calculus to get a degree…any kind of degree…from Tech. So it’s real, believe me. However, that does not mean the administration couldn’t cut some kids more slack on entrance requirements.

I don’t think this is Braine’s fault. I think Clough and the eggheads have decided that it is better to avoid being a football factory. I hope they fall into deep debt because of poor attendance and live to regret that choice. Probably won’t happen, but I can dream….

I am truly beginning to believe that the academicians at Tech think secretly it would be bad for the Institute to be ‘too good’ at football.

By Cheese4yourWhine

November 16, 2005 01:00 PM | Link to this

Maybe the dastardly academicians have a master plan. All the sorry fans quit supporting the program and Tech gives up football. When said sorry, whining, bandwagon fans are gone, start over with better fans.

By J Hightower

November 16, 2005 03:02 PM | Link to this

I am sick and tired of hearing that it is tough to recruit at GT. Paul Hewitt seems to have it down to a science, wtih the #5 class in the nation. Baseball continues to recruit the best of the best and wins ACC titles almost annually. I believe Chan had his chance, and needs to get canned. We missed our golden hour, when we should have hired the Ole’ Ball Coach last year. O’Leary won, 9 and 10 games per year, not that long ago, proving it can be done.

By Trace

November 16, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

Academics do play role in the athletics. It may only be a small role, but it’s there. Georgia Tech is one of the top 10 public schools in the nation with most of the engineering schools in the top 5 and an average SAT score of 1340. Getting in is tough, staying in is tougher. You’re a fool if you don’t think that it affects recruiting and quality of players. I don’t even play sports and I think school is tough. Georgia Tech does damn good all around in athletics. Last year we were one of the only schools in the country to win our bowl game(football), win a game in the NCAA tournament(basketball), and win a game in the College World Series(baseball). To be able to compete in the three major sports says a great deal about both the academic and athletic programs. If there are any other top 10 PUBLIC

By J Hightower

November 16, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

How can someone say, especially the AD, that it is too hard to recruit top notch athletes at GT and win on the national level? Paul Hewitt & Co. seems to be doing it in Basketball. And Baseball seems to win ACC titles almost annually. We missed our golden opportunity, last year, when we should have hired the Ole’ Ball Coach and canned Chan.

By aman

November 16, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

I go to GT and hearing what Braine, AD of the school say that we are a mediocore program is very pathetic. I mean alright I can understand that we are a very tough academic school but I think we do have decent atheletes to go to 9-10 wins every year. Its just that we are not consistent and I thing Coach Gailey shouldbe held responsible for that. If we can win at auburn how could be lost at home to NC state or lose to UVA. It just disappointing that it happens every year. I personally think it was not a good decision to extend the contract, he should have been fired beofre this fall.

By Trace

November 16, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this

Academics do play role in the athletics. It may only be a small role, but it’s there. Georgia Tech is one of the top 10 public schools in the nation with most of the engineering schools in the top 5 and an average SAT score of 1340. Getting in is tough, staying in is even tougher. You’re a fool if you don’t think that it affects recruiting. I don’t even play sports and I find school rather difficult. That being said, Georgia Tech does damn good all around in athletics. Last year we were one of the only schools in the country to win our bowl game(football), win a game in the NCAA tournament(basketball), and win a game in the College World Series(baseball). To be able to compete in the three major sports says a great deal about both the academic and athletic programs. If there are any other top 10 schools in the country that can say that, please feel free to step forward. Note: many of the rest of the top 10 are private, whereas GT is public.

To comment on the fan situation, I along with many of my friends go to every game. I’ve not missed a home game yet. There are very many die-hard fans that will continue to go to games no matter what. At the same time, many of the students aren’t aware that Tech even has a football team. These are the same kids you’ll find studying in the library on a Saturday during a game. I find this very disturbing, but what can you do? Some people are there strictly for academics and couldn’t care less about athletics. That’s the downside to going to such a prominent academic institution.

By jackets fan

November 16, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

GT is one of the toughest coaching jobs in the country. Stanford, Northwestern, Wake Forest? What a joke. None of these schools mentioned above don’t have the tradition of winning football that Tech has coupled with the academic constraints. Sure selling football at Army, Navy or Air Force is tough. But when was the last national championship any of those schools won? It’s never been about winning football at those schools. Notre Dame doesn’t have nearly the academic constraints of Tech. But they do live under a microscope of expectations. So I agree with Braine that Tech is one of the toughest coaching jobs.

Bobby Ross and George O’Leary didn’t have winning seasons until year three of their tenures. Gailey has won 7 in all of his first three seasons. And they are 6-3 now. And the way these idiots talk in the paper and blog, the season is already over. I think that speaks more to their lack of support or faith in the program than to Tech’s supposed mediocrity. Has anyone ever considered that a little pat on the back and supporting the team might push them over the 7 win mark? I mean at this point the difference between 6 wins and 8 wins is pretty slim. Maybe some confidence could have tipped the scales, but because everyone within ear shot of these players has them already topped out for the year. Not me. I believe they can beat Miami. I know they can beat UGA. So the question you have to ask yourself is, why don’t you? If you don’t want to get on board, then find another team to demean and complain about. I find it a point of pride to know that my team is made up of not only good athletes, but smart kids. I wouldn’t want to root for a team that I’d be uncomfortable meeting in a dark street, eh hem, UGA.

By Cheese4yourWhine

November 16, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

Then how does Stanford,Army,Navy,Air Force,Cal,Virginia,UNC,Boston College,Notre Dame,Michigan, and other schools with stronger academics than Tech’s manage to fill stadiums? Some of them MUCH larger stadiums.

On the other hand, take a school like South Carolina. They have about the same winning percentage as Tech over a number of years and have consistently filled a much larger stadium. Who’s fault is it that Tech can’t fill their small stadium. Who’s fault is it that a recruit standing on the sideline looks up and sees empty seats. Most of them the ones right in the middle. You know. The ones where “the big money” boys are supposed to sit. Who’s fault is it?

By HighQ

November 16, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

Maybe it’s all those CADS operators that have to work on Saturdays fault.

By geebee

November 16, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

Charlie Weis, coaching at one of the other tougher places, said high academic standards should not be an excuse for losing.

Losers think like that. As far as grades go, I don’t know about the respective athletes GPA’s and SAT’s (probably close) but as far as Tech and UGA, the first year student body numbers: Tech 1340 SAT with GPA 3.74; UGA 1242 SAT with 3.75 GPA. So where is the great discrepancy?

Tech if you accept mediocrity, you shall have it. Don’t give yourself an excuse to be a loser.

By GT

November 16, 2005 04:39 PM | Link to this

Why get married if all you can get is ugly and why have a football program if all you can do is get the s** kicked out of you. We are going to pay you one million dollars to beat Duke, Vanderbilt or Connecticut and you can lose every year to Georgia or Miami, we don’t care. We’re really too good a school to have a multimillion dollar football program but that doesn’t stop us from wasting the money. We teach business at Tech but we really know nothing about business in reality. You keep dull Chan around and you will be renting Bobby Dodd out as a ghost house before too long. Other coaches call Gailey a great coach that we are lucky to have. Ross and O’Leary were great coaches and Chan, you are none of the above.

By Al Davis

November 16, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

You fat George guys need to get a grip. O’Leary won a FEW football games. In every other category the guy is a loser.

By joe

November 17, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

Another urban legend. tech recruits the same athletes that every other school does. Many past classes actually ranked below UGA’s recruits academically.

What does limit Tech, is the narrow course selection, but many an atlete has bumbled through the School of Management taking courses in communications and ceramics. Ok, they were industrial ceramics, but what the heck.

When Tech publishes their player bios, read through them and count the ENGINEERING majors. One? Two? Sometimes three, and one of those is a walk-on.

Tech athletics. Just another urban myth. And I TOLD you people that they used ineligible players weeks ago. Now you know.

By Jay

November 19, 2005 11:29 PM | Link to this

I’m inclined to keep Gailey, as long as Tenuda stays here!

Is Tech the 3rd toughest coaching job in the U.S? This all depends on your definition of tough. Yes, academic requirements at Tech are higher, and there are no fields of study that allow you to avoid some higher level math. If we’re satisified with 6-7 wins per year, then there isn’t that much pressure, so I’d say it’s not that tough. If we’re going to demand 9-10 wins/year, it will be tough at Tech. It’s all about expectations, and, since Tech has a history of winning (yes, UGA fans, we do have a history of winning) some of us alums want to see us continue to win, and win 8,9,10 games every year, and at least go .500 against UGA, and contend for the ACC title (especially now that the ACC is arguably the strongest football conference in the country) and play in at least a mid-tier bowl game each year (and occasionally play in a NYD game).

If Dave Braine and some alums are satisified with 6,7 wins/year, I say, you must go. That’s unacceptable. Unfortunately, that has been accepted at Tech for many years. It’s time to change that.

As for someone’s comparing Tech academics to UNC, UVA, Michigan, Notre Dame? Please!!! Those schools have Liberal Arts programs and UNC, Cal, and Michigan have over 25,000 undergrads and plenty of cake majors.

As for filling stadiums, shear numbers help the above schools fill their stadiums, and not being a Californian, I don’t know if Stanford always sells out, nor can I speak for BC. As for the service academies, whoever wrote that post obviously has never attended a home game for Army, Navy, or Air Force. They aren’t sold out, and their stadiums only hold about 25,000 people anyway, and please, look at their schedules, they can’t go .500 even in the Patriot league. Maybe that statement is based on the Army/Navy game, but that’s a special case (and, if you knew how many people were attending that game for free, you’d have only about half the seats filled with paying customers).

Wake, Duke? Please, these schools can compete in one Div 1 men’s sport (well, in the case of Wake, sometimes Golf, but if you count Golf, that would make 4 Div 1 sports Tech consistently wins in), and they have chosen basketball. Why? Clearly it’s obvious, you only need to find 10 players to compete in b-ball (and, usually, only 5 really good ones), and those schools with sub-5000 enrollments typically don’t even bother competing in football, and rarely in baseball, although Tech’s success in baseball is largely due to the lower number of players needed, and the fact that baseball players, in general, are likely to be better students (don’t ask me why, they just seem to be that way).

BTW, Tech 14, Miami 10. So, we’ve beaten Auburn and Miami this season, and the best team Georgia has beaten is South Carolina.