He seemed to be doing pretty well there...
ESPN - Sources: Georgia Tech fires coach Chan Gailey - College Football
ESPN - Sources: Georgia Tech fires coach Chan Gailey - College Football
FB: Chan Gailey fired at Georgia Tech
- Thread starter jbhtexas
- Start date
That is kinda wierd. 16 wins over the last 2 years. Only 1 loss to a non ranked team this year plus a good win over Clemson. Almost seems like there has to be more to it then lack of performance.
In this day and age, you gotta win big and win fast or people want you canned and someone else hired. Every college thinks they are michigan or texas and want it all and want it right now.
I heard they are looking at Kirk Ferentz :biglaugh::biglaugh: what a joke college football has become, BCS, coaches on such a short leash, its really losing some purity.
Another winning coach canned. Mark this one down and keep track of how they do over the next 4-5 years.
Personally, not a fan of Chan though - he didn't exactly do a great job with my Cowboys. But, he seemed to be doing alright at GT.
Personally, not a fan of Chan though - he didn't exactly do a great job with my Cowboys. But, he seemed to be doing alright at GT.
I don't know what you all consider "doing well," but it looks like 2006 was an outlier year:
2007 - 7-5 (4-4) L to Georgia (bowl game TBD)
2006 - 9-5 (7-1) L to Georgia; L bowl game (West Virginia)
2005 - 7-5 (5-3) L to Georgia; L bowl game (Utah)
2004 - 7-5 (4-4) L to Georgia; W bowl game (Syracuse)
2003 - 7-6 (4-4) L to Georgia; W bowl game (Tulsa)
2002 - 7-6 (4-4) L to Georgia; L bowl game (Fresno St)
The guy apparently had the talent to make noise in the ACC and consistently didn't get it done, had underwhelming performances in bowl games (no wins against big teams), and the guy lost to his major rival (Georgia) the last 6 times they've played. McCarney was feeling heat here for similar results (with the two losing seasons tied in), with the exception that Tech has more history and less toleration for losing than we do. The guy was basically doing a "McCarney" job at Tech with a program with more history and better recruiting lines. After looking at the records over the last 6 years, it doesn't surprise me he's gone.
2007 - 7-5 (4-4) L to Georgia (bowl game TBD)
2006 - 9-5 (7-1) L to Georgia; L bowl game (West Virginia)
2005 - 7-5 (5-3) L to Georgia; L bowl game (Utah)
2004 - 7-5 (4-4) L to Georgia; W bowl game (Syracuse)
2003 - 7-6 (4-4) L to Georgia; W bowl game (Tulsa)
2002 - 7-6 (4-4) L to Georgia; L bowl game (Fresno St)
The guy apparently had the talent to make noise in the ACC and consistently didn't get it done, had underwhelming performances in bowl games (no wins against big teams), and the guy lost to his major rival (Georgia) the last 6 times they've played. McCarney was feeling heat here for similar results (with the two losing seasons tied in), with the exception that Tech has more history and less toleration for losing than we do. The guy was basically doing a "McCarney" job at Tech with a program with more history and better recruiting lines. After looking at the records over the last 6 years, it doesn't surprise me he's gone.
Last edited:
A "McCarney" job??? Are you kidding me??? Gailey had an overall winning record GT, didn't have one losing season overall or in conference, and had been to a bowl every year of his tenure there. If DM had pulled that at ISU, he'd still be the coach.
There are differences, yes. And I'll admit - subtract 1995-1999, when McCarney was still trying to "right the ship," he has a 43-44 record from 2000-2006, while Gailey has a 44-32 record over the same span.
But answer this - let's assume that from 2000-2006 McCarney has the 9-3 record in 2000, but pulls 7-6 every year after that and we manage to go to Shreveport, Boise, or Houston year in and year out. He'd have a 44-33 record over that time span, but he'd be on a hot seat simply because of all the whining that goes on this site due to the fact that we repetitively went to Shreveport, Boise, or Houston year after year. We'd be really upset that McCarney wasn't taking us to the next level, especially when we had the talent to win the Big XII North and to get to better bowl games. Basically that's what Gailey was doing at Georgia Tech - he had the talent to go to major bowl games and compete in the ACC year in and year out, and instead, with the exception of last year's 9-5, he kept on crapping out with 7 win seasons and unimpressive bowls. Exclude the rebuilding job McCarney had to undertake and the two losing seasons of 2003 and 2006 and it's eerily similar - the failure to meet expectations and bring the program to the "next level."
What are you talking about? He was on the sidelines for every game - 100% of the game. Jerry was only down there...like...90% of the time.:biglaugh:
What's there to answer? CG had winning overall and conference records, DM didn't. CG went to a bowl game every season, DM didn't. DM had two meltdown seasons over that time frame, and CG didn't. Basing your argument on a hypothetical situation rather than the actual situation that occured seems rather pointless.
Regarding GT's history, of the 6 coaches that have spanned the last 30 years of Georgia Tech FB, only two have winning records, and one is CG. That isn't exactly stellar recent tradition. It just seems rather harsh to me to fire a head coach who's never had a losing season (and been to a bowl game every year) after six seasons, especially when the prior season was very good. I hope it works out for Georgia Tech.
Last edited:
I'm with ya jbh...impatience sometimes sets you much farther back. It could very well be the case at GT.
Take Mizzou for example. That guy was on a very hot seat after last season. I thought he be canned, many felt he would be. Fortunately for Mizzou, the AD stayed the course. Anyone think they'd be #1 in the nation right now with a new coaching staff?
It took the Steelers quite a while to get over the hump with Cowher, but they did. Sometimes patience pays off and sometimes it doesn't (D-Mac for example). But when a program fired a coach after a winning season and a guy that has an overall winning record, you gotta scratch your head at least a little bit.
Take Mizzou for example. That guy was on a very hot seat after last season. I thought he be canned, many felt he would be. Fortunately for Mizzou, the AD stayed the course. Anyone think they'd be #1 in the nation right now with a new coaching staff?
It took the Steelers quite a while to get over the hump with Cowher, but they did. Sometimes patience pays off and sometimes it doesn't (D-Mac for example). But when a program fired a coach after a winning season and a guy that has an overall winning record, you gotta scratch your head at least a little bit.
Fixed that for you to reflect what really matters to GT fans (and to illustrate why, IMO, he was fired)
If you don't beat your rivals, then you won't keep your job. Just look at Lloyd Carr. I am sure everyone would take a 8-4 record here but at a lot of top programs, it doesn't matter what your record is if you can't beat your rivals. So Chan Gailey going 0-5 to UGA was probably his downfall.
Furthermore, there are several more aspects that differ Georgia Tech from Iowa State:
1. History - Georgia Tech has a football tradition us Cyclone fans can only dream about (for right now). They have 4 national championships (1917, 1928, 1952, and 1990) and major bowl victories (to include Rose, Orange, Sugar, and Cotton). How close have we ever come to winning a national title? I think when we finally win a bowl game that's better than the Insight.com bowl we can start at least conversing.
2. The previous coach, George O'Leary, went 52-33 over 7 years, a much better winning percentage than Gailey. He also won a conference title in 1998.
Between those two factors the expectation to win and have extreme success is much greater in Atlanta than anything we can even imagine at this point. When you're in the smack-dab middle of a hotbed for recruiting, and you're getting the talent, and you're expected to compete for and win conference titles, and you're not, especially after 6 years, your head is going to roll. But here's the final kicker:
3. As you being someone who wants to have Iowa off of Iowa St's schedule, you clearly don't get the importance of the in-state rival game, even if it's out of conference. While Georgia has Florida as a rival and Georgia Tech has their rivals, the Georgia-Georgia Tech game means EVERYTHING down there. Gailey did not beat Georgia once in his tenure. That is unacceptable to a lot of people in Atlanta. It was said during the broadcast that his winless record against Georgia was one of the reasons why he was on the hot seat, and if he had beaten Georgia on Saturday his odds of sticking around Tech were much better. He lost, making him 0-6 against Georgia, and subsequently lost his job.
Expectations were huge for Gailey at Georgia Tech. Although he had a winning record overall, he was not meeting expectations, and he was let go. Let's put this in perspective - if Chizik pulls the same kind of record that Gailey did at Tech, 5 7-6 seasons with 1 9-5 season, with numerous appearances to Shreveport, Houston, and other bowls, are we going to be excited about keeping Chizik around for another year? Probably not. Why should the folks in Atlanta be expected to do so when they have much higher expectations than us?
1. History - Georgia Tech has a football tradition us Cyclone fans can only dream about (for right now). They have 4 national championships (1917, 1928, 1952, and 1990) and major bowl victories (to include Rose, Orange, Sugar, and Cotton). How close have we ever come to winning a national title? I think when we finally win a bowl game that's better than the Insight.com bowl we can start at least conversing.
2. The previous coach, George O'Leary, went 52-33 over 7 years, a much better winning percentage than Gailey. He also won a conference title in 1998.
Between those two factors the expectation to win and have extreme success is much greater in Atlanta than anything we can even imagine at this point. When you're in the smack-dab middle of a hotbed for recruiting, and you're getting the talent, and you're expected to compete for and win conference titles, and you're not, especially after 6 years, your head is going to roll. But here's the final kicker:
3. As you being someone who wants to have Iowa off of Iowa St's schedule, you clearly don't get the importance of the in-state rival game, even if it's out of conference. While Georgia has Florida as a rival and Georgia Tech has their rivals, the Georgia-Georgia Tech game means EVERYTHING down there. Gailey did not beat Georgia once in his tenure. That is unacceptable to a lot of people in Atlanta. It was said during the broadcast that his winless record against Georgia was one of the reasons why he was on the hot seat, and if he had beaten Georgia on Saturday his odds of sticking around Tech were much better. He lost, making him 0-6 against Georgia, and subsequently lost his job.
Expectations were huge for Gailey at Georgia Tech. Although he had a winning record overall, he was not meeting expectations, and he was let go. Let's put this in perspective - if Chizik pulls the same kind of record that Gailey did at Tech, 5 7-6 seasons with 1 9-5 season, with numerous appearances to Shreveport, Houston, and other bowls, are we going to be excited about keeping Chizik around for another year? Probably not. Why should the folks in Atlanta be expected to do so when they have much higher expectations than us?
Going back to 1974:
Pepper Rogers (1974-79): 34-31-2
Bill Curry (1980-1986): 31-43-4
Bobby Ross (1987-1991): 31-26-1, national title in 1990
Bill Lewis (1992-1994): 11-19
George O'Leary (1995-2001): 52-33, conference title in 1998
Chan Gailey (2002-2007): 44-32
You are correct. The source I used had Bobby Ross's numbers reversed...
Interestingly, over that period, prior to O'Leary, GT has a losing record, even though they have a national title...
Last edited:
Gerogia Tech isn't exactly a rich tradition football team of late, there has only been 2 seasons in the last 50 years that they had more wins then last year. (one of which they were co-national champions) But take out 4 or 5 seasons in the last 50 years and 7-8 wins is the best they have done.
The biggest knock on him would be UG. That is most likely what did him in.
The biggest knock on him would be UG. That is most likely what did him in.
You're probably right about the tradition thing, where they probably claim it to be more than it really is. Probably similar to Iowa fans thinking that going to the Rose Bowl 3 times in the last 30 years and 60 years ago the 20th most relevant sports publication ranks them as the #1 team in the nation ahead of an Oklahoma team that the other 19 publications rated as #1 (giving them a national championship) means that they are steeped in football tradition :wacko:
I think the major thing that did Gailey in was, with all the talent that he had at Tech, he was supposed to compete for conference titles year in and out. While he made it to the ACC Title game last year, that was the only year in his 6 that he actually came close to meeting expectations. I think fans and donors thought he finally turned a corner last year and this year the expectations were very high (preseason votes for top 25, #15 by week 2, but disappeared from voting altogether by week 4). I think they were a favorite in the Coastal division and didn't meet expectations. I do think Saturday was the final straw on the camel's back.
Also, I think Jamie Pollard had said on our pregame show at the KU game that in 2005, if Mangino hadn't won his game against us, he probably would have been fired. That win got him bowl eligible and they decided to give him another year.
