PonyFans.com

would love chan gailey at this point. i just want a big name guy from a big school.

SMU2007 wrote:would love chan gailey at this point. i just want a big name guy from a big school.

so on-field success means nothing? I don't think Gailey is a very good choice.

I think Chan is uninspiring. I think he is viewed as a joke in Dallas. I doubt Chan can effectively recruit. He would not sell one season ticket or encourage one more person to donate to the Mustang Club. I doubt he could recruit effectively in Texas.

He is the exact opposite of what SMU should be looking for.

He isn't in my top 3; he isn't in my top 5; he isn't in my top 10 or even my top 25.

why not? 7-5 this year. consistently goes to bowls. has college and pro experience, dallas ties, has the GT connection to Orsini.

The guy is a joke in Dallas, just like every other Cowboys coach between Johnson and Parcells. Ask a Cowboys fan.

Ted Gangi at Mustang Maniacs is saying the same thing:

http://smu.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=2 ... 74&style=2

LonghornFan68 wrote:

SMU2007 wrote:would love chan gailey at this point. i just want a big name guy from a big school.

so on-field success means nothing? I don't think Gailey is a very good choice.

Six bowl games in a row, that's not success enough for SMU?

SMUMan02 wrote:

LonghornFan68 wrote:

SMU2007 wrote:would love chan gailey at this point. i just want a big name guy from a big school.

so on-field success means nothing? I don't think Gailey is a very good choice.

Six bowl games in a row, that's not success enough for SMU?

sorry, but consistently winning only 7 games at a school with some shred of pedigree does not get my knickers up. Color me impressed when he consistently wins 8-10 games a year.

LonghornFan68 wrote:

SMUMan02 wrote:

LonghornFan68 wrote:

SMU2007 wrote:would love chan gailey at this point. i just want a big name guy from a big school.

so on-field success means nothing? I don't think Gailey is a very good choice.

Six bowl games in a row, that's not success enough for SMU?

sorry, but consistently winning only 7 games at a school with some shred of pedigree does not get my knickers up. Color me impressed when he consistently wins 8-10 games a year.

A coach that consistently wins 8-10 games a year at a BCS school is not available for us.

SMUMan02 wrote:

LonghornFan68 wrote:

SMU2007 wrote:would love chan gailey at this point. i just want a big name guy from a big school.

so on-field success means nothing? I don't think Gailey is a very good choice.

Six bowl games in a row, that's not success enough for SMU?

It sure is, but going to bowl games hasn't been a problem for Georgia Tech for a long, long time.

The guy had what was widely described as a huge emotional disconnect from the Georgia Tech fan base. Not what SMU needs.

Even the blogs have mostly given up on predicting what will happen at SMU. Now an assistant at S Fla is mentioned. I'm beginning to get the feeling that something has gone wrong and that we may not get the coach Orsini wants. Anyone else have that feeling?.

chan gailey was a joke of a coach for THE DALLAS COWBOYS. correct me if i'm wrong but being a good coach for a premiere nfl franchise and a crappy D1 football team who hasn't been good for 20 years is quite different. I'm sure chan could bring in much better players than bennett could have possibly brought in, and he has a good track record in getting to bowl games during his time at gt even though you pointed out that they didn't have a problem getting there before him.

Is everyone forgetting we are terrible?? How can anyone seriously believe that we deserve the huge guys in college football? I think getting an ex-cowboys coach who had a decent track record at a bcs conference school would be a HUGE upgrade.


*and i am getting the feeling that we are not going to get the guy orsini wants. that's the other reason that i'm completely satisfied with someone like chan gailey who at least has some head coaching experience. an assistant as S. Florida? I mean are they serious with that crap?

SMUMan02 wrote:

LonghornFan68 wrote:

SMUMan02 wrote:

LonghornFan68 wrote:

SMU2007 wrote:would love chan gailey at this point. i just want a big name guy from a big school.

so on-field success means nothing? I don't think Gailey is a very good choice.

Six bowl games in a row, that's not success enough for SMU?

sorry, but consistently winning only 7 games at a school with some shred of pedigree does not get my knickers up. Color me impressed when he consistently wins 8-10 games a year.

A coach that consistently wins 8-10 games a year at a BCS school is not available for us.

Then the Emperor has already won.

SMU2007 wrote:chan gailey was a joke of a coach for THE DALLAS COWBOYS. correct me if i'm wrong but being a good coach for a premiere nfl franchise and a crappy D1 football team who hasn't been good for 20 years is quite different. I'm sure chan could bring in much better players than bennett could have possibly brought in, and he has a good track record in getting to bowl games during his time at gt even though you pointed out that they didn't have a problem getting there before him.

Is everyone forgetting we are terrible?? How can anyone seriously believe that we deserve the huge guys in college football? I think getting an ex-cowboys coach who had a decent track record at a bcs conference school would be a HUGE upgrade.

If you don't think that the fact that most Dallas Cowboys fans view Chan Gailey as a joke has a berring on what Dallasites would think of Chan Gailey as head coach of SMU, then you are nuts. There is a tad bit of overlap between the two fan bases and the media markets. Recruits' dads think Chan is a joke. Recruits' coaches think Chan is a joke. The media think Chan is a joke.

I would take a risk on a lot of unknowns and has-beens before I take a chance on Chan Gailey.

LonghornFan68 wrote:

SMUMan02 wrote:A coach that consistently wins 8-10 games a year at a BCS school is not available for us.

Then the Emperor has already won.

B+