clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Gill or Weis? Two Failed Experiments

We look at two of the worst Kansas coaches in recent memory. Which departure left you with a more bitter taste in your mouth?

Jamie Squire

Pretty soon we’re going to have to get over and forget about this whole Charlie Weis thing. I guess we can talk about him for a little bit more though. Here’s a question for you guys (and gals): which era was more painful, the Charlie Weis era or the Turner Gill era?


The past five years have been some of the worst for Kansas football in recent memory, due in part to two men we love to hate: Turner Gill and Charlie Weis. We’ve heard it a lot these past couple of days, Weis went only 6-22 during his tenure in Kansas with one measly conference win. Gill, on the other hand, went 5-19 with the same amount of conference wins.


Which is worse? It’s a tough one. Personally, I’d have to go with the Turner Gill era. This was the coach that replaced Mark Mangino, a guy who took KU to a BCS win. There was still some left over excitement from the Mangino era so free falling down to oblivion like the Jayhawks did under Gill was more disappointing. At least with Weis you knew this was a bad team and it was going to take a while to fix.


I mean, they were both bad coaches but blaming Weis for his lack of success (at least in the first year) is unfair because he inherited the mess made by Gill. There had to be time to clean it up and start over. The grace period ended after year one, he had time to fix it, he didn’t do it and now he’s gone. When Gill arrived, he was handed off a decent roster. Not great, not horrible, but decent. He turned that into nothing and left it worse than how he got it. Weis received Gill’s hand-me-downs and is leaving the team with a formidable defense and a potentially average offense (the jury is still out on them). If only he had left with them an actual QB. Point Weis


Let’s take a look at some stats. We already went over wins. If we’re looking at this from purely a statistical point, the edge goes to Weis for having a .214 winning percentage over Gill’s .208. Point Weis.


Both coaches had sputtering offenses with average defenses. During Gil’s tenure at KU, the Jayhawks gave up 938 points and scored only 443, leaving them with a net difference of -495. Weis’ Jayhawks gave up 917 points and scored 450 (-467 net difference) during his time at KU. Now let’s remember that Weis coached a few more games than Gill, so subtract the 2014 season from Weis’ resume, and he still has a point differential of negative 413, which still gives him the edge over Gil’s negative 495 point differential. Point Weis.


Both coaches leave KU with their pockets full of cash, ultimately, Gill turned out to be less expensive, as he was only owed 6 million dollars after he left, whereas Weis is owed 7+ million dollars. Point Gill.


Some of Weis’ biggest supporters lauded his recruitment. I didn’t think he did that great of a job, but I’m looking at the job that Gill did and Weis blows him out the water. If we’re really looking at it, Gill should be thanking Mangino, most of the contributors to the Gill teams were Mangino guys. The only real impact player that Gill brought in was Tony Pierson.


I guess things could have been worse. Things were a lot worse. Let’s imagine a world where Turner Gill was never fired. The record would have probably been the same, but I think the future would have been a lot more bleak. So thank you, Charlie Weis. In a weird way your firing helped me appreciate you more. Because even though you were horrible your time here, you weren’t as horrible as the guy before you. Let’s hope to continue the trend of slight improvement. By 2030, we should be bowl eligible!


There are obviously various other factors involved, but I’m definitely going with the Gill era being the more depressing of the two eras.


What do you guys think? Which firing were you more excited to see? Or which departure left you with a more bitter taste in your mouth?

Comment below.