2021 ACC and Competition News

TooTall

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,353
Location
Vidalia
Ugag is going to be unanimous #1 tomorrow :sick::sick:
They have clear sailing to a natty at this point. Any stumble would be an unexpected upset.
disgusted ace ventura GIF

GIFs-2021101084320.gif
 

GTBandit22

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,334
Joey Galloway just mentioned that the key was A&M’s OL was more physical after being pushed around earlier in the year. We need some of that.
A&M was starting 2 freshman OL too.
One thing that struck me about that game:
Bama lost their starting SS to targeting early in the game. Jimbo went after the backup the entire 4th. Every time that guy was matched up on the slot, they got the ball to the slot.

DP often talks about exploiting matchups but I don’t see that level of exploitation.
 

Pointer

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,801
A&M was starting 2 freshman OL too.
One thing that struck me about that game:
Bama lost their starting SS to targeting early in the game. Jimbo went after the backup the entire 4th. Every time that guy was matched up on the slot, they got the ball to the slot.

DP often talks about exploiting matchups but I don’t see that level of exploitation.
That's surprising since the consensus here is that it takes 4-5 years for linemen to develope (lol).
 

bobbie_downtown

Georgia Tech Fan
Messages
39
A&M was starting 2 freshman OL too.
One thing that struck me about that game:
Bama lost their starting SS to targeting early in the game. Jimbo went after the backup the entire 4th. Every time that guy was matched up on the slot, they got the ball to the slot.

DP often talks about exploiting matchups but I don’t see that level of exploitation.

Those 2 starting OL were 0.9703 and 0.9352 recruits.

They would be best lineman on our team the day they walk on the field.
 

stech81

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,962
Location
Woodstock Georgia
That's surprising since the consensus here is that it takes 4-5 years for linemen to develope (lol).
The funny part I looked at their ( Alabama) chat during the game and you know what, you would have thought you were on ours they were all saying the OL was bad and their DL was bad the coaches didn't know what to do. They keep saying They were too young. Kind of funny how no matter which team it is all of them say the same thing when you are behind.
 

MountainBuzzMan

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,761
Location
South Forsyth
And they were playing their equals on the other side, just like we have been most weeks (minus Clemson).
Don't argue with the narrative. Facts be damned. We have great coaching but it takes at least 6 years to develop the OL plus the first 4 years don't count due to covid and the most amazing restructuring in the history of anything. Rembember we keep getting told that coaches dont call the interception play. It has nothing to do with coaching
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,726
I put another chart in "Recruiting vs Coaching". It shows that we hadn't really been coaching our guys up that much compared to other schools prior to Collins. It seems to show, more than anything, that you can coach your guys down as much as you coach them up, and FSU has been doing much more coaching down than even Miami.
Rankings probably show the differences more than points, but here's a look at our recruiting rankings for the last 20 years. I added in Cincinnati and UCF to a bunch of ACC schools, because we've put them in the "doing more with less" category
1633876804354.png


Mainly, what you see is that Clemson has been steadily improving their recruiting, Miami has been great, and we've been improving but we have a hill to climb. We're about even with Cincinnati and UCF, so either their classes are underrated, or we can do more with what we have.

Here's the same version, in stack ranking format. Clemson and GT are dashed. We're typically in the bottom half.
1633877066428.png
 

MWBATL

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,589
I put another chart in "Recruiting vs Coaching". It shows that we hadn't really been coaching our guys up that much compared to other schools prior to Collins. It seems to show, more than anything, that you can coach your guys down as much as you coach them up, and FSU has been doing much more coaching down than even Miami.
Rankings probably show the differences more than points, but here's a look at our recruiting rankings for the last 20 years. I added in Cincinnati and UCF to a bunch of ACC schools, because we've put them in the "doing more with less" category
View attachment 11400

Mainly, what you see is that Clemson has been steadily improving their recruiting, Miami has been great, and we've been improving but we have a hill to climb. We're about even with Cincinnati and UCF, so either their classes are underrated, or we can do more with what we have.

Here's the same version, in stack ranking format. Clemson and GT are dashed. We're typically in the bottom half.
View attachment 11401
What I get from those charts is that Cincinnati's coaches and BC's coaches are doing a solid job. What am I Missing?
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,726
Here we get into the groups and where we've recruited "well" . I pulled 5 year numbers here. Average stars are about the same by position group:
1633877632373.png

Here are the number of commits. We've been recruiting RB and DL heavily:
1633877740467.png


Here are the same numbers since 2019, including 2019
Position GroupAverage RatingTotal RatingCommitsAverage Stars
Defensive Back
0.872157​
6.1051​
7​
3.142857​
Defensive Line
0.8536​
11.9504​
14​
3.071429​
Linebacker
0.865667​
5.194​
6​
3​
Offensive Line
0.858838​
6.8707​
8​
3​
Quarterback
0.86952​
4.3476​
5​
3.2​
Receiver
0.868514​
12.1592​
14​
3.142857​
Running Back
0.89​
3.56​
4​
3.5​
Special Teams
0.847033​
2.5411​
3​
3​
All Positions
0.864395​
52.7281​
61​
3.114754​

Stars are up. DT and DE are mixed in together, but the "we can't recruit DL" idea doesn't fit with the numbers. We're pretty much 3*, aside from RB where we're better. If we have an issue, it's that we didn't recruit enough OL (and have to make up for it in the transfer portal).

I can move this to the recruiting thread if it makes more sense there.
 

slugboy

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
11,726
What I get from those charts is that Cincinnati's coaches and BC's coaches are doing a solid job. What am I Missing?
Cincinnati definitely is, and UCF has been. BC is a little bit, but less than you would think. Here's the other SP+ vs Recruiting ratings (2018 4 yr average) for the ACC. You could really draw a line through it, and we're almost on what you would expect for our recruiting. The outlier is FSU, who have apparently been wasting their recruits.
There are some overachievers and underachievers, but we're right in the middle. There's not much overachieving, but there's some pretty intense underachieving.

1633878317580.png


Same idea for the AAC (2018 4 year average, with Collins' Tulane team). At the time, UCF was the one doing "more with less". Our recruiting numbers are similar to UCF, Cincinnati, and USF, but we're about 5 points lower in overall SP+ (CPJ-era, they were fielding better teams with the same "level" of recruits). Cincinnati is a 15.8 in SP+ (ranked about 15 with Ole Miss) and really good this year. That's last week's stat, and it still has Clemson and UNC high on the list, so the preseason numbers must still be getting worked out of the system.
1633878457924.png
 

BleedGoldNWhite21

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,519
The funny part I looked at their ( Alabama) chat during the game and you know what, you would have thought you were on ours they were all saying the OL was bad and their DL was bad the coaches didn't know what to do. They keep saying They were too young. Kind of funny how no matter which team it is all of them say the same thing when you are behind.

It’s almost like the people who complain about our chat being overly negative need to relax and realize it’s a tool to vent to the other fans during the heat of the moment.
 

lv20gt

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,588
Bama lost their starting SS to targeting early in the game. Jimbo went after the backup the entire 4th. Every time that guy was matched up on the slot, they got the ball to the slot.

DP often talks about exploiting matchups but I don’t see that level of exploitation.

You mean like how Duke lost their starting CB on the int return early and we went at his replacement on the last drive?
 

forensicbuzz

21st Century Throwback Dad
Messages
9,089
Location
North Shore, Chicago
Yeah, because you have to be in a room to know what is coming. When has an alliance ever worked in sports? I remember when the alliance didn’t want a playoff. Then money won. I remember when the alliance wanted to keep it at 2 because of the severe impact to the student athlete with more games. Then money won out. It‘s not stopping. And how is the SEC doing anything wrong by having a lot of good football teams and advocating for those teams? Isn’t that what every conference should do? Yeah, let’s ensure a mediocre PAC 12 champ gets in a playoff because of “fairness” over a better team who didn’t win their conference. The good thing is y’all can’t fool the public with this alliance garbage. I want fairness not welfare because when the day comes and GT is ranked 4 but didn’t win the ACC I don’t want them left out because a light weight won a worthless conference.
It will work for this particular reason. It serves NONE of the other 4 conferences' financial benefit to allow the SEC to stack a play-off. They're not going to let it happen. They'll come together, even loosely, to exert control and prevent the SEC from writing the narrative.

BTW: There was no Alliance when any of the things your mentioning happened. They're not going to allow the SEC to stack a play-off. There's just no way they'll do it.
 
Last edited:

SOWEGA Jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,113
It will work for this particular reason. It serves NONE of the other 4 conferences' financial benefit to allow the SEC to stack a play-off. They're not going to let it happen. They'll come together, even loosely, to exert control and prevent the SEC from writing the narrative.

BTW: There was no Alliance when any of the things your mentioning happened. They're not going to allow the SEC to stack a play-off. There's just no way they'll do it.
Man, you are really buying this stuff. There has always been an alliance and at the same time there has never been an alliance. What you are talking about is schools coming together for a current common issue. But that’s the rub. Today’s current common issue won’t be tomorrow’s current common issue. Money always will cause partners to change. Texas and Oklahoma hated the SEC and were “allianced” against the SEC until they weren’t. And you keep talking about the SEC ”stacking” a playoff. Since when has the SEC ever had that power? Its a false argument. And it makes your view look horrible that you believe a lesser team should get a spot over a better team just because they are a “conference champ”. The public knows who the best teams are and creating a system like you want won’t have public support.

The fans want an expanded playoff which is why it will happen no matter what the high horsed out of touch college administrators think. And the networks want an expanded playoff. It’s almost like some of you forgot what happened last year. The entire college football season was on the verge of being shutdown by these same schools who are this ”alliance”. The SEC led the way to tell them to shove it because they read the public sentiment properly. The ACC quickly came on board for the same reason. The BIG came around after they saw the money they would lose.

It will take years as we all know but its inevitable it will expand way beyond 8. Money always wins. My personal conspiracy belief is that we aren’t too far away from teams leaving the NCAA. The SEC doesn’t need the NCAA nor do the other big money football teams. And when it happens the other big boys looking for money will follow just like they did last year. Not only will it impact football but also hoops and baseball. The other sports will go the way of the dinosaurs.
 

D-man44

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,806
It’s almost like the people who complain about our chat being overly negative need to relax and realize it’s a tool to vent to the other fans during the heat of the moment.
you are admitting you get overly emotional and overly negative thank you. Georgia tech fans need to realize the BEST Georgia Tech team in 2 decades should have lost to Georgia Southern lol. That’s the ceiling of GT football until I see otherwise.
 
Last edited:

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
11,174
Man, you are really buying this stuff. There has always been an alliance and at the same time there has never been an alliance. What you are talking about is schools coming together for a current common issue. But that’s the rub. Today’s current common issue won’t be tomorrow’s current common issue. Money always will cause partners to change. Texas and Oklahoma hated the SEC and were “allianced” against the SEC until they weren’t. And you keep talking about the SEC ”stacking” a playoff. Since when has the SEC ever had that power? Its a false argument. And it makes your view look horrible that you believe a lesser team should get a spot over a better team just because they are a “conference champ”. The public knows who the best teams are and creating a system like you want won’t have public support.

The fans want an expanded playoff which is why it will happen no matter what the high horsed out of touch college administrators think. And the networks want an expanded playoff. It’s almost like some of you forgot what happened last year. The entire college football season was on the verge of being shutdown by these same schools who are this ”alliance”. The SEC led the way to tell them to shove it because they read the public sentiment properly. The ACC quickly came on board for the same reason. The BIG came around after they saw the money they would lose.

It will take years as we all know but its inevitable it will expand way beyond 8. Money always wins. My personal conspiracy belief is that we aren’t too far away from teams leaving the NCAA. The SEC doesn’t need the NCAA nor do the other big money football teams. And when it happens the other big boys looking for money will follow just like they did last year. Not only will it impact football but also hoops and baseball. The other sports will go the way of the dinosaurs.
I agree with much of this but there is one part that I just can’t buy, that is, that SEC teams that didn’t win their division are somehow more deserving than other teams that won their conference. No way. Teams need to earn their way on the field, not because of some arbitrary decision that one conference is more deserving than another.

Think of baseball playoffs. Many years the Yankees or the Red Sox didn’t make the World Series because they failed to win their division. It did not matter that they may have had one of the best records in baseball or that pundits thought they could beat anyone in the National League. They failed to win on the field when it counted. That might suck for fans of those teams but that is the nature of sports.

Conferences either mean something or they don’t. Winning your conference either means something or it doesn’t. I most definitely favor a playoff weighted toward rewarding conference champions as opposed to one based on a popularity contest or how much the fans love a particular team.
 
Top