Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
A Thread to Rehash GT HC Comparisons
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Augusta_Jacket" data-source="post: 749616" data-attributes="member: 1191"><p>If we want an honest answer to that question, we first need to define top program. In my opinion, GT fans need to decide where they want the floor of the program to be and then fund the infrastructure to make it happen. There is no realistic option for GT being a consistent playoff contender without significant spending increases. Since winning the ACC with 11-12 wins would be in that realm, then it's probably not reasonable to assume that being a consistent 10 game winner is realistic either. My gut feeling is we can routinely win 8-9 games with an occasional 10-11 win season and a rebuilding floor every few years of 6-7 wins for a single season. The reasons for this are spending and schedule. </p><p></p><p>As for spending, we ranked 61st in 2017 in all of power 5 spending. The reality is that since then, we have increased somewhat, but I am doubtful we have cracked the top 35 yet. Also, to just account for our spending increase alone assumes a static landscape of spending across the P5, and we know that instead it is very much an arms race. Over the past 30 years, 18 different teams have won national titles. The only two to not finish in the top 30 in spending were GT and Colorado in 1990. Since the BCS took over in 1998, only one team not in the top 25 in spending has won, and that was Tennessee in 1998, which is ranked 26th. LSU is the only team to win a title in the last decade that wasn't in the top 10 of spending, as they are ranked 18th. Now, correlation is not causation, but the evidence strongly suggests that if you want to compete on the highest levels, you are going to have to spend accordingly. Our smaller fanbase and the general makeup of our student population does not bode well for staying in any spending race in the long haul.</p><p></p><p>Scheduling is the next issue. Currently, we play Clemson, uga, Miami, and VT every year. Each of these schools is in the top 25 of spending on football, and historically have been solid football programs. Granted, Miami and VT are in a state of transition right now, but to expect them to stay down is a fools errand. They throw enough money at football so that they will eventually figure it out. After all, that's what Clemson did. The expectation of routinely losing to Clemson ang uga with occasional wins is the most reasonable outlook. That's a 10-2 season assuming we beat Miami, UNC, and VT every year and we don't pull FSU from the Atlantic. (FSU will figure it out soon as well) There is also the addition of Notre Dame every few years which with their trajectory is a likely loss most years. If we insist on adding other top tier OoC opponents like Auburn to the mix, then we also add to the likely loss column.</p><p></p><p>Now, all is not doom and gloom. It is entirely possible that GT hired the single best coach to get us back to competitive levels in the future. I am a firm believer in most of what CGC is doing here on the Flats. If we can get recruiting back in the top 25 consistently and hit homeruns on select skill positions, then the occurrence of 11-12 win seasons could well increase. As it stands, I will be content if he can get us to 8-9 wins and be competitive in the games against our toughest opponents. </p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]9127[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/college-football-national-championship-history[/URL]</p><p></p><p>[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.syracuse.com/orangefootball/2017/08/which_schools_spend_the_most_on_college_football_where_does_syracuse_rank.html[/URL]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Augusta_Jacket, post: 749616, member: 1191"] If we want an honest answer to that question, we first need to define top program. In my opinion, GT fans need to decide where they want the floor of the program to be and then fund the infrastructure to make it happen. There is no realistic option for GT being a consistent playoff contender without significant spending increases. Since winning the ACC with 11-12 wins would be in that realm, then it's probably not reasonable to assume that being a consistent 10 game winner is realistic either. My gut feeling is we can routinely win 8-9 games with an occasional 10-11 win season and a rebuilding floor every few years of 6-7 wins for a single season. The reasons for this are spending and schedule. As for spending, we ranked 61st in 2017 in all of power 5 spending. The reality is that since then, we have increased somewhat, but I am doubtful we have cracked the top 35 yet. Also, to just account for our spending increase alone assumes a static landscape of spending across the P5, and we know that instead it is very much an arms race. Over the past 30 years, 18 different teams have won national titles. The only two to not finish in the top 30 in spending were GT and Colorado in 1990. Since the BCS took over in 1998, only one team not in the top 25 in spending has won, and that was Tennessee in 1998, which is ranked 26th. LSU is the only team to win a title in the last decade that wasn't in the top 10 of spending, as they are ranked 18th. Now, correlation is not causation, but the evidence strongly suggests that if you want to compete on the highest levels, you are going to have to spend accordingly. Our smaller fanbase and the general makeup of our student population does not bode well for staying in any spending race in the long haul. Scheduling is the next issue. Currently, we play Clemson, uga, Miami, and VT every year. Each of these schools is in the top 25 of spending on football, and historically have been solid football programs. Granted, Miami and VT are in a state of transition right now, but to expect them to stay down is a fools errand. They throw enough money at football so that they will eventually figure it out. After all, that's what Clemson did. The expectation of routinely losing to Clemson ang uga with occasional wins is the most reasonable outlook. That's a 10-2 season assuming we beat Miami, UNC, and VT every year and we don't pull FSU from the Atlantic. (FSU will figure it out soon as well) There is also the addition of Notre Dame every few years which with their trajectory is a likely loss most years. If we insist on adding other top tier OoC opponents like Auburn to the mix, then we also add to the likely loss column. Now, all is not doom and gloom. It is entirely possible that GT hired the single best coach to get us back to competitive levels in the future. I am a firm believer in most of what CGC is doing here on the Flats. If we can get recruiting back in the top 25 consistently and hit homeruns on select skill positions, then the occurrence of 11-12 win seasons could well increase. As it stands, I will be content if he can get us to 8-9 wins and be competitive in the games against our toughest opponents. [ATTACH type="full"]9127[/ATTACH] [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/college-football-national-championship-history[/URL] [URL unfurl="true"]https://www.syracuse.com/orangefootball/2017/08/which_schools_spend_the_most_on_college_football_where_does_syracuse_rank.html[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who won the ACC Coach of the Year Award in 2014?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
A Thread to Rehash GT HC Comparisons
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top