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
ACC Position Rankings
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="lv20gt" data-source="post: 601155" data-attributes="member: 2299"><p>I posted this article in a different thread. <a href="https://www.sbnation.com/college-fo...9-ncaa-football-returning-starters-experience" target="_blank">https://www.sbnation.com/college-fo...9-ncaa-football-returning-starters-experience </a></p><p></p><p>Basically we return less production than all but 11 teams; none of those 11 we play by the way. If you want is this system better than just a fan eyeballing it, then here's a notable passage. </p><p></p><p>"Meanwhile, 80 teams returned no more than 50 percent of their production; 65 of them (81 percent) regressed, 36 (45 percent) by at least a touchdown.</p><p>Last year’s <em>bottom</em> 10 teams saw their win total decrease by a combined <em>27 games</em>, from 76 to 49. LSU and FIU each managed to improve by one win, and Colorado held steady at 5-7. The other seven all fell by at least two wins, and four (Navy, Colorado State, Louisville, and CMU) all fell by at least four"</p><p></p><p>That there are exceptions doesn't mean the system is the same as just guessing, or equal in validity to a fan's opinion. Just because LSU won one more game doesn't mean having a very low returning production isn't indicative of future struggles. </p><p></p><p>The reality of our situation is that we return very little production, are learning new systems on both sides of the ball, and from a recruiting standpoint we have been out recruited more often than not by two thirds of our schedule. There is very little rational support to the belief that we won't struggle this year. A commonly tried thread is that, paraphrasing, in 'x' of the last 'y' years it hasn't been the case that we have struggled so people shouldn't believe that we will. There are several problems with that argument. For starters, to some degree football is independent events. How we were last year is relevant to how we will be next year. How we were in 1998 or 2008 isn't. The reality is in the last 4 years, where there would be overlap in personnel with this year's team, we've missed two bowls, finished 3rd or worse in the coastal 3 out of 4 times, 5th or worse half the time, have an overall losing rerecord (24-25) and a losing ACC record (14-18). I have yet to see an actual objective reason for thinking we won't struggle. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And I imagine there is a reason you are choosing to imply the math is wrong rather than showing it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="lv20gt, post: 601155, member: 2299"] I posted this article in a different thread. [URL='https://www.sbnation.com/college-fo...9-ncaa-football-returning-starters-experience']https://www.sbnation.com/college-fo...9-ncaa-football-returning-starters-experience [/URL] Basically we return less production than all but 11 teams; none of those 11 we play by the way. If you want is this system better than just a fan eyeballing it, then here's a notable passage. "Meanwhile, 80 teams returned no more than 50 percent of their production; 65 of them (81 percent) regressed, 36 (45 percent) by at least a touchdown. Last year’s [I]bottom[/I] 10 teams saw their win total decrease by a combined [I]27 games[/I], from 76 to 49. LSU and FIU each managed to improve by one win, and Colorado held steady at 5-7. The other seven all fell by at least two wins, and four (Navy, Colorado State, Louisville, and CMU) all fell by at least four" That there are exceptions doesn't mean the system is the same as just guessing, or equal in validity to a fan's opinion. Just because LSU won one more game doesn't mean having a very low returning production isn't indicative of future struggles. The reality of our situation is that we return very little production, are learning new systems on both sides of the ball, and from a recruiting standpoint we have been out recruited more often than not by two thirds of our schedule. There is very little rational support to the belief that we won't struggle this year. A commonly tried thread is that, paraphrasing, in 'x' of the last 'y' years it hasn't been the case that we have struggled so people shouldn't believe that we will. There are several problems with that argument. For starters, to some degree football is independent events. How we were last year is relevant to how we will be next year. How we were in 1998 or 2008 isn't. The reality is in the last 4 years, where there would be overlap in personnel with this year's team, we've missed two bowls, finished 3rd or worse in the coastal 3 out of 4 times, 5th or worse half the time, have an overall losing rerecord (24-25) and a losing ACC record (14-18). I have yet to see an actual objective reason for thinking we won't struggle. And I imagine there is a reason you are choosing to imply the math is wrong rather than showing it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What jersey number did Joshua Nesbitt wear?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
ACC Position Rankings
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