ACC Predictions

[iceeater1969]

One set of pundits has gt as 2 in bottom and 3 in

View attachment 14612

From CBS.

LOUISVILLE is a crap shoot - 1 #3 ... 1#9.
Mostly # 5-6.

We are solid at the bottom.

We beat them badly or we will get zero credit.

Pundits will say we arent total suck but Louisville is rebuilding.

 

[roadkill]

I don't have a big issue with the rankings. Until GT starts winning consistently we are going to be picked near the bottom.
I believe GT has the potential to be a middle of the pack ACC program if alot goes right, but the season will determine if that happens or not.

Here's what's puzzling about the rankings - clearly there is a "last year's record" bias, and yet we finished solidly right in the middle of the pack last year with a 4-4 conference record. I guess the analysts see our opponents as improving, but not us? Or is the same "GT is just not a good team" bias I mentioned during CPJ's tenure?

 

[Root4GT]

Here's what's puzzling about the rankings - clearly there is a "last year's record" bias, and yet we finished solidly right in the middle of the pack last year with a 4-4 conference record. I guess the analysts see our opponents as improving, but not us? Or is the same "GT is just not a good team" bias I mentioned during CPJ's tenure?

Did last year's GT team ever look like a very good team for a whole game? We played well defensively against UNC. We never had a good offensive game. The difference in the bottom 6-7 teams as ranked in the ACC poll is likely not much at all. However, writers have to rank the teams somewhere. As CBK says pay no attention to these rankings. Win and the accolades will come. Lose and we will be a preseason bottom feeder again next year. Just win!

 

[slugboy]

Here's what's puzzling about the rankings - clearly there is a "last year's record" bias, and yet we finished solidly right in the middle of the pack last year with a 4-4 conference record. I guess the analysts see our opponents as improving, but not us? Or is the same "GT is just not a good team" bias I mentioned during CPJ's tenure?

Let’s look at other teams. Wake has been in the conference championship picture the last few years, and they’re forecast 9th by ESPN’s beat writers. CBS writers are even harsher.

I think that, with Duke, reporters like Elko. FSU had a good record, has a marquee QB, and is saying they’re back. Miami has great recruiting. Reporters believe in Brohm and saw Louisville just outside the top 25 last year. UNC has a Heisman candidate.

The teams forecast at the top all have a story that reporters are buying as for why they belong at or near the top. Pitt doesn’t get near the attention that they should. Neither does Wake. We’re getting ignored, and ignored teams get forecast last.

Sizzle is a part of it. We remember Pitt and Duke and UNC from last season. Reporters remember FSU and Miami and UVA and UCF and Ole Miss. People are slow to change their opinions, and they won’t until we’re getting votes in the polls.

 

[takethepoints]

Here's what's puzzling about the rankings - clearly there is a "last year's record" bias, and yet we finished solidly right in the middle of the pack last year with a 4-4 conference record. I guess the analysts see our opponents as improving, but not us? Or is the same "GT is just not a good team" bias I mentioned during CPJ's tenure?

Look at Paul's record and where his teams were ranked preseason. Now look at Clawson's record and where his teams are ranked preseason.

I think the constant mistakes made about both programs come from a presumption by the sports media that neither school has a "serious" football program and that winning records in either place are the product of bum luck, weak schedules, or "cheating" (i.e. running Os that are hard for sportswriters to figure out) or both. The thing to remember here is that a lot of these people don't really know that much about football and almost all of them are too lazy to learn more. I don't really blame them for this; they aren't paid much and they have to write for a readership that knows even less then they do. However, it does, I think, make for a buildup of assumptions that leads them to missing the FBC teams like TCU and Cincinnati. I watched the Bearcats dismantle Notre Dame in their undefeated season and listening to the announcers was an experience; they didn't know what to say as they watched the Irish get buried.

I don't know where Tech will end up; there are too many question marks. But I'm guessing that we'll do better then these people predict.

 

[cpf2001]

Here's what's puzzling about the rankings - clearly there is a "last year's record" bias, and yet we finished solidly right in the middle of the pack last year with a 4-4 conference record. I guess the analysts see our opponents as improving, but not us? Or is the same "GT is just not a good team" bias I mentioned during CPJ's tenure?

I think people pay a lot more attention to overall record than conference record and don’t bother digging into SOS for every team for these things. CFB media is largely still stuck in a surface-level number world with some non-quantitative “well the SEC and Big 10 are hard” fudging.

 

[slugboy]

Stewart Mandel has FSU winning the conference, us in 10th, and Dino Babers getting fired in week 9:

Mandel's ACC predictions: Can FSU take the next step? Will Clemson's offense rebound?

Can Clemson's offense bounce back under new leadership? Will Miami show signs of life in Year 2 under Mario Cristobal?

theathletic.com

He writes up six teams—we aren’t one of them. We are off his radar.

 

[roadkill]

Stewart Mandel has FSU winning the conference, us in 10th, and Dino Babers getting fired in week 9:

Mandel's ACC predictions: Can FSU take the next step? Will Clemson's offense rebound?

Can Clemson's offense bounce back under new leadership? Will Miami show signs of life in Year 2 under Mario Cristobal?

theathletic.com

He writes up six teams—we aren’t one of them. We are off his radar.

I suspect this is the simple and correct answer to my questions.