Beating UGA "Out of Reach"

[Boomergump]

If you total up the percentage chance of winning each game according to their metric, you come up with 7.393 wins. That is interesting, considering each of them is predicting 9 wins or so. Whatever. Play the games.

 

[GTpdm]

If you total up the percentage chance of winning each game according to their metric, you come up with 7.393 wins. That is interesting, considering each of them is predicting 9 wins or so. Whatever. Play the games.

Yes, well, 62% of sports analysts don't understand statistics, and the other 26% don't care...

 

[LongforDodd]

Georgia Tech players, fans, and friends... I present to you Brock Huard. Brock has graciously volunteered his neck and is willing to be this year's poster boy for fan outrage and locker room motivation. Let's all thank him for his time and effort.

11.28 vs. Georgia: 36.6%*

*BROCK HUARD, ESPN analyst: The option demands tremendous confidence, trust and timing, and coach Paul Johnson's new starters will climb a steep learning curve this year. In a rivalry game (especially this one), anything is possible, but this game feels out of reach for the Jackets.

ESPN 2015 season preview: No. 20 Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets

So he says in August. The game is when? Three months away.

 

[Henrymcg]

Dawgs are working on the problem of being soft

The quarterbacks?

Not good. None of them threw the ball well at all generally, but they really looked bad throwing fades to the end zone. Balls sailed on Brice Ramsey, and he just didn’t see like today was a good day for him. Faton Bauta and Greyson Lambert still both struggle getting the ball to the receivers on basic, against-air throws. Lambert did seem to have a decent day, but he’s been so here and there during camp it is hard to know if he’s hot today or what.

The tight ends?

Drops are a steady issue with this bunch - particularly with Jay Rome, who has reached a money-on-the-table moment in his career. NFL teams are not going to put up with drops from anyone when the ball is in their hands, and that happens all too often with Rome. This is a group that’s going to be leaned on in the passing game - they have to be dependable, and right now I can’t say that’s the case (not based on today alone). Am I being too harsh? Perhaps. But the drops have gotten silly.

The wide receivers?

Bryan McClendon exploded on his group near the end of media viewing. Malcolm Mitchell set the tone by making a great catch to start one set, but his fellow receivers just sloshed through the rest of the drill. Do these guys actually think they are that good that they can be so cavalier about these drills and practices? Shaquery Wilson has to start going harder. He was yelled at by Brian Schottenheimer for basically being lazy. I’ve heard coaches yell at him several times this week - he’s not getting the job done.

The Outside linebackers?

“Very lethargic” according to Wes Muilenburg. Kevin Sherrer was yelling at his bunch, which didn’t include Leonard Floyd (wasn’t there) and Davin Bellamy (one the bike in a green jersey).

These practices happen - they do. Its early. They had a disruption in their schedule because of rain.

Yada. Yada. Yada.

But Georgia can’t afford these practices. No one on this team - Not Floyd or even Nick Chubb - can afford for Georgia to have wasted practices. This was a practice where mental toughness was required, but was slow to come to fruition - if it happened at all.

I get all of the reasons why Georgia has a morning the likes of which I saw out there today - reasons or excuses. And I only saw part of the practice. Still, these types of practices are an opportunity of sorts - someone can turn them around with inspired effort and play. But that had not happened in the near 30 minutes of media viewing time.

Georgia Tech seemed down and out in November, but fought back to win. Georgia didn’t seem like it wanted any part of fighting today - and that’s a problem.

http://www.scout.com/college/georgia/story/1572869-uga-s-lack-of-fight

 

[Skeptic]

There is no SEC bias. Just ask Herbstreit. He's definitely a company man.

That's a bit harsh. Herbstreit is right, that the SEC got the PR because it won. That is the secret to football, and the secret to life. Al Davis was ahead of the curve. Kind of invert Harry Truman: want to see your name in the paper? Do it.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Herbstreit is right, that the SEC got the PR because it won.

No. They got the publicity long before they "won." There is no secret to this and I can't figure out why we have these conversations over and over again. The SEC has always gotten the lion's share of coverage, win or lose. The reason has to do with the number of rabid fans. To be sure Ohio State has great fans, as does Michigan, and we could name other schools in other regions. But no place like the South has the saturation level of rabid fans who buy stuff, read stuff, watch stuff and practically call off all Saturday activities not related to football to invest their substance in it. The SEC is promoted more than any other conference for a simple reason. Follow the money.

 

[TheTaxJacket]

It's funny to read that scout UGA write up. Reading the UGA SEC rant board you'd think they were getting ready for a national championship dynasty. In fact one of their posters mentioned Shaquery being a break out player. Yet he is getting yelled at for being a self entitled ***** on the practice field. No wonder they are constantly let down. They think their freshmen are all impact players before ever playing a game.

 

[GTpdm]

That's a bit harsh. Herbstreit is right, that the SEC got the PR because it won. That is the secret to football, and the secret to life. Al Davis was ahead of the curve. Kind of invert Harry Truman: want to see your name in the paper? Do it.

Won what? Out of conference games against the weakest roundup of non-P5 cupcakes you will ever see? When it came to games against real non-conference opponents last season, the SEC was awful. Oooh, they beat themselves up in-conference...guess what—every conference does that. The measure that tests a conference's true mettle is how they do against comparable out of-conference opposition. The SEC—and in particular the vaunted SEC-West—showed the size of their cohones (get a microscope) by mostly avoiding any real OOC challenges until Bowl Season forced their hand—and please remind me, how well did they do in the bowls?

It only takes a few minutes looking at statistics to realize that the SEC was actually one of (if not the) worst P5 conference in terms of their competitiveness against other P5 teams, and that they established their "OOC reputation" by beating sub-P5 teams that were not even competitive within their own conference. How is this observation so difficult for ESPN to stumble upon? (Rhetorical question...we all know that it is in their economic interest to bury this fact...)

The SEC "got the PR" because that's ESPN wanted, NOT because their actual performance deserved it.

 

[Skeptic]

Won what? Out of conference games against the weakest roundup of non-P5 cupcakes you will ever see? When it came to games against real non-conference opponents last season, the SEC was awful. Oooh, they beat themselves up in-conference...guess what—every conference does that. The measure that tests a conference's true mettle is how they do against comparable out of-conference opposition. The SEC—and in particular the vaunted SEC-West—showed the size of their cohones (get a microscope) by mostly avoiding any real OOC challenges until Bowl Season forced their hand—and please remind me, how well did they do in the bowls?

It only takes a few minutes looking at statistics to realize that the SEC was actually one of (if not the) worst P5 conference in terms of their competitiveness against other P5 teams, and that they established their "OOC reputation" by beating sub-P5 teams that were not even competitive within their own conference. How is this observation so difficult for ESPN to stumble upon? (Rhetorical question...we all know that it is in their economic interest to bury this fact...)

The SEC "got the PR" because that's ESPN wanted, NOT because their actual performance deserved it.

As the man once said, one year does not a season make. Or something. The ACC has to man up and do this without it being a huge surprise. I am just not into the paranoia of the SEC and while delighted with last season, the rest of 'em speak for themselves.

 

[bke1984]

That's a bit harsh. Herbstreit is right, that the SEC got the PR because it won. That is the secret to football, and the secret to life. Al Davis was ahead of the curve. Kind of invert Harry Truman: want to see your name in the paper? Do it.

The problem I have with the SEC bias is that it's not the conference that was overly successful, but rather mainly two teams: Florida and Alabama. Let's look at the seven national championships:

2006: Florida
2007: LSU
2008: Florida
2009: Alabama
2010: Auburn
2011: Alabama
2012: Alabama

OK, now let's take out Alabama and Florida:

2007: LSU
2010: Auburn

Then the 2007 season was ridiculous. LSU was #1 going into the final week of the regular season and they lost to Arkansas (8-5 overall, 4-4 SEC) 50-48 (3OT) in the final game. They fell to #7 in the BCS. Then Missouri and West Virginia both lose their conference championship games, which puts Ohio State #1 by default...but then comes the crazy part. LSU jumps 5 spots to #2 to make the BCS title game. They were in at 11-2 with 9 two-loss teams, a one-loss team, and an undefeated team behind them (Georgia was one of those, so I guess this turned out OK). The only reason the LSU won in 2007 is because the BCS committee up and decided to put the SEC champion in that game instead of one of eleven other possible teams.

So now we take out Bama and Florida and 2007 and they have one other championship.

....OK, so the whole conference basically gets credit for what two teams did. In the mid-90's was everyone saying that the Big 12 was the most dominant conference in America because Nebraska won three out of four national titles?

It's just a mess. If Florida State had won the NC last year after all those ACC teams knocked off SEC teams in the final week, would everyone be saying that the ACC dethroned the SEC? ...nope

But here's the good news. If we keep doing it, eventually the media will take notice.

 

[slugboy]

Brock Huard watched and studied GT a lot last year. CPJ is downplaying expectations. We could be better on both sides and have 7-8 wins. We had a lot of lucky breaks last year.

 

[Minawreck]

Brock Huard watched and studied GT a lot last year. CPJ is downplaying expectations. We could be better on both sides and have 7-8 wins. We had a lot of lucky breaks last year.

did we though?

We were about .500 in games decided by 1 TD or less I think. Otherwise we flattened people. Our conference margin of victory was something like 20 points.

Our opponents had just as many breaks as we did. We didn't stop UNC on a 4th and 6 that went for a 40 yard bomb TD pass...that's kinda a lucky break.

MSU converted a hail mary

UGA had the fumble turnaround

VPI had the fumble that bounced into brewer's hands for a TD.

Duke had the missed QB butt scooch and the failed throaway INT.

Brock is simply stuck on the UGA hype train. I see no reason to fear them. Greyson Lambert is going to be their starting QB. A guy who couldn't get it done at UVA. I think the streak of not losing to UGA in regulation will continue to 3 this season. I don't think it's a reach to say so.

 

[Skeptic]

The problem I have with the SEC bias is that it's not the conference that was overly successful, but rather mainly two teams:
...
....OK, so the whole conference basically gets credit for what two teams did. In the mid-90's was everyone saying that the Big 12 was the most dominant conference in America because Nebraska won three out of four national titles?

It's just a mess. If Florida State had won the NC last year after all those ACC teams knocked off SEC teams in the final week, would everyone be saying that the ACC dethroned the SEC? ...nope

But here's the good news. If we keep doing it, eventually the media will take notice.

Good research and a lot of work. But by chance were you a debater in school? That is, by changing the terms, one wins. By removing all the other winners you reduce the SEC to two teams, when the more reasonable argument is that several teams in the SEC can and have won, and have for several years. Two teams in the ACC since 1990 have and could win, Miami and FSU. Save for one fling by GT 25 years ago and Virginia that I can barely recall, nobody else save VT has even been in the hunt. Surely you would not argue that the SEC's now reduced-to-two and the ACC's historical two are comparable. And look what happened to the ACC when FSU and Miami swooned. (Maybe we should throw in Notre Dame, that mugwump of a pretender that was in the playoffs two years ago, but since ND isn't willing to give up its money and its considerable national sway to actually be in the ACC, then to heck with 'em. Never liked them anyway.)

Where we wholeheartedly agree is that the whole thing is a mess, and I don't think it can be unmessed because like all political races influence and money are at play, and that if "we keep doing it" the media will notice. That was exactly Herbstreit's point. I suspect with no evidence at all to support it that most of us judge people in Herbstreit's place by what we fear we would do in the same situation. Pontificators need a stage and right now that is owned by the SEC. While last year was delightful a whole new season is careening toward us, so let's talk in four months and see were we are. I hope for the best, beginning first with GT and then to worry about the rest of the league.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

As the man once said, one year does not a season make.

And that is precisely my beef with SEC hype. Whenever they have a good season they can usually count on that for good PR for the next five years. Other conferences not so much.

My history with the SEC goes way back. I grew up as a major SEC fan so I know how we / they talk. I will give you just one example of which I could give many. Alabama fans have always said "we are the best team in the country." They would prove that by beating up on pipsqueak teams while saying those big northern teams are afraid to play us. Well, in 1973 Alabama finally got its chance to play Notre Dame and lost. Tried again in 1975 and lost again. 1976 lost again. 1980 lost again. Finally in 1986 they were able to slip by a 5-6 Notre Dame team and the fans all said, "See, I told you were better than any other team." In 1987 Alabama got shellacked by Notre Dame. In 2013 Alabama finally put the whipping on an overrated Notre Dame team that they always knew was possible. It confirmed everything fans had been telling themselves for decades.

Now when I ever I bring up stuff like this with younger people they act like this is just ancient history and has nothing to do with recent history. Au contraire, the point is that the SEC has been hyping itself for the last 50 years non stop. Won / Loss records have had little overall impact on the level of fan delusion one way or the other. And in the meantime a financial juggernaut has been built up on the legend and hype of the SEC. This is one of the most outstanding examples of "fake it till you make it" that I have ever seen.

 

[PBR549]

Good research and a lot of work. But by chance were you a debater in school? That is, by changing the terms, one wins. By removing all the other winners you reduce the SEC to two teams, when the more reasonable argument is that several teams in the SEC can and have won, and have for several years. Two teams in the ACC since 1990 have and could win, Miami and FSU. Save for one fling by GT 25 years ago and Virginia that I can barely recall, nobody else save VT has even been in the hunt. Surely you would not argue that the SEC's now reduced-to-two and the ACC's historical two are comparable. And look what happened to the ACC when FSU and Miami swooned. (Maybe we should throw in Notre Dame, that mugwump of a pretender that was in the playoffs two years ago, but since ND isn't willing to give up its money and its considerable national sway to actually be in the ACC, then to heck with 'em. Never liked them anyway.)

Where we wholeheartedly agree is that the whole thing is a mess, and I don't think it can be unmessed because like all political races influence and money are at play, and that if "we keep doing it" the media will notice. That was exactly Herbstreit's point. I suspect with no evidence at all to support it that most of us judge people in Herbstreit's place by what we fear we would do in the same situation. Pontificators need a stage and right now that is owned by the SEC. While last year was delightful a whole new season is careening toward us, so let's talk in four months and see were we are. I hope for the best, beginning first with GT and then to worry about the rest of the league.

I think that the way we were playing at the end of last year we would have had a chance to beat anyone had there been a fair playoff. 8 or 16 teams is all I'm asking to make it fair but ESPN nor the SEC want that. Herby and Huart are just toeing the company line.

 

[furant]

No. They got the publicity long before they "won." There is no secret to this and I can't figure out why we have these conversations over and over again. The SEC has always gotten the lion's share of coverage, win or lose. The reason has to do with the number of rabid fans. To be sure Ohio State has great fans, as does Michigan, and we could name other schools in other regions. But no place like the South has the saturation level of rabid fans who buy stuff, have stuff read to them, watch stuff and practically call off all Saturday activities not related to football to invest their substance in it. The SEC is promoted more than any other conference for a simple reason. Follow the money.

FIFY.

 

[Nook Su Kow]

When was our last victory vs the gaggers in Atlanta? 2000 Lil Joe senior day? We are definitely due.

 

[UgaBlows]

CPJ will break another streak this season

 

[Skeptic]

I think that the way we were playing at the end of last year we would have had a chance to beat anyone had there been a fair playoff. 8 or 16 teams is all I'm asking to make it fair but ESPN nor the SEC want that. Herby and Huart are just toeing the company line.

I don't disagree at all with the first part and I would bet my house several big time coaches agreed and counted their blessings. I do think ESPN gets too much credit, though TCU surely made a playoff case at the end. But the cynicism directed at Herbstreit and Huarte is unwarranted. I think Herbstreit is without peer on any network -- and a long time admirer of Johnson's offense, by the way -- though Huarte is kind of so-so for my taste. It says little for their character, and I wonder if the same criticism leveled at Roddy Jones or Sean Bedford would be an endorsement for a GT education or football career. After all, a traditional justification for football is that it builds character, not -- excepting Lou Holtz and Lee Corso -- that it produces carnival barkers. As an addendum, make no mistake that college football programs are corporations. Johnson probably has more "executives" reporting directly to him than any other department. Everything sold in gift shops or concession stands is all about "branding", and all TV and radio about exposure to get more business. There's a reason the SEC coaches stay mum when some programs are buying players wholesale, and it has to do with wrecking the brand. That they won't do.

 

[Buzzbomb]

Yes, well, 62% of sports analysts don't understand statistics, and the other 26% don't care...

What happened to the other 10%?