Conference reputation?

[dressedcheeseside]

Just got done listening to Paul Finebaum call the ACC the best college football conference. The talking heads are finally coming around. What does that mean for GT? What effect will that have on our recruiting? The SEC drum beat seemed to help the middle of the pack recruit, will it do the same for the ACC?

I have my doubts. The ACC is still seen as a basketball conference among the elite players. It'll take several more years of this type of achievement to show top football recruits our conference is not a step down.

ACC: National Champions
ACC: best bowl record by a landslide
ACC: best record against P5

What will it mean for GT?

 

[MikeJackets]

Just got done listening to Paul Finebaum call the ACC the best college football conference. The talking heads are finally coming around. What does that mean for GT? What effect will that have on our recruiting? The SEC drum beat seemed to help the middle of the pack recruit, will it do the same for the ACC?

I have my doubts. The ACC is still seen as a basketball conference among the elite players. It'll take several more years of this type of achievement to show top football recruits our conference is not a step down.

ACC: National Champions
ACC: best bowl record by a landslide
ACC: best record against P5

What will it mean for GT?

Hopefully it will help GT's recruiting however the very high academic standards will always hinder recruiting to some extent.

 

[kg01]

Still too soon IMHO. Remember the ess-ee-cee still has the fans, coaches, the handlers, local media and well-established networks feeding their members recruits. If the number of drafted kids from that league continues to exceed the ACC and other conferences, bowl seasons like the one that just passed will be written off as anomalies.

It'll take a good 4-6 year run before the trickle-down effect gets tangible IMHO.

 

[deeeznutz]

Still too soon IMHO. Remember the ess-ee-cee still has the fans, coaches, the handlers, local media and well-established networks feeding their members recruits. If the number of drafted kids from that league continues to exceed the ACC and other conferences, bowl seasons like the one that just passed will be written off as anomalies.

It'll take a good 4-6 year run before the trickle-down effect gets tangible IMHO.

What sucks is "players placed in the NFL" has a little bit of chicken or the egg going on. The only reason the SEC has more players drafted is because a few years ago more players who were future NFLers chose to go to those schools. There is nothing magical about being in that conference that makes you a better player. If you're good, the league will find you regardless of where you played. In fact, you could easily argue that you're more likely to get more PT and stand out when you're not surrounded by other NFL quality players.

 

[Boomergump]

It took about 15 seconds after last nights game was over before the hype surrounding Bammer in 2017 got fired up. Un-bee-lievable!

 

[stech81]

Just got done listening to Paul Finebaum call the ACC the best college football conference. The talking heads are finally coming around. What does that mean for GT? What effect will that have on our recruiting? The SEC drum beat seemed to help the middle of the pack recruit, will it do the same for the ACC?

I have my doubts. The ACC is still seen as a basketball conference among the elite players. It'll take several more years of this type of achievement to show top football recruits our conference is not a step down.

ACC: National Champions
ACC: best bowl record by a landslide
ACC: best record against P5

What will it mean for GT?

Honestly Zero Only GT can help GT

 

[WreckedbyWhiskey]

It may help marginally in recruiting but probably won't move the needle. What the SEC has that the ACC doesn't is "culture". Top recruits and even the people that attend both ACC and SEC games are aware of that. I'm not mad at the SEC for getting all the attention, they know how to promote and market their brand...one could question the integrity or character of the brand but the simple fact is, they really understand their consumer and what they want.

More specifically, we (GT) have to build a culture of winning and to do that, we have to show a full commitment to our football program and that has to start at the top. Clemson did a fantastic job by getting their administration's full support for the football program and the results are clear. I don't have all the facts but it seems to me that the football program doesn't get the attention that's required to be the program we "say" we want to be. I think part of the issue is that we don't have a clear vision of the type of program we want to be. Do we want to contend for the playoffs each year? Do we just want an appearance in the ACC championship every other year? Do we even want a National Championship? The real question is, are we willing to do what we need to do for a National Championship??

All in all, any attention for the ACC is good attention at this point (from a football perspective) so the Clemson win is a good thing but there's so much more that we have to do as a program to fully leverage the benefits of a strong ACC.

 

[Towaliga]

It took about 15 seconds after last nights game was over before the hype surrounding Bammer in 2017 got fired up. Un-bee-lievable!

Not only Bammer, but the same old bias for the entire SEC and B1G. I've already seen polls with
the dawgs ranked in the top 15, and also A&M, TN, Auburn, LSU, UF, and OleMiss in the top 25. Next year, the ACC needs to just prove that 2016 wasn't a fluke.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Just look at final rankings and the first projections for rankings for next year.

In last 5 years ACC played in the championship 3 times and won 2, SEC played 4 times and won 2, Big X played and won 1 and Pac 10 played and lost 1 and then ND played and lost 1. Only the SEC and ACC had two different teams make it to the championship game from the conference. But this doesn't really matter for conference prestige because the underlying fundamentals are static.

Basically, the SEC hype has rarely been rational or realistic, it has always been primarily predicated on economic motives which reflect a simple social reality about the status of college football in the deep south. Therefore, it has no reason to abate while the underlying motivations remain static. Look at how tOSU keeps being given undeserved chances to play for the title to see how the industry operates even beyond the deep south to select locales. This limited expansiveness is due to the industry thriving on, depending on, and therefore focusing on huge public state schools, plus one historic private/confessional, and independent, school because it has a large national following that coalesces culturally in an analogous manner to the local and social cohesion around the big state schools. This is why others perceive Clemson and FSU as "not really ACC schools." The success of these two ACC schools does have a positive impact on Tech . . . it awards them more money when the conference divvies up bowl earnings. Beyond that it matters very little.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It may help marginally in recruiting but probably won't move the needle. What the SEC has that the ACC doesn't is "culture". Top recruits and even the people that attend both ACC and SEC games are aware of that. I'm not mad at the SEC for getting all the attention, they know how to promote and market their brand...one could question the integrity or character of the brand but the simple fact is, they really understand their consumer and what they want.

More specifically, we (GT) have to build a culture of winning and to do that, we have to show a full commitment to our football program and that has to start at the top. Clemson did a fantastic job by getting their administration's full support for the football program and the results are clear. I don't have all the facts but it seems to me that the football program doesn't get the attention that's required to be the program we "say" we want to be. I think part of the issue is that we don't have a clear vision of the type of program we want to be. Do we want to contend for the playoffs each year? Do we just want an appearance in the ACC championship every other year? Do we even want a National Championship? The real question is, are we willing to do what we need to do for a National Championship??

All in all, any attention for the ACC is good attention at this point (from a football perspective) so the Clemson win is a good thing but there's so much more that we have to do as a program to fully leverage the benefits of a strong ACC.

I agree and like your post, however, we may disagree on the direction you lean about what is left unsaid and implied about being a national caliber program. I believe that everything realistically necessary to be a consistent national contender (as opposed to lightning in a bottle chances) amounts to unethical exploitation of young men who should be given an education first and foremost at a college/university, or shouldn't be enrolled.

The only thing I directly disagree on in your assessment is the claim that Tech does not have "a clear vision of the kind of program it wants to be." I think the Institute has made abundantly clear for at least the last 50 years of its existence exactly what kind of football program it wants to have. This was evidenced in Bobby Dodd leaving the SEC and is reaffirmed every time a Tech fan complains about the "Hill," which has been ongoing for decades. Tech wants a football program and student athletes it can be proud of and can call "Tech men" without having to change the meaning of that phrase. The Institute wants a program with integrity first, that recognizes the primacy of education, and then seeks excellence in all things, including athletic endeavor, for the good of the souls of the young men put in their care.

 

[MikeJackets]

I agree and like your post, however, we may disagree on the direction you lean about what is left unsaid and implied about being a national caliber program. I believe that everything realistically necessary to be a consistent national contender (as opposed to lightning in a bottle chances) amounts to unethical exploitation of young men who should be given an education first and foremost at a college/university, or shouldn't be enrolled.

The only thing I directly disagree on in your assessment is the claim that Tech does not have "a clear vision of the kind of program it wants to be." I think the Institute has made abundantly clear for at least the last 50 years of its existence exactly what kind of football program it wants to have. This was evidenced in Bobby Dodd leaving the SEC and is reaffirmed every time a Tech fan complains about the "Hill," which has been ongoing for decades. Tech wants a football program and student athletes it can be proud of and can call "Tech men" without having to change the meaning of that phrase. The Institute wants a program with integrity first, that recognizes the primacy of education, and then seeks excellence in all things, including athletic endeavor, for the good of the souls of the young men put in their care.

Bobby Dodd said in his book that if GT hadn't left the SEC that the GT football program would have been on the level of Vanderbilt and Tulane.

 

[MikeJackets]

Here's Uncle Lou's take on the Best Conference debate

 

[bke1984]

Here's Uncle Lou's take on the Best Conference debate

I wish people would stop posting stuff from this retard. His mere existence just saddens me as a human being

 

[MikeJackets]

I wish people would stop posting stuff from this retard. His mere existence just saddens me as a human being

Good point

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

Hopefully it will help GT's recruiting however the very high academic standards will always hinder recruiting to some extent.

This!

 

[MidtownJacket]

I agree and like your post, however, we may disagree on the direction you lean about what is left unsaid and implied about being a national caliber program. I believe that everything realistically necessary to be a consistent national contender (as opposed to lightning in a bottle chances) amounts to unethical exploitation of young men who should be given an education first and foremost at a college/university, or shouldn't be enrolled.

The only thing I directly disagree on in your assessment is the claim that Tech does not have "a clear vision of the kind of program it wants to be." I think the Institute has made abundantly clear for at least the last 50 years of its existence exactly what kind of football program it wants to have. This was evidenced in Bobby Dodd leaving the SEC and is reaffirmed every time a Tech fan complains about the "Hill," which has been ongoing for decades. Tech wants a football program and student athletes it can be proud of and can call "Tech men" without having to change the meaning of that phrase. The Institute wants a program with integrity first, that recognizes the primacy of education, and then seeks excellence in all things, including athletic endeavor, for the good of the souls of the young men put in their care.

Agree!

 

[Yaller Jacket]

I may be too optimistic, but I think we made more media noise than ever before this go 'round. Print reporters and columnists, ESPN web site, broadcasters during the bowl season all noticed and made the point about the ACC. To a lesser extent, the SEC not being all that good was noticed. I doubt the SEC perception will change next year, but it is possible the ACC starts with a little more status. As a league we have a golden opportunity early season with us and Tennessee and FSU and Bama. In fact, I expect the pregame hype for those games to include lots of talk about what happened in this year's bowl season.

 

[PBR549]

I agree and like your post, however, we may disagree on the direction you lean about what is left unsaid and implied about being a national caliber program. I believe that everything realistically necessary to be a consistent national contender (as opposed to lightning in a bottle chances) amounts to unethical exploitation of young men who should be given an education first and foremost at a college/university, or shouldn't be enrolled.

The only thing I directly disagree on in your assessment is the claim that Tech does not have "a clear vision of the kind of program it wants to be." I think the Institute has made abundantly clear for at least the last 50 years of its existence exactly what kind of football program it wants to have. This was evidenced in Bobby Dodd leaving the SEC and is reaffirmed every time a Tech fan complains about the "Hill," which has been ongoing for decades. Tech wants a football program and student athletes it can be proud of and can call "Tech men" without having to change the meaning of that phrase. The Institute wants a program with integrity first, that recognizes the primacy of education, and then seeks excellence in all things, including athletic endeavor, for the good of the souls of the young men put in their care.

I'm for this but don't expect us to consistently beat all the factories then fire the coach when he's doing everything else right.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I'm for this but don't expect us to consistently beat all the factories then fire the coach when he's doing everything else right.

Agreed. I am fine with Tech's approach. I respect it and admire it. I like the thrill of every so often catching lightning in a bottle with a program that ends up with the right combo of talent they can get, heavily 5th year senior laden and led team, etc., where they can win the ACC and an Orange Bowl, or maybe make the playoff. I am totally cool with that being the m.o. at Tech. I also think this is consistent with rejecting the too low end hopes for the program of a Dave Braine. I think Tech, and CPJ has shown this well, can be consistently competitive, and even good, with the chance to be special some years. My main point is that this scenario is not the same as the "perennial national championship contending program" ala Bama, Clemson, Ohio State right now. What goes on there to be what they are is different in both degree and kind.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Here's Uncle Lou's take on the Best Conference debate

OMG. He says that Saban couldn't get it done without Kirby. I guess he doesn't realize that that Kirby's D at Bama last year was shredded for 500+ yards, whereas former mutt DC Jeremy Pruitt's D at Bama was only burned for 400 yards. The Bama offense and ST's won the game last year, NOT the Bama defense, which actually seems overall to be better under Pruitt than it was under Kirby. Uncle Lou is a typical mutt FOOL, and, based on his closing remarks about Watson, he's a racist too.