Expectations for GT Football

Coloradojacket

Coloradojacket

Banned
Messages
2,034
Heisman's Ghost said:
There is much wisdom in this. The college football landscape has changed to being a sharp divide between the "Haves" like UGA, Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame, LSU, Florida, etc. and the Have Nots. It can be debated whether or not the Have Nots can further be subdivided into those who are fairly good like UNC, Miami, Auburn, etc. and the mediocre teams like Illinois, South Carolina, Tech, and the absolute bottom feeders like Oregon State, Tulane, East Carolina, Vanderbilt, etc. The fact remains that the playing field is so tilted by illegal recruiting, paying players, and whatnot that the Have Nots have no chance, none of being nationally relevant for the foreseeable future. Even the pretty good ones mentioned above have little hope in crashing the elite club. IIWII
Click to expand...
College football has always been this way. Pick your decade and there were 5 teams that were way above the rest. The GTs South Carolina
of the world have not been in that group ever. That does not mean that we are bad. We just have a disadvantage...academics
 

takethepoints

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,096
Augusta_Jacket said:
Thinking of this even more, I worry that we are trying too hard in the wrong areas sometimes. Yes, putting a winning product on the field will be beneficial, but I don't think it will have nearly as big an impact as we are expecting. In terms of market, the southeast is at saturation point for CFB. Every sports fan that follows CFB already has "their" team, so unlike Atlanta United, we aren't drawing "new" fans to the games, but rather aiming to pull other fans away from their current teams to ours. That's a much taller task. We can hope that transfers to the area from outside of the SEC/B1G markets (loyal fanbases) may end up opting in to attending GT games, but even if they do, it still doesn't solve the problem. We not only need fans, we need donors. We need people who not only attend and cheer, but who will give yearly to the program. The modern evolution of STEM schools no longer really emphasizes the total student experience to include sports the way it was done decades ago, so a lot of our students 'get out' and head off to their careers without ever having attended a single game here. It's why we see such a disparity between the giving to the school vs the GTAA. They are giving to what matters most to them. I don't know what the answer to this is, but somewhere along the line we need to ask some hard questions and get very real about our expectations and how they line up with the current landscape of college football.
Click to expand...
I'm going to push back slightly on part of this.

Robert Putnam, the "Bowling Alone" guy, has looked at why "social capital" has declined in the US (and other places, but let's leave that aside). He looked, iow, at why social clubs and overall in-person social contact has decreased. One of the major factors he found was - wait for it - TV. Before the explosion of TV as a source of entertainment, people had to go out of the house to get it. So they went to bowling alleys, clubs, local taverns, ect. in great numbers. Now we don't. We stay at home and either watch TV or, nowadays, call up HULU and watch movies, documentaries, game shows, and sporting events. Like college football. As in every game Tech plays. As little as 10 years ago this wasn't possible or profitable for college sports programs. Then overall attendance began to flag and the conference networks were started to provide the money.

I don't think interest in college football has declined so much. The necessity to attend games in person, however, has. Why show up if its hot or cold or raining or "it's hard to park" or <your favorite excuse here>; just watch the game on TV or your computer. This even applies for away games; they're all on TV too. Further, the saturation mentioned is also due to broadcasting all the games. For every team, almost. Combine this with a student body that has more diverse sports interests and you have the dilemma that is plaguing schools all over the country. Shoot, Bammer had to make attendance at football games mandatory for students not long ago. As for sidewalk fans … they can turn on a TV or computer too. Why spend the money and time?

Now, me, I like to go to college football games. I think the experience is a lot of fun, much more then watching the game at home. Even when Tech is having problems - like it is now - I usually go anyway. But that's because I'm socialized to do it. Younger people aren't and they really aren't interested in watching the team lose.

Btw, I don't think there's an easy way out of this. Or the donor question either.
 

ChicagobasedJacket

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
420
Heisman's Ghost said:
There is much wisdom in this. The college football landscape has changed to being a sharp divide between the "Haves" like UGA, Alabama, Clemson, Notre Dame, LSU, Florida, etc. and the Have Nots. It can be debated whether or not the Have Nots can further be subdivided into those who are fairly good like UNC, Miami, Auburn, etc. and the mediocre teams like Illinois, South Carolina, Tech, and the absolute bottom feeders like Oregon State, Tulane, East Carolina, Vanderbilt, etc. The fact remains that the playing field is so tilted by illegal recruiting, paying players, and whatnot that the Have Nots have no chance, none of being nationally relevant for the foreseeable future. Even the pretty good ones mentioned above have little hope in crashing the elite club. IIWII
Click to expand...
College Football has become women’s college basketball. Only 5-7 teams can realistically win the championship each year.
 
Techster

Techster

Helluva Engineer
Messages
18,237
LibertyTurns said:
No, we have the talent. Time to show some results on the field. It’s basically leadership ability and coaching from here on out.
Click to expand...

Agree. Like I said earlier, outside of maybe the 2008-2009, and 2014 roster, this may be the most talented roster we've had in a while. Vast majority of the starters next year will have extensive experience.

Time for CGC and our staff to prove their worth.
 

SOWEGA Jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,075
Please just remember that the entire system is corrupt so the ”arms race” isn’t really even a race. The NCAA is no longer an enforcement entity of any type. They are a lap dog run by the powerful schools. So, yes, in decade after decade you had 5-6 teams who dominated, but they at least had to do it 80% or more above board. Now, its McDonalds bags and alum handing out cash on sidelines on national TV. GT and the other 90% of D1 schools allow this system to continue and to participate in it so they are as guilty as the guys handing out the McDonalds. If they actually made a stand maybe the sport would survive, but D1 football will soon have its “me too” moment when it implodes. It’s just a matter of time until we see the “I‘m shocked” interviews of career coaches. I can hear it already, “you mean they admitted guys who couldn’t read into a college“, “they put Johnny back in the game while he exhibited concussion symptoms”, “you mean they gave cash to his mother?”. It’s all a joke. I can see the racial inequality issue bringing it all down. Just wait till Deion decides to go after big time players and exposes the big boys because Deion knows how the system works and has the audience and backing of the HBCU’s. And ESPN will be all over it.
 
Augusta_Jacket

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,099
Location
Augusta, Georgia
Coloradojacket said:
College football has always been this way. Pick your decade and there were 5 teams that were way above the rest. The GTs South Carolina
of the world have not been in that group ever. That does not mean that we are bad. We just have a disadvantage...academics
Click to expand...

From 1950-1959, 10 different teams claimed a share of the NC.
From 1960-1969, 9 different teams claimed a share of the NC.
From 1970-1979, 8 different teams claimed a share of the NC.
From 1980-1989, 8 different teams claimed a share of the NC.
From 1990-1999, 10 different teams claimed a share of the NC.
From 2000-2009, 8 different teams claimed a share of the NC.
From 2010-2020, 5 different teams claimed a share of the NC.

I am not sure the playoffs fixed what was wrong with college football.
 
Augusta_Jacket

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,099
Location
Augusta, Georgia
takethepoints said:
I'm going to push back slightly on part of this.

Robert Putnam, the "Bowling Alone" guy, has looked at why "social capital" has declined in the US (and other places, but let's leave that aside). He looked, iow, at why social clubs and overall in-person social contact has decreased. One of the major factors he found was - wait for it - TV. Before the explosion of TV as a source of entertainment, people had to go out of the house to get it. So they went to bowling alleys, clubs, local taverns, ect. in great numbers. Now we don't. We stay at home and either watch TV or, nowadays, call up HULU and watch movies, documentaries, game shows, and sporting events. Like college football. As in every game Tech plays. As little as 10 years ago this wasn't possible or profitable for college sports programs. Then overall attendance began to flag and the conference networks were started to provide the money.

I don't think interest in college football has declined so much. The necessity to attend games in person, however, has. Why show up if its hot or cold or raining or "it's hard to park" or <your favorite excuse here>; just watch the game on TV or your computer. This even applies for away games; they're all on TV too. Further, the saturation mentioned is also due to broadcasting all the games. For every team, almost. Combine this with a student body that has more diverse sports interests and you have the dilemma that is plaguing schools all over the country. Shoot, Bammer had to make attendance at football games mandatory for students not long ago. As for sidewalk fans … they can turn on a TV or computer too. Why spend the money and time?

Now, me, I like to go to college football games. I think the experience is a lot of fun, much more then watching the game at home. Even when Tech is having problems - like it is now - I usually go anyway. But that's because I'm socialized to do it. Younger people aren't and they really aren't interested in watching the team lose.

Btw, I don't think there's an easy way out of this. Or the donor question either.
Click to expand...

I really don't see this as pushing back on my post but rather adding yet another dimension to the problem. Either way, I don't believe simply "winning" is going to fix the problem.
 
Coloradojacket

Coloradojacket

Banned
Messages
2,034
Augusta_Jacket said:
From 1950-1959, 10 different teams claimed a share of the NC.
From 1960-1969, 9 different teams claimed a share of the NC.
From 1970-1979, 8 different teams claimed a share of the NC.
From 1980-1989, 8 different teams claimed a share of the NC.
From 1990-1999, 10 different teams claimed a share of the NC.
From 2000-2009, 8 different teams claimed a share of the NC.
From 2010-2020, 5 different teams claimed a share of the NC.

I am not sure the playoffs fixed what was wrong with college football.
Click to expand...
So I will go into the 70s forward. 70s was Alabama, USC, Oklahoma ND and Nebraska. The 80s was Miami Penn St Pitt and some UGA and Clemson. The 90s...Florida St Florida St and Florida. I could go on but the point is made.
 
Augusta_Jacket

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,099
Location
Augusta, Georgia
Coloradojacket said:
So I will go into the 70s forward. 70s was Alabama, USC, Oklahoma ND and Nebraska. The 80s was Miami Penn St Pitt and some UGA and Clemson. The 90s...Florida St Florida St and Florida. I could go on but the point is made.
Click to expand...

In the '90s you had Tenn, Texas, FSU, Florida, Nebraska, Miami, OSU and USC at a minimum that could win titles. Nebraska won 3 by itself.

80's had several other teams in the hunt every year as well.

Today you have Bama, Clemson, tOSU, and the next best challenger. We've winnowed down from 10-12 teams a decade to 3-4 with realistic shots...
 

Heisman's Ghost

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,867
Location
Albany Georgia
GT_EE78 said:
Nah man, 7 years is long long time if things are going badly. There's a reason we pay big bucks to an AD who is supposed to make those decisions and do the needed fundraising to make things happen.No one is going to simply fulfill the contract as there's too much pressure to extend so the coach appears (to recruits) to have some longevity. CGC has no risk in 21 regardless of record.If he gets 6 wins then he's set for 22,maybe longer
Click to expand...
This is an unpopular opinion but I do not believe we will win 6 games next year and it may be much worse.
 

Heisman's Ghost

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,867
Location
Albany Georgia
Augusta_Jacket said:
From 1950-1959, 10 different teams claimed a share of the NC.
From 1960-1969, 9 different teams claimed a share of the NC.
From 1970-1979, 8 different teams claimed a share of the NC.
From 1980-1989, 8 different teams claimed a share of the NC.
From 1990-1999, 10 different teams claimed a share of the NC.
From 2000-2009, 8 different teams claimed a share of the NC.
From 2010-2020, 5 different teams claimed a share of the NC.

I am not sure the playoffs fixed what was wrong with college football.
Click to expand...
I don't know about that but I preferred just going to bowls and then voting. That way fans could spend a month or so arguing about who is truly number one but that's just me. For the first time, I did not watch a bowl or playoff game. Did not miss it at all. Sad.
 
Augusta_Jacket

Augusta_Jacket

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
8,099
Location
Augusta, Georgia
Heisman's Ghost said:
This is an unpopular opinion but I do not believe we will win 6 games next year and it may be much worse.
Click to expand...

I see 3-4 wins next year. I know that's probably not what people want to hear, but it's what I see based on the schedule. We could end up pulling out 5-6 if all goes right though. I'll base next years judgement on how we look during the games.
 

cthenrys

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
942
Location
Highland Village, TX
Augusta_Jacket said:
I see 3-4 wins next year. I know that's probably not what people want to hear, but it's what I see based on the schedule. We could end up pulling out 5-6 if all goes right though. I'll base next years judgement on how we look during the games.
Click to expand...
As of today that seems the most likely scenario. Things can change and hopefully we can do better. If that is what happens, then apathy will for sure be a major issue and the hype videos will ring all the more hollow.
 
Top