Expectations for GT Football

[Augusta_Jacket]

Year 3 is usually the tipping point in most coaching changes.

Usually is the operative word there. While I am not sold that this is the greatest transition ever in the history of college football, I do recognize that it is a far more difficult transition than a normal coaching change. Given the havoc of the pandemic year as well, I really think we need to wait until at least year 4, and probably year 5, before we begin to make firm judgements.

 

[SteamWhistle]

There’s just such a huge disconnect from what fans think recruits want vs what they actually want.

 

[GoldZ]

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.

Augusta, your last sentence is the answer to what we all want to know so badly about the future---much more so than 4 vs 6 wins.

 

[MWBATL]

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.

Actually, it kinda did. What they were trying to fix was ”no clear champion”. They fixed that.

Your list strikes me as perhaps being a function of the number of different polls. How did you develop that data?

 

[Vespidae]

What are the expectations for GT football?

I think they vary depending on whether you are talking to students, alumni, the faculty, or the Hill.

• For students ... How can I get out of Tech as cheap as possible. Football? Maybe I’ll stream it.
• For alumni ... when can we compete for championships again? Is it a great game day experience?
• For the faculty ... We are a research university. Why do we bother?
• For the Hill ... What’s the minimum we have to do to keep ACC revenue coming in each year?
  

Contrast that to Alabama:

• For students ... How can I get laid?
• For alumni ... Can we win a Natty?
• For the faculty ... Can the Athletics Dept pay for our new building?
• For the Administration ... How does winning translate into our ability to get more donations to the university?
  

It’s all relative.

 

[Sheboygan]

)I agree pretty much except bowl next year. By 2024, if we are still getting blown out by Clemson and Georgia and don’t win 10+, the entire AD and staff needs to be purged.

I am thinking/hoping that either Clemsun/Dwags ( or BOTH ) have imploded by 2024........hey a guy can dream right ??

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Actually, it kinda did. What they were trying to fix was ”no clear champion”. They fixed that.

Your list strikes me as perhaps being a function of the number of different polls. How did you develop that data?

Most years there was a singular champion. The data is out there to be seen. Just google college football champion by year.

Complete List of College Football National Champions with Seasons | College Football at Sports-Reference.com

Get the complete list of College Football National Champions for the last 152 years and more about College Football at Sports-Reference.com

www.sports-reference.com

And reread my statement: I am not sure the playoffs fixed what was wrong with college football.

Sure we have a clear champion now, but that's generally one of three schools. All the playoff did was create more distance between the haves and have nots, where as it was supposed to give more access to the conferences for a chance at the national title. The Fiesta Bowl scandal in particular was a driving force behind it, and yet we still see non-P5 conferences excluded from the playoffs regardless of record. I stand by my statement.

 

[Vespidae]

Sure we have a clear champion now, but that's generally one of three schools. All the playoff did was create more distance between the haves and have nots,

I read an interesting article last night. It stated that college football is more popular than ever. But ... because TV has taken on a supersized role, matchups are promoted as must sees ... “Will Saban Bear Dabo? Who’s better, Mac or Trevor? Etc.”

The result? There is less interest in ones own program. Many who lose a game or two early are out of the race. And interest declines further.

The result? The best get better. More attention. Higher ratings. TV is literally forcing stratification of the sport.

 

[g0lftime]

I am a long time fan with 2 degrees from GT. I hate to see us lose so I am not able to watch a TV game 100%. I have to go back and forth to other shows unless we are competitive. I will watch the end of most games even if losing. I will stay to the end if I come down to Atlanta for a game regardless of the score. I have just seen this show too many times over the years. I am a long time donor BTW and have a pretty good priority number. Wish I lived a little closer for FB games. I will continue to donate regardless because I believe in the young men that come to represent my school.

 

[MWBATL]

Most years there was a singular champion. The data is out there to be seen. Just google college football champion by year.

Complete List of College Football National Champions with Seasons | College Football at Sports-Reference.com

Get the complete list of College Football National Champions for the last 152 years and more about College Football at Sports-Reference.com

www.sports-reference.com

And reread my statement: I am not sure the playoffs fixed what was wrong with college football.

Sure we have a clear champion now, but that's generally one of three schools. All the playoff did was create more distance between the haves and have nots, where as it was supposed to give more access to the conferences for a chance at the national title. The Fiesta Bowl scandal in particular was a driving force behind it, and yet we still see non-P5 conferences excluded from the playoffs regardless of record. I stand by my statement.

Oh, I am NOT saying that the playoffs "fixed college football". I don't disagree that the playoffs have had some very bad ancillary effects on the sport. By increasing the revenue, the playoffs upped the ante and the major league programs have followed the money, leaving the lesser schools further behind.

I just don't think the playoffs were designed to do anything beyond:

1. increase the revenues (Mission accomplished) ; and
2. provide a clear champion(mission accomplished)

So, I think we are simply disagreeing on what the original purpose of adding the playoffs was. Not the effect they have had. I don't believe there was any nobility in the original intent. I believe it was greed, pure and simple.

 

[g0lftime]

I would like to see them expand to 8 teams. Adds one weekend and gives some others a chance and increases national interest. Tired of the same 4 or 5 teams every year. They scoop all the 5* players and the rest grovel for whoever is left.

 

[ChicagobasedJacket]

I would like to see them expand to 8 teams. Adds one weekend and gives some others a chance and increases national interest. Tired of the same 4 or 5 teams every year. They scoop all the 5* players and the rest grovel for whoever is left.

You think fan interest has declined now, just wait until 3-4 SEC teams start making it every year in an 8 team system and winning all of the titles. The SEC and B1G have so much more money than the other P5 conferences that it’s inevitable teams from those conferences will hoard the at large spots.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I just don't think the playoffs were designed to do anything beyond:

1. increase the revenues (Mission accomplished) ; and
2. provide a clear champion(mission accomplished)

So, I think we are simply disagreeing on what the original purpose of adding the playoffs was. Not the effect they have had. I don't believe there was any nobility in the original intent. I believe it was greed, pure and simple.

One of the primary reasons many teams pushed for the playoffs were incidents like the 1996 Fiesta Bowl, where #5 BYU was snubbed for #7 Penn St. There was a real impetus to fix the lack of access for teams on the margins that weren't blue bloods. This argument persisted up until the point where Bama vs LSU II happened, and the BCS argument of "every game matters" was proven to mean zilch if there was money to made on a marquee rematch. At that point, the desire for a playoff hit fever pitch and the P5 conferences could no longer ignore it.

The primary reason was not to have a singular clear champion, but to lessen the argument about WHICH TEAMS should be in said game. The idea was that if there were 2-3 teams with identical records vying for the #2 spot, then a playoff could include all of them and let them duke it out. Getting a single champion was an ancillary bonus.

 

[BurdellJacket]

Oh, I am NOT saying that the playoffs "fixed college football". I don't disagree that the playoffs have had some very bad ancillary effects on the sport. By increasing the revenue, the playoffs upped the ante and the major league programs have followed the money, leaving the lesser schools further behind.

I just don't think the playoffs were designed to do anything beyond:

1. increase the revenues (Mission accomplished) ; and
2. provide a clear champion(mission accomplished)

So, I think we are simply disagreeing on what the original purpose of adding the playoffs was. Not the effect they have had. I don't believe there was any nobility in the original intent. I believe it was greed, pure and simple.

I'll just have to disagree on this one. A four team playoff is much, much, much better than a mythical champion. Just see our sharing the championship with a one loss and one tie and shoulda lost one more Colorado in 90. But it should be at least eight teams in the playoffs - Power five conference champions and at large best teams out of the Gang of five.

 

[GT_EE78]

I'll just have to disagree on this one. A four team playoff is much, much, much better than a mythical champion. Just see our sharing the championship with a one loss and one tie and shoulda lost one more Colorado in 90. But it should be at least eight teams in the playoffs - Power five conference champions and at large best teams out of the Gang of five.

agree strongly that 4t playoff is better than nothing but 8 is great.
i see no reason for special favors to any gangs.
The conf champs plus 1 non-P5 at minimum, then two at-large berths
(3 at large is OK too but a non-P5 carve could be popular)

 

[Lotta Booze]

Contrast that to Alabama:

• For students ... How can I get laid?

I can assure you this is still an expectation/concern for GT students as well, they've just chosen to do it on Hard Mode. (for the guys at least)

 

[Coloradojacket]

agree strongly that 4t playoff is better than nothing but 8 is great.
i see no reason for special favors to any gangs.
The conf champs plus 1 non-P5 at minimum, then two at-large berths
(3 at large is OK too but a non-P5 carve could be popular)

So the SEC gets 3 every year. We already have a 10 team playoff. It is called conference champions. If you don't win you should not get in. As for group of 5...why...Cincy could not beat UGA. Having at large just brings more arguments.

 

[LibertyTurns]

So the SEC gets 3 every year. We already have a 10 team playoff. It is called conference champions. If you don't win you should not get in. As for group of 5...why...Cincy could not beat UGA. Having at large just brings more arguments.

None of this has anything to do with competition. The whole scheme is to mass power to make money, then make even more money and maintain one’s grip on or improve their position. The SEC is winning and we’re all getting whipped, ACC and PAC-8 or whatever more than most. We’re on the slow road to extinction.

 

[Coloradojacket]

This may sound obvious but history shows 1 thing. Alabama has no advantage on Auburn, Lsu etc. What Alabama has now is a great coach. As does Clemson and even UGA. It is coaching that makes the difference
Just look at the rise and fall of Florida State. Bobby and Jimbo are great coaches. Now they have had 2 notso great coaches. Look at UNC.

 

[Vespidae]

Alabama has no advantage on Auburn, Lsu etc. What Alabama has now is a great coach.

I’m not sure what you’re implying here. One thing (among several) that distinguishes the modern Alabama organization under Saban is that boosters have been moved out in terms of influence. Auburn, LSU and most recently Tennessee, all have boosters with outsized ability to run the program. Most programs suffer from meddling. Including Tech.