Geoff Collins - Head Coaching Numbers

[Boaty1]

Are you sure about that? I remember '92-'96, as well as several other seasons, as definitely not being top 25.

We only finished ranked in '90, '97, '98, '99, 00, & '01, The rest of those years we were unranked.

Considering there was a national Championship, 18 year bowl streak, breaking into the top 15 in 14 of those years and finishing in the top 10 multiple times...yes. I feel confident saying that.

 

[stech81]

I give up who is it? What I would do is expand the curriculum, fire the president, devote every dollar I had to recruiting, enhance fan game day experience, and hire George P. Burdell as football coach for life.

Frank Beamer VT

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Considering there was a national Championship, 18 year bowl streak, breaking into the top 15 in 14 of those years and finishing in the top 10 multiple times...yes. I feel confident saying that.

Gotcha. You're saying that even though we were unranked for 62% of the era you defined, that is the measuring stick we should aim for. Seems achievable...

 

[Vespidae]

Gotcha. You're saying that even though we were unranked for 62% of the era you defined, that is the measuring stick we should aim for. Seems achievable...

College football is as different from 2000 as 2000 was to 1970. Tech today is most likely a 7-5 team, on average.

Is that bad? No. Some years, we’ll be 9-3. But perennial football power? No.

I’m pissed at my nephew who graduated from Alabama. He has never been to a home game where his team lost. Unbelievable.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

College football is as different from 2000 as 2000 was to 1970. Tech today is most likely a 7-5 team, on average.

Is that bad? No. Some years, we’ll be 9-3. But perennial football power? No.

I’m pissed at my nephew who graduated from Alabama. He has never been to a home game where his team lost. Unbelievable.

I agree, I was just flabbergasted at the logic that we were a "top 25 program from .89-'04" as was said. That statement ignores several losing seasons and isn't based in facts at all.

 

[Boaty1]

Gotcha. You're saying that even though we were unranked for 62% of the era you defined, that is the measuring stick we should aim for. Seems achievable...

Well, that’s one metric. We were ranked at some point in 17 of 25 seasons meaning were consistently relevant and 14 of those years we got into the top 15. Look at all the metrics and you will have a hard time finding 25 programs better.

 

[Vespidae]

Well, that’s one metric. We were ranked at some point in 17 of 25 seasons meaning were consistently relevant and 14 of those years we got into the top 15. Look at all the metrics and you will have a hard time finding 25 programs better.

15 years ago is a lifetime. It’s a damn shame how horribly managed the AA has been.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Well, that’s one metric. We were ranked at some point in 17 of 25 seasons meaning were consistently relevant and 14 of those years we got into the top 15. Look at all the metrics and you will have a hard time finding 25 programs better.

It's where you end the season that counts.

 

[Vespidae]

It's where you end the season that counts.

Tech starts every year tied with Number 1. 0-0. It’s downhill after that.

 

[JorgeJonas]

An unreasonable eternity in college football. There was absolutely no upside for Tech, considering how badly he wanted the job.

Isn’t the larger issue that if he’s the recruiting savant people say he is, he won’t need that long to produce, since his players will be higher rated and thus better able to contribute immediately. The tell here is that when you press on when it’s reasonable to expect results, they hem and haw over giving an identifiable answer. It’s even worse when you press on what success looks like.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

Isn’t the larger issue that if he’s the recruiting savant people say he is, he won’t need that long to produce, since his players will be higher rated and thus better able to contribute immediately. The tell here is that when you press on when it’s reasonable to expect results, they hem and haw over giving an identifiable answer. It’s even worse when you press on what success looks like.

Apparently success is mirroring the 89-04 seasons as we were top 25 all those years...

 

[JorgeJonas]

Apparently success is mirroring the 89-04 seasons as we were top 25 all those years...

 

[Boaty1]

It's where you end the season that counts.

Right, but programs like Michigan State and Iowa out of the Big 10 for example finished ranked less than we did.

And I think it’s foolish to believe a team that spends a decent portion of the season ranked is similar from a perspective standpoint than one that is never ranked. And College football is the ultimate dog and pony show.

After some quick research I’m even more confident we were a top 25 program during that stretch. We’ve had it good when compared to the majority of D-1 and P5 for that matter. It’s time we embrace our potential instead of run away with fro it.

 

[Boaty1]

View attachment 7167

Why run away from the success of that era?

 

[Vespidae]

Right, but programs like Michigan State and Iowa out of the Big 10 for example finished ranked less than we did.

And I think it’s foolish to believe a team that spends a decent portion of the season ranked is similar from a perspective standpoint than one that is never ranked. And College football is the ultimate dog and pony show.

After some quick research I’m even more confident we were a top 25 program during that stretch. We’ve had it good when compared to the majority of D-1 and P5 for that matter. It’s fine we embrace our potential instead of run away with fro it.

Sorry. You can be ranked and have beaten no one. The only ranking that matters is the one end of season.

 

[Boaty1]

Sorry. You can be ranked and have beaten no one. The only ranking that matters is the one end of season.

I completely disagree. I would much rather have years we made the top 15 and set up some big games that drew good crowds then never have any excitement throughout the year. Being ranked is important for the perception of the program even if you don’t end up there.

 

[Boaty1]

I agree, I was just flabbergasted at the logic that we were a "top 25 program from .89-'04" as was said. That statement ignores several losing seasons and isn't based in facts at all.

What? You know nothing of what you are talking about here. Do you have 25 programs that were better on the aggregate during that stretch?

 

[Vespidae]

I completely disagree. I would much rather have years we made the top 15 and set up some big games that drew good crowds then never have any excitement throughout the year. Being ranked is important for the perception of the program even if you don’t end up there.

So you need to clarify that. From 1989 to 2004, we were ranked x weeks.

I think it’s nonsense to beat Gardner Webb and Elon, get a ranking, and crow about it. Only to lose 97-3 to Clemson.

 

[Vespidae]

What? You know nothing of what you are talking about here. Do you have 25 programs that were better on the aggregate during that stretch?

It’s on the NCAA website.

 

[JorgeJonas]

Why run away from the success of that era?

I think you and I have a different idea of success. Averaging five losses a season is not my idea of success.