Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
GT (+2.5) vs. VT
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="takethepoints" data-source="post: 362437" data-attributes="member: 265"><p>I hate to keep harping on this, but on a dry field we have an even chance to win this one. Here's a quick comparison:</p><p></p><p> Dry Field Wet Field</p><p><em>Dry Field: </em><u>Total Offense (Average)</u> = 428 <u>Total Offense (Average)</u> = 439 (w/o UT) Diff = 179 </p><p><em></em></p><p><em>Wet Field: </em><u>Total Offense (Average)</u> = 303. <u>Total Offense (Average)</u> = 303 (w/o Clemson Diff = 99</p><p></p><p>I left out the outliers (UT = 655, Clemson = 230) on the second comparison, but the story is the same. If you look at 2016, it's the same story; we had trouble in the muck in Dublin and did ok otherwise, despite coming up on the short end as often.</p><p></p><p>As Thoreau said, sometimes circumstantial evidence is very strong, like when you find a fish in the milk. Our problem this year has been that we've been in a monsoon in three crucial games. (Btw, this explains the crowds others have commented on at Miami and UVA.) I know, I know: there are other factors affecting this and the wet affects both teams and you could use other comparisons. But the story is the same. We can do well on a wet field if things aren't getting worse as the game goes on; we won after the drizzle stopped at VT last year. But, overall, if it's pouring rain, we have more trouble on both sides of the ball. I invite others to make comparisons to other years, but I bet the story doesn't change.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="takethepoints, post: 362437, member: 265"] I hate to keep harping on this, but on a dry field we have an even chance to win this one. Here's a quick comparison: Dry Field Wet Field [I]Dry Field: [/I][U]Total Offense (Average)[/U] = 428 [U]Total Offense (Average)[/U] = 439 (w/o UT) Diff = 179 [I] Wet Field: [/I][U]Total Offense (Average)[/U] = 303. [U]Total Offense (Average)[/U] = 303 (w/o Clemson Diff = 99 I left out the outliers (UT = 655, Clemson = 230) on the second comparison, but the story is the same. If you look at 2016, it's the same story; we had trouble in the muck in Dublin and did ok otherwise, despite coming up on the short end as often. As Thoreau said, sometimes circumstantial evidence is very strong, like when you find a fish in the milk. Our problem this year has been that we've been in a monsoon in three crucial games. (Btw, this explains the crowds others have commented on at Miami and UVA.) I know, I know: there are other factors affecting this and the wet affects both teams and you could use other comparisons. But the story is the same. We can do well on a wet field if things aren't getting worse as the game goes on; we won after the drizzle stopped at VT last year. But, overall, if it's pouring rain, we have more trouble on both sides of the ball. I invite others to make comparisons to other years, but I bet the story doesn't change. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What's the good word?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
GT (+2.5) vs. VT
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top