GT looking at coordinators as head coaches

[JacketOff]

Nobody forced you to post your irrelevant response. You did so of your own volition.

You may think talking about first year ACC Head coaches who had no prior experience as a head coach and the causes of their success is meaningless to the discussion of GT hiring a first year head coach with no prior experience. Others don't share that opinion. You are free to just ignore the conversation of others if you want.

He responded to a post directly comparing Duke to GT, and is somehow surprised Duke is a topic of conversation lmao. Dude got lost in the trees and can’t find the forest

 

[leatherneckjacket]

Nobody forced you to post your irrelevant response. You did so of your own volition.

You may think talking about first year ACC Head coaches who had no prior experience as a head coach and the causes of their success is meaningless to the discussion of GT hiring a first year head coach with no prior experience. Others don't share that opinion. You are free to just ignore the conversation of others if you want.

Nobody forced you to reply to my reply. See how that works? I am certainly free to respond as I see fit as long as I don't disparage another font, coach or player.

 

[lv20gt]

Nobody forced you to reply to my reply. See how that works? I am certainly free to respond as I see fit as long as I don't disparage another font, coach or player.

Typically when you quote someone you expect a response. It's the way conversations usually work here.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

Typically when you quote someone you expect a response. It's the way conversations usually work here.

You brought up the RPI. I referenced the RPI in my post. Can you see the connection?

 

[lv20gt]

You brought up the RPI. I referenced the RPI in my post. Can you see the connection?

Not beyond a tangential one that does nothing to address the actual topic being discussed.

You herd the word BMW and went on about how you liked Mercedes better when the conversation was about how Tom hurt his back after getting into a car wreck.

 

[leatherneckjacket]

Not beyond a tangential one that does nothing to address the actual topic being discussed.

You herd the word BMW and went on about how you liked Mercedes better when the conversation was about how Tom hurt his back after getting into a car wreck.

Going off on a tangent about the Duke coach (and their schedule) is just as much a non sequitur. Thanks for playing along.

 

[iceeater1969]

Leather vs iv

 

[iceeater1969]

Now iv ignored

 

[takethepoints]

We were playing our 3rd string QB against UVA and Miami. If either Sims or Pyron plays the whole game we win both of those games.

Also if we played Northestern instead of Ole Miss, Temple instead of UCF, and Kansas instead of UGA, we’d probably win 8 games this year too.

We beat Duke straight up with an interim head coach, and some questionable calls late in that game is the only reason it was close. Duke is still not a good team. They’re literally worse than us (we beat them).

And 5 years from now how will people rate this team? By who they played or how many wins they had?

The wins, of course. They will probably win 7 - 8 games this year and they will have that to sell to the next Stan Jones. The whole point of scheduling to win is to make it easier to recruit athletes for the school. This will work for Puke, unfortunately. And this is also how Wake - I keep coming back to them for a reason - has been able to put together a successful program. Nobody wants to play for a team that doesn't win. It's like the old CPUK organizer that Alex Coburn once quoted. "Comrades, our members are rotting in Asian jails. They are tortured by South American dictators. Comrades, join the Communist Party!" Why? To rot in jail?

I could care less who we play as long as we win and stay in the ACC. If we can't, as some above say, bear the cost of a program that can beat Auburn, don't schedule Auburn. Doing this is vital for Tech's football future, imho.

 

[JacketOff]

And 5 years from now how will people rate this team? By who they played or how many wins they had?

The wins, of course. They will probably win 7 - 8 games this year and they will have that to sell to the next Stan Jones. The whole point of scheduling to win is to make it easier to recruit athletes for the school. This will work for Puke, unfortunately. And this is also how Wake - I keep coming back to them for a reason - has been able to put together a successful program. Nobody wants to play for a team that doesn't win. It's like the old CPUK organizer that Alex Coburn once quoted. "Comrades, our members are rotting in Asian jails. They are tortured by South American dictators. Comrades, join the Communist Party!" Why? To rot in jail?

I could care less who we play as long as we win and stay in the ACC. If we can't, as some above say, bear the cost of a program that can beat Auburn, don't schedule Auburn. Doing this is vital for Tech's football future, imho.

if other teams want to schedule 4 OOC patsies and then go 2-6 in conference but make a bowl game they’re free to do so. It’s not going to help their program or help them recruit, but by all means they can keep doing it.

But this discussion is over. It’s not about GT or the head coaching search, or even college football coordinators. Time to let it go.

 

[Longestday]

Ten years ago--2012--the only team we beat during the regular season that ended up with a winning record was UNC. We also lost to Middle Tennessee by 21. Somehow we made it to the ACC Championship game. All of which says: Play an easy schedule. We ended up 7-7 by beating a bad SoCal team in a bowl.

This year's schedule was tougher than the 2012 schedule, and we barely made a bowl in 2012 6-6 during the regular season. I'm not sure your statement is correct.

We only beat bad teams under CPJ…