When I watch UVA games and they show Bronco on the sidelines he almost looks like he’s emotionally divorced from whats going on around him, like he’s an observer watching a sociological experiment from afar instead of a head fb coach.
Great post. Those of us that have been GT fans longer through the tenures of Ross, O'Leary, Curry, Gailey, Johnson, etc have seen this all play out before. It will either work out or it won't. Time will tell.I think all football fans are sort of the same, honestly.
I was thinking about this exact thing over the last 20 minutes or so.
There is some psychology at play (and, I'm not a psychologist, so apologies in advance if this is stupid). Basically, there are VERY few people who are going to outperform the mean, even at this level.
Football x's and o's are largely a "solved game" to use language you guys like. There are very few scheme surprises. There are uncommon things, of course, but the "Best" things are largely known. That's why everybody largely runs the same stuff. Recruiting is less so, but still largely so. There is a "recipe" for recruiting, and it's the rare guy who can significantly outperform the baseline level of competence at any given school.
What this means is that the OVERWHELMING majority of time...(forgive me)...."It is what it is". Given a large enough sample size, most schools are going to be what they're going to be. Guys good enough to outperform the school are going to advance. Guys not good enough to achieve the "mean competence" of the conference are going to get fired.
With that in mind, what differentiates coaches at a school is LARGELY 1) Variance, and 2) Style. What it's largely NOT is 3) Results.
This is where the psychology comes in. A coach that goes 9-3 one season and 3-9 the next is ALWAYS going to get a longer rope than a coach that consistently goes 7-5. Why? Over time it's the same, right? It's because we're human beings and we have something called hedonic adaptation. Additionally, the 9-3 season allows us to hope "hey, maybe we're onto something here, maybe we've turned a corner. Maybe this is the new normal". It's not, obviously, but the point of fandom is to have fun, and that's fun to imagine. The 7-5 coach doesn't allow us to have that belief. Chan Gailey and Paul Johnson. Which was more fun? To me, OBVIOUSLY Paul Johnson on the variance front, though you could ABSOLUTELY make an argument that over time he's no better a results guy than Chan Gailey. (I'm not sure I agree, but you get the point). So, that's variance.
Second is style. So if we're going to accept that "over any 10 year period, GT will average 7-5 per year" (roll with me here), then the question becomes "am I going to have fun watching those 70 wins and 50 losses or am I not going to have fun?". I'm going to watch 70 wins and 50 losses, I (grudgingly) acknowledge that, so that given those constraints, are those 300 hours best spent watching GT football, or would I prefer to have a mowed lawn, or have gone to the gym 120 times, or whatever? So what is fun? Well, that's different for different people. Geoff Collins is not fun for me. I wouldn't spend my time watching those games. Bronco Mendenhall is not fun for me. I watch MUCH less UVa football than I used to. Paul Johnson is fun. Mike Leach is fun. Jamie Chadwell is fun.
But that's me.
To some people Geoff Collins is super fun! Some people find the rah-rah cheerleading and the schtick. TO ME, he's a high-bullsh!1 guy. To somebody else, he's a passionate, high energy guy who loves GT and will do whatever it takes to win. To each their own.
So, with those two factors, you take the coach, and you take the collective personality of the fanbase, and you see how long a coach is there.
Are there exceptions? Of course. Dave Clawson appears to be able to outperform, and appears to want to stay at Wake. In that situation they build a statue for him in 20 years (unless the hedonic adaptation takes over, and they start getting above their raisin).
But exceptions are exceptions for a reason, they're not the norm, so you can hope for exceptions, but not be crushed when you get the norm.
I think most fans get that (underneath it all). Sure there are dummies, and people in their 20's and this and that, but we're mostly all grown-ups, here. I think the whole "think we're alabama on saturdays" is kinda largely a function of the fact that we're on a college football message board. We have self-selected for being the most dedicated, interested people about GT football on earth. We're choosing to spend our Thursday afternoon talking about it. We're probably the 1000 most interested people on the planet. On any given topic, the 1000 most interested humans are going to be VERY interested.
Sorry for War and Peace, but I guess my point is, "on message boards, yes, we're all the same. In real life, none of us are like that" . If it's fun, we're fine. If it's not, we're not.
At least, that what I think.
Well, eventually it won't, one way or another.
Nice take on the mean.I think all football fans are sort of the same, honestly.
I was thinking about this exact thing over the last 20 minutes or so.
There is some psychology at play (and, I'm not a psychologist, so apologies in advance if this is stupid). Basically, there are VERY few people who are going to outperform the mean, even at this level.
Football x's and o's are largely a "solved game" to use language you guys like
What this means is that the OVERWHELMING majority of time...(forgive me)...."It is what it is". Given a large enough sample size, most schools are going to be what they're going to be. Guys good enough to outperform the school are going to advance. Guys not good enough to achieve the "mean competence" of the conference are going to get fired.
With that in mind, what differentiates coaches at a school is LARGELY 1) Variance, and 2) Style. What it's largely NOT is 3) Results.
This is where the psychology comes in. A coach that goes 9-3 one season and 3-9 the next is ALWAYS going to get a longer rope than a coach that consistently goes 7-5. Why? Over time it's the same, right? It's because we're human beings and we have something called hedonic adaptation. Additionally, the 9-3 season allows us to hope "hey, maybe we're onto something here, maybe we've turned a corner. Maybe this is the new normal". It's not, obviously, but the point of fandom is to have fun, and that's fun to imagine. The 7-5 coach doesn't allow us to have that belief. Chan Gailey and Paul Johnson. Which was more fun? To me, OBVIOUSLY Paul Johnson on the variance front, though you could ABSOLUTELY make an argument that over time he's no better a results guy than Chan Gailey. (I'm not sure I agree, but you get the point). So, that's variance.
Second is style. So if we're going to accept that "over any 10 year period, GT will average 7-5 per year" (roll with me here), then the question becomes "am I going to have fun watching those 70 wins and 50 losses or am I not going to have fun?". I'm going to watch 70 wins and 50 losses, I (grudgingly) acknowledge that, so that given those constraints, are those 300 hours best spent watching GT football, or would I prefer to have a mowed lawn, or have gone to the gym 120 times, or whatever? So what is fun? Well, that's different for different people. Geoff Collins is not fun for me. I wouldn't spend my time watching those games. Bronco Mendenhall is not fun for me. I watch MUCH less UVa football than I used to. Paul Johnson is fun. Mike Leach is fun. Jamie Chadwell is fun.
But that's me.
To some people Geoff Collins is super fun! Some people find the rah-rah cheerleading and the schtick. TO ME, he's a high-bullsh!1 guy. To somebody else, he's a passionate, high energy guy who loves GT and will do whatever it takes to win. To each their own.
So, with those two factors, you take the coach, and you take the collective personality of the fanbase, and you see how long a coach is there.
Are there exceptions? Of course. Dave Clawson appears to be able to outperform, and appears to want to stay at Wake. In that situation they build a statue for him in 20 years (unless the hedonic adaptation takes over, and they start getting above their raisin).
But exceptions are exceptions for a reason, they're not the norm, so you can hope for exceptions, but not be crushed when you get the norm.
I think most fans get that (underneath it all). Sure there are dummies, and people in their 20's and this and that, but we're mostly all grown-ups, here. I think the whole "think we're alabama on saturdays" is kinda largely a function of the fact that we're on a college football message board. We have self-selected for being the most dedicated, interested people about GT football on earth. We're choosing to spend our Thursday afternoon talking about it. We're probably the 1000 most interested people on the planet. On any given topic, the 1000 most interested humans are going to be VERY interested.
Sorry for War and Peace, but I guess my point is, "on message boards, yes, we're all the same. In real life, none of us are like that" . If it's fun, we're fine. If it's not, we're not.
At least, that what I think.
The score was only 18-18 in the 9th OT. That’s insane.
Starting with the 3rd OT, it's basically a 2-pt play shootout.
Sorry I missed the original post by ilovetheoption. It was indeed a great post. And one more reason I loved CPJ is that given the 7-5 mean at Tech for all coaches the realistic hope is less about having regular 9 or 10 win seasons and more about having that glorious upset. As we see now with Army, with the flex bone there is always a chance it seems to punch above your weight or be competitive in a game no one gave you a chance at.
I miss the days of having a chance to pull off an upset. I guess we did that with UNC, but it sure doesn't feel like it does it? It feels like we've been mired in "no chance" for so long it's becoming accepted even though it has only been 3 years since we had a chance. We supposedly have much better players, but our performance is so much worse. Baffling, frustrating, infuriating. Homecoming was a game changer for me. It was a dismal day, but before I even arrived I dreaded the outcome. I'm glad it was a nooner because I would have watched the Braves instead. My friends could only talk about whether or not we'd pull the trigger this year or next or the year after that. Have not seen it like this since Gailey, it's almost as if they prefer us to lose to get it over with & a victory has somehow become an unwelcome prospect. Sad days around our football team right now. Just sad.
The only upsets are of teams that should not have been ranked to begin with.....is it an upset now to beat Clemp?
Depends who you are. GT, yes. Pitt, Wake, etc no. The players look beaten down, maybe demoralized. I've only been on 1 losing team my entire life and I hated every single minute of it. My friends and I decided at the end of the year when the more experienced, sorry asses playing in front of us were gone that we'd embarrass the crap out of them by winning the league championship the next year. We came within one game of doing just that. Bunch of rag tag looking, gritty, no quit players we were. None of us looked the part and had none of the "measurables", but what we did have was the right kind of winning attitude- the kind that makes you practice 30 more minutes every day, gets you up at 6am for a morning run & puts in the extra workout, etc. We also figured out how to win, game planned to our strengths not our weaknesses. I just don't see that at GT right now. That's what has me down. Right now we're that team you're just going to thump when you've got a nasty losing streak going. I hate that feeling.