IF CPJ sticks around for a while, this is one of the reasons

[00Burdell]

“Truthfully, I’m not sure some of the coaches even knew there was that much of a disparity because if it isn’t affecting you, (you don’t notice),” Johnson said. “But I think Todd did a nice job presenting it to the athletic directors, and they were really the ones who pushed it through.”

This is in reference to so many ACC schools having "unscheduled, random, luck-of-the-draw" open dates before they play GT.

Stansbury, in an act of political savvy, put forth a motion to the ACC coaches/ADs that they couldn't possibly vote against: "No school can have more than one game per season against a conference opponent who has an open date immediately before that game."

So thanks Todd for putting an end to the madness of us playing 3 games per season against teams with open dates before their game against us. So simple, so brilliant (politically) and so stunning that it took this long.

With support like this, CPJ will stick around as long as he feels like he can compete on a level playing field with his conference brethren.

Nice move, Todd - seriously.

 

[33jacket]

glad he is doing his job. What an amazing expectation to have. Just do your job.

 

[GT_Dre27]

If we are so "inferior" talent wise to so many opposing fans, why is it that teams intentionally scheduled open dates prior to playing us in the past?
I'm glad to see the playing field being systematically levelled.

 

[AE 87]

Doesn't matter. Now everyone's FCS opponent will be the week before us.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

If we are so "inferior" talent wise to so many opposing fans, why is it that teams intentionally scheduled open dates prior to playing us in the past?
I'm glad to see the playing field being systematically levelled.

because we "cheat" and run a "gimmick"

 

[lv20gt]

If we are so "inferior" talent wise to so many opposing fans, why is it that teams intentionally scheduled open dates prior to playing us in the past?
I'm glad to see the playing field being systematically levelled.

They don't. It's called having a persecution complex. This year we have one game where the opponent has extra time and we don't. That is Clemson. And you think Clemosn choose that instead of before @Vt coming off of games vs Aub, @ UL, and vs BC? Or before playing FSU? Or what, that wake would rather want extra time for GT, and not extra time for @Clemson after playing FSU? Think VT is happy about playing literally every coastal team back to back with no extra time for any but the first? Think UNC is happy about playing Duke, @GT, ND, UVA, @VT, and Miami back to back with getting no breaks while having extra time for WCU? UL has their bye week before UVA and their other extra time comes before BC. FSU has a bye before Duke. People will find new things to claim the conference is after us.


The bigger issue is playing on Thursdays because it basically guarantees a situation where one team has more time than the other the following week, and also pretty much locks in the bye week because it's either that or playing on 5 days rest.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

They don't. It's called having a persecution complex. This year we have one game where the opponent has extra time and we don't. That is Clemson. And you think Clemosn choose that instead of before @Vt coming off of games vs Aub, @ UL, and vs BC? Or before playing FSU? Or what, that wake would rather want extra time for GT, and not extra time for @Clemson after playing FSU? Think VT is happy about playing literally every coastal team back to back with no extra time for any but the first? Think UNC is happy about playing Duke, @GT, ND, UVA, @VT, and Miami back to back with getting no breaks while having extra time for WCU? UL has their bye week before UVA and their other extra time comes before BC. FSU has a bye before Duke. People will find new things to claim the conference is after us.


The bigger issue is playing on Thursdays because it basically guarantees a situation where one team has more time than the other the following week, and also pretty much locks in the bye week because it's either that or playing on 5 days rest.

it wasn't just "after us" it was GT, VT, and FSU that were affected more than any other team.

 

[augustabuzz]

They don't. It's called having a persecution complex. This year we have one game where the opponent has extra time and we don't. That is Clemson. .
.

And Wake Forest.

 

[lv20gt]

And Wake Forest.

We have extra time for Wake.

 

[BonafideJacket]

They don't. It's called having a persecution complex. This year we have one game where the opponent has extra time and we don't. That is Clemson. And you think Clemosn choose that instead of before @Vt coming off of games vs Aub, @ UL, and vs BC? Or before playing FSU? Or what, that wake would rather want extra time for GT, and not extra time for @Clemson after playing FSU? Think VT is happy about playing literally every coastal team back to back with no extra time for any but the first? Think UNC is happy about playing Duke, @GT, ND, UVA, @VT, and Miami back to back with getting no breaks while having extra time for WCU? UL has their bye week before UVA and their other extra time comes before BC. FSU has a bye before Duke. People will find new things to claim the conference is after us.


The bigger issue is playing on Thursdays because it basically guarantees a situation where one team has more time than the other the following week, and also pretty much locks in the bye week because it's either that or playing on 5 days rest.

Oh really? GT is the only school with at least one conference opponent coming off a bye every single year since 2008.

I for one am thankful that Stansbury looked at the facts and did something about it rather than worrying about whether GT has a "persecution complex."

 

[lv20gt]

Oh really? GT is the only school with at least one conference opponent coming off a bye every single year since 2008.


I for one am thankful that Stansbury looked at the facts and did something about it rather than worrying about whether GT has a "persecution complex."

And we almost always have a thursday game, which is almost always preceded by a bye week. So no duh we'll probably play a team coming off a bye week every year. I already pointed out that was the bigger issue. There is also the issue that we want the UGA game last, which means we're more likely to play teams coming off bye weeks than teams who play an in conference team last, because teams don't want bye weeks after game 11 usually. Oh look at that VT, who plays a lot of thursday games, and Clemson and FSU, who have last game OOCs every year are all at the top as well. So if we want to continue to play UGA last because of tradition and play on Thursday nights because of exposure, fine, but those two things come at a cost, and that is increased odds of playing teams coming off a bye.

And very little is going to change with this rule changes because the rule is no more than one game against a team coming off a bye when we didn't. The rule change would affect this year. It wouldn't affect last year, or 2015, 2014, or 2013. It'd affect 2012 when both UNC and Duke came off byes, and we won both games by 18 points. It wouldn't affect us in 2011, 2010, 2009, or 2008. That's right. The rule change would have impacted exactly one past year under Johnson, and that year we won both games against teams coming off byes that year. Of course, even a passing glance at that graph would show that based on results on the field that this "problem" isn't really a problem. And the "solution" doesn't actually change much. So what exactly did Standbury accomplish?

 

[augustabuzz]

It would effect this year as either Clemson or Wake would not have a bye.

 

[augustabuzz]

We have extra time for Wake.

Are you sure we don't play Miami the week before Wake?

 

[RonJohn]

In 2016, we had Miami, Duke, and UNC off of byes. We had a bye before Duke, so that leaves two byes before us without a bye, so 2016 WOULD have been affected.

Bye the way, we lost BOTH of those games.

 

[RonJohn]

Are you sure we don't play Miami the week before Wake?

He is saying that 9 days because of the Thursday night game is the same thing as 14 days. I guess 5 extra days doesn't count.

 

[augustabuzz]

He is saying that 9 days because of the Thursday night game is the same thing as 14 days. I guess 5 extra days doesn't count.

Ok, but I don't think the ACC would see it that way anymore than Clemson's de facto bye last year before playing at Tech.

 

[lv20gt]

Are you sure we don't play Miami the week before Wake?

I said extra time. The thursday games force one team to have more time than the other in the following game. Either we get 9 to their 7 or they get 14 to our 9. That was why I said "The bigger issue is playing on Thursdays because it basically guarantees a situation where one team has more time than the other the following week".

In 2016, we had Miami, Duke, and UNC off of byes. We had a bye before Duke, so that leaves two byes before us without a bye, so 2016 WOULD have been affected.

Bye the way, we lost BOTH of those games.

My mistake. But do you want to try and argue that it was the bye week that made those teams win lol?

 

[RonJohn]

My mistake. But do you want to try and argue that it was the bye week that made those teams win lol?

I would. UNC was definitely more rested than we were. In the Miami game, there were two fumble sixes that probably would not have occurred if JT had had time to rest and recuperate.

I wouldn't say that it was the only reason, but it definitely was a factor in both of those games. I don't understand how anyone could argue that any disadvantage, large or small, applied disproportionately has zero effect. If there is even a 5% difference in how banged up players are, it could change the game. If we played Miami off of a bye when they didn't have one last year, it is possible that the defensive players would have been a little slower, and JT a little faster. He might have juked around them and run for a touchdown on those two plays. That would have made it 35-21 in favor of GT. Once again, I am not saying that that would have happened, but it is crazy to think that GT playing banged up while the other team has had time to recuperate has absolutely no impact on the game.

 

[BonafideJacket]

And we almost always have a thursday game, which is almost always preceded by a bye week. So no duh we'll probably play a team coming off a bye week every year. I already pointed out that was the bigger issue. There is also the issue that we want the UGA game last, which means we're more likely to play teams coming off bye weeks than teams who play an in conference team last, because teams don't want bye weeks after game 11 usually. Oh look at that VT, who plays a lot of thursday games, and Clemson and FSU, who have last game OOCs every year are all at the top as well. So if we want to continue to play UGA last because of tradition and play on Thursday nights because of exposure, fine, but those two things come at a cost, and that is increased odds of playing teams coming off a bye.

And very little is going to change with this rule changes because the rule is no more than one game against a team coming off a bye when we didn't. The rule change would affect this year. It wouldn't affect last year, or 2015, 2014, or 2013. It'd affect 2012 when both UNC and Duke came off byes, and we won both games by 18 points. It wouldn't affect us in 2011, 2010, 2009, or 2008. That's right. The rule change would have impacted exactly one past year under Johnson, and that year we won both games against teams coming off byes that year. Of course, even a passing glance at that graph would show that based on results on the field that this "problem" isn't really a problem. And the "solution" doesn't actually change much. So what exactly did Standbury accomplish?

Since we've established that the rule would have changed at least 2012, 2016, and 2017, I'd say he's accomplished at least a 30% change going forward based on the data from the past decade. Much higher if you want to narrow the timeframe we're looking at to the past 5/6 years - which might make sense given the uptick in this issue recently. It may be that schools have recently learned how to play this scheduling game. Either way, Stansbury's advocacy has prevented it from continuing to happen.

 

[PBR549]

I said extra time. The thursday games force one team to have more time than the other in the following game. Either we get 9 to their 7 or they get 14 to our 9. That was why I said "The bigger issue is playing on Thursdays because it basically guarantees a situation where one team has more time than the other the following week".




My mistake. But do you want to try and argue that it was the bye week that made those teams win lol?

I would say we were at a disadvantage sure. No lol!