IF THE UNTHINKABLE HAPPENS

HouseDivided

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
176
Consensus national titles are not overplayedTV.

I'd argue, a title that is now over 100 years old, being used as smack talk is overplayed. That makes us look desperate having to go back that far.

Just my opinion though. I loved rubbing 1990 in their faces for the last 4 decades
 

HouseDivided

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
176
Go sit in the corner.

1917
1928
1952
1990
All day long proud that we had the best team in the land those years!

Why would I sit in the corner? I'm proud of all of our titles. The fact 3 of them are absolutely irrelevant in 2022 and closer to the Civil War and both World Wars than current times, while the 4th has now been surpassed by those twats beating Bama is even more annoying. We can use logic while discussing said 4 titles.
 

flea77

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
913
What have you done for me lately. No one cares what happened last year. Even UGA's Natty , will be short lived If they lose 5 games next year. GT used to be competitive. GT could compete w anyone in the country. 2015 they won 3 games, but were one possession from winning all of them except Clemson. GT right now is not competitive at the D1 power 5 level. Its embarrassing . The Collins hype 404 train is in year 4. It does not seem to be working. So instead of worrying about what is going on in Athens, what in the heck is going to change to get GT back to a respectable program ? I see it from both sides. Im pulling for GT , with both Sons being GT grads. Basically no one who is a Ga fan gives a crap about GT. They just look at the game as a great way to watch a UGA game in Atlanta every other year. GT needs to concentrate on GT and not worry about what going on in Athens.
 

gtie73

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
305
Location
Marietta
What have you done for me lately. No one cares what happened last year. Even UGA's Natty , will be short lived If they lose 5 games next year. GT used to be competitive. GT could compete w anyone in the country. 2015 they won 3 games, but were one possession from winning all of them except Clemson. GT right now is not competitive at the D1 power 5 level. Its embarrassing . The Collins hype 404 train is in year 4. It does not seem to be working. So instead of worrying about what is going on in Athens, what in the heck is going to change to get GT back to a respectable program ? I see it from both sides. Im pulling for GT , with both Sons being GT grads. Basically no one who is a Ga fan gives a crap about GT. They just look at the game as a great way to watch a UGA game in Atlanta every other year. GT needs to concentrate on GT and not worry about what going on in Athens.
Great advice!
 

Heisman's Ghost

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,468
Location
Albany Georgia
I'd argue, a title that is now over 100 years old, being used as smack talk is overplayed. That makes us look desperate having to go back that far.

Just my opinion though. I loved rubbing 1990 in their faces for the last 4 decades
Heisman was the coach in 1917. More than one consensus All American on that team. 222-0 against Cumberland setting a record that will last forever. Nope, not "overplayed" in the least.
 

4shotB

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
3,634
So instead of worrying about what is going on in Athens, what in the heck is going to change to get GT back to a respectable program ? I see it from both sides. Im pulling for GT , with both Sons being GT grads.

I think, at the end of the day, nothing will change. Yeah, we will replace the coach. and the next guy will get us back to the CPJ/CCG levels. It will be exciting for 2-3 years as it will be a respite from the 3 win seasons. But we will hit the ceiling that just naturally exists because our school is just not really into it at the end of the day. The next coach will get stale after his 6-7 years and we will replace coaches. Again. That's 8-10 years into the future. Us older fans have figured this out. The smaller % of younger fans who are, by nature, more optimistic will get there too as they are not as emotionally invested as us old guys. By then you can get into BDS for free as the game will be on a network that does not yet exist and the revenue produced from selling 100 hot dogs and cokes will be better than 0. I wish I felt differently but I believe we do not have the instituitonal desire or will to be excellent in this environment.

Uga approaches things differently and finally reaped the rewards of going all in on the sport. I honestly cannot begrudge them that. They invested, went all in and got the return from it. We could too...but we won't. How do I know this? experience.
 

JacketFan137

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,094
I think, at the end of the day, nothing will change. Yeah, we will replace the coach. and the next guy will get us back to the CPJ/CCG levels. It will be exciting for 2-3 years as it will be a respite from the 3 win seasons. But we will hit the ceiling that just naturally exists because our school is just not really into it at the end of the day. The next coach will get stale after his 6-7 years and we will replace coaches. Again. That's 8-10 years into the future. Us older fans have figured this out. The smaller % of younger fans who are, by nature, more optimistic will get there too as they are not as emotionally invested as us old guys. By then you can get into BDS for free as the game will be on a network that does not yet exist and the revenue produced from selling 100 hot dogs and cokes will be better than 0. I wish I felt differently but I believe we do not have the instituitonal desire or will to be excellent in this environment.

Uga approaches things differently and finally reaped the rewards of going all in on the sport. I honestly cannot begrudge them that. They invested, went all in and got the return from it. We could too...but we won't. How do I know this? experience.
to be fair this cycle you’ve described represents the vast majority of college football teams the last 2 decades.

very few teams have had sustained success for longer than a decade. pretty much bama, ohio state, oklahoma and clemson are the only ones with long term consistent success. the rest of them have kinda popped in and out like LSU, USC, florida, oregon, texas, etc

i do agree with the investment part. there is a lot of money to be made but college football takes money to make money. so for an already mediocre team for the better part of a decade across multiple coaches, it’s a tough sell to people that already don’t give a damn about athletics to spend MORE money on it
 

4shotB

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
3,634
to be fair this cycle you’ve described represents the vast majority of college football teams the last 2 decades.

very few teams have had sustained success for longer than a decade. pretty much bama, ohio state, oklahoma and clemson are the only ones with long term consistent success. the rest of them have kinda popped in and out like LSU, USC, florida, oregon, texas, etc

i do agree with the investment part. there is a lot of money to be made but college football takes money to make money. so for an already mediocre team for the better part of a decade across multiple coaches, it’s a tough sell to people that already don’t give a damn about athletics to spend MORE money on it

Yes. That is fair. It's ironic for me....the money is now insane. What we (and 90%) of other programs spend to be more or less middle of the pack or worse is untenable. I don't want to see us spend a $6MM per year salary on our next coach who hopefully wins 7 games a year. To become a WFOMOS (who remebers what this even means?). Or Kentucky or South Carolina or Miss. State or Texas Tech or UCLA or Kansas State. I'd rather step up and be a big boy or pay some guy $200k a year to compete in a league with Tulane, Duke, N'western, Wake Forest, Stanford and the like.

To put it in simpler terms, Gt became great in academics because it was a priority. In my vision, we could and should set out to prove it is impossible to be great at both...academics AND athletics. This world believes these are mutually exclusive but I would like like for us to prove otherwise. (Note: I am not willing to lower academic standards to win FB games). I know the classic rebuttal is to mention how well our badminton, cricket, synchronized swimming or volleyball teams do but I think we may do well there because other schools do not see the financial return in investing in those sports. If they made $ at the level of FB, would we still then excel? I would argue "no".
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,749
Here is what I hope we don’t lose sight of. The investment uga made in football will pay off for them in bigger ways than just the athletic department. Everybody in the state knowing who they are because of football means an ever increasing number of students applying which increases the selectivity, raising academic standards, as well as increasing the number of alums who will make donations to various schools within the university. The ripple of this investment is incalculably large.
 

4shotB

Helluva Engineer
Retired Staff
Messages
3,634
Here is what I hope we don’t lose sight of. The investment uga made in football will pay off for them in bigger ways than just the athletic department. Everybody in the state knowing who they are because of football means an ever increasing number of students applying which increases the selectivity, raising academic standards, as well as increasing the number of alums who will make donations to various schools within the university. The ripple of this investment is incalculably large.

I agree. Alabama has seen the same thing. I teach at a school that sends kids to the best schools in the world. This will not be well received here but to HS kids here, the tier one schools might include the Ivy league plus a few others (MIT, CalTech). Tier 2 would include GT, Duke, Stanford, etc. Tier 3 is Uva, Michigan, Wake, UNC, Uga and UT (Austin). High school kids now (you can believe it or not) are thrilled to get accepted into these tier 3 schools but I talk to them daily on this topic. We have to change our paradigm...athletics and academics are NOT mutually exclusive. If we don't we will ultimately go the way of Rice, Tulane and Suwanee,
 

SteamWhistle

I just want a Bowl Game
Messages
4,253
Location
Rome, GA
I’m sorry but nothing before the BCS era holds any weight to me today. Bragging about Football pre BCS is one thing but bragging about football played during segregation is just laughable. That stuff is ancient history, appreciating it is one thing, but using is to say “4 > 3” to a UGA fan is just down right ridiculous.
 

CEB

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
361
I’m sorry but nothing before the BCS era holds any weight to me today. Bragging about Football pre BCS is one thing but bragging about football played during segregation is just laughable. That stuff is ancient history, appreciating it is one thing, but using is to say “4 > 3” to a UGA fan is just down right ridiculous.
I completely agree and disagree with you!
I think this position is probably pretty popular among today’s college football fans. Before BCS or maybe even the playoff, they don’t care. In that since, I agree.
I’m not sure what segregation has to do with anything.... aside from the fact that when civil rights movement was at the forefront and desegregation was beginning, it was about the same time where people started going to college TO play football as opposed to going to college AND ALSO playing football. Prior to ‘50s / ‘60s there was a lot of talent (white and black) who didn’t see the college game because college wasn’t in the cards and football didn’t pay.
If you really want to talk about a “modern era” of college football, I’d say your mark is the late 60s or early 70s when college football started to draw kids into colleges primarily to play football.
At any rate, I still think it’s incredibly short sighted to put a line in the sand with the BCS. Why discount what teams like Michigan, Notre Dame, USC or even Princeton or Yale achieved just because they haven’t done it in the last 20 years?
 
Top