IF THE UNTHINKABLE HAPPENS

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,687
Actually, they won three - the last one in 1946. Alabama also lost one and tied one. After '46 it was always Pac 10 vs. Big 10 until recently.

Part of me longs to be able to have seen football back in those days. Teams from anywhere in the country could be good though the most consistent teams were Notre Dame, Army and the Ivy League.

As I posted elsewhere Michigan State is credited with starting the modern era with speed, size and players from all over the country. The modern era had a nice run for over four decades, again with balance of power across the country. We are definitely in the post-modern period and so far the romanticism of history and tradition is being swallowed up by Wall Street types and we are down to having only 4 or 5 competitive teams, at the most. Sis-boom-bah.
 

Heisman's Ghost

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,434
Location
Albany Georgia
Ordinarily I think you have to separate college careers from pro careers because they are two different games and many times the best college players have been flops in the pros but, having said that, out of the first 8 players drafted in 1967, half played for Michigan State including the number one pick. I don’t think this was a team easily whipped.
Alabama had 9 players drafted. Michigan State would have been hard pressed to cover Ray Perkins and Dennis Homan. When Vince Lombardi was asked how it felt to have the best football team in the country after winning the Super Bowl he replied: "I don't know, we have not played Alabama yet." With all that talent, Michigan State only managed a tie against Notre Dame.
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,687
Alabama had 9 players drafted. Michigan State would have been hard pressed to cover Ray Perkins and Dennis Homan. When Vince Lombardi was asked how it felt to have the best football team in the country after winning the Super Bowl he replied: "I don't know, we have not played Alabama yet." With all that talent, Michigan State only managed a tie against Notre Dame.
I remember the Lombardi quote and loved it. And I knew Alabama had one more in the draft.

Look, I get it. The size of linemen is over-played, especially today. Back then Alabama had perhaps the smallest linemen in the country for a major college team. But even the Bear knew that the times were changing and Michigan State’s big fast linemen were the wave of the future. Michigan States players were drafted higher than Alabama’s primarily because people began to see that no matter how good your quarterback was or your receivers were you can’t count on them if your line is getting killed. Everyone criticized Notre Dame for playing for the tie but the coach defended saying we weren’t getting anywhere by the fourth quarter. Indeed, Michigan State had knocked out Hanratty, two key running backs and a top receiver during that game. Notre Dame was more like Alabama in style of play but with bigger linemen. But MSU were monsters compared to most teams and outweighed Alabama by 50 lbs on average across the line.
 

Heisman's Ghost

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,434
Location
Albany Georgia
I remember the Lombardi quote and loved it. And I knew Alabama had one more in the draft.

Look, I get it. The size of linemen is over-played, especially today. Back then Alabama had perhaps the smallest linemen in the country for a major college team. But even the Bear knew that the times were changing and Michigan State’s big fast linemen were the wave of the future. Michigan States players were drafted higher than Alabama’s primarily because people began to see that no matter how good your quarterback was or your receivers were you can’t count on them if your line is getting killed. Everyone criticized Notre Dame for playing for the tie but the coach defended saying we weren’t getting anywhere by the fourth quarter. Indeed, Michigan State had knocked out Hanratty, two key running backs and a top receiver during that game. Notre Dame was more like Alabama in style of play but with bigger linemen. But MSU were monsters compared to most teams and outweighed Alabama by 50 lbs on average across the line.
Indeed you are quite right and Nebraska who Alabama stomped in the Orange Bowl similarly had huge linemen not as fast and athletic as Bubba Smith to be sure but Stabler was renowned for his quick release and ability to read defenses. Before they could get to him the ball would have been long gone. The question should be why did Michigan State pass up an opportunity to seal the deal by playing in the Rose Bowl? As for Notre Dame, they were not anywhere near as fast as Alabama was.
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,687
Indeed you are quite right and Nebraska who Alabama stomped in the Orange Bowl similarly had huge linemen not as fast and athletic as Bubba Smith to be sure but Stabler was renowned for his quick release and ability to read defenses. Before they could get to him the ball would have been long gone. The question should be why did Michigan State pass up an opportunity to seal the deal by playing in the Rose Bowl? As for Notre Dame, they were not anywhere near as fast as Alabama was.
Glad you recognize that Nebraska and Michigan State were two entirely different animals. How Alabama would do against one would not be a predictor of success against the other.

Michigan State was prohibited from going to a bowl given the rules of the Big Ten and PAC 10 at the time and the Rose Bowl tie in.
 

JacketOff2

Banned
Messages
12
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".
I know this is an older post in an older thread, but I was apparently banned for some absurd reason when it first showed up so I couldn’t get a response out. But here it goes:

Being great both academically and athletically is nowhere near impossible or mutually exclusive. There are plenty of schools that do it: Michigan, Florida, Texas, Stanford, Notre Dame, etc. But those are just the ones you think about when it comes to football. Football is not the only sport that gets played on college campuses. Sure it’s the most profitable, but even within national media it’s far from the only one that gets attention. There are plenty of elite academic institutions that are elite in other sports because spending the money required to compete on a national level is infeasible for most schools. Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Gonzaga, Villanova, Vanderbilt, UCLA, UConn, etc. All of those schools compete for and win national championships in basketball and baseball because they want to be great athletically, but they know it’s next to impossible to do so in football.

IMO, Georgia Tech’s biggest problem with athletics isn’t a lack of investment or care, it’s investing in and caring about the wrong sport. I think most Tech fans, alumni, and administrators like to hold on to the Heisman and Bobby Dodd eras and point to the football history Tech has. But that’s ancient at this point. Since the Civil Rights movement Georgia Tech has been an elite football program for exactly 1 season, and we split a national title. The odds of getting back there are getting slimmer and slimmer. So why not increase our odds of being relevant nationally by investing in the sports we have a legitimate chance to be relevant in. Countless other schools already have laid the blueprint. Even schools that aren’t considered great academically can be great athletically if they are wise with their investments. Indiana, Purdue, Kentucky, Louisville, Baylor, Arkansas, and most recently Auburn. Auburn and Tech are historically above average athletic schools, but are surrounded by elites. Both are second fiddle in their state football wise, but one of them has committed to being the best at every other sport, while the other desperately clings to its football history. Auburn will be the #1 basketball team in the country on Monday, they’ve been to a Final Four and a College World Series since their last 10 win football season in 2017, and they went to a Women’s College World Series in 2015 and 16. They sell out a 9,000 seat arena every home game in a tiny little cow town, and Georgia Tech can barely get 4,000 people to show up in the middle of a major metropolitan area.

And for the record, 19 million people watched the Alabama vs. Georgia national championship game at full capacity this year. A 25% capacity national championship between tiny Gonzaga and midsize Baylor drew 16 million last March. You want to be relevant in sports nationally? Do it in the sports that are financially feasible for schools that aren’t massive land grant flagships. There’s no sense in wasting hundreds of millions of dollars chasing an impossible dream. Let’s get football to a solid ACC Coastal contender, and be elite in the sports we have a legitimate chance to be elite in. Too many Tech fans look at Georgia and Clemson’s success in football and pout woe is me with envy, instead of striving to kick their *** every single year in basketball and baseball like we should be doing. There’s just as much name recognition in that as there is in football. Georgia Tech used to be a national power in basketball and baseball, there’s no reason we can’t be again.
 
Last edited:

DavidStandingBear

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
259
Location
McKinney TX
I’m so sick of the obsession with UGA our fans have. I would rather us be good and beat them then gloat when they lose to others. They don’t think about Tech at all, It’s just sad. The last thing on their mind during and after that game will be the reaction of Tech fans, yet 99% of our fans will cheer harder for Bama then they did for Tech this past season.
Move away from Atlanta, then. People in the midwest. don't obsess over UGA and never heard of Ga Tech
 

CEB

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
267
I know this is an older post in an older thread, but I was apparently banned for some absurd reason when it first showed up so I couldn’t get a response out. But here it goes:

Being great both academically and athletically is nowhere near impossible or mutually exclusive. There are plenty of schools that do it: Michigan, Florida, Texas, Stanford, Notre Dame, etc. But those are just the ones you think about when it comes to football. Football is not the only sport that gets played on college campuses. Sure it’s the most profitable, but even within national media it’s far from the only one that gets attention. There are plenty of elite academic institutions that are elite in other sports because spending the money required to compete on a national level is infeasible for most schools. Duke, North Carolina, Virginia, Gonzaga, Villanova, Vanderbilt, UCLA, UConn, etc. All of those schools compete for and win national championships in basketball and baseball because they want to be great athletically, but they know it’s next to impossible to do so in football.

IMO, Georgia Tech’s biggest problem with athletics isn’t a lack of investment or care, it’s investing in and caring about the wrong sport. I think most Tech fans, alumni, and administrators like to hold on to the Heisman and Bobby Dodd eras and point to the football history Tech has. But that’s ancient at this point. Since the Civil Rights movement Georgia Tech has been an elite football program for exactly 1 season, and we split a national title. The odds of getting back there are getting slimmer and slimmer. So why not increase our odds of being relevant nationally by investing in the sports we have a legitimate chance to be relevant in. Countless other schools already have laid the blueprint. Even schools that aren’t considered great academically can be great athletically if they are wise with their investments. Indiana, Purdue, Kentucky, Louisville, Baylor, Arkansas, and most recently Auburn. Auburn and Tech are historically above average athletic schools, but are surrounded by elites. Both are second fiddle in their state football wise, but one of them has committed to being the best at every other sport, while the other desperately clings to its football history. Auburn will be the #1 basketball team in the country on Monday, they’ve been to a Final Four and a College World Series since their last 10 win football season in 2017, and they went to a Women’s College World Series in 2015 and 16. They sell out a 9,000 seat arena every home game in a tiny little cow town, and Georgia Tech can barely get 4,000 people to show up in the middle of a major metropolitan area.

And for the record, 19 million people watched the Alabama vs. Georgia national championship game at full capacity this year. A 25% capacity national championship between tiny Gonzaga and midsize Baylor drew 16 million last March. You want to be relevant in sports nationally? Do it in the sports that are financially feasible for schools that aren’t massive land grant flagships. There’s no sense in wasting hundreds of millions of dollars chasing an impossible dream. Let’s get football to a solid ACC Coastal contender, and be elite in the sports we have a legitimate chance to be elite in. Too many Tech fans look at Georgia and Clemson’s success in football and pout woe is me with envy, instead of striving to kick their *** every single year in basketball and baseball like we should be doing. There’s just as much name recognition in that as there is in football. Georgia Tech used to be a national power in basketball and baseball, there’s no reason we can’t be again.
There is a lot to unpack here... for what it’s worth, I agree that great athletics / academics are not mutually exclusive. I don’t think anyone is really arguing such, but if they are, I agree with you that it’s misguided.
Interesting points on basketball and baseball, but are we really making sacrifices here or are you saying that our fans should reassess? I agree, our fans are certainly football first but I think they will get behind success in sports like basketball and baseball.
As for football, I agree that we’re falling behind in the arms race and recent rule changes aren’t going to encourage parity. If we want to play that game, the buy in there is significantly larger.
 

HouseDivided

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
171
Move away from Atlanta, then. People in the midwest. don't obsess over UGA and never heard of Ga Tech

Or...And stay with me here....We could focus all the hate for Ugag our fans display almost daily and focus that energy on Tech. It sounds crazy I know......My family is split right down the middle with dad's side Tech, mom's side Ugag. My mom's side doesn't mention Tech at all during the year unless it's COFH week or they throw in a quick pot shot when we lose to the likes of Northern Illinois or Citadel. Conversely, my dad's side of the fam spends almost every week during football season waiting for Ugag to lose rather than watching us win. Ugag fans are giving Bama, Auburn, Tennessee and Florida fans an earful now that they've won a natty and have surpassed all those programs sans Bama on the field. They aren't bothering Tech fans. None of my Ugag friends have texted me gloating since they beat Bama. We're an afterthought to them, yet our fans always say "it's going to be unbearable if they win a natty" yet I haven't had anything thrown my way at home or the office.


/rant, get off my lawn 😄
 
Top