InsideLB
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,869
Yep, 'twould be nice to have such 'crootin' fortunes.
As for our scheme's effect on defensive 'crootin I have no opinion because I have no data.
Jimmy's and Joe's
- Thread starter Lee
- Start date
Yep, 'twould be nice to have such 'crootin' fortunes.
As for our scheme's effect on defensive 'crootin I have no opinion because I have no data.
alagold
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 3,526
- Location
- Huntsville,Al
D,
you must not be aware of an awbern GRAD in mid 80swho went on to play pro fball pleaded in court he could not support himself because he was illiterate. A GRADUATE of college!
Declinometer
Banned
- Messages
- 1,178
Yeah...and...what's your point. My point is the parents should be disgraced for allowing that to happen.
augustabuzz
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 3,404
I know a great young man who was a very good football player. He had a learning disability that inhibited his ability to read. Lucky for him, he has a good memory, but he graduated college as he was protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Declinometer
Banned
- Messages
- 1,178
There are legitimate disabilities that's for sure. He sounds like a great young man with a good support system.
MWBATL
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 6,171
I posted this on another board, but am curious to see what some of ya'll think over here...
There's been a lot of discussion about our football woes this season. This post isn't really all that new a take on it. I just think that many of the excuses are getting annoying and I am frustrated by the false sense of security these excuses bring with them...that somehow everything is just fine and this season is an aberration and we'll be back next year. Before this season began many fonts were pointing to 2016 as "the year".
Simple fact is what I see on the field is a poor football team. Not terrible, not disastrous...but certainly average *at best* and poor probably is closer to the truth.
I don't believe it's the scheme, or the coaches, and I don't believe its's the play calling (although I do believe that could be better this year, but that's for another thread and is minor compared to the real issue. We simply don't have the talent on the field to be competitive at a top level consistently.
Overall, our last 6 years have been:
2010 6-7
2011 8-5
2012 7-7
2013 7-6
2014 11-3
2015 2-5
Personally, I do NOT see that recruiting is trending upwards. Having freshmen in this class who are playing may say more about how poorly we recruited in the prior 3 seasons than it does about how well we recruited last year. Georgia Tech has firmly stablished itself as an average college football program, one that really DOES NOT successfully compete with the Florida States and Clemsons of the ACC or the Georgias of the SEC. We aren't in the lowest rung of the P-5 college world, we're not Wake Forest or Purdue. But we are Duke, UNC and Pitt. We are NOT in the top tier or (arguably) in what I would call the second tier, which to me is teams like Miami, Va. Tech and the like. We are third tier, a program that can expect to win about 20% of its games against first and second tier programs, split our games with other third tier programs, and win most of our games against everyone else.
I don't think changing coaches is the solution. I don't think changing the system is the solution. Honestly, we were pretty much the same way under Gailey. I think GT's admin has to decide if it wants to be a world class football program, or if it is satisfied being on such a low level. To change GT into a football power would require changes to majors offered, academic standards in certain parts of the program and marketing of the whole thing.
Before going 4-1 last year against top programs, we were 1-16 against them in the prior 4 seasons. This year we are 0-2 (Clemson & ND). We seem very likely to go 0-4 or (at best) 1-3 against them the rest of thus year (Va Tech, Georgia @ Miami, FSU).
We are back to what we have been the last 5 years, this is (unfortunately) the norm for GT football. One season, maybe two where we can compete with the big boys, then 4 or 5 years where we simply cannot. Recruiting is the issue, and I doubt that changes without some major changes. It would take years to build this program up to where it could successfully compete with the power programs.
The real problem is this...if GT does NOT make some real changes, this program will go the way of GT basketball, where frankly mismanagement has all but killed a once proud and distinguished program. I fear it will take at least 5 yeas of major changes to get GT to be a more consistent football program. Until then, we risk a slow slide into the kind of obscurity now occupied by the likes of Tulane (or Miami, to be honest, although Miami still is better than we are). Fan base and revenue will slowly slide down, perking up when we have a good season, but then resuming its death march downwards when we return to normal.
Will the Administration decide to do what's necessary? Will this fan base demand it do so?
Dave Braine was right. The real question is whether we all think that's OK.
There's been a lot of discussion about our football woes this season. This post isn't really all that new a take on it. I just think that many of the excuses are getting annoying and I am frustrated by the false sense of security these excuses bring with them...that somehow everything is just fine and this season is an aberration and we'll be back next year. Before this season began many fonts were pointing to 2016 as "the year".
Simple fact is what I see on the field is a poor football team. Not terrible, not disastrous...but certainly average *at best* and poor probably is closer to the truth.
I don't believe it's the scheme, or the coaches, and I don't believe its's the play calling (although I do believe that could be better this year, but that's for another thread and is minor compared to the real issue. We simply don't have the talent on the field to be competitive at a top level consistently.
Overall, our last 6 years have been:
2010 6-7
2011 8-5
2012 7-7
2013 7-6
2014 11-3
2015 2-5
Personally, I do NOT see that recruiting is trending upwards. Having freshmen in this class who are playing may say more about how poorly we recruited in the prior 3 seasons than it does about how well we recruited last year. Georgia Tech has firmly stablished itself as an average college football program, one that really DOES NOT successfully compete with the Florida States and Clemsons of the ACC or the Georgias of the SEC. We aren't in the lowest rung of the P-5 college world, we're not Wake Forest or Purdue. But we are Duke, UNC and Pitt. We are NOT in the top tier or (arguably) in what I would call the second tier, which to me is teams like Miami, Va. Tech and the like. We are third tier, a program that can expect to win about 20% of its games against first and second tier programs, split our games with other third tier programs, and win most of our games against everyone else.
I don't think changing coaches is the solution. I don't think changing the system is the solution. Honestly, we were pretty much the same way under Gailey. I think GT's admin has to decide if it wants to be a world class football program, or if it is satisfied being on such a low level. To change GT into a football power would require changes to majors offered, academic standards in certain parts of the program and marketing of the whole thing.
Before going 4-1 last year against top programs, we were 1-16 against them in the prior 4 seasons. This year we are 0-2 (Clemson & ND). We seem very likely to go 0-4 or (at best) 1-3 against them the rest of thus year (Va Tech, Georgia @ Miami, FSU).
We are back to what we have been the last 5 years, this is (unfortunately) the norm for GT football. One season, maybe two where we can compete with the big boys, then 4 or 5 years where we simply cannot. Recruiting is the issue, and I doubt that changes without some major changes. It would take years to build this program up to where it could successfully compete with the power programs.
The real problem is this...if GT does NOT make some real changes, this program will go the way of GT basketball, where frankly mismanagement has all but killed a once proud and distinguished program. I fear it will take at least 5 yeas of major changes to get GT to be a more consistent football program. Until then, we risk a slow slide into the kind of obscurity now occupied by the likes of Tulane (or Miami, to be honest, although Miami still is better than we are). Fan base and revenue will slowly slide down, perking up when we have a good season, but then resuming its death march downwards when we return to normal.
Will the Administration decide to do what's necessary? Will this fan base demand it do so?
Dave Braine was right. The real question is whether we all think that's OK.
JorgeJonas
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,147
The issues are not complex. If you are not one of the schools that recruits top ten or fifteen classes every year, you will end up playing a lot of one possession games. And if you play one possession games, you will, over a broad enough sample, lose about half of them. I posted this yesterday, but we are 0-3 in one score games so far this year. Alabama, by way of example, has played a total of 28 one possession games since Saban has been there. He's 14-14 in them. Johnson has been here one year less but he's played 41 one score games. He's 20-21 in them. If you want to be upwardly mobile in college football, you have to play fewer one possession games. The only way to do that is improve your own talent while others stay constant, or reduce the level of competition. Otherwise you have to be comfortable with the fact that there will be years like this. End of discussion.
LibertyTurns
Banned
- Messages
- 6,216
So you've written off the FSU, Miami, VT and Mutt games already?????? I'm sure you're aware that none of those Teams have won a big game yet, save maybe FSU that beat a 4-2 Miami team that has beaten nobody with a winning record except for Bethune Cookman. Mutt's signature win is a 4-3 Mizzou team. They clearly have a strong resume. VT is 3-4 but they have beaten a scrappy 4-2 NC St squad who's signature win is knocking off a 4-2 Eastern Kentucky team along with Troy, ODU & South Ala.
I can see why you've thrown the towel in. We clearly cannot compete at those levels.
I can see why you've thrown the towel in. We clearly cannot compete at those levels.
LongforDodd
LatinxBreakfastTacos
- Messages
- 3,037
I'm not afraid of my degree being watered down. nobody outside of us gives a **** if we might offer degrees similar to what the other schools offer who are held in high regard and some are held in higher regard.
MacDaddy2
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 316
- Location
- The Island of Relevancy
This is exactly the problem with our fan base. Does anyone here really think that a jock major or two at Stanford or Notre Dame waters down the other degrees. For God's sake people, you claim to be a smart bunch, start acting like it.
MacDaddy2
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 316
- Location
- The Island of Relevancy
pat, so you are saying the Stanford engineering degrees are worthless?
FatPat
Jolly Good Fellow
- Messages
- 174
Not going to argue with you Mcdaddy,
But, I want to cheer for the kid that pays for his crab legs and doesn't deposit his check twice or steal a players laptop. I want to cheer for the player that comes wanting an education because he can play football and not play football to be given an education.
But, I want to cheer for the kid that pays for his crab legs and doesn't deposit his check twice or steal a players laptop. I want to cheer for the player that comes wanting an education because he can play football and not play football to be given an education.
Whiskey_Clear
Banned
- Messages
- 10,486
Tech isn't even in control of adding new schools and majors guys. The state board of regents is. I'm just a dumb sidewalk fan but know this to be true.
ATL1
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 7,377
B Lifsey
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,379
- Location
- Barnesville, Georgia
BOR has final approval but the institution has to build case and make request.
I agree with this. There are a half a dozen things we can do before cirriculum to get a bigger pool of kids we can offer and help recruiting that either the AA can control or the president and ad can tweak without external beaurocratic oversight.
Up to now some of it has happened. Some still hasn't. Some that has happened hasn't yet gone to the extent we need it.