Opening Lines Out

[dressedcheeseside]

It did occur to me, belatedly, that GT itself benefited from two very bad -- bad as in epic making -- throwing decisions by the VT QB. I didn't fault Beamer for throwing in the last couple of minutes to try to win and avoid overtime -- I wouldn't want to play an option offense from 25 yards out in OT, either -- but boy was that a bad throw. There's ying and yang and at the end a dozen things that coulda, shudda or wouda happened, but either did or didn't. Generally but not always the best team wins after 60 minutes, and the dark years we won 6 or 7 games, well, our team wasn't good enough to do better. But otherwise, if we coulda, so to speak, we wouda. (Had Butker missed that late FG against Georgia, then in my opinion the best team would have lost. I would make that exception.) But I would like to have a comfortable win against VT. That would be different, wouldn't it?

We've lost so many games by the skin of our teeth over the last few years, it's only the odds evening out. It's still not close to even, imo.

 

[Skeptic]

We've lost so many games by the skin of our teeth over the last few years, it's only the odds evening out. It's still not close to even, imo.

Wouldn't disagree at all we've lost close games late, but there is a reason one loses a close game late or throws picks in the end zone. Just as there was a reason we won them last season. It's not the Gods of Football or Dame Fortune or catching the odds, and that is hard to reconcile. We weren't good enough to win the ones we lost; we were good enough to win the games we won. Moreover, we believed we were good enough. I am just not a believer in odds "evening out" or such. With enough talent, Tech went 11-3; without enough talent it went it 6-7. I don't ever want to start counting on good luck or odds to win a game.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Wouldn't disagree at all we've lost close games late, but there is a reason one loses a close game late or throws picks in the end zone. Just as there was a reason we won them last season. It's not the Gods of Football or Dame Fortune or catching the odds, and that is hard to reconcile. We weren't good enough to win the ones we lost; we were good enough to win the games we won. Moreover, we believed we were good enough. I am just not a believer in odds "evening out" or such. With enough talent, Tech went 11-3; without enough talent it went it 6-7. I don't ever want to start counting on good luck or odds to win a game.

Football games are decided by a lot of factors, not just talent. If it was just talent, the favored team would always win. A more talented GT team (+Smelter) lost to Duke while a less talented one (-Smelter) beat Missy State.

 

[Skeptic]

Football games are decided by a lot of factors, not just talent. If it was just talent, the favored team would always win. A more talented GT team (+Smelter) lost to Duke while a less talented one (-Smelter) beat Missy State.

Well, no it wouldn't. There are absolutes we know and absolutes we know. If one has the talent one best bring it to kickoff. Sending the press clips won't get it. I'm sure there is a mathematical equation reflecting that somewhere. On those particular given Saturdays, Duke was the most talented team because it played to its talent level, and Tech did not. MSU was not because it didn't, and even a neophyte of x and 0 football could see MSU was in fact not the most talented team on the field even at its best. I believed that then and believe it now, and to hell with Georgia and the SEC West. Oddsmakers and writers can set the odds where they will, but playing to ability is still the most absolute and dependable judge of talent.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Why would best case be 2-1 against the three mentioned? By definition (mine anyway) best case is 3-0.

Because I was basing this mental exercise on the consensus, which is that Tech will not go undefeated.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Well, no it wouldn't. There are absolutes we know and absolutes we know. If one has the talent one best bring it to kickoff. Sending the press clips won't get it. I'm sure there is a mathematical equation reflecting that somewhere. On those particular given Saturdays, Duke was the most talented team because it played to its talent level, and Tech did not. MSU was not because it didn't, and even a neophyte of x and 0 football could see MSU was in fact not the most talented team on the field even at its best. I believed that then and believe it now, and to hell with Georgia and the SEC West. Oddsmakers and writers can set the odds where they will, but playing to ability is still the most absolute and dependable judge of talent.

Wait a minute, didn't you say Tech didn't win all those games in the past because we lacked talent and we won those same type of games last season because we now have it? That is not the same as what you're saying now: playing up to you talent level.

 

[Skeptic]

Wait a minute, didn't you say Tech didn't win all those games in the past because we lacked talent and we won those same type of games last season because we now have it? That is not the same as what you're saying now: playing up to you talent level.

What I am trying to inelegantly say is that if you are not playing up to your talent, against Kansas, MTSU, Duke, for instance, it is futile to claim talent when you don't use it and thus don't have on that day. In my mind that is a coaching problem -- they weren't ready to play, they weren't prepared, they weren't prepped, I don't know what. But talent unused is no talent at all, whatever the cause and effect. So on those days, we were out-talented, yes.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Well, no it wouldn't. There are absolutes we know and absolutes we know. If one has the talent one best bring it to kickoff. Sending the press clips won't get it. I'm sure there is a mathematical equation reflecting that somewhere. On those particular given Saturdays, Duke was the most talented team because it played to its talent level, and Tech did not. MSU was not because it didn't, and even a neophyte of x and 0 football could see MSU was in fact not the most talented team on the field even at its best. I believed that then and believe it now, and to hell with Georgia and the SEC West. Oddsmakers and writers can set the odds where they will, but playing to ability is still the most absolute and dependable judge of talent.

I just have to disagree with your definition of "talent." Talent is your god-given ability, not the result of the hard work you put in. Success is not about the talent you have, but what you do with that talent.

 

[Skeptic]

I just have to disagree with your definition of "talent." Talent is your god-given ability, not the result of the hard work you put in. Success is not about the talent you have, but what you do with that talent.

I get it, but in my mind it is a distinction without a difference: the talent you don't use is just another exercise in "potential".

 

[JorgeJonas]

Since I can't even figure out an office pool I don't have a clue what all this means, but I guess it is good for GT? Or is it bad? A good example of why the house always wins. People like me.

Not sure it's good or bad for Tech, but I thought the lines on some of the games were closer than I'd expect, and the line for the VT game was larger than I'd expect. Just fun offseason fodder, anyway.

 

[Skeptic]

Not sure it's good or bad for Tech, but I thought the lines on some of the games were closer than I'd expect, and the line for the VT game was larger than I'd expect. Just fun offseason fodder, anyway.

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Mainly because I am embarrassed to tell you in front of the whole board that "closer" than expected and the VT line was "larger" .... by closer you mean the line says we should win, or lose, by closer margins? This is what I mean about hiding my wallet around people who understand this stuff.

 

[AE 87]

What we have here is a failure to communicate. Mainly because I am embarrassed to tell you in front of the whole board that "closer" than expected and the VT line was "larger" .... by closer you mean the line says we should win, or lose, by closer margins? This is what I mean about hiding my wallet around people who understand this stuff.

GT +2 vs ND means the line is for ND to win by 2. The low numbers project close games, closer than he expected, and vpi is not as close as he expected. The line projects us to beat vpi by 9.5.

 

[Skeptic]

GT +2 vs ND means the line is for ND to win by 2. The low numbers project close games, closer than he expected, and vpi is not as close as he expected. The line projects us to beat vpi by 9.5.

Okay, I get it. To hell with Notre Dame, too.