recruiting classes and off topic posts

[dressedcheeseside]

Maybe we can give the new coach a season or two to see how he does before we castigate him? Hell, it maybe be crazy talk but I’m actually in favor of 3-4 seasons before we start clutching the rip cord.

Me too he probably has a contract.

 

[LibertyTurns]

Me too he probably has a contract.

We’ll know when he’s about to leave. It’s 12 months after the $$$ multi-year contract extension!

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

I predict we will be playing for the ACC championship in 3-5 years and in the top ten.
We just need a front seven on defense. And this is not a knock on anyone.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

And I’m a glass half empty guy when it comes to our FB program.

 

[takethepoints]

We should be able to field a more talented team than BC, Syr, Wake, UVA, NCSt, Pitt, Duke, Louisville and even UNC. I think CGC knows this is possible.

None of them have the inherent advantages GT does.

So, yeah, I kinda "waffled" on whether or not we can surpass VT's talent level in the mid-term. We certainly have the potential to but as you said positive results on the field will definitely help.

Last year we fielded a more talented team then Wake, BC, UVA, Louisville, Duke, and Pitt. (Yes, we lost to the last two, but it wasn't because their talent was better.) Syracuse and NCSt were, imho, better then we were. UNC is up there with VT and da U in recruiting, however, and will be harder to surpass.

So, yes, I think we can get our talent level up marginally and out-do a lot of the teams on your list. I expect that Coach will come through on that.

 

[deeeznutz]

I predict we will be playing for the ACC championship in 3-5 years and in the top ten.
We just need a front seven on defense. And this is not a knock on anyone.

Yeah I’m not ready to say we’ll be knocking Clemson off for the conference championship in the next few years, but I see no reason we can’t be at the top level of our division regularly which would likely put us in the ACCCG at some point in the next few years. Just looking at our competition, I don’t see any dominant teams in the way of us seizing control of the division if things go well (although we are slightly handicapped by having Clemson as permanent crossover, which is tough). It really is up for grabs right now.

 

[smokey_wasp]

I predict multiple natties! Not really, but I am amused at the thought that it somehow be so awful and offensive if I did.

"How dare you sir! Dont you know about APR, limited curriculum, and structural limitations?"

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I’m curious to see if CGC can actually change the perception of GT in the eyes of the college football universe, specifically blue chip recruits. If he can do that w/o sacrificing what we all love about GT, the sky is truly the limit!

 

[smokey_wasp]

I’m curious to see if CGC can actually change the perception of GT in the eyes of the college football universe, specifically blue chip recruits. If he can do that w/o sacrificing what we all love about GT, the sky is truly the limit!

Every now and then, you take a sip of the juice.

 

[Milwaukee]

. Once again you miss by a mile. It has nothing to do with aspirations, it has everything to do with posters drunk on hype with no facts or proof to back it up.
Like the predictions of competing for multiple NCs in a few years. And acting like the new hire magically makes all the structural issues at Tech go away. If anything, what is happening with BB should clue a few people in to the tough row that needs to be home.

I agree about the hoops. Pastner and his thinking are a problem.

Yeah I’m not ready to say we’ll be knocking Clemson off for the conference championship in the next few years, but I see no reason we can’t be at the top level of our division regularly which would likely put us in the ACCCG at some point in the next few years. Just looking at our competition, I don’t see any dominant teams in the way of us seizing control of the division if things go well (although we are slightly handicapped by having Clemson as permanent crossover, which is tough). It really is up for grabs right now.

The permanent crossover to Clemson while the others get the likes of Wake and Boston College irks me. Most of the teams in our division get a mulligan for a week where they don't show up and play well. We don't. What I mean by that is they can come out flat one week and lose a game, it happens to all of us, but it doesn't hurt them nearly as much as it does us cause we also have the Clemson L to look forward to. So when we come out flat one week now all of a sudden we have 2 conference losses. I love the Clemson rivalry but it hurts us when our division foes don't have to run the same gauntlet.

 

[Animal02]

I agree about the hoops. Pastner and his thinking are a problem.


The permanent crossover to Clemson while the others get the likes of Wake and Boston College irks me. Most of the teams in our division get a mulligan for a week where they don't show up and play well. We don't. What I mean by that is they can come out flat one week and lose a game, it happens to all of us, but it doesn't hurt them nearly as much as it does us cause we also have the Clemson L to look forward to. So when we come out flat one week now all of a sudden we have 2 conference losses. I love the Clemson rivalry but it hurts us when our division foes don't have to run the same gauntlet.

The permanent cross over is good on paper but not in real life.

 

[Animal02]

I’m curious to see if CGC can actually change the perception of GT in the eyes of the college football universe, specifically blue chip recruits. If he can do that w/o sacrificing what we all love about GT, the sky is truly the limit!

The limited degree offerings will be almost impossible to overcome. If you were a 5* recruit with the NFL on the horizon.....are you going to risk losing eligibility at Tech, or watch grass grow at Clemson? The Calvin Johnson's are very few and very far between.

 

[Techster]

The permanent crossover to Clemson while the others get the likes of Wake and Boston College irks me. Most of the teams in our division get a mulligan for a week where they don't show up and play well. We don't. What I mean by that is they can come out flat one week and lose a game, it happens to all of us, but it doesn't hurt them nearly as much as it does us cause we also have the Clemson L to look forward to. So when we come out flat one week now all of a sudden we have 2 conference losses. I love the Clemson rivalry but it hurts us when our division foes don't have to run the same gauntlet.

I mean I get Clemson being our permanent crossover due to history and a quick hour and a half drive up I-85, but personally I don't think it's much of marquee game like Auburn/Alabama or Stanford/Cal or Texas/Oklahoma or Florida/FSU to make it a must have game on the ACC schedule. IMO, the only "marquee" ACC matchup really happens on the basketball side: Duke/UNC. There's nothing wrong with keeping Duke and UNC as permanent pairings, and let everyone else go to a rotating schedule against each ACC member.

Think about this: GT's "permanent" rivals are now 2 of the elite programs in the nation: Clemson and UGA (barf).

CGC has a LOT of work ahead of him if he wants GT to play those to team at least to a more even matchup every year.

 

[Animal02]

I mean I get Clemson being our permanent crossover due to history and a quick hour and a half drive up I-85, but personally I don't think it's much of marquee game like Auburn/Alabama or Stanford/Cal or Texas/Oklahoma or Florida/FSU to make it a must have game on the ACC schedule. IMO, the only "marquee" ACC matchup really happens on the basketball side: Duke/UNC. There's nothing wrong with keeping Duke and UNC as permanent pairings, and let everyone else go to a rotating schedule against each ACC member.

Think about this: GT's "permanent" rivals are now 2 of the elite programs in the nation: Clemson and UGA (barf).

CGC has a LOT of work ahead of him if he wants GT to play those to team at least to a more even matchup every year.

The problem with the permanent cross over is teams tend to be streaky...so you are stuck with a really good or possibly real bad match up for extended periods. Would rather see us play the other teams more often .

 

[Animal02]

I predict multiple natties! Not really, but I am amused at the thought that it somehow be so awful and offensive if I did.

"How dare you sir! Dont you know about APR, limited curriculum, and structural limitations?"

Not "awful". Just extremely foolish.

 

[Milwaukee]

I mean I get Clemson being our permanent crossover due to history and a quick hour and a half drive up I-85, but personally I don't think it's much of marquee game like Auburn/Alabama or Stanford/Cal or Texas/Oklahoma or Florida/FSU to make it a must have game on the ACC schedule. IMO, the only "marquee" ACC matchup really happens on the basketball side: Duke/UNC. There's nothing wrong with keeping Duke and UNC as permanent pairings, and let everyone else go to a rotating schedule against each ACC member.

Think about this: GT's "permanent" rivals are now 2 of the elite programs in the nation: Clemson and UGA (barf).

CGC has a LOT of work ahead of him if he wants GT to play those to team at least to a more even matchup every year.

Yea it's gonna be a tough road for Geoff. Paul had to deal with it as well, our schedule is always just brutal imo.

As far as ACC permanent crossover games I'd hate to lose the Miami/FSU game.

 

[beerbuzz]

Suddes tweet hints at another cruit going to commit

 

[TechBurn]

Here's the Marvel Yellow Jacket!
A bit meaner looking than Buzz!!

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

I predict multiple natties! Not really, but I am amused at the thought that it somehow be so awful and offensive if I did.

"How dare you sir! Dont you know about APR, limited curriculum, and structural limitations?"

Multiple natties? Would you settle for beating Duke and Virginia at their place? Just asking.

 

[Heisman's Ghost]

I mean I get Clemson being our permanent crossover due to history and a quick hour and a half drive up I-85, but personally I don't think it's much of marquee game like Auburn/Alabama or Stanford/Cal or Texas/Oklahoma or Florida/FSU to make it a must have game on the ACC schedule. IMO, the only "marquee" ACC matchup really happens on the basketball side: Duke/UNC. There's nothing wrong with keeping Duke and UNC as permanent pairings, and let everyone else go to a rotating schedule against each ACC member.

Think about this: GT's "permanent" rivals are now 2 of the elite programs in the nation: Clemson and UGA (barf).

CGC has a LOT of work ahead of him if he wants GT to play those to team at least to a more even matchup every year.

That is unfortunate to be sure but consider that Coach Dodd's teams habitually played against UGA, Tennessee, Alabama, Auburn, Florida, and LSU well, it kind of comes with the territory. Miami's permanent crossover opponent is appropriately FSU which is not exactly a gimmee given the history of those two teams. I have no idea about who the others are but yes, it would seem we got the short straw but again we had more of a history with Clemson down through the years than any other ACC team. The only one that we played a lot was Duke. Coach Collins has not received any favors from schedule makers that is for sure. We will probably have the most difficult schedule in the ACC for a while unless Clemson starts playing Alabama or UGA every year.