Smoke Screen On Statistics

[GTRX7]

Want a good laugh?

Give CPJ the schedule Carson, Dodd, Ross, curry had to play.

Am I missing something? I don't get the joke? It is not like we didn't play weak teams every year back in the day either. Just looking at the weak part of the last two years of each coaches' schedule:

Ross:
1991 - Furman
1990 - Chattanooga

Curry:
1986 - Furman, VMI
1985 - Western Carolina, Chattanooga

Carson:
1971 - Tulane, Navy (3-8)
1970 - Tulane, Navy (2-9)

Dodd:
1966 - Tulane + Vandy (1-9)
1965 - Tulane, Navy (4-4-2)

I agree that we generally play one extra game against weak competition than we did back then, as BCS football generally added one more "revenue" game to the schedule about 10 years ago. However, the remainder of the schedule looks pretty similar to me. About 3 ranked teams a year, 3-4 mediocre teams, and 2-3 bad teams.

 

[GTRX7]

Also, as in my last post, why did Friegden bring us out of the depths of losing to winning while all of the same recruiting obstacles were in place?

You are really excited about Friedgen. You mean the same guy that had an ACC record of 43-37 as head coach at Maryland vs. Paul Johnson who has a 31-17 ACC record? The same guy who had a terrible reputation as a recruiter?

I honestly just have to exit this thread if you believe we can recruit like Alabama if we just had the right head coach. I agree that we can have great seasons at Tech, heck even compete for a championship in the right year. But your expectations are out of wack if you think we can bring in the same 5* athletes as those other schools if we just ran Alabama's offense. That is simply contrary to every objective piece of evidence.

 

[Essobee]

... the LANDSCAPE of college football has changed dramatically since Heisman's, Alexander's or Dodd's day. It's not even close. The schools at the top of the academic polls were also at the top of the football polls in those days and it was no coincidence. Back then, academic excellence was the main reason anybody attended college including the SA's. That's definitely not the case today.

You're dead on, cheese. Many things are very different...academics, rules, markets, players, sophistication, training, preparation, facilities, coaching salaries, recruiting competition, conferences, administration, playoffs, bowls, stadium design, fan support, economics...very little is the same. Comparing different era performance in football is an extremely difficult if not maddening exercise and, IMHO, a complete waste of time. Whether Johnson would win in Dodd's time or Dodd would win in Johnson's time is anyone's guess. And it would definitely be a guess. Just changes in attitude are enormous and, as Pepper said, what sane person would want to try to make their living as a result of whatever goes through a teenager's mind?

 

[dressedcheeseside]

For all those who think Tech cannot win big, you are fooling yourselves. Get the right coach that can use the material to his best advantage, and we will once again have consistant winning. There are excellent athletes with the credentials to get into Georgia Tech. We offer them every year, but they go elsewhere because they like the coach and his system better than our coach and his system.

Actually, Bobby Dodd was at a bigger disadvantage in recruiting when he coached at Tech than the recent past coaches up through today. There are limits to the number of players you can have at present (Yes, a few cheat) to stay in line with the 85 rule. In Dodd's day (SEC), they were signing way more each year than the alloted players you could have on a team, and then sending those on their way after Spring practice trials. Dodd would not do this, and promised each of his recruits a full scholarchip regardless of how they panned out at Tech. This is the reason he left the SEC. The reason Dodd did get some good recruits was strictly because of his charisma and the recruits loved him. Many recruits were attracted to Tech, not because of Tech, but because they wanted to play for Bobby Dodd. The same applied to Alabama at the time, many wanted to play for Bear Bryant. Now, many want to play for Saban, Miles, Richt, and other well known coaches with charisma who have proven they can win at the D1 level.

Many teams, such as Oregon, Boise State, etal, have drawn better players because of the coaches and thier winning systems. It is all in the coach. The right coach with the right system will win anywhere. The city of Atlanta, State of Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, and other surrounding beds of high school football are extremely available to Tech for recruiting. Tech even has the advantage of being well known historically in football across the nation and can draw well from other regions. There are enough excellent recruits available for Tech, but it is the coach who must get them here. Excuses are used by those who say they don't expect to win, they just want to blame their losing attitudes on someone or something else. The buck always starts and stops with the coach regardless of which school he is coaching. Atlanta and the surrounding area is a mecca for recruting. The recruiting and winning is a direct responsibility of the coach. If he cannot get the right recruits, then get someone who can.

Also, as in my last post, why did Friegden bring us out of the depths of losing to winning while all of the same recruiting obstacles were in place?

If by Ralph you mean George, George didn't have apr to tend with. Guys didn't have to stay on track to graduate to stay eligible, all they had to do was pass remedial courses. Now George, to his credit, improved grad rates during his tenure, but it's nothing close to where CPJ is right now.

Bottom line, students played football in Dodd's era, today it's mostly mercenary athletes with no other route to the NFL but through a college program.

 

[Squints]

Category A: We all want to win all of our games. We are all unsatisfied with 7-5 seasons.
Category B: Some think that CPJ has shown in the last 4 years that he won't bring in better than 7-5 seasons regularly (not improving recruiting sufficiently)
Category C: Others think that CPJ has shown that his offense will make us competitive for much better seasons and are hopeful that the right DC is in place.

For some reason, some in category B don't believe those in Category C are also in Category A.

It's not that they don't believe those in C are also in A. It's that they don't believe it should be possible to be in both C and A which is ridiculous.

 

[thwgjacket]

For all those who think Tech cannot win big, you are fooling yourselves. Get the right coach that can use the material to his best advantage, and we will once again have consistant winning. There are excellent athletes with the credentials to get into Georgia Tech. We offer them every year, but they go elsewhere because they like the coach and his system better than our coach and his system.

Actually, Bobby Dodd was at a bigger disadvantage in recruiting when he coached at Tech than the recent past coaches up through today. There are limits to the number of players you can have at present (Yes, a few cheat) to stay in line with the 85 rule. In Dodd's day (SEC), they were signing way more each year than the alloted players you could have on a team, and then sending those on their way after Spring practice trials. Dodd would not do this, and promised each of his recruits a full scholarchip regardless of how they panned out at Tech. This is the reason he left the SEC. The reason Dodd did get some good recruits was strictly because of his charisma and the recruits loved him. Many recruits were attracted to Tech, not because of Tech, but because they wanted to play for Bobby Dodd. The same applied to Alabama at the time, many wanted to play for Bear Bryant. Now, many want to play for Saban, Miles, Richt, and other well known coaches with charisma who have proven they can win at the D1 level.

Many teams, such as Oregon, Boise State, etal, have drawn better players because of the coaches and thier winning systems. It is all in the coach. The right coach with the right system will win anywhere. The city of Atlanta, State of Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, and other surrounding beds of high school football are extremely available to Tech for recruiting. Tech even has the advantage of being well known historically in football across the nation and can draw well from other regions. There are enough excellent recruits available for Tech, but it is the coach who must get them here. Excuses are used by those who say they don't expect to win, they just want to blame their losing attitudes on someone or something else. The buck always starts and stops with the coach regardless of which school he is coaching. Atlanta and the surrounding area is a mecca for recruting. The recruiting and winning is a direct responsibility of the coach. If he cannot get the right recruits, then get someone who can.

Also, as in my last post, why did Friegden bring us out of the depths of losing to winning while all of the same recruiting obstacles were in place?

Good God you're stuck in the past.

Alabama selling points to recruits-
We have a multitude of degrees you can choose from.
If you play football here you won't even have to use your degree, you'll get a job right out of school just because you played football.
Players drafted to the NFL all the time.
History of National Championships
Have you seen the girls on our campus? I mean look at what ugly AJ McCarron got. Think about the kind of girls you'll get.
90,000+ at every game including the spring game and the best facilities money can buy.
SAT? Just spell your name right and you're in.
Tech selling points-
"You'll get a great degree if you want to be an engineer."
"Our stadium is small, but it sure is old"
"Atlanta" - this doesn't matter as much to athletes as people think because they don't have time to go out anyway. You could be in NYC but you still spend 95% of your time at the football facility.
"We've got an indoor football facility" Just like literally every other D-1 program in the country.
"This guy named Heisman coached here" About 100 years ago.
"We've got girls too." 99% are below a 5 on the scale but we still got some baby.
"Good thing you made great on the SAT" otherwise out alumni would talk about how you devalue their degree.

I am a big GT football fan. All I am saying is that when you have a lot of different coaches come through and you get generally the same results you have to look at the common denominator. Sadly that's GT, a dream school for students, not so much for student-athletes.

 

[Rodney Kent]

thwgjacket: If we cannot win, then let's shut down football. If Tech does not win, it cannot pull in the fans because it is not a State factory school. The fans will only come when the team wins consistently. It is almost impossible for Tech to fill their stadium with alumni, it has to pull in fans that did not attend Tech who become Tech fans because of winning. Tech does not have the amount of alumni that stays in the State to support the team. Even many of those alumni will stop coming as the team becomes lackluster. The non-alumni will not pay to come watch Tech lose. So, under your prognosis of the situation, Tech will just have to shut down its football when the fans stop coming.

I will guarantee you this: before this happens, the Institute and the money boosters will make at least one more attempt to bring in another coach if Paul Johnson cannot get it done. As I said before, the buck stops with Johnson; this year will tell the whole story.

 

[thwgjacket]

thwgjacket: If we cannot win, then let's shut down football. If Tech does not win, it cannot pull in the fans because it is not a State factory school. The fans will only come when the team wins consistently. It is almost impossible for Tech to fill their stadium with alumni, it has to pull in fans that did not attend Tech who become Tech fans because of winning. Tech does not have the amount of alumni that stays in the State to support the team. Even many of those alumni will stop coming as the team becomes lackluster. The non-alumni will not pay to come watch Tech lose. So, under your prognosis of the situation, Tech will just have to shut down its football when the fans stop coming.

I will guarantee you this: before this happens, the Institute and the money boosters will make at least one more attempt to bring in another coach if Paul Johnson cannot get it done. As I said before, the buck stops with Johnson; this year will tell the whole story.

Yea dude, it has gotten so bad that we have to shut the whole program down. That's what my post really meant. But seriously, ask yourself, how many times over the years have you said, "Well the 'Institute' will bring in a new coach because coach X can't give us what I want."? The common denominator in your delusional equation continues to be "The Institute."

 

[takethepoints]

...and scoring against UGA:
2013 34
2012 10
2011 17
2010 34
2009 24
2008 45

There are absolutely no clear trends to indicate that folks have "figured out" this offense after the first two years. Season scoring per game has generally increased, ACC scoring has generally increased, and scoring against UGA shows no clear trend.

Now, now. Mustn't go confusing people with pre-set ideas about Tech football with something as icky as the facts. Lord knows what they'll do.

 

[AE 87]

Now, now. Mustn't go confusing people with pre-set ideas about Tech football with something as icky as the facts. Lord knows what they'll do.

Actually, that's not fair. We know what they'll do with any facts that speak against their narrative: ignore them and act like they've never seen them.

 

[Tech First]

Am I missing something? I don't get the joke? It is not like we didn't play weak teams every year back in the day either. Just looking at the weak part of the last two years of each coaches' schedule:

Ross:
1991 - Furman
1990 - Chattanooga

Curry:
1986 - Furman, VMI
1985 - Western Carolina, Chattanooga

Carson:
1971 - Tulane, Navy (3-8)
1970 - Tulane, Navy (2-9)

Dodd:
1966 - Tulane + Vandy (1-9)
1965 - Tulane, Navy (4-4-2)

I agree that we generally play one extra game against weak competition than we did back then, as BCS football generally added one more "revenue" game to the schedule about 10 years ago. However, the remainder of the schedule looks pretty similar to me. About 3 ranked teams a year, 3-4 mediocre teams, and 2-3 bad teams.

Tulane Navy and Vandy (?) were much more competitive then than now I know Tulane and Navy were.

 

[GTNavyNuke]

A few thoughts about our fan base. First we have about 99,000 living alumni. Second, GT is really part of the Atlanta metro scene and not part of the rest of the state of Georgia. In general, the GT student is much more urban in mindset than the rural Georgia resident. So we aren't going to get the love from most of the Georgia residents since we have so many damn Yankees or sympathizers. It will take prolonged winning to increase our fan base.

Second, about the relative strength of teams. This data base has the power rankings for teams back to 1869. http://www.jhowell.net/cf/cf1992.htm (The Power Rankings take into account the relative strength of opponents, home/away and margin of victory.) So you can track our relative medocrity* for the past several decades. We are traditionally a 20-50th ranked team. Doesn't matter who the coach is.

That being said, I think we should try a new coach if CPJ doesn't get it done in the next year or two. I think we probably have a 20% chance to get a better coach, 60% to stay about the same and 20% to get worse. But it ain't getting done so far and I'd rather "Go Big or Go Home" than accept the mediocrity we've had. CPJ is trying .... I like his going for it on fourth, like going for two points and like the fake punts. But overall, we were the 40th or so best team last year. Not good enough for me.

*Mediocre by definition is of medium performance and usually associated with inferior football. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mediocre I recognize that statistically we are better than most of the 120 teams, but damn it we have far more resources and are probably middle or inferior when compared to schools with equivalent resources.

 

[daBuzz]

This seems to me to be a big problem with some of the fanbase. Some have a hard time grasping that the sport has changed and refuse to acknowledge context in their assertions and assessments.

Perhaps it is not "us" who have trouble grasping that the game has changed but others who have trouble grasping that the problem is that GT hasn't.

No one wants to cheapen a degree from Georgia Tech but the assertion that allowing more exceptions into the school would do so is myopic to the point of blindness. Many have stated that some of the football players under O'Leary wouldn't be allowed in the school today. Well, that's a damn shame because Daryl Smith would be one of those. Ask him (I have) and he'll tell you that he couldn't get into Tech today. And he'll also tell you that he was one of those whom everyone thought would not make it at Tech. But if you ask him, he'll tell you "I worked my butt off because I knew that I wanted to succeed...and I was able to make it." One very interesting thing he told me was that he was most proud of being named to the 2002 ACC All-Academic team. YET THIS IS A GUY WHO WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED IN THE DOOR TODAY! Does everyone not see the lunacy of that?

And please, please, please do NOT bring up the APR as an excuse. Yes, it has an effect but it is more of an academic excuse crutch than it is a burden.

It would not be difficult at all to write into a GT coach's contract that he can have as many exceptions as he wants. But make it such that, if the school loses even a single scholarship due to APR, that it nullifies or lessens his buyout clause. That wouldn't necessarily mean the coach was fired, but it sure would give the school the financial flexibility to be able to do so if they felt it was needed. Conversely, reward the heck out of the coach for winning percentages. Throw in an uber bonus if he beats UGA, same with the bowl game (by the way, both of those are in CPJ's contract now).

In other words, let the person who is affected most by the APR restriction (the coach) be the one who makes the decisions on whether or not he wants to take a risky chance on an athlete who may not make the grade. After all, the school proudly proclaims that they fail out 1/3 of their freshman class...I know...because in my freshman orientation, they told us to look to our right and to our left...one of those people would not be there next year. For a school so proud and willing to fail out 1/3 of the nerds, the school is hypocritical as hell about even a single football player failing out.

 

[Squints]

Perhaps it is not "us" who have trouble grasping that the game has changed but others who have trouble grasping that the problem is that GT hasn't.

I think it's a mix of both that are the problem for the school's football. I'm not commenting on that. I'm saying that what I've seen from the fanbase, there are a number of people who are too dismissive of how much of a disadvantage Tech is compared to the "glory days" they pine for. As as someone who's attended more than one school (went to Tech for my master's) and is closer in age to the players than most on here it's definitely there.

No one wants to cheapen a degree from Georgia Tech but the assertion that allowing more exceptions into the school would do so is myopic to the point of blindness. Many have stated that some of the football players under O'Leary wouldn't be allowed in the school today. Well, that's a damn shame because Daryl Smith would be one of those. Ask him (I have) and he'll tell you that he couldn't get into Tech today. And he'll also tell you that he was one of those whom everyone thought would not make it at Tech. But if you ask him, he'll tell you "I worked my butt off because I knew that I wanted to succeed...and I was able to make it." One very interesting thing he told me was that he was most proud of being named to the 2002 ACC All-Academic team. YET THIS IS A GUY WHO WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED IN THE DOOR TODAY! Does everyone not see the lunacy of that?

And please, please, please do NOT bring up the APR as an excuse. Yes, it has an effect but it is more of an academic excuse crutch than it is a burden.

It would not be difficult at all to write into a GT coach's contract that he can have as many exceptions as he wants. But make it such that, if the school loses even a single scholarship due to APR, that it nullifies or lessens his buyout clause. That wouldn't necessarily mean the coach was fired, but it sure would give the school the financial flexibility to be able to do so if they felt it was needed. Conversely, reward the heck out of the coach for winning percentages. Throw in an uber bonus if he beats UGA, same with the bowl game (by the way, both of those are in CPJ's contract now).

In other words, let the person who is affected most by the APR restriction (the coach) be the one who makes the decisions on whether or not he wants to take a risky chance on an athlete who may not make the grade. After all, the school proudly proclaims that they fail out 1/3 of their freshman class...I know...because in my freshman orientation, they told us to look to our right and to our left...one of those people would not be there next year. For a school so proud and willing to fail out 1/3 of the nerds, the school is hypocritical as hell about even a single football player failing out.

I don't know why you've singled me out because I'd not really have any problem with any of this stuff. Outside your APR comments, which I think are oversimplified and a bit off base, it seems to make sense to me.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Perhaps it is not "us" who have trouble grasping that the game has changed but others who have trouble grasping that the problem is that GT hasn't.

No one wants to cheapen a degree from Georgia Tech but the assertion that allowing more exceptions into the school would do so is myopic to the point of blindness. Many have stated that some of the football players under O'Leary wouldn't be allowed in the school today. Well, that's a damn shame because Daryl Smith would be one of those. Ask him (I have) and he'll tell you that he couldn't get into Tech today. And he'll also tell you that he was one of those whom everyone thought would not make it at Tech. But if you ask him, he'll tell you "I worked my butt off because I knew that I wanted to succeed...and I was able to make it." One very interesting thing he told me was that he was most proud of being named to the 2002 ACC All-Academic team. YET THIS IS A GUY WHO WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED IN THE DOOR TODAY! Does everyone not see the lunacy of that?

And please, please, please do NOT bring up the APR as an excuse. Yes, it has an effect but it is more of an academic excuse crutch than it is a burden.

It would not be difficult at all to write into a GT coach's contract that he can have as many exceptions as he wants. But make it such that, if the school loses even a single scholarship due to APR, that it nullifies or lessens his buyout clause. That wouldn't necessarily mean the coach was fired, but it sure would give the school the financial flexibility to be able to do so if they felt it was needed. Conversely, reward the heck out of the coach for winning percentages. Throw in an uber bonus if he beats UGA, same with the bowl game (by the way, both of those are in CPJ's contract now).

In other words, let the person who is affected most by the APR restriction (the coach) be the one who makes the decisions on whether or not he wants to take a risky chance on an athlete who may not make the grade. After all, the school proudly proclaims that they fail out 1/3 of their freshman class...I know...because in my freshman orientation, they told us to look to our right and to our left...one of those people would not be there next year. For a school so proud and willing to fail out 1/3 of the nerds, the school is hypocritical as hell about even a single football player failing out.

He gets some exceptions already. Daryl Smith would probably be one if he were a recruit today. You act as though he gets no exceptions. Oh, and APR has an impact, a big one. Why do you think grad rates have gone through the roof, especially compared to the Ross era? Because it's a byproduct of meeting APR. APR also prevents us from taking Jucos.

All that said, I like your idea.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

There's no place at GT to hide an "S"A who doesn't want to go to class or apply himself academically - the guy who wants nothing to do with the school part of school. That's the bottom line and that's what separates us from the factories and even some of the "academic" programs.

 

[forensicbuzz]

...because in my freshman orientation, they told us to look to our right and to our left...one of those people would not be there next year. For a school so proud and willing to fail out 1/3 of the nerds, the school is hypocritical as hell about even a single football player failing out.

During FASET in 1987, we were told 1 of the 3 would graduate (that's a 67% failure rate). The guy to my left and girl to my right were gone after the 1st quarter.

 

[thwgjacket]

I always thought the failing rate was interesting. You can argue the school is tough or that the people in charge of admittance are terrible at their job. Plus it's undergrad. We're not talking law school, medical school or even graduate work. It's really not that hard.

 

[AE 87]

I always thought the failing rate was interesting. You can argue the school is tough or that the people in charge of admittance are terrible at their job. Plus it's undergrad. We're not talking law school, medical school or even graduate work. It's really not that hard.

My BAE was tougher than both my graduate degrees.

 

[forensicbuzz]

My Master's from Tech was light years easier than my undergrad. Don't know when you were there, but I've heard there has been a concerted effort to change the culture there. Don't know how true that is, but I've heard there's less effort to "weed out" undergrads.