Supersizethatorder-mutt
Banned
- Messages
- 13,443
- Location
- Augusta, GA
He wasn't writing a column; he was answering a question. I thought it was pretty clearYep - that's how I read it. But it was poorly worded for a journalist.
/
He wasn't writing a column; he was answering a question. I thought it was pretty clearYep - that's how I read it. But it was poorly worded for a journalist.
/
He wasn't writing a column; he was answering a question. I thought it was pretty clear
Not that it matters, but I agree as well.Thank you. It's good to see somebody else on here has reading comprehension. I just texted and emailed AugustaJacket asking him to come on here and give his take on Ken's response. Pretty sure he agrees with you and me.
Yeah, CLEARLY....lolI agree, but clearly some folks didn't get it.
/
Depends on what you mean by the word "is"."Also, as per bowl games, aren't we contractually obligated to the ACC to play in a bowl game if selected? (AugustaJacket)"
K.S. replied:
"I think you might be right. There'd be a lot of pressure to play. It's just not going to happen."
If you take that into a larger context in which some jackleg has been hounding that: lower level bowls don't matter, and that GT should not go to a bowl game because they lose money:, then I read this to be: "I think you might be right." - We are contractually obligated to play - "There'd be a lot of pressure to play." - There would be a lot of pressure to play in a bowl game if we are offered. It would be difficult to decline to play. There is no reason to put this statement in if he believes there is no chance to qualify. - "It's just not going to happen." - If you take it in full context with the jackleg's comments and AugustaJacket asking aren't we obligated to play if selected, it seems to me obvious that turning down a bowl is "not going to happen."
Incidentally, whoever created this thread needs to learn how to spell Ken's name. It's Sugiura
I didn't consider it worth my time to go back and check to see who created the thread. I noted the misspelling and corrected it; that is all. You read what he typed in the "Mail Bag" and interpreted in a way totally contrary to anything Ken has ever or would ever say about Tech. I think there are enough posts on here agreeing with me to pretty much confirm that you were wrong from the start. Better luck next time.The thread clearly indicates it was written by The Gridiron Geek. You really need to work on your reading comprehension.
Again, Ken never makes subjective statements. He never predicts wins or losses. I don't think his intent was even to imply that tech can't or won't win the next three. I think he simply meant, as an answer to Augusta Jacket's question, that it is highly unlikely that MBob (or any AD) would turn down the opportunity to go to a bowl game.We lost to five good football teams, but the next three do not meet that criteria. What I think Ken was saying, however clumsy the wording, is that we are not likely to win all of our next three games. As a betting matter, I agree. As a fan, I certainly hope he is wrong. But he is not trashing our program. I think we have a legit chance to be 7-5. Will we do it? It isn't a sure bet.
Again, Ken never makes subjective statements. He never predicts wins or losses. I don't think his intent was even to imply that tech can't or won't win the next three. I think he simply meant, as an answer to Augusta Jacket's question, that it is highly unlikely that MBob (or any AD) would turn down the opportunity to go to a bowl game.
I would say we don't either.but the next three do not meet that criteria. .
Making money at a bowl game has to be nearly impossible. After the conference splits, team expenses, entourage expenses, coach bonuses and unsold tickets - it is nearly a sure loser. Maybe UL Lafayette can make money at the NO Bowl - if they make the band kids drive themselves and the players stay in their dorms & ride a bus to the game on gameday. I remember seeing a Newsweek infographic that had Alabama loosing money going to their 2009 BCS game.that's how I read it, too. And Tech isn't the only program to lose money going to a bowl. Lots of em do. I read a piece a year or two ago on bowl costs for teams and Wisconsin lost money going to the Rose Bowl one year.
Making money at a bowl game has to be nearly impossible. After the conference splits, team expenses, entourage expenses, coach bonuses and unsold tickets - it is nearly a sure loser. Maybe UL Lafayette can make money at the NO Bowl - if they make the band kids drive themselves and the players stay in their dorms & ride a bus to the game on gameday. I remember seeing a Newsweek infographic that had Alabama loosing money going to their 2009 BCS game.