Toughest ACC non-conference schedule: GT of course

[billga99]

i think our ACC schedule will be tougher going forward since we are in a combined conference and not the Coastal Division. That means the rotation will bring in more Atlantic Division teams which has clearly been the tougher division the last several years. I think having a winning record will impact recruiting, getting to bowl games and potentially being ranked vs a tough OOC schedule.

 

[roadkill]

We won't get to a bowl game quicker by playing a tough OOC schedule, but we will get to be a better team quicker for it and go to better bowl games down the road, IMO and we will have a better than 15% chance of beating them. Beyond that, beating up on patsies is boring and meaningless, and it doesn't stoke fan interest, bowl game or not. And fan interest is what we need. Ugag can get away with that, but Tech can't. We need to schedule tough opponents and beat them.

Hard to argue with your post. But again, I want to emphasize that in an ideal situation, winning more games and more quickly getting a bowl bid does several positive things that also yield dividends down the road. Tougher opponents are probably best in the long run. Especially if you can be competitive and beat them from time to time. But just saying we need to schedule tougher opponents and beat them is a hope, not a strategy.

 

[bobongo]

Hard to argue with your post. But again, I want to emphasize that in an ideal situation winning more games and more quickly getting a bowl bid does several positive things that also yield dividends down the road. Tougher opponents are probably best in the long run. Especially if you can be competitive and beat them from time to time. But just saying we need to schedule tougher opponents and beat them is a hope, not a strategy.

No doubt there is a positive aspect to going bowling. As for scheduling tough opponents beating them, it's what college football is all about - to me at least, anyway.
Beating patsies is boring and pointless. Lots of fans expect us to lose to tough opponents because we've been down a while, now. But losing to them is not a given, and I expect Tech to turn that around, starting this season.

 

[Root4GT]

Doesn’t it depend on your strategy? Unless ADJB has changed it, the goal for GT Football is to create a path to the League for those who want that.

How many were drafted last year? One?

The NFL doesn’t draft based on wins. They draft based on talent and matchups. They draft based on how well those players did against the best players they faced, not the patsy’s the team beat. Bill Belichick once quipped that he would draft players who never played if they simply practiced against the best and were healthy.

In other words, if you want GT to be relevant… you have to play and beat good teams. And good teams have talent.

If ADJB changes the schedule with the intention to weaken it, then our strategy has changed.

Not true at all. The NFL finds talent regardless of where they play. Always has and always will.

 

[Vespidae]

Not true at all. The NFL finds talent regardless of where they play. Always has and always will.

What did I say? "They (the NFL) draft based on talent ... "

They do not draft based on the team's won/loss record. If you have any references that suggest they do, I'd be interested to read them. I'm not really sure what you are arguing.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Anyone remember how certain SEC teams always scheduled OOC patsies to work out the kinks in their systems and give players on their depth chart a chance to get in game experience?

I mean, I’m talking teams like Alabama, Georgia and Auburn doing this fairly regularly, even if they already had bottom feeding SEC teams on their schedule like Vanderbilt or Missouri.

Why is it somehow unseemly for Tech to do the same? To be honest I would rather Tech play Notre Dame than Kent State but that’s not how the big boys build up their won/loss record before playing the more dangerous teams on their schedule.

 

[AUFC]

Maybe it's a generational thing but the obsession with bowl games is strange to me. There are 2 goals in college football these days: win your conference championship and make/win the college football playoff. There is no glory in making or winning the Bad Boy Mowers I've Never Even Heard Of This Bowl. I get way more up for the games against Ole Miss than I do against Bowling Green, even if we're an underdog.

 

[Vespidae]

Anyone remember how certain SEC teams always scheduled OOC patsies to work out the kinks in their systems and give players on their depth chart a chance to get in game experience?

I mean, I’m talking teams like Alabama, Georgia and Auburn doing this fairly regularly, even if they already had bottom feeding SEC teams on their schedule like Vanderbilt or Missouri.

Why is it somehow unseemly for Tech to do the same? To be honest I would rather Tech play Notre Dame than Kent State but that’s not how the big boys build up their won/loss record before playing the more dangerous teams on their schedule.

Yes. Ole Miss was famous for it and Alabama as well.

But, the SEC was also noted for much more physical play ... Alabama, for example, plays LSU, Auburn, UGA, Tennessee and Texas A&M. Not exactly cupcakes.

The ACC is mostly comprised of more average teams. Playing even weaker teams isn't going to get anyone excited.

 

[Vespidae]

Maybe it's a generational thing but the obsession with bowl games is strange to me. There are 2 goals in college football these days: win your conference championship and make/win the college football playoff. There is no glory in making or winning the Bad Boy Mowers I've Never Even Heard Of This Bowl. I get way more up for the games against Ole Miss than I do against Bowling Green, even if we're an underdog.

Bowl games are dying. With the expanded playoffs and players wanting to sit out, bowls are going to be under increasing pressure. Many won't survive. Already, ESPN owns some and uses them purely as programming content.

 

[bobongo]

Anyone remember how certain SEC teams always scheduled OOC patsies to work out the kinks in their systems and give players on their depth chart a chance to get in game experience?

I mean, I’m talking teams like Alabama, Georgia and Auburn doing this fairly regularly, even if they already had bottom feeding SEC teams on their schedule like Vanderbilt or Missouri.

Why is it somehow unseemly for Tech to do the same? To be honest I would rather Tech play Notre Dame than Kent State but that’s not how the big boys build up their won/loss record before playing the more dangerous teams on their schedule.

Nothing unseemly about it, but playing patsies isn't very exciting and we need something exciting to our fan base much more than Ugag or Alabama.

 

[roadkill]

Maybe it's a generational thing but the obsession with bowl games is strange to me. There are 2 goals in college football these days: win your conference championship and make/win the college football playoff. There is no glory in making or winning the Bad Boy Mowers I've Never Even Heard Of This Bowl. I get way more up for the games against Ole Miss than I do against Bowling Green, even if we're an underdog.

Not sure if I'd characterize it as an obsession, but getting to a bowl game, even a lower-tier one, helps the team in several ways even if it doesn’t excite the fanbase. More practice time. More revenue. More publicity.

There seem to be several different but somewhat overlapping themes in the posts in this thread.
1. Playing and beating tough opponents, not going to low-tier bowls, is what makes the game exciting. I agree with this.
2. Strong competition is what we need to get players to the NFL. I disagree with this.
3. We need to win and get to a bowl, even if it's against weak opponents. I agree with this in the short term.

It is possible to believe that tougher opponents make for more exciting and if we win, more memorable games, while at the same time recognizing that we need to ramp up GT football any way we can after years in the desert. 2015 FSU will go down as one of the most memorable and exciting games in recent history. The 2015 3-win season, however…

 

[forensicbuzz]

i think our ACC schedule will be tougher going forward since we are in a combined conference and not the Coastal Division. That means the rotation will bring in more Atlantic Division teams which has clearly been the tougher division the last several years. I think having a winning record will impact recruiting, getting to bowl games and potentially being ranked vs a tough OOC schedule.

I'm not sure I agree with that. There's been more parity in the Coastal, whereas the Atlantic has had bigger winners and bigger losers. We played Clemson every year, so it wasn't like we were dodging the best in the Atlantic. We also caught some of the better Atlantic teams when they were better.

 

[roadkill]

Bowl games are dying. With the expanded playoffs and players wanting to sit out, bowls are going to be under increasing pressure. Many won't survive. Already, ESPN owns some and uses them purely as programming content.

Agreed. Attendance at the lesser bowls isn’t great. So the economics must support them as mostly a means of selling ads.
Interestingly, we are moving toward a situation where the bigger bowls will become more relevant with the expanded playoffs, at the expense of the lowest-tier bowls. Perhaps if the playoffs expand further, some of the mid-tier bowls could be selected for playoff games and remain relevant.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Yes. Ole Miss was famous for it and Alabama as well.

But, the SEC was also noted for much more physical play ... Alabama, for example, plays LSU, Auburn, UGA, Tennessee and Texas A&M. Not exactly cupcakes.

The ACC is mostly comprised of more average teams. Playing even weaker teams isn't going to get anyone excited.

Auburn and Tennessee are on par with many of the ACC mid-level teams. I'd say LSU and Texas A&M are slightly better.

I'd ask you who in the ACC is a cupcake? Duke? maybe. Like the teams in the SEC, most of the teams in the ACC have been average with the occasional pop-up to above average/really good. The SEC East was pitiful for a decade. The West was Alabama and LSU, with an occasional Auburn or Texas A&M. The SEC isn't all that. It just isn't. But, that's the narrative they've been pushing for 30 years now. They want you to believe that.

As has been pointed out, the ACC has put a bunch of players in the NFL. Without counting, I'd say probably 2nd or 3rd in the P5 conference over the past 10 years.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Yes. Ole Miss was famous for it and Alabama as well.

But, the SEC was also noted for much more physical play ... Alabama, for example, plays LSU, Auburn, UGA, Tennessee and Texas A&M. Not exactly cupcakes.

The ACC is mostly comprised of more average teams. Playing even weaker teams isn't going to get anyone excited.

The SEC has always hyped that they were more physical, or at least since Vince Dooley first went to uga. Even when the SEC lost games to OOC opponents they used to brag that “at least that team knew they were in a fight and would be sore for a week.” But to me this was just hype that eventually paid off. It’s not like other teams in other parts of the country don’t play just as tough. I think that’s why a few years ago, after saying (since 1966) we are the most physical conference, the SEC started saying we are the fastest conference (SEC speed). It is marketing genius. And it works. But I’ve always taken it with a grain of salt.

Looking at recent years when Alabama won or challenged for a national championship they played Middle Tenn State, Louisiana Monroe, Charleston Southern, Chattanooga, Kent State, Western Kentucky, Western Carolina, Mercer, Arkansas State, Fresno State, Louisiana, and Citadel, for instance.

These OOC teams, and others, were wedged around SEC powerhouses like Arkansas, Kentucky, Vanderbilt and Missouri.

To be sure, there were always at least 3 tough SEC teams on the schedule, if those teams were having a good year, but Alabama for as long as I can remember, has scheduled enough light weights into the schedule to keep the team from getting too banged up or leg weary and to almost guarantee 9 wins out of the gate.

Wake Forest and Duke do something similar at a much lower level of athletic ability and it seems to pay off in a relatively similar way. They staff fresh for their big games against tougher opponents and they end up with a better record and higher ranking as a result.

Not arguing that Tech should do the same just acknowledging that those who advocate doing this some until Tech “gets well” have precedent on their side.

 

[Augusta_Jacket]

I'd ask you who in the ACC is a cupcake?

For the last few years? GT has been...

I don't consider any ACC teams cupcakes until we start beating the dog mess out of them for a decade or so.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Nothing unseemly about it, but playing patsies isn't very exciting and we need something exciting to our fan base much more than Ugag or Alabama.

I don’t disagree. But what is exciting to fans right now is winning. In the short term, beating almost anyone gets my chemistry in gear.

 

[Vespidae]

Auburn and Tennessee are on par with many of the ACC mid-level teams. I'd say LSU and Texas A&M are slightly better.

I'd ask you who in the ACC is a cupcake? Duke? maybe. Like the teams in the SEC, most of the teams in the ACC have been average with the occasional pop-up to above average/really good. The SEC East was pitiful for a decade. The West was Alabama and LSU, with an occasional Auburn or Texas A&M. The SEC isn't all that. It just isn't. But, that's the narrative they've been pushing for 30 years now. They want you to believe that.

As has been pointed out, the ACC has put a bunch of players in the NFL. Without counting, I'd say probably 2nd or 3rd in the P5 conference over the past 10 years.

The SEC has the most players in the NFL, about 20% of the League. The ACC is about 12%.

 

[Vespidae]

For the last few years? GT has been...

I don't consider any ACC teams cupcakes until we start beating the dog mess out of them for a decade or so.

The ACC has 3 teams in the Top 25. That's not a great indicator of expected performance.

 

[yeti92]

As has been pointed out, the ACC has put a bunch of players in the NFL. Without counting, I'd say probably 2nd or 3rd in the P5 conference over the past 10 years.

Over the past 10 years:

SEC - 579
B1G - 415
ACC - 353
PAC - 316
B12 - 226

The B1G caught on to what the SEC does in regards to marketing itself and starting doing the same thing around 2015, despite only winning 1 Natty in the last 2 decades, and it has improved their position a lot. Meanwhile the ACC continues to be clueless at marketing, so despite having 3 Natty's since 2013 we are being somehow viewed as worse than the Big 12 by a lot of people at this point.