Why do we expect to beat the "big 4?"

[Eric]

I feel you but I see a lot of apathy.

The steady of happiness per say in the fanbase is not something that can be denied...one of the reasons that this season is so huge for CPJ and GT.

 

[CuseJacket]

Perception and tradition is a variable that you aren't including in this. Syracuse has had almost no success historically. GT has had a lot of success historically and I think that is part or the reason that people think we are on a higher level than teams like Syracuse or Maryland when in reality we are very even with these teams when it comes to talent. We've had pretty good coaching recently and until academics change either at GT or throughout the NCAA we will be a 7-5 team with the occasional 9-10 win season. I will always want better and hope for more because I'm a fan and that's what it's all about.

Couldn't suppress the Syracuse pride enough to withhold a quick rebuttal. I won't debate the current perception of Syracuse, however the assertion that they have had no success historically is unfounded. Just hope to provide some perspective without derailing every thread where I see 'Cuse football portrayed as nothing more than a rented mule.

History
Copy/pasted from my 'Cuse game preview in the fall...

• Until the worst period in school history in the 2000's one could argue Syracuse was more relevant than GT. Syracuse has more wins all-time, more NFL Hall of Famers, the first black Heisman winner (Ernie Davis), an undefeated season in 1987, and a lot of recent household names (e.g., Donovan McNabb, Marvin Harrison, Dwight Freeney)
• NFL Hall of Fame

Syracuse (7) Jim Brown , Larry Csonka, Floyd Little , John Mackey , Art Monk , Jim Ringo, Al Davis*
Georgia Tech (2) Billy Shaw, Joe Guyon*

Last Year
This might be mind-blowing to folks who only remember the head-to-head result, but you could also look at the full year schedule and make a case that Syracuse was a better team last year (I don't agree with the statement, but they had a better record and their best wins were as good if not better than ours). To be clear my rebuttal here isn't meant to say we should be thumping our chests over beating Syracuse, but in fairness from a Syracuse perspective it was one of those WTF games that no one can really explain a la GT/MTSU.

That's all. And I'm still glad GT won.

 

[RamblinCharger]

Couldn't suppress the Syracuse pride enough to withhold a quick rebuttal. I won't debate the current perception of Syracuse, however the assertion that they have had no success historically is unfounded. Just hope to provide some perspective without derailing every thread where I see 'Cuse football portrayed as nothing more than a rented mule.

History
Copy/pasted from my 'Cuse game preview in the fall...

• Until the worst period in school history in the 2000's one could argue Syracuse was more relevant than GT. Syracuse has more wins all-time, more NFL Hall of Famers, the first black Heisman winner (Ernie Davis), an undefeated season in 1987, and a lot of recent household names (e.g., Donovan McNabb, Marvin Harrison, Dwight Freeney)
• NFL Hall of Fame

Syracuse (7) Jim Brown , Larry Csonka, Floyd Little , John Mackey , Art Monk , Jim Ringo, Al Davis*
Georgia Tech (2) Billy Shaw, Joe Guyon*

Last Year
This might be mind-blowing to folks who only remember the head-to-head result, but you could also look at the full year schedule and make a case that Syracuse was a better team last year (I don't agree with the statement, but they had a better record and their best wins were as good if not better than ours). To be clear my rebuttal here isn't meant to say we should be thumping our chests over beating Syracuse, but in fairness from a Syracuse perspective it was one of those WTF games that no one can really explain a la GT/MTSU.

That's all. And I'm still glad GT won.

I'm not just trying to argue, but Tech was a very good SEC team for years, mentioned in Alabamas fight song, has the oldest stadium in FBS, had john Heisman as head coach, and most importantly has 4 national championships compared to syracuse's...1?
16 conference titles to Syracuse's 5, and only 5 less wins at a better percentage overall. If you ask 100 random people which team is more prestigious I imagine 60-70 would say Georgia Tech. Sorry to detail the original thread.

 

[jwsavhGT]

I have to admit that I stopped supporting the athletic side of Georgia Tech for many years. When I was in school I would go to the games because they were free but after graduation I didn't really go to many. As the years passed my interest in GT football would come & go BUT I always had in the back of my mind a belief that we coulda/woulda/shoulda beat any team we played. My interest in GT sports picked up a couple of years ago. Now I find myself following players on Twitter, posting on GTSwarm, wearing my special GT socks for good luck on game day, and FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER purchased a pair of season tickets. I eagerly await the start of football season & fully expect us to win each & every game. My expectations are not based on facts & statistics but one really irritating concept "We are Georgia Tech, we can do anything".

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Thats a 7-5 mindset cheese. No reason to play the game if you are already mentally defeated

I expect players to expect to win every game. Even diehard fans, fan means fanatic and fanatics don't use reason.

What I'm asking for, and nobody has given me, is a reasoned response.

Somebody saying that coaching trumps talent is a reason. Somebody saying the recruiting services are full of crap and the rankings are meaningless, that's a reason. Saying we should because we play the games is nice, but it's not a reason.

 

[CuseJacket]

I'm not just trying to argue, but Tech was a very good SEC team for years, mentioned in Alabamas fight song, has the oldest stadium in FBS, had john Heisman as head coach, and most importantly has 4 national championships compared to syracuse's...1?
16 conference titles to Syracuse's 5, and only 5 less wins at a better percentage overall. If you ask 100 random people which team is more prestigious I imagine 60-70 would say Georgia Tech. Sorry to detail the original thread.

I agree with you actually. Just trying to tone down the feel that Syracuse as a program is the historical or present equivalent to, say, Connecticut. And getting the thread back to point, I also agree that beating Syracuse is not the measuring stick we want to go by regardless of whether they were an above average team last year. Carry on..

 

[RamblinCharger]

I expect players to expect to win every game. Even diehard fans, fan means fanatic and fanatics don't use reason.

What I'm asking for, and nobody has given me, is a reasoned response.

Somebody saying that coaching trumps talent is a reason. Somebody saying the recruiting services are full of crap and the rankings are meaningless, that's a reason. Saying we should because we play the games is nice, but it's not a reason.

Here's my "logical reason" if you can call it that. ACC coaches suck or at least the bottom 2/3's do, there's a reason we don't do well against top programs throughout the country in bowl games or in out of conference games. Paul Johnson is a good coach no matter if you like the system or not, so we beat the teams that recruit slightly better than us, but once you get passed those mid tier teams that we always beat, the coaches get better and so do the players and we struggle against those teams.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

One day we will have to make a big decision: Do we want to be Harvard or Tech? We have proven that the Harvard model will only get us 7-8 wins per year regardless of coach. I know some will say otherwise but facts are facts. The 2007 recruiting class has proven that. George O'Leary would agree.

 

[GTrob21]

I expect players to expect to win every game. Even diehard fans, fan means fanatic and fanatics don't use reason.

What I'm asking for, and nobody has given me, is a reasoned response.

Somebody saying that coaching trumps talent is a reason. Somebody saying the recruiting services are full of crap and the rankings are meaningless, that's a reason. Saying we should because we play the games is nice, but it's not a reason.

That is because the only reason you value is your own. There have been people in this thread who had said exactly that...Nobody expects to beat the big 4 every year, most of see why that is not capable at this point.

What I can't except and by the looks of it most people in this thread will never except is mediocrity. The tone of your original post, although I'm sure unintended, gave the impression of accepting those four games at Loses.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

That is because the only reason you value is your own. There have been people in this thread who had said exactly that...Nobody expects to beat the big 4 every year, most of see why that is not capable at this point.

What I can't except and by the looks of it most people in this thread will never except is mediocrity. The tone of your original post, although I'm sure unintended, gave the impression of accepting those four games at Loses.

You misread my intention and maybe that was my fault. I was hoping some of you guys would give me reasons for optimism beyond the rah rah stuff. Nobody has. By the way, in case you haven't noticed, I have plenty of the rah, rah stuff already.

Oh, and I do value other's opinions. Not everybody's, but most on here. A few guys continue to spout off opinions with so called evidence that has been refuted by myself and others repeatedly. Those guys I tend to tune out. It's just a small group.

 

[Fatmike91]

I was hoping some of you guys would give me reasons for optimism beyond the rah rah stuff. Nobody has..

Well I thought I did. We've been competitive in most of these games, and we should have won a few that we lost. THAT is the reason we should expect to win more in the future.


/

 

[Squints]

It's not meant for you

Then send it as a private message and don't post it on a public forum.

It was an honest question.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

Well I thought I did. We've been competitive in most of these games, and we should have won a few that we lost. THAT is the reason we should expect to win more in the future.


/

My bad, but that's not exactly what I was looking for. Maybe if you answer me this I'll feel better about it, why do you think we've been competitive in the face of such huge talent differentials or is the talent differential overblown?

 

[thwgjacket]

My bad, but that's not exactly what I was looking for. Maybe if you answer me this I'll feel better about it, why do you think we've been competitive in the face of such huge talent differentials or is the talent differential overblown?

I love this question. You always have people saying our recruiting is terrible and CPJ is a terrible coach. Yet we remain competitive against really good teams and even beat them. It can't be both, either out recruiting is terrible and CPJ is just that good of a coach on game day or it's way overblown.

 

[GTRX7]

My bad, but that's not exactly what I was looking for. Maybe if you answer me this I'll feel better about it, why do you think we've been competitive in the face of such huge talent differentials or is the talent differential overblown?

I think the problem you are having is that people don't necessarily agree with many of the assumptions you make in forming your question. First, as I pointed out before (and others), I think many of us disagree with your premise that there is in fact a "huge talent gap." In terms of depth, there probably is a pretty decent gap between GT and the factories, but the gap in terms of starters is not that huge. As I said before, the difference between a 5* and 3* is not a 40% better player. Similarly, the difference between a 10th ranked recruiting class and a 40th ranked class is not 4-fold. We have worse talent, yes. But, I don't think it is a "huge" gap.

Second, just because one team is less talented than another, that does not necessarily mean that the less talented team should "always" lose every matchup. It is about statistics. Based on coaching and the talent gap, there is generally a % chance that the less talented team will still win any particular game. Over the long run, that translates into the less talented team winning a certain percentage in the series. Most think we have pretty good (but not great) talent and at least pretty good (very good to some) coaching. Those two things should equal an expectation that GT should win a certain percentage of the time against the factories.

In fact, the presumption you seemingly make that the less talented team should always lose is the one that needs to be defended, not that the less talented team should win its share (albiet less than 50% of the time). Now, if you want to rephrase the question and ask why fans here think that we should be winning more than 50% of the time against teams with better talent, I think that would get you to the answers you want. However, I am not sure that many fans do agree that we should expect to win more than 50% of the time against a lot of the factories.

 

[dressedcheeseside]

I think the problem you are having is that people don't necessarily agree with many of the assumptions you make in forming your question. First, as I pointed out before (and others), I think many of us disagree with your premise that there is in fact a "huge talent gap." In terms of depth, there probably is a pretty decent gap between GT and the factories, but the gap in terms of starters is not that huge. As I said before, the difference between a 5* and 3* is not a 40% better player. Similarly, the difference between a 10th ranked recruiting class and a 40th ranked class is not 4-fold. We have worse talent, yes. But, I don't think it is a "huge" gap.

Second, just because one team is less talented than another, that does not necessarily mean that the less talented team should "always" lose every matchup. It is about statistics. Based on coaching and the talent gap, there is generally a % chance that the less talented team will still win any particular game. Over the long run, that translates into the less talented team winning a certain percentage in the series. Most think we have pretty good (but not great) talent and at least pretty good (very good to some) coaching. Those two things should equal an expectation that GT should win a certain percentage of the time against the factories.

In fact, the presumption you seemingly make that the less talented team should always lose is the one that needs to be defended, not that the less talented team should win its share (albiet less than 50% of the time). Now, if you want to rephrase the question and ask why fans here think that we should be winning more than 50% of the time against teams with better talent, I think that would get you to the answers you want. However, I am not sure that many fans do agree that we should expect to win more than 50% of the time against a lot of the factories.

First, thanks for the reasoned response. I was basing my assumption on a huge talent gap based on the 5 year average recruiting rankings. I picked 5 years because that makes up the current roster. As I stated, the gap between Uga and GT is 10 vs 77. To me, that seems like an overwhelming advantage. I'm not sure your contention that statistically we should win our share holds water in the face of such a huge disparity, and yes, I think huge is the appropriate word.

I didn't really give my opinion honestly, as I was kind of playing devil's advocate a bit. As many of you know, I don't subscribe to the recruiting rankings as accurate data. For one thing, it doesn't take into account how certain players fit one system vs another. A guy might be a 3 star in one system, but a 4 or 5 star for us. I don't think we have the 77th ranked talent in the nation, far from it.

Secondly, I think coaching has a huge impact on the success of a team and that teams play the game not individuals. It is entirely possible that a team far exceeds the potential of the sums of the parts. I think that is what we have been able to do in the recent past against the factories. In the end, however, the actual gap in talent, which is less than the rankings suggest, is still formidable. In fact, as you suggest, it manifests itself in quality depth. That has a huge impact in a game of attrition like football. A perfect example is the Uga game last year. We simply had no gas in tank in the 4th qtr and overtime. Contrast that with Uga having a full tank thanks to it's loaded roster.

 

[alaguy]

Or any factory for that matter? Our expectations are way out of wack here folks. I get want to win, heck, I want to win those games, too, but expecting and wanting are two completely different things. How in the world does anybody with any inkling of common sense or logic expect to beat teams that have not just marginally better talent than we do across the board, but in most cases, exponentially more talent.

Take Uga for example. They wrack up top 10 after top 10 classes and yet, guys on here proudly proclaim they're not happy unless we beat them. Then they go on to spout off the string of defeats. Well what do you expect? This is not a game of chance where the odds eventually even out. This isn't like flipping a coin where there's a 50/50 chance it lands on one side or the other. Those guys are a semi-pro football f-a-c-t-o-r-y. Same story for most of the other teams the "no excuses" crowd holds up as a measuring stick for our success. The fact that we've been so competitive in these contests where talent differential suggests we should be blown off the face of the earth, says something positive about our program, imo.

These same fans also dismiss wins against teams with comparable talent like it's a meaningless given.

I get having high expectations as a point of pride, I do. I just don't get the logic behind them.

Average recruiting ranking over the last 5 years (composite of all the services http://cfbmatrix.com/pre-nsd-the-ultimate-reference-guide-feb-6th/):

Uga: 10 (over the last 10 years they're #2)
Clemson: 15
VT: 22
Miami: 26

GT: 77

You do the math.

Someone might ask the question-why are we 77th? but maybe in another discussion
There is a definite talent gap but not 1-15, I do not believe.

 

[vamosjackets]

It's a REALLY good question, that most are struggling mightily with to find consistency in logic. Their GT football fandom/philosophy/worldview breaks down. But, to give a simple answer, it's because we're:


Ok, now in all seriousness and honesty. I truly believe and even expect to beat those teams for 2 reasons:
1. Coaching. I truly believe Paul Johnson's offense gives us an advantage, a mathematical advantage. We have a system that is flat out mathematically better than most every other system out there. We have a faster hitting basic play than any other system. We can always outnumber the defense. We use all 11 players in the run game and make the defense defend the entire field both horizontally and vertically. It puts teams in a bind more than any other system. The only other system that can compete with its advantages are the Oregon/Auburn/Ohio State systems, which were a total spin off of CPJ's system. Tenuta's defensive system made me feel the same way when he was our DC. I now also believe that we have a chance to be in the upper echelon of defensive coaching again with Coach Roof's improvements - I think he's got a good plan and is a great motivator.
2. Our SA's have more character in general. They're smarter and are generally better morally. I'm speaking in a BIG generality here, and fully concede that there are many exceptions. But, this is a general truth for the majority.

It takes a lot for these two things to overcome the raw talent differential you have brought out so strongly. But, that's my logic for why I continue to be passionate about GT football and live and die inside a bit with our games against those teams.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

We have had a talent gap with the factories my entire life. Dodd years preceded me. The majority of my early football memories are from the Curry years. So you will have to forgive me for thinking things ain't horrible yet.

Usually when we beat the factories it has been because of 2 factors and often both together. Factor 1, a great game plan executed properly. Factor 2, our guys played harder and won through hustle and want to.

I think we will always be at a talent disadvantage. We just have to close the gap enough to allow factors 1 and 2 to get us over the proverbial hump. IMO CPJ is one of the few coaches around that gives us a chance in that regard.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Another thought to ponder is: what is the true talent differential between the #10 and #77 ranked teams? Is that the difference between 89% and 81% or the difference between 89% and 71%?

As noted by others, I think the disparity lies in the depth, not the front-line talent. Factories have a 1A team and a 1B team, where we have a 1st Team and a 2nd- Team.