ACC explains how Georgia Tech’s primary partners were determined

Playing Louisville and Wake is like playing BC and Syracuse to me. I'd trade Louisville with VT. I understand you can't always get what you want, but Louisville and Wake... C'mon man!
 
TechRush said:
People were all like wahhhh, why would Tech want to move to the B1G? Will annual games against Northwestern and Illinois move the needle? Umm, well, our own conference just saddled us with WF and Louisville every year.
Click to expand...

Couldn’t have said it better myself. The ACC has the potential for great rivalries for GT, but the conference and our athletic leadership either gives no öööös or has no vision. Either way, best case scenario at this point is to either go to the B1G with a group of ACC schools I actually care about playing or end up in the SEC with regional matchups.
 
I strongly prefer Duke to Wake. I don’t understand not enjoying playing Louisville. A fall trip to Kentucky is not bad every other year. Louisville will be a quality opponent more years than many ACC schools will be. They are an old Metro basketball rival. I would prefer playing them every year to the Northeastern schools, Wake, UNC, N C State or Miami. They are as good to play as the two Virginia schools. The best thing is playing all the schools at least half the time.
 
My takeaways:
1) Contra the anti-ACC sentiment here, the fact that Clemson was retained as a primary rival because the ACC wanted it and despite Stanbury not wanting it indicates to me that the Tech leadership cares far less about GT than the ACC leadership does.
2) None of the big football players in the ACC seemed keen on playing Tech. Not Clemson, FSU, VPI, etc. But people here keep reassuring me that other conferences just want to swoop up Tech so they can visit Atlanta once a year. Yet that doesn’t seem to be a draw for schools that can achieve it without having to make massive conference realignment decisions.

Our location in Atlanta doesn’t seem to be the football draw mang seem to believe it is (it might be an attraction from a TV license perspective, but I’m finding that argument suspect as well).
 
rghoae said:
My takeaways:
1) Contra the anti-ACC sentiment here, the fact that Clemson was retained as a primary rival because the ACC wanted it and despite Stanbury not wanting it indicates to me that the Tech leadership cares far less about GT than the ACC leadership does.
2) None of the big football players in the ACC seemed keen on playing Tech. Not Clemson, FSU, VPI, etc. But people here keep reassuring me that other conferences just want to swoop up Tech so they can visit Atlanta once a year. Yet that doesn’t seem to be a draw for schools that can achieve it without having to make massive conference realignment decisions.

Our location in Atlanta doesn’t seem to be the football draw mang seem to believe it is (it might be an attraction from a TV license perspective, but I’m finding that argument suspect as well).
Click to expand...

There may also be some recency bias in effect, too, since we’ve been a joke for the last 3 years. We’re not to attractive to anybody at the moment.

JRjr
 
Some of you are acting like these will be the only 3 conference games that we play all year... If that were the case I would be pissed too.

That said, I am actually glad that we got Wake on the schedule; it should (in theory) be a built in conference win every year, given how the series has gone in the past, and they are much more compelling to me than BC or Syracuse. I'd also like to continue to pound them into the ground after the whole 2006 ACCCG fiasco.

If the ACC really wanted to screw us, we could have been gifted Clemson, FSU, and VT as permanent opponents every year. Sure, it generates interest when we play them, and we will play them regularly under the new model, but to have to play the strongest Atlantic teams every year plus one of the strongest coastal teams every year would put us in a difficult spot at the start of every season.

The interview cited in the initial post reads like a complete puff piece... I doubt that the spokesperson was allowed to reveal anything from the actual discussions that went into picking the cross division rivals.

Step back from the ledge...
 
gtGreg768b said:
Some of you are acting like these will be the only 3 conference games that we play all year... If that were the case I would be pissed too.

That said, I am actually glad that we got Wake on the schedule; it should (in theory) be a built in conference win every year, given how the series has gone in the past, and they are much more compelling to me than BC or Syracuse. I'd also like to continue to pound them into the ground after the whole 2006 ACCCG fiasco.

If the ACC really wanted to screw us, we could have been gifted Clemson, FSU, and VT as permanent opponents every year. Sure, it generates interest when we play them, and we will play them regularly under the new model, but to have to play the strongest Atlantic teams every year plus one of the strongest coastal teams every year would put us in a difficult spot at the start of every season.

The interview cited in the initial post reads like a complete puff piece... I doubt that the spokesperson was allowed to reveal anything from the actual discussions that went into picking the cross division rivals.

Step back from the ledge...
Click to expand...
Tech has owned Louisville since they joined, so that may be another built in conference win, too.
 
Of course Todd wanted to duck Clemson and didn't insist on us maintaining traditional rivalries with Duke, UNC, UVA, etc. Did he even bother to try to understand where the fan opinion stood and represent that to the ACC?
 
gtGreg768b said:
Some of you are acting like these will be the only 3 conference games that we play all year... If that were the case I would be pissed too.

That said, I am actually glad that we got Wake on the schedule; it should (in theory) be a built in conference win every year, given how the series has gone in the past, and they are much more compelling to me than BC or Syracuse. I'd also like to continue to pound them into the ground after the whole 2006 ACCCG fiasco.

If the ACC really wanted to screw us, we could have been gifted Clemson, FSU, and VT as permanent opponents every year. Sure, it generates interest when we play them, and we will play them regularly under the new model, but to have to play the strongest Atlantic teams every year plus one of the strongest coastal teams every year would put us in a difficult spot at the start of every season.

The interview cited in the initial post reads like a complete puff piece... I doubt that the spokesperson was allowed to reveal anything from the actual discussions that went into picking the cross division rivals.

Step back from the ledge...
Click to expand...
You really think Wake is a built in win-even in theory? You haven't been watching them.They just played in ACC title game and have a real coach that makes them a threat every yr. In fact ,its the worst of all worlds--if we beat them folks won't give us credit and they have as few fans as us ,so we won't get the revenue either.
 
The ACC habitually screws over GT and they don't give a damn about GT traditions or rivalries. The only schools they care about are foremost on Tobacco Road and secondarily in the state of Florida.
 
AlaGold said:
You really think Wake is a built in win-even in theory? You haven't been watching them.They just played in ACC title game and have a real coach that makes them a threat every yr. In fact ,its the worst of all worlds--if we beat them folks won't give us credit and they have as few fans as us ,so we won't get the revenue either.
Click to expand...
If Clawson keeps Wake Forest a perennial ACC title contender, will they be able to pay up to keep him? Do you really think that Wake Forest is going to become the next Clemson in the ACC? Do you really think that we are going to stay so crappy long term that we have to struggle to beat Wake Forest?

I would say "no" to all three.
 
Truthfully I didn't mind wake louisville pissed me off though Either virginia school or Florida school would have been perfered or another North carolina school hell even pitt would be better
 
OmnipoTech said:
Just another entry in the long list of dumb öööö Todd has done.
Click to expand...
Yeah but he’s a “Tech Man”.

I bet a UGA grad would run our AA much better than the line of “Tech Men” have. They couldn’t do any worse.
 
whiskey clear said:
The ACC habitually screws over GT and they don't give a damn about GT traditions or rivalries. The only schools they care about are foremost on Tobacco Road and secondarily in the state of Florida.
Click to expand...
Can we blame the ACC for screwing over Tech when our own AD thinks our series against Clemson isn’t important?
 
I don't get the bitching here about us getting screwed. We kept the Clemson game, which is my favorite of the year - home or away. Wake is by far a better road trip than Duke and their current success is more Covid-related than coach driven. They'll be a competitive win for us. Lousiville tries to be a football school, but can't get there, which bodes well for us and the road trip there is better than Tallahassee (and closer than Miami). It would have been nice to have VPISU as a constant, since my brother and nephew are alums, but it's another ööööty road trip. I like having two very winnable games and a shot at Clemson every year.
 
clapper said:
I don't get the bitching here about us getting screwed. We kept the Clemson game, which is my favorite of the year - home or away. Wake is by far a better road trip than Duke and their current success is more Covid-related than coach driven. They'll be a competitive win for us. Lousiville tries to be a football school, but can't get there, which bodes well for us and the road trip there is better than Tallahassee (and closer than Miami). It would have been nice to have VPISU as a constant, since my brother and nephew are alums, but it's another ööööty road trip. I like having two very winnable games and a shot at Clemson every year.
Click to expand...
Screenshot_20220803-084225_Chrome.jpg
 
The way people are talking about only getting to play Duke every other year, you'd think they were a paragon of college football that we circled on the schedule every season instead of a school where the main two talking points on the message board were always a) making fun of their joke of a stadium b) bitching about how we're losing to them when they're a joke of a football school.

I'm not saying that Wake is much (or any) better, or that you can't like playing Duke, but the way we're taking not getting to play Duke every year as a big personal slight against the future of Tech football...c'mon, man.
 
clapper said:
Yeah, I get it. Duke. Lots of games. According to your list, we started playing Wake 16 years before Duke and have a better winning percentage against them. Duke fell off the football radar earlier than damn near any other southern school. It's not a tradition.
Click to expand...
If us playing Duke isn't a tradition, then the only tradition we have as a football program is getting our asses handed to us by UGA while eating Thanksgiving leftovers most of the time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top