Helmet Front Wording Update: “ATL” to “Tech”

Do kids sign contracts with the city of Atlanta or the Georgia Institute of Technology? Enough said.

404 ATL was a fun experiment. It failed miserably.

Do players come to play for Tuscaloosa or Alabama? Columbus or Ohio State? Etc etc.

How well has Miami done recently?

The formula for national relevance hasn’t changed. Investment, coaching, talent, wins, and, most importantly, sustained success
 
ElCidBUZZingFAN said:
Hurr durr JuSt LoOk aT aLl tHe AtL coMpaNiEs SupPortInG gT nIL. ItS a GaMe ChAnGeR Hurr durr
Click to expand...
Enjoy playing in the AAC. You can regale the smattering of fans around you with stories on how we are doing it "Dodd's Way" just like 1952 all over again.

Meanwhile, other schools will go play big boy football.
 
ScionOfSouthland said:
Do kids sign contracts with the city of Atlanta or the Georgia Institute of Technology? Enough said.

404 ATL was a fun experiment. It failed miserably.

Do players come to play for Tuscaloosa or Alabama? Columbus or Ohio State? Etc etc.

How well has Miami done recently?

The formula for national relevance hasn’t changed. Investment, coaching, talent, wins, and, most importantly, sustained success
Click to expand...
As I said earlier, in competitive athletics, winning is still the best value proposition. People buy into what you got because you win, not because of where you are.
 
stinger78 said:
As I said earlier, in competitive athletics, winning is still the best value proposition. People buy into what you got because you win, not because of where you are.
Click to expand...
No öööö, but to win we have to attract players. To attract players, the "GT brand" that means so much to everyone over 50 years old is kind of meaningless to a kid who we may get by claiming Atlanta and closing the borders

Like I said, even Kirby was worried about it until he discovered Collins couldn't coach for öööö.

9571344.jpg
 
This creates a catch-22 situation. You can't win until you attract sufficient players, but you can't attract sufficient players until you win. The off ramp here is not the brand, it is the HBC and staff who can convince a quality player that he has the mojo to win. This is why TFG's branding experiment went south after 2-3 years. He could not win, even with them. Winning is the secret sauce, not branding.

Tech has not had any difficulty attracting players that can make it at Tech. We don't get them all, but no team does. Over the years, even the mediocre ones, we've largely been competitive with all but the very best teams we've played, and sometimes them, too.
 
stinger78 said:
This creates a catch-22 situation. You can't win until you attract sufficient players, but you can't attract sufficient players until you win. The off ramp here is not the brand, it is the HBC and staff who can convince a quality player that he has the mojo to win. This is why TFG's branding experiment went south after 2-3 years. He could not win, even with them. Winning is the secret sauce, not branding.

Tech has not had any difficulty attracting players that can make it at Tech. We don't get them all, but no team does. Over the years, even the mediocre ones, we've largely been competitive with all but the very best teams we've played, and sometimes them, too.
Click to expand...
We haven't been competitive with UGAg since 1964
 
JJacket said:
No öööö, but to win we have to attract players. To attract players, the "GT brand" that means so much to everyone over 50 years old is kind of meaningless to a kid who we may get by claiming Atlanta and closing the borders

Like I said, even Kirby was worried about it until he discovered Collins couldn't coach for öööö.

9571344.jpg
Click to expand...

lol...everyone knows what a TRAP house is right??
 
Love it. Win or lose, do it by embracing Tech tradition instead of pandering. I don’t have anything against the 404 branding campaign, but let’s re-build the damn house before repainting it.
 
MyOnlyFriendTheEnd said:
Love it. Win or lose, do it by embracing Tech tradition instead of pandering. I don’t have anything against the 404 branding campaign, but let’s re-build the damn house before repainting it.
Click to expand...
Nobody is going to care, outside of us, about what the GT brand used to be
 
MyOnlyFriendTheEnd said:
Love it. Win or lose, do it by embracing Tech tradition instead of pandering. I don’t have anything against the 404 branding campaign, but let’s re-build the damn house before repainting it.
Click to expand...

I like getting away from Collins' "new culture." I like "Tech" instead of ATL or 404. I like playing home games at Grant Field. I really hated everything Collins did. His "new culture" turned out to be arrogance and losing. I don't have anything against Collins personally, but his "new culture" was like communism. It seemed pretty good in theory but was an unmitigated disaster in reality. I really like Coach Key. I like that he says "To Hell With Georgia." Let's start being Georgia Tech again.
 
JJacket said:
We haven't been competitive with UGAg since 1964
Click to expand...
Sorry, this is bull(dawg)crap. We were very competitive with them all through the 1960's and 1970's, and often up through CJ's tenure.

We beat them in 1961, 62, 63, 69, 70, 74, and 77, and lost very close losses in 1964, 66, 67, 71, 76, and 78. That's 13 out of 18 years (1961-1978) we were as good or better than they were. After Curry got turned around, after the Herschel years, we beat them in 1984, 85, 89, 90, 98, 99, and 2000, and lost very close games to them in 1983, 86, 91, 95, 96 and 97. That's 13 out of 16 years (1984-2000) we were as good or better than they were between Curry, Ross, and O'Leary. Then Gailey came to town and though he didn't beat them, he played them darn close in 2004, 05, and 06. Johnson upped that, beating them in 2008, 14, and 16, and lost close ones in 2009, 10, 13, and 15. That's 10 out of 12 (2004-2016) years we were as good or better than they were.

Yes, we had brief periods when we weren't very competitive with them, but those usually corresponded to their all-time high points. Odd how those have so often corresponded to our crappy transition times (1967-69, 1980-82, 87-88, 92-94, 2002-03, and 2019-22). Still, out of 36 out of those 46 years above we were competitive with them. Now we only walked out with 17 wins, or about half the time we are competitive, but isn't that normal? What we have to stop is the stinking, crappy transitions. Dood stayed 22 years and beat them over half the time. GOL stayed 7 years and beat them almost half the time. Johnson stayed 11 years and beat them a liitle under 30% of the time but played them darn tough.

It can be done.
 
stinger78 said:
Sorry, this is bull(dawg)crap. We were very competitive with them all through the 1960's and 1970's, and often up through CJ's tenure.

We beat them in 1961, 62, 63, 69, 70, 74, and 77, and lost very close losses in 1964, 66, 67, 71, 76, and 78. That's 13 out of 18 years (1961-1978) we were as good or better than they were. After Curry got turned around, after the Herschel years, we beat them in 1984, 85, 89, 90, 98, 99, and 2000, and lost very close games to them in 1983, 86, 91, 95, 96 and 97. That's 13 out of 16 years (1984-2000) we were as good or better than they were between Curry, Ross, and O'Leary. Then Gailey came to town and though he didn't beat them, he played them darn close in 2004, 05, and 06. Johnson upped that, beating them in 2008, 14, and 16, and lost close ones in 2009, 10, 13, and 15. That's 10 out of 12 (2004-2016) years we were as good or better than they were.

Yes, we had brief periods when we weren't very competitive with them, but those usually corresponded to their all-time high points. Odd how those have so often corresponded to our crappy transition times (1967-69, 1980-82, 87-88, 92-94, 2002-03, and 2019-22). Still, out of 36 out of those 46 years above we were competitive with them. Now we only walked out with 17 wins, or about half the time we are competitive, but isn't that normal? What we have to stop is the stinking, crappy transitions. Dood stayed 22 years and beat them over half the time. GOL stayed 7 years and beat them almost half the time. Johnson stayed 11 years and beat them a liitle under 30% of the time but played them darn tough.

It can be done.
Click to expand...
Close losses are losses. I was 33 years old the last time I saw a victory over UGA at BDS. I am 57 now.
 
JJacket said:
Close losses are losses. I was 33 years old the last time I saw a victory over UGA at BDS. I am 57 now.
Click to expand...
You didn’t say we haven’t won, you said we’ve been non-competitive.

Just in case you forgot, here’s what you typed:
“We haven't been competitive with UGAg since 1964.”
 
stinger78 said:
You didn’t say we haven’t won, you said we’ve been non-competitive.

Just in case you forgot, here’s what you typed:
“We haven't been competitive with UGAg since 1964.”
Click to expand...
Competitive is not "it was close". Having a 14-44 record since 1964 is NOT remotely competitive, despite your need to get a participation trophy.

Yes, we one three in a row 98, 99, 00, but UGAg had their öööötiest coaching staff since the 1930's in place. We are since 3-18 against them starting in 2001. Not competitive. There is no "Get back to that Tech brand of 1950's style football"

You better ööööing embrace Atlanta and do every ööööing thing in your power to make yourself a presence in this city or we will be every bit of the sadness that is UCONN playing at an empty Rentschler.
 
JJacket said:
Competitive is not "it was close". Having a 14-44 record since 1964 is NOT remotely competitive, despite your need to get a participation trophy.

Yes, we one three in a row 98, 99, 00, but UGAg had their öööötiest coaching staff since the 1930's in place. We are since 3-18 against them starting in 2001. Not competitive. There is no "Get back to that Tech brand of 1950's style football"

You better ööööing embrace Atlanta and do every ööööing thing in your power to make yourself a presence in this city or we will be every bit of the sadness that is UCONN playing at an empty Rentschler.
Click to expand...

So we haven't been competitive with them since 1964 as long as you ignore the periods where we were playing competitive games against them but losing narrowly, and as long as you ignore the period where we were playing competitive games against them and winning.

Anyone with eyes knows that U[sic]GA has dominated us overall since the 1960s, but to say that we haven't been competitive with them since then discounts some great Georgia Tech players, coaches, and teams who have managed to compete with them and deliver some memorable wins (and heartbreaking losses, of course.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top