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

andrew said:
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.)
Click to expand...
Again, 14-44 is not competitive - no matter how you try to spin the "but we won a few and some were close". We won 3iar, big whoop, against their öööötiest coach and we had to get a miracle to do it in 1999.
 
JJacket said:
Again, 14-44 is not competitive - no matter how you try to spin the "but we won a few and some were close". We won 3iar, big whoop, against their öööötiest coach and we had to get a miracle to do it in 1999.
Click to expand...

The conversation is about whether we can attract the types of players who can stay in Tech and sometimes be competitive with the best teams we play, right? That's what you replied to.

stinger78 said:
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...

JJacket said:
We haven't been competitive with UGAg since 1964
Click to expand...

I don't see how you can say we haven't been able to attract the players to be competitive with U[sic]GA sometimes since 1964. I could see if we only won one game or two games in that time period. But if we won 14 games, then clearly we were able to attract players who could compete with U[sic]GA sometimes, right? Otherwise how did we win the games?

No one is saying that we've been competitive with them consistently since 1964. The stats make that very clear. But to say we haven't been competitive with them even some of the time since then ignores...well...the times we were competitive with them.
 
andrew said:
The conversation is about whether we can attract the types of players who can stay in Tech and sometimes be competitive with the best teams we play, right? That's what you replied to.





I don't see how you can say we haven't been able to attract the players to be competitive with U[sic]GA sometimes since 1964. I could see if we only won one game or two games in that time period. But if we won 14 games, then clearly we were able to attract players who could compete with U[sic]GA sometimes, right? Otherwise how did we win the games?

No one is saying that we've been competitive with them consistently since 1964. The stats make that very clear. But to say we haven't been competitive with them even some of the time since then ignores...well...the times we were competitive with them.
Click to expand...
Good God you're pathetic.

Competitive is 30-28. Not the öööö we've had since 1964
 
JJacket said:
Good God you're pathetic.

Competitive is 30-28. Not the öööö we've had since 1964
Click to expand...

For the record, I fully agree that we haven't been competitive with them overall since 1964, and anyone who says we have is foolish.

But I think it's also foolish to say that we haven't been able to be competitive with them even sometimes since 1964, as you are saying, and I think that it ignores a lot of great players who delivered us wins and lifelong memories, many of which I know you were either there for or at least watching.

Now I'm done with the discussion, because it feels like you're either not actually reading the posts or being deliberately obtuse in order to rub our faces in the fact that U[sic]GA has been a better program than us since the 60s.
 
andrew said:
For the record, I fully agree that we haven't been competitive with them overall since 1964, and anyone who says we have is foolish.

But I think it's also foolish to say that we haven't been able to be competitive with them even sometimes since 1964, as you are saying, and I think that it ignores a lot of great players who delivered us wins and lifelong memories, many of which I know you were either there for or at least watching.

Now I'm done with the discussion, because it feels like you're either not actually reading the posts or being deliberately obtuse in order to rub our faces in the fact that U[sic]GA has been a better program than us since the 60s.
Click to expand...
Those players with lifelong memories probably wish we had been more competitive with UGAg. In fact, I bet several would say that they were a few pieces away from being really competitive. Otherwise, it is Navy maybe beating ND once in a blue moon.

Hey, I wish it weren't that way, but the last time I was able to celebrate a victory over UGAg at BDS was 1999, and that is ancient days now.
 
andrew said:
For the record, I fully agree that we haven't been competitive with them overall since 1964, and anyone who says we have is foolish.

But I think it's also foolish to say that we haven't been able to be competitive with them even sometimes since 1964, as you are saying, and I think that it ignores a lot of great players who delivered us wins and lifelong memories, many of which I know you were either there for or at least watching.

Now I'm done with the discussion, because it feels like you're either not actually reading the posts or being deliberately obtuse in order to rub our faces in the fact that U[sic]GA has been a better program than us since the 60s.
Click to expand...
I'm reading your posts and I do think that GA Tech football is overall very competitive with UGAg. As I showed, Since the early 1960's, we have won or played to about 1 score in 36 seasons. There are several others (at least 10 or so) where the result has been a 2-score difference. That's still a competitive game. So, about 45-50 years we've been competitive with them out of 62 seasons. We've won 17 of those, so about 1/3 of the time when we are competing. In between, there have only been about 12-15 or so season wherein we were just not competitive. That covers 6 decades, so about 2-3 games per decade. That seems about right.

So, FWIW, overall competitive? Absolutely. Overall even? Not at all.

I'd describe the series as them having had the edge over us for a long time in wins, even though the games are most often very competitive.
 
And we wonder why we can’t attract sidewalk fans. The ATL/404 marketing didn’t fail, The on-field product did. We had more eyes on us in very long time and the engagement/ social interactions prove that. We need to be a part of Atlanta not just in Atlanta to grow the fan base. Embrace GT Traditions? What exactly is that? 30 shades of gold? New uniforms every 4-5 yrs? Fans who don’t want you to stand and cheer? Selling their tickets to UGA fans?

It’s your prerogative to hate CGC, but to not want to be a part of the fabric of the city that you’re located in the middle of is stupidity at its finest and a typical Tech move
 
ibeeballin said:
And we wonder why we can’t attract sidewalk fans. The ATL/404 marketing didn’t fail, The on-field product did. We had more eyes on us in very long time and the engagement/ social interactions prove that. We need to be a part of Atlanta not just in Atlanta to grow the fan base. Embrace GT Traditions? What exactly is that? 30 shades of gold? New uniforms every 4-5 yrs? Fans who don’t want you to stand and cheer? Selling their tickets to UGA fans?

It’s your prerogative to hate CGC, but to not want to be a part of the fabric of the city that you’re located in the middle of is stupidity at its finest and a typical Tech move
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is rejecting the Atlanta connection. Georgia Tech and Atlanta are tied together and always will be. But Tech's view and relationship with the city is unique and instead of trying to change Georgia Tech to be aligned with some "branded" idea of what Atlanta is, Georgia Tech should be true to Georgia Tech and the history it has which stands on its own. An institute with a history that the city of Atlanta should frankly be very proud to be affiliated with and not the other way around. Georgia Tech goes well beyond the 404 area code.

It would seem to me that some people here want Tech to be something it isn't. I pull for Tech not only because I graduated from there and was raised a Tech fan but because it is a different place. It's not a football factory. It's not a semi-pro program. It's not some malleable "brand" to fit whatever nonsense is in the popular culture at the time. It stands on its own. That is rare and it's worth claiming, celebrating and it's worth protecting.

I don't care if the sidewalk fan likes that or not. Let them root for some other flavor of the month football factory school. When you try to be all things to all people you lose them and yourself in the process. Be Georgia Tech.
 
Buzzilla said:
I don't think anyone is rejecting the Atlanta connection. Georgia Tech and Atlanta are tied together and always will be. But Tech's view and relationship with the city is unique and instead of trying to change Georgia Tech to be aligned with some "branded" idea of what Atlanta is, Georgia Tech should be true to Georgia Tech and the history it has which stands on its own. An institute with a history that the city of Atlanta should frankly be very proud to be affiliated with and not the other way around. Georgia Tech goes well beyond the 404 area code.

It would seem to me that some people here want Tech to be something it isn't. I pull for Tech not only because I graduated from there and was raised a Tech fan but because it is a different place. It's not a football factory. It's not a semi-pro program. It's not some malleable "brand" to fit whatever nonsense is in the popular culture at the time. It stands on its own. That is rare and it's worth claiming, celebrating and it's worth protecting.

I don't care if the sidewalk fan likes that or not. Let them root for some other flavor of the month football factory school. When you try to be all things to all people you lose them and yourself in the process. Be Georgia Tech.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a winning model. Continue to pander to an aging core and THW with the sidewalk fans. Being unique within the Atlanta community doesn’t have to be mutually exclusive
 
ibeeballin said:
And we wonder why we can’t attract sidewalk fans. The ATL/404 marketing didn’t fail, The on-field product did. We had more eyes on us in very long time and the engagement/ social interactions prove that.
Click to expand...
Underneath that, though, is the over reliance on marketing and the complete abdication of the responsibilities of putting a winner on the field. Ok, we had more eyes on us than before. And what happened? They saw just how ööööty a product we put on the field for three-plus seasons.
You can market and tie in to Atlanta and 404 all you want, but once they smelled what the Clown was really cooking, they ain't coming back.
The most tried and true method is winning.
You can say the ATL/404 marketing effort did in fact fail because it did not evince a winner. It was hype that never yielded positive results. It could never sustain itself. It needed winning to sustain itself and it didn't bring any winning.
Clown put the cart in front of the horse. Let the horse of winning draw the cart of marketing.

I don't know where the seats of those fans who abhor standing and cheering are, but they ain't around me and where I usually sit.
 
swampsting said:
Underneath that, though, is the over reliance on marketing and the complete abdication of the responsibilities of putting a winner on the field. Ok, we had more eyes on us than before. And what happened? They saw just how ööööty a product we put on the field for three-plus seasons.
You can market and tie in to Atlanta and 404 all you want, but once they smelled what the Clown was really cooking, they ain't coming back.
The most tried and true method is winning.
You can say the ATL/404 marketing effort did in fact fail because it did not evince a winner. It was hype that never yielded positive results. It could never sustain itself. It needed winning to sustain itself and it didn't bring any winning.
Clown put the cart in front of the horse. Let the horse of winning draw the cart of marketing.

I don't know where the seats of those fans who abhor standing and cheering are, but they ain't around me and where I usually sit.
Click to expand...

You need marketing and a compelling product on the field. Winning and having an offense that majority thinks is boring and antiquated doesn’t put butts in the seat and creating hype while not being able to field team that can beat Grayson Middle doesn’t help either

We need to stop oversteering in one direction period! Market the hell out of GTFB while beating the öööö put on people
 
ibeeballin said:
And we wonder why we can’t attract sidewalk fans. The ATL/404 marketing didn’t fail, The on-field product did. We had more eyes on us in very long time and the engagement/ social interactions prove that. We need to be a part of Atlanta not just in Atlanta to grow the fan base. Embrace GT Traditions? What exactly is that? 30 shades of gold? New uniforms every 4-5 yrs? Fans who don’t want you to stand and cheer? Selling their tickets to UGA fans?

It’s your prerogative to hate CGC, but to not want to be a part of the fabric of the city that you’re located in the middle of is stupidity at its finest and a typical Tech move
Click to expand...
aplausos-clapped.gif


CGC’s strategy wasn’t a bad one, he just couldn’t coach worth a damn. If he just sat back and let someone who knew what they were doing win games, the 404/ATL thing would have taken off. This is exactly how we could differentiate Tech from all of the neighboring schools and grow the brand.
 
gtphd said:
aplausos-clapped.gif


CGC’s strategy wasn’t a bad one, he just couldn’t coach worth a damn. If he just sat back and let someone who knew what they were doing win games, the 404/ATL thing would have taken off. This is exactly how we could differentiate Tech from all of the neighboring schools and grow the brand.
Click to expand...
Speaking of which, I hope Key and J see the value in hiring a director of branding. Plenty of them around Atlanta. I bet you can find someone good.
 
1982Jacket said:
Calling Georgia Tech a "retard brand" ought to be a permaban offense on any real Georgia Tech fan board run by real Georgia Tech fans.
Click to expand...
Nobody is going to care about GT of stupid öööös like you have your way
 
gtphd said:
aplausos-clapped.gif


CGC’s strategy wasn’t a bad one, he just couldn’t coach worth a damn. If he just sat back and let someone who knew what they were doing win games, the 404/ATL thing would have taken off. This is exactly how we could differentiate Tech from all of the neighboring schools and grow the brand.
Click to expand...
He had Kirby trying to brand UGA as ATL, at first. Once Kirby realized Collins was a disorganized POS charlatan, Kirby moved on from fearing our branding efforts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top