Justin Thomas commits to GT

WracerX said:
I'd like an ACC/BIG10 football challenge.
Click to expand...
We already have that for the SEC. It's called Thanksgiving. We keep losing. The only way for the ACC to improve its image is to start winning.

The ACC Champion two of the last 3 years has lost on Thanksgiving to a middle of the road SEC team.
 
beej67 said:
We already have that for the SEC. It's called Thanksgiving. We keep losing. The only way for the ACC to improve its image is to start winning.

The ACC Champion two of the last 3 years has lost on Thanksgiving to a middle of the road SEC team.
Click to expand...

Sort of. We had 4 games this thanksgiving against the SEC (Wake-Vandy was that weekend, right?).

I would like the full 12 team line up. But I guess going to 14 teams will screw up the numbers again.

What was the ACC-SEC record this year? Was it 3-5? I'm sure the ACC faired better in 2008. I think we went 3-1 against the SEC that year.
 
WracerX said:
Sort of. We had 4 games this thanksgiving against the SEC (Wake-Vandy was that weekend, right?).

I would like the full 12 team line up. But I guess going to 14 teams will screw up the numbers again.

What was the ACC-SEC record this year? Was it 3-5? I'm sure the ACC faired better in 2008. I think we went 3-1 against the SEC that year.
Click to expand...

Both conferences will have 14 teams soon, though.
 
I don't think an ACC/SEC challenge (or even an ACC/Big 10 challenge) would be good for the ACC. The only meaningful way to do it is the same as in basketball, where they match the teams up based on the prior year's final standings. This means our best teams would likely suffer early season losses. For instance, we would have played Alabama to start last year. Virginia Tech would have likely beat Auburn this year. Next year we'd have Clemson vs. LSU, Virginia Tech vs. Alabama, and Virginia and Wake Forest playing Arkansas/Georgia.
 
beej67 said:
The Bama media claimed that we ducked them. In fact, they called us back after CPJ was hired and said "yo, we're not coming to your place. You come to our place and then we'll play at the Georgia Dome for the other game." And we said "Hell no, original deal or no deal." And they went to their media and said "GT called it off."
Click to expand...

Your post makes 0 sense.
 
gtfan088 said:
I don't think an ACC/SEC challenge (or even an ACC/Big 10 challenge) would be good for the ACC. The only meaningful way to do it is the same as in basketball, where they match the teams up based on the prior year's final standings. This means our best teams would likely suffer early season losses. For instance, we would have played Alabama to start last year. Virginia Tech would have likely beat Auburn this year. Next year we'd have Clemson vs. LSU, Virginia Tech vs. Alabama, and Virginia and Wake Forest playing Arkansas/Georgia.
Click to expand...

I was interested in big10. I think it would be easier to do by division.

So maybe coastal (home) vs leaders (away)
and atlantic (away) vs legends (home)

Flip who hosts the next year, but still resort by team standing
 
The Champ said:
He was quoted in the AJC as saying that the conference schedule is tough enough.

DRAD may do the negotiating and sign the contracts, but head coaches have a big influence in the schedules
Click to expand...

Cpj said in that football townhall thing that he doesn't have much impact at all about the schedule and its done way in advance. Does anyone know when we scheduled byu? They were ranked in the top 15 a couple years ago and I'm pretty sure they were actually good when we scheduled them.

I also think its bullshit that bama wouldn't play at bobby dodd but they would play at Wallace wade.
 
skiATL said:
I also think its bullshit that bama wouldn't play at bobby dodd but they would play at Wallace wade.
Click to expand...

Bama wanted it moved to Charlotte but Duke declined. I guess their contract was more airtight or had a larger buyout because Duke got their way.

I think this influenced their decision to call off our series.
 
Legal Jacket said:
Your post makes 0 sense.
Click to expand...

Made sense to me. What he stated is what happened.

They wanted to change the deal. We had a home game scheduled with them. They wanted it played in the GA Dome instead of BDS. We said no, so they backed out of the deal.
 
GTTerrific said:
Made sense to me. What he stated is what happened.

They wanted to change the deal. We had a home game scheduled with them. They wanted it played in the GA Dome instead of BDS. We said no, so they backed out of the deal.
Click to expand...

If its what happened you'd have something to back you up other than mere speculation. See the following article:

http://blogs.ajc.com/georgia-tech-sports/2010/05/04/why-tech-and-alabama-postponed/

Pretty sure if Bama wanted to change the deal and we said no, we wouldn't have had to back out of it (and would have made them back out so we could collect damages on the contract). Every news source I've ever seen in connection with the game has said us - not Bama - was the party that backed out. If you can give me a link to something else I'll stand corrected, but all I've seen so far are unsupported posts.
 
lonestarjacket said:
How did it not make sense?

If you are claiming it is inaccurate then that is different. But it "made sense."
Click to expand...

I'm claiming both. It's inaccurate because the only sources on the matter suggest that we backed out.

It also doesn't make sense because if Bama had wanted to change the deal to the dome, WE wouldn't have backed out. Nor would they have been able to back out, without paying a pretty hefty fee (most contracts guarantee something along the lines of damages if a comparable opponent can't be found - there aren't many opponents comparable to Bama, especially when our stadium never sells out).
 
GTCrew4b said:
I guess you could say "we ducked Bama" if you think our saying the deal is off because they would not respect the right we had to host Bama in Bobby Dodd Stadium because it's "too small" for them is ducking them...
Click to expand...

Fails to provide source.
 
GTTerrific said:
Made sense to me. What he stated is what happened.

They wanted to change the deal. We had a home game scheduled with them. They wanted it played in the GA Dome instead of BDS. We said no, so they backed out of the deal.
Click to expand...

Fails to provide source.
 
Legal Jacket said:
If its what happened you'd have something to back you up other than mere speculation. See the following article:

http://blogs.ajc.com/georgia-tech-sports/2010/05/04/why-tech-and-alabama-postponed/

Pretty sure if Bama wanted to change the deal and we said no, we wouldn't have had to back out of it (and would have made them back out so we could collect damages on the contract). Every news source I've ever seen in connection with the game has said us - not Bama - was the party that backed out. If you can give me a link to something else I'll stand corrected, but all I've seen so far are unsupported posts.
Click to expand...

+1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top