The problem with waiting 3-5 years...

G

Gray Ghost

Varsity Lurker
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
118
First of all, this is not an anti-Chan post. I am merely pointing out our present problem, and it's much bigger than on-field performance or flunk-gate. I've seen many posts about the current staff, both pro and con, and the common thread is that we are between 3 and 5 years from being a threat.

That's not good, folks. I say that because the college football landscape is about to change mightily. The BCS is about to fall apart in its current state. For revenue reasons, Title IX has forced a playoff system, so I guess it has had one positive effect. To that end, most "experts" (in that group I include guys like Barnhart, etc.) predict that we will see a separate division for championship football made up of 56-64 teams. Right now, we are on the bubble for that group. If we continue to slip, or even maintain our current level of performance, we risk being passed by many programs.

Five years ago, we were ahead of schools like Louisville, TCU and NC State. We were the equal of Oregon, Oklahoma State, and Georgia. Today we trail all of those, and others. If we keep getting leapfrogged, it won't be good.

Bottom line - we are playing for our football lives right now. A playoff system will have to be built from a manageable number. They will likely take the top 8 from a group of 64. Our challenge for the near term is to stay in that 64.

If we go 4-8 this year, we are still on the bubble. If we win 1 or 2, we will be placing ourselves in a group with Duke, Rutgers, Vandy, and Rice. That is not a place we want to be.
 
Thank you for this very pertinent post and information. I agree with your assessment as to what is ahead and WHY we need to get this thing righted in the short term, not the long term.

GT does NOT want to be on the outside looking in. The ACC alone is making those adjustments with expansion - GT needs to do the same and it has to be done "with that sense of urgency"!
 
You couldn't be more wrong. Talk to anyone not obsessed about every nuance of the GT program and you would realize

A. Georgia is one of the top FB states in the nation.
B. Atlanta is one of the largest and fastest growing cities in the nation.
C. There are only two Division 1 schools in Georgia. (This is very likely the smallest ratio of Div 1 programs to population outside of New England, probably by a longshot.)

Even completely ignoring our history and recent MNC, we would be included for the same reason NASCAR will be in California next Labor Day.
 
You make some good points, but I think you're looking at it the wrong way. It's not about geography or any type of electoral college. We are also hampered by the fact that we have so many strong programs in the Southeast. They will try to make this a very "national" playoff. Thus, no more than 30-35% of the 64 would come from SEC/ACC country.

SEC
1. UGA
2. UT
3. FLA
4. South Carolina
5. Auburn
6. Alabama
7. Ole Miss
8. LSU
9. Arkansas

ACC
1. Miami
2. FSU
3. VT
4. NCSU
5. UVA
6. Md.
7. Clemson

That's 16 teams that I think are in before we get invited. Granted, several of them are debatable, and I think we belong in the ACC group. But this decision will not be made for a couple of years. That's why I say we are playing for our football lives.
 
Ghost, you're making a huge leap in assuming the scenario you describe. If D-1 shakes out it will be determined by more than the criteria you list. The 64 number is arbitrary to begin with. The final "list" would be determined by conference affiliation, performance and politics. The ACC will go in whole as will the SEC, Pac10 etc. To do otherwise would kill the other golden goose, the NCAA basketball tournament.
 
NCJacket-

I agree with you; I'm making some assumptions, but I think that assuming we go in whole is a pretty big leap. If you take the entire PAC-10, Big 10, SEC, ACC, Big 12 and ND, you've got 57 teams. That's before you consider the new Big East, and whatever teams are still alive from C-USA and other conferences.

My point is not that we are dead. My point is that some big decisions are going to be made in the near future, and we'd better start winning so that we remove ourselves from any debate. I hate that feeling that you get in the pit of your stomach in March when we're 17-15 and holding our breath to get into the NCAA tournament. Imagine that feeling if not getting in is a death blow. The football equivalent of the NIT is not going to be a launching pad to success in next year's big dance.

There will be two groups of victims in this scenario:

1. Teams who get left out - Division 1* (Rutgers, Duke, etc.)
2. Division 1-AA - as they now drop one rung down the ladder, below division 1*

It is very unlikely that the number will be greater than 64. The most common scenario is 4 super-conferences of 14-20 teams. The top two teams in each conference make the playoffs.

I don't proclaim to have the answers, but I think this is something we have to consider. If we bottom out this year at 4 wins, and improve each year after, we are in great shape. If not, we're on the bubble.
 
There won't be any new divisions for playoffs. In fact there may not be a playoff anytime soon. The bowls are powerful and will fight to maintain the current system. The conferences basically have a monopoly on the money too.

We have a game against a nationally ranked opponent this weekend in our brand new expanded stadium. We are a manageable underdog according to the spread -- so we have a chance. Seems like this would be the thing to focus on instead of something that may or may not happen in 5 or 10 years.
 
If this scenario ever comes as written, leaving Tech out would be the same as leaving Oklahoma out in their pre Stoops era. Does everyone recall how bad they were after Switzer?

Even with the tough year that this season looks to be, the sky is not falling on this program.
 
Originally posted by kirbee:
[
We have a game against a nationally ranked opponent this weekend in our brand new expanded stadium. We are a manageable underdog according to the spread -- so we have a chance. Seems like this would be the thing to focus on instead of something that may or may not happen in 5 or 10 years.[/QB]
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">That's great. Focus on the Auburn game. We need to have a tactical focus each week. Not, however, at the expense of our strategic direction. It was exactly this type of small picture approach that cost us 10 players to academics.

If we keep our head in the sand and don't focus on behaviors that position us to be in the top tier, we'll get what we deserve.

Don't discount the effect of title IX. Call Barnhart Thursday night and ask him if we're going to see a playoff. The answer is likely yes, and sooner than you think. And the reason is money. None of the conferences/bowls/BCS can afford to pay the bill being handed to them by the courts in the form of Title IX. Also, the non-BCS conferences are weighing legal action against the BCS that will be big and ugly.

In none of these posts have I suggested that:

A) We have the wrong coach
B) We can't win football games
C) Our program is dead
D) We won't survive a move to a playoff system

I'm merely playing the "what if?" game. And the if is becoming a stronger possibility each year. It will not come because the people running college football (BCS) want a playoff. It will come because mounting legal bills and rulings will force it.
 
From Ms.TA

LLCool: Good example, but for those newcomers to college football - remembering the OK hayday is just that a memory. Ok wallowed until Swoops arrived a few years ago and the new kids following college football didn't even know they had a great past history. They got lost in the shuffle and that's what will happen here under the Gray Ghost scenario.

Ms.TA, you twisted my post around to fuel your agenda. Stop doing that, please! I chose Ok as an example because of their great heritage, just like Tech.
The only thing Ok has that we don't is a list of NCAA sanctions longer than my arm. Even without their recent success, they would still be in hands down. Just like Ga. Tech would be.

It doesn't matter what the "young kids" remember. The NCAA isn't going to go by a PlayStation 2 playoff format, at least not hopefully.

Does Tech need to get better, and stay competitive? Of course we do, and we will.

This is a screwball thread. Its only purpose is to try to create unfounded panic. Please do not try to hijack this one. Thanks.
 
Hijack... that's not what this was/is. YOU mentioned OK and I said before Stoops they were wallowing. NO past history would have helped them under the scenario Gray Ghost has projected here. It won't help GT either.

Past history is just that and we all love talking about it. The future is money, money and more money. The picture painted here on how it's going to work is going to leave ANY Div. 1 team out in the cold. Every team in Div. 1 that's wants to be included in this mix needs to get their act together and perpetuate a winning program that WILL BE INCLUDED should this play out!

I don't like Chan but I sure the hell love GT and don't want to see this happen! I have no agenda - I have an opinion like you do.
 
The ACC will go in whole as will the SEC, Pac10 etc. To do otherwise would kill the other golden goose, the NCAA basketball tournament.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">You mean those strong ACC BB school like Miami and VT?
 
Gailey was emabarrasing toward the end of LAST season (see UGA and Fresno we lost 8 starters right before the game State)....and this happened BEFORE Flunkgate. Try not to use that as an excuse for Gailey.

The team quit last season under his coaching.
 
Someone posted of Gailey: "He IS a PROVEN WINNER." I'm not too certain of where you get that from. I'm not sure Gailey has enough track record to be a proven anything.

When Gailey was hired, how did most people feel? I and the people I talk to did not know how to feel. A proven winner would have brought excitement and not a sense of uncertainty to the fan base. A proven winner would have brought more than a distant handful of years with Troy State and Samford and a two year stint with the Cowboys. Chan is unproven and Tech is his shot at proving himself.

Detractors of Gailey are giving their impressions of the direction the program is headed under him. Supporters of Gailey are giving theirs. No pronouncements on Gailey's abilities to coach major college football are particularly factual at this point. The record consists of one season at Tech. There are also two with the Cowboys and a couple long ago in D-IAA ball for what that is worth.
 
Originally posted by ncjacket:
Ghost, you're making a huge leap in assuming the scenario you describe. If D-1 shakes out it will be determined by more than the criteria you list. The 64 number is arbitrary to begin with. The final "list" would be determined by conference affiliation, performance and politics. The ACC will go in whole as will the SEC, Pac10 etc. To do otherwise would kill the other golden goose, the NCAA basketball tournament.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Agree, they are not going to be able to split up conferences and take "hot" teams from each and forever put them into the "big 64" and relegate everyone else to the "bottom", thats paranoid. There would be lawsuits galore to ever keep that from happening.

If they create a super 64 they will have to take whole conferences, although they will lean on the conferences to kick out the weak sisters like WFU, Duke, and Vandy.

Also, some of you are quoting Barnyard as an authority...
wtf.gif
 
Ghost, how can you include Clemson in the ACC's top 7 and not Tech. They got trounced by an inexperienced Bulldog team by 30 at Death Valley. Even when Clemson is just decent, no one goes into Death Valley and makes Clemson looks like a joke. I'd like to see UGA try to blow us out at our place. We may get killed on the road, but they would never beat us like that.
 
GTFan - This is not a scientific post. I don't think Clemson is ahead of us right now. Clearly, they're not much to be worried about. However, they will win 5-6 games this year. I don't see us winning more than 3. My point was simply that the next 3 years are critical. For the ostriches on this board who don't think this will happen, I don't care what you think. You will be posting a big mea culpa when this (a playoff system) happens. I don't think Tech will be left out, but I'm willing to consider the possibility that we could be in trouble if we go 1-11 for the next 3 years.

And as for the NCAA, no less an authority than Keith Jackson said this weekend that the NCAA was on its way out, to be replaced by a separate, self-governing football association. Go ahead, make fun of Keith. But does anyone on this board call Roy Kramer "Roy" and talk about weekly phone conversations with him? This guy may be a dinosaur, but he has valid information.

For those of you trashing Barnhart, you're out of your minds. No, he's not perfect, but he's got every SEC, ACC coach and AD on his speed dial and talks to more people weekly about this topic than anyone. Tony Barnhart knows more about the business of college football and the relationships that drive the business than all of us put together.

And finally, this was not a trash Chan post. This was a wake-up call for those who are willing to sit around on their hands for 3 years while someone "rights the ship".

I stand by my analysis of the CF landscape. The money is not there to support the current cost structure. A playoff will be necessary. I think the NCAA will be involved, but with people like Keith Jackson saying they won't be, who knows?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top