We do not have any really exciting OOC games for the next 4 years

GT Adamni said:
Let's face it...the ACC is terrible this year. In the conference races, we're literally fighting it out with the Mountain West to be the 6th best conference right now, so having at least one more win against a respectable opponent would be nice. We're not going to have many in the ACC because there aren't many respectable teams in our conference right now.
Click to expand...
Well, the Big East at least appears to be good. Why do they appear to be good? Because they don't schedule OOC (aside from South Florida, who happened to catch Auburn at a time when they're not getting any productivity from the OLine) and they're winning most of their games. None of them have a UGA on their schedule (a tough OOC team that they play every year). Pollsters aren't looking at who they're playing, only the record (and the convincing manner in which they're beating the no-name teams on their schedule). Year to year, we'll have enough respectable teams in the ACC + UGA that we don't have to schedule 2 more name teams every year.

Not to mention, the same people who are begging for ACC + UGA + 2 name teams will be the same ones calling for heads when we don't win 10+ every year like the other teams with the scheduling advantage.

The ONLY pro of scheduling name teams is fan interest. Ten win seasons accomplish the same thing.
 
Schedule strength does play a big part if you're in the hunt for the BCS title game. You think the pollsters don't look at your schedule and see who you played? They most certainly do. We're not going to have a single top 15 (at the end of the season) team among the teams that we played, while any other contenders are likely to have several. Georgia is going to have 4 losses by the time we play them, so they're not even going to help us this year, either.

Hopefully the ACC will get better in the next couple of years and the weak OOC will be a good thing, but the way things look right now, we already have patsies built in by playing Duke, UNC, and Viginia, not to mention other weak teams like Maryland and Miami. It's not necessary to play weak OOC teams when you play these guys.
 
GT Adamni said:
Schedule strength does play a big part if you're in the hunt for the BCS title game. You think the pollsters don't look at your schedule and see who you played? They most certainly do. We're not going to have a single top 15 (at the end of the season) team among the teams that we played, while any other contenders are likely to have several. Georgia is going to have 4 losses by the time we play them, so they're not even going to help us this year, either.

Hopefully the ACC will get better in the next couple of years and the weak OOC will be a good thing, but the way things look right now, we already have patsies built in by playing Duke, UNC, and Viginia, not to mention other weak teams like Maryland and Miami. It's not necessary to play weak OOC teams when you play these guys.
Click to expand...
It does count, yes, but they won't look any further than -

1) Ok, you played in a power conference (the ACC will not always be the 6th best or whatever it is now)
2) You play UGA every year
3) You scheduled another SEC team on top of that (Ole Miss was coming off of a 10 win season and Eli Manning when the series was scheduled. We can't be expected to project what teams are going to be like 6-7 years down the road)


It's not like Auburn's undefeated season when they scheduled La-Monroe, the Citadel and La-Tech. Certainly you can make the distinction.
 
Great point, we should be the ones playing Bama in the Dome not clemson to build up interest for thast first weekend. I'd love a 1 time game with a big name team in the Dome rather than Jax State....

tim
 
ContactBuzz said:
Well, the Big East at least appears to be good. Why do they appear to be good? Because they don't schedule OOC (aside from South Florida, who happened to catch Auburn at a time when they're not getting any productivity from the OLine) and they're winning most of their games. None of them have a UGA on their schedule (a tough OOC team that they play every year). Pollsters aren't looking at who they're playing, only the record (and the convincing manner in which they're beating the no-name teams on their schedule). Year to year, we'll have enough respectable teams in the ACC + UGA that we don't have to schedule 2 more name teams every year.

Not to mention, the same people who are begging for ACC + UGA + 2 name teams will be the same ones calling for heads when we don't win 10+ every year like the other teams with the scheduling advantage.

The ONLY pro of scheduling name teams is fan interest. Ten win seasons accomplish the same thing.
Click to expand...


actually U of L plays UK every year which would be a much better SEc school for GT to play than MSU. UK recruits hard in GA so they would love a trip here and they have a ton of alums here. and LEX is about a 50 times better place to roadtrip than Starvegas. I love LEX; I do not like Starkville.

I do wish we had some more BIG games early on to fill the stadium, build excitment, etc. like we've had the last two years.
 
Well, the Big East at least appears to be good. Why do they appear to be good? Because they don't schedule OOC (aside from South Florida, who happened to catch Auburn at a time when they're not getting any productivity from the OLine) and they're winning most of their games. None of them have a UGA on their schedule (a tough OOC team that they play every year). Pollsters aren't looking at who they're playing, only the record (and the convincing manner in which they're beating the no-name teams on their schedule). Year to year, we'll have enough respectable teams in the ACC + UGA that we don't have to schedule 2 more name teams every year.

Not to mention, the same people who are begging for ACC + UGA + 2 name teams will be the same ones calling for heads when we don't win 10+ every year like the other teams with the scheduling advantage.

The ONLY pro of scheduling name teams is fan interest. Ten win seasons accomplish the same thing.
Click to expand...
QFT

Not only do pollsters not look at who they're playing, they actually give them EXTRA CREDIT for not playing anybody. How many times did you guys hear pre-season "I think Team X is going to be one of the best teams this year because their schedule is weak." I heard it numerous times on ESPN and whatnot. Not only do the pollsters not give credit for a strong schedule, they actually try to project how many wins you'll get vs your strong/and/or/weak schedule and use your win total to assign your preseason ranking.

Is it dumb? Hell yeah it's dumb. But if that's the way to win, then we need to do it.

Schedule strength does play a big part if you're in the hunt for the BCS title game.
Click to expand...
NOT ANYMORE. Not since Auburn got hedged out of the title game as AP#2 after playing FOUR PATSIES out of conference and DUCKING their game with Georgia Tech. The media uproar about not letting Auburn play for the NC even though they ONLY played patsies forced a change in the BCS equation so that future teams could play for the title even if they ONLY play patsies.

The SOS component of the BCS formula has been completely gutted, and the only reason to play good OOC opponents is if there's a rivalry or you need to fill your stands.

Our selection of Miss St and Ole Miss is GREAT, because they're simultaneously patsies, and will fill the stands full of Atlanta residents who are SEC nuts.
 
thwg said:
actually U of L plays UK every year which would be a much better SEc school for GT to play than MSU. UK recruits hard in GA so they would love a trip here and they have a ton of alums here. and LEX is about a 50 times better place to roadtrip than Starvegas. I love LEX; I do not like Starkville.

I do wish we had some more BIG games early on to fill the stadium, build excitment, etc. like we've had the last two years.
Click to expand...
I'm sure Lexington is a more interesting place to visit but Kentucky is perenially more of a doormat than Miss St. The past 2 years are the exception, not the norm.

UL having UK on the schedule will never compete with GT having UGA on the schedule when you take any 5+ year stretch. UK may field a better team than UGA once every 10 years or so (if that).
 
beej67 said:
Our selection of Miss St and Ole Miss is GREAT, because they're simultaneously patsies, and will fill the stands full of Atlanta residents who are SEC nuts.
Click to expand...

Ole miss and MSU draw less than any other SEC school other than Vandy. But Vandy has recently outdrawn MSU. MSU will bring maybe 4-5 K and no SEC fan will care less about this game. The MSU series makes absolutely no sense in anyway to me.
 
ContactBuzz said:
I'm sure Lexington is a more interesting place to visit but Kentucky is perenially more of a doormat than Miss St. The past 2 years are the exception, not the norm.

UL having UK on the schedule will never compete with GT having UGA on the schedule when you take any 5+ year stretch. UK may field a better team than UGA once every 10 years or so (if that).
Click to expand...

I wasn't comparing the two just mentioning that they do have an SEC team ont their schedule annually. In fairness to UL, they desire to have great OOC schedules but no SEC or Big 10 team will do a home and home with them like MIA and FSU have. Unfortunately, even GT backed out on them.

WVU does have a 2 game series with Auburn starting next year.

UK and MSU are very similar programs IMO and again LEX is infinitely more attractive than Stark and UK has lots more alums in ATL than MSU. I wish we could change that series somehow.
 
I think when the scheduling masters did this, they were expecting the ACC to be such a dominant conference and we're scheduled to play FSU in those years. They didn't really want to schedule another powerhouse. Unfortunately, with the conference reeling with Miami sucking, and FSU not being up to par, it turned out not to be such a great move. Ah well, that is scheduling.
 
We currently have 4 ranked opponents scheduled for this year. West Virginia ha 2. If we were to both remain unbeaten heading into the ACCCG, who do you think would get the nod?
 
hiveredtech said:
but the computer rankings play an inconsequential role and also weigh SOS very little.

1) Back to the point....playing the service academies is exciting and has long been a part of GT history and tradition.
2) Playing UGA each year is pretty darn exciting. Disappointing much of the time...but exciting nonetheless.
3) Any SEC opponent is nice....MissSt, Ole Miss, Vandy, etc. Heck...the SEC claims they are all dominant teams that beat each other up...and "they get scared before any SEC game". So...lets see what the Mississippi schools bring. Vandy makes since...nice to play the only academic school in the SEC.

....and have you looked at our out-of-division schedule for 2008 and 2009!!!!????
2008: Clemson, FSU, Boston College!!!!
2009: Clemson, FSU, Wake Forest!!!

We have our hands full the next two years.
Click to expand...
You're very wrong. The computer rankings make up 1/3 of the BCS formula. SOS is basically the ONLY thing the computer rankings compute as it is the only way to determine the difference between several teams with similar records.

Sorry, but playing Army and Navy and crappy SEC teams may be exciting for a few, but not for the majority of people. People are excited when two good teams play.

And I already stated, OOC games BESIDES UGA.
 
GTWannaBee said:
We currently have 4 ranked opponents scheduled for this year. West Virginia ha 2. If we were to both remain unbeaten heading into the ACCCG, who do you think would get the nod?
Click to expand...
WVU because they have more poll momentum of course...

This is why preseason rankings are stupid.
 
buzztheirazz said:
You must not have watched Jimmy Fallon...just watching him makes me crack up!
Click to expand...

You do realize the guy in the skits is not Jimmy Fallon, right? His name is Will Ferrell, and he is quite hillarious...

(pardon me if you were talking about something else and I misunderstood you...)
 
The real problem is Tech fans are only excited about who we play, not about watching Tech play. I don't care about BCS rankings because unless you're undefeated or 1 loss it doesn't matter. If we're winning that many we'll be fine.

Plus there's no way we can predict who will be good in future years. Looking at who is good and who isn't now is pointless.
 
ncjacket said:
The real problem is Tech fans are only excited about who we play, not about watching Tech play. I don't care about BCS rankings because unless you're undefeated or 1 loss it doesn't matter. If we're winning that many we'll be fine.

Plus there's no way we can predict who will be good in future years. Looking at who is good and who isn't now is pointless.
Click to expand...
No, Tech fans are like all fans. We have our fairweather fans and we have our hardcore fans. We just have less of both than fanbases like UGA so we need these exciting games to sell out the stadiums.
 
GTKyle said:
No, Tech fans are like all fans. We have our fairweather fans and we have our hardcore fans. We just have less of both than fanbases like UGA so we need these exciting games to sell out the stadiums.
Click to expand...
Consistent winning also sells out stadiums.
 
hiveredtech said:
but the computer rankings play an inconsequential role and also weigh SOS very little.
Click to expand...

Half right and half wrong, imho. Strength of schedule is one of the few empirical data points the computers can go on, along with margin of victory. Some rankings (like Sagarin) don't consider margin of victory at all any more of the BCS - I think some other are allowed to consider it up to a 3 touchdown cap.

That said, I agree that the computers are essentially inconsequential now. The human-biased polls now make up 2/3 of the rankings. Even though the Harris poll doesn't do a pre-season ranking, the AP and USA Today polls still do, which I'm sure introduces bias into the Harris poll.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top