What is stopping Tech?

[jacketup]

Playing in the ACC is an advantage. The conference sucks. It may hurt our recruiting some, but the fact that we don't have to play an SEC team week in and week out more than makes up for it.

The SEC only has two powers at the moment. The week in week out thing is overrated. We played three SEC teams this year (two on the road), plus VT, Clemson (twice)and Miami. An SEC schedule would not have been tougher on an every week basis.

If we are a top 10 team, we won't be playing ACC caliber teams in a bowl. We will play a very good team in a bowl, and if we don't have the horses, we will lose just like we did this year, and the media will put us in a second tier, even if we are 13-1.

That's where recruiting (and the perception of the ACC) comes in. The ACC is a disadvantage IF you are talking about getting to and maintaining an elite level of play.

 

[yellowandnaked]

Personally, I think we can get to level of Florida or Oklahoma under Paul Johnson. I dont think he would have left Navy for us if he didnt believe he could win a MNC here.

 

[griswold6571]

lack of majors

relatively small alumni base (for a BCS school)

lack of a dominant line of scrimmage

 

[melvoin]

The SEC only has two powers at the moment. The week in week out thing is overrated. We played three SEC teams this year (two on the road), plus VT, Clemson (twice)and Miami. An SEC schedule would not have been tougher on an every week basis.

If we are a top 10 team, we won't be playing ACC caliber teams in a bowl. We will play a very good team in a bowl, and if we don't have the horses, we will lose just like we did this year, and the media will put us in a second tier, even if we are 13-1.

That's where recruiting (and the perception of the ACC) comes in. The ACC is a disadvantage IF you are talking about getting to and maintaining an elite level of play.

Last year was probably a down year for the SEC, but I still think the overall level of play was much higher. The thing about the SEC is there are so many factory-style programs that even if a couple are down, there are a couple of others who will step up. You can be sure that Wake Forest would never win an SEC title.

And please stop playing the "We played 3 SEC teams!" card when the two wins were Vandy and Miss St, and then you go and lose to a 6 win UGA team.

Tech would have been a 7 or 8 win kind of team last year in the SEC, depending on the schedule.

The prestige of the SEC would bring in a higher level of recruits, and it would greatly increase fan interest and ticket demand, but I think the competitive disadvantage is great enough to nullify any advantages.

 

[Nashville Jacket]

It's all about the level of talent at this point.

We already have the coaching in place, but they need an increased level of talent to make us a top five contender year-in and year-out. Teams like Florida, Texas, and Alabama always sign lots of talent. Plus, they have good coaching to properly use their talent.

 

[GT65_UGA89]

Many good points have already been brought up.

I'll add that GT needs to continue to win --and needs to start winning consistently at the next level (the next level = UGA and bowl games).

Over the past two seasons GT is 20-7 overall. Take out the UGA games and ACCCG and bowl games and the breakdown is as follows:

18-4 (12-4 ACC)
2-3 (UGA, ACCCG, Bowls)

If GT continues to play well in ACC play, beats UGA with some consistency (1/2 the time I'd say) and started winning bowl games again then the ascent into top-tierdom would be well on it's way. Probably wouldn't hurt to play a stronger OOC schedule as well.

 

[yellowandnaked]

Crybabies. Every school has advantages and disadvantages. We have a lot of disadvantages, but we also have advantages of our own, not the least of which are a degree that actually means something, our location inside of a major city, and our relatively easy conference.

There is no reason we don't have just as good of a shot as being a consistently to be a top 10 team as U[sic]GA does.

Exactly.

 

[BEEFENSE]

Crybabies. Every school has advantages and disadvantages. We have a lot of disadvantages, but we also have advantages of our own, not the least of which are a degree that actually means something, our location inside of a major city, and our relatively easy conference.

There is no reason we don't have just as good of a shot as being a consistently to be a top 10 team as U[sic]GA does.

++1--Well stated--CPJ in in the process of establishing GT as a major player in the NC hunt once again.

 

[Yukonwreck]

To put Johnson up there with Dodd at this point is a little premature. And Ross was a damn fine coach, he just chose to jump to the NFL when the opportunity arose. While prospects of Johnson leaving to the NFL seem nill, if he were to put us National Title contention it would be hard to hold on to him without outbidding others.

Certainly I agree to an extent concerning Dodd--except that I wonder out loud whether Dodd could have been as successful as Paul Johnson has been in today's environment.

 

[lonestarjacket]

I don't no if anything is "stopping us" other than resolve, but conference affiliation DEFINITELY isn't it.

FSU dominated a decade from the ACC. Miami did the same as an independent and in the Big East. As long as you are in a BCS conference and win your games then the rest takes care of itself. (We don't have the problem of Boise State or TCU where conference alone would keep us down.)

If we win, we pull the perception of the conference with us.

 

[floridajacket]

A few points:

1. The SEC would be great for Tech football, I don't care what people say. People mention things outside of football as arguments against the SEC, but SEC football would be great for recruiting and revenue. If you're afraid of playing with the big boys, then you need to grow a pair.

2. Merging with GSU would not happen. The big alumni generally are unsupportive of attempts to expand Tech out of technical fields. Meeting another old GT alum generally carries a level of respect, because of what they had to go through with water-proofing and hellish labs. Having a bunch of GT alums with Art History degrees kind of soils that reputation, for better or worse.

3. The more I watch football, the more I realize that recruiting only does so much good. If a player is 3* or higher, he'll generally be good enough to play at the BCS level and coaching and dedication take over as driving factors. The star players are important, especially for possibly winning an MNC, but for consistently being in the top 25, coaching and dedication play bigger roles.

 

[Yukonwreck]

I don't no if anything is "stopping us" other than resolve, but conference affiliation DEFINITELY isn't it.

FSU dominated a decade from the ACC. Miami did the same as an independent and in the Big East. As long as you are in a BCS conference and win your games then the rest takes care of itself. (We don't have the problem of Boise State or TCU where conference alone would keep us down.)

If we win, we pull the perception of the conference with us.

Here's the dilemma as far as the ACC goes. It is tough enough right now that you can't breeze thru it like Miami and VT once did in the Big East---but against other conferences we have been brutally lame. So it's the worst of both worlds. I preached two years ago that the conference had the potential to have five or six STRONG programs soon. So far just Tech and VPI have approached that level--and neither or us can seal the deal lately. FSU, Miami, Butch, Clempsen, and maybe BC have possibilities, but have yet to show much. It still COULD happen, but until it does we'll be outside looking in.

 

[Yukonwreck]

We definitely do have an established Tech culture. One could make an argument that part of the culture is never being a consistently elite football program.

 

[gth816f]

We definitely do have an established Tech culture. One could make an argument that part of the culture is never being a consistently elite football program.

One could argue that about 95% of the football programs in BCS conferences.

 

[knoxjacket]

$$$$$$$$$

That's all. Everything else can be overcome.

 

[lonestarjacket]

A few points:

1. The SEC would be great for Tech football, I don't care what people say. People mention things outside of football as arguments against the SEC, but SEC football would be great for recruiting and revenue. If you're afraid of playing with the big boys, then you need to grow a pair.
.

It is not about being afraid of the SEC at all. It is about any perception of SEC dominance could be overcome by just winning in the ACC.

Winning solves everything. Win and the reputation of the ACC as a whole rises with us. Win and it is easier to recruit. Win and the rest of the conference improves with a bootstrap effect.

It is possible to have a nationally successful program in the ACC. It has been done. It is possible to have a nationally successful program in any BCS conference for that matter.

 

[alan71]

A few points:

1. The SEC would be great for Tech football, I don't care what people say. People mention things outside of football as arguments against the SEC, but SEC football would be great for recruiting and revenue. If you're afraid of playing with the big boys, then you need to grow a pair.

2. Merging with GSU would not happen. The big alumni generally are unsupportive of attempts to expand Tech out of technical fields. Meeting another old GT alum generally carries a level of respect, because of what they had to go through with water-proofing and hellish labs. Having a bunch of GT alums with Art History degrees kind of soils that reputation, for better or worse.

3. The more I watch football, the more I realize that recruiting only does so much good. If a player is 3* or higher, he'll generally be good enough to play at the BCS level and coaching and dedication take over as driving factors. The star players are important, especially for possibly winning an MNC, but for consistently being in the top 25, coaching and dedication play bigger roles.

Keeping Georgia Tech Majors strictly Technical is not a good idea to me. I would compare a Technical Degree from U. Michigan to Georgia Tech now. Do you really believe that Tech can recruit the top talent without some Liberal Arts Majors? We can compete sometimes, but year in and year out we will be beat because of our limited curriculum. I believe the State REGENTS HAVE PURPOSELY STOPPED TECH FROM EXPANDING TO LIBERAL ARTS MAJORS because they are protecting Ugag's program, i.e. they have them we don't so it is a way to disadvantage Georgia Tech's football program.

 

[gth816f]

Keeping Georgia Tech Majors strictly Technical is not a good idea to me. I would compare a Technical Degree from U. Michigan to Georgia Tech now. Do you really believe that Tech can recruit the top talent without some Liberal Arts Majors? We can compete sometimes, but year in and year out we will be beat because of our limited curriculum. I believe the State REGENTS HAVE PURPOSELY STOPPED TECH FROM EXPANDING TO LIBERAL ARTS MAJORS because they are protecting Ugag's program, i.e. they have them we don't so it is a way to disadvantage Georgia Tech's football program.

There are more important things than football. Expanding the school's majors in order to attract football talent is a terrible idea. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a good idea for the school to diversify, maybe(maybe) it is, but attracting football talent should not be the reason. Personally I like the fact that our easiest major is relatively hard and actually worth a damn when you get out into the world, even if that does hurt our athletic programs.

 

[aeromech]

There are more important things than football. Expanding the school's majors in order to attract football talent is a terrible idea. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a good idea for the school to diversify, maybe(maybe) it is, but attracting football talent should not be the reason. Personally I like the fact that our easiest major is relatively hard and actually worth a damn when you get out into the world, even if that does hurt our athletic programs.

To us, yes there are things more important than football; to programs like UGA, not as much; to programs like Bama, football is the priority. Maybe that is something that holds GT back, we prioritize academics over sports, it is the whole mindset that gets in the way. I can believe that some UGA grad members on the board of regents would restrict GT's academic offerings primarily due to sports impacts. But would offering more degrees hurt GT's academic reputation? Does it hurt Michigan's academic rep? I think it depends on how you expand more so than if you expand. I would not want to become Clemson for instance.

 

[alan71]

There are more important things than football. Expanding the school's majors in order to attract football talent is a terrible idea. I'm not saying it wouldn't be a good idea for the school to diversify, maybe(maybe) it is, but attracting football talent should not be the reason. Personally I like the fact that our easiest major is relatively hard and actually worth a damn when you get out into the world, even if that does hurt our athletic programs.

Using my example of the University Of Michigan, do you believe the U of Mich. is just for Football? I don't, I personally believe a degree in Engineering from there is just as valuable in the real world as Tech. My point is, GT should be more like U of Mich and not MIT. We are long past being just a Technical Institute. We already have been a University for Decades.