College Football Week 13 (Rivalry Week) discussion

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I guess Im in the Carroll has done a great job camp. I mean the Pac-10 was pretty competitive in the late 80's and 90's. Since Carroll took over its been USC domination. He has managed to lose some of the most inexplainable games but besides that I dont really see a flaw in one he has done. I think the Pac-10 has become a stronger conference simply because the other teams have to recruit so much better to keep up with USC.

Carroll has done an unbelievable job with that program. I'm just saying that they should have 1 or 2 more National Championships during that stretch.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Carroll has done an unbelievable job with that program. I'm just saying that they should have 1 or 2 more National Championships during that stretch.

Perhaps. There have been some really good teams along the way. You could say the year they beat Oklahoma as a 14 point dog they had no business winning it that year. The following year they lived up to expectations other than losing to one of the most amazing performances I have ever seen in a big game.

Also, much of the USC talent has turned into NFL busts...Leinhart, Williams, Bush to an extent.

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Of course it's my perception, that is what college football is all about. They had 21 players drafted the last 2 seasons including 7 first rounders. Do tell me one team that had more talent than USC last year and the year before.

I'm not a Florida fan, but they have won 2 BCS Championships the last 3 years and are on pace for a 3rd one this year. That trumps whatever consolation games you guys win.

So one team has achieved more than USC... any more? Or are we now saying that 120 odd teams underachieve every season because they don't win the BCS championship?

I think Florida has more talent than USC the last couple of years, which will be apparent in the next couple of NFL drafts. They have recruited better since Meyer has been there. Other than Florida, probably nobody (except this year, where USC has been completely decimated with injury and players leaving). But USC has been ranked in the top 5 and won the freaking rose bowl all those years, they've hardly been underachieving. Why don't you tell all the people that go to every bowl game this year that they are just going to consolation games and they should have saved their money?

How about we compromise here - IF BCS national championships are the only measure of whether a team has "achieved" in a given season THEN USC has underachieved. Otherwise USC has achieved more than any other team in the last 10 years and you are just being obtuse.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Miami's is a tad skewed as most of those big draft picks came at the beginning of the decade where they did win a NC and came a bad call away from another.

From 2002 to 2004, Miami had 28 players drafted, including an incredible 15 in the first round. So where were the titles?

You can make a case for Ohio State underachieving, although I'd argue that their talent wasn't really suited well for competing against speedy teams.

I see, so the NFL doesn't care about players that can compete against "speedy" players?

USC also had 3 Heisman Trophy winners in that stretch and a slew of others who were candidates. If we were to list the players USC has had compared to Ohio State since 2002, it would look rather skewed (especially when considering NFL success).

Go ahead and make that comparison to Ohio State - the numbers say they're basically even. And judging by Heisman Trophy winners is dubious - Andre Ware, Gino Torretta, Eric Crouch, etc.

[Balldog]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

And you know he had more talent how? That's the whole problem with your statement - you are assuming something when you have no idea if it's true or not. Were the Trojans talented? No question, but how do you know they were more talented than Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, LSU, etc?

To call the recent Trojans runs "underachievement" is the height of ridiculous expectations.

You can sit there and honestly say that Stanford (2007), Oregon State (2008), and UCLA (2006) should've beat USC? During those years USC had ~30 players drafted. I don't think anyone can question the Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, and LSU. While USC's run this decade has been impressive, it could've been even better if they'd come to play every game. That's part of Carroll's problem, with his loose style...his teams have a tendency to sleep walk. That's the only reason I'd entertain the "underachievement" statement, UCLA and Stanford had no business even competing with USC.

Just for fun:

NFL Draft Picks (2007-2009)
Stanford (3, none the last 2 years)
Oregon State (11)
UCLA (4)

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I promised myself I wouldn't post in this thread again, but holy crap - 7 straight PAC-10 titles and 6 major bowl wins is underachieving? Pray tell us who exactly has "achieved" this decade then. I sincerely hope you never ever end up in a job where you regularly grade other people's performance

Lost some really bad games to teams they never should have lost to? Sure, I'll be the first to admit that. But saying USC has "underachieved" might be one of the dumbest statements I've ever read on this board.

Big +1.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by Balldog

You can sit there and honestly say that Stanford (2007), Oregon State (2008), and UCLA (2006) should've beat USC? During those years USC had ~30 players drafted. I don't think anyone can question the Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, and LSU. While USC's run this decade has been impressive, it could've been even better if they'd come to play every game. That's part of Carroll's problem, with his loose style...his teams have a tendency to sleep walk. That's the only reason I'd entertain the "underachievement" statement, UCLA and Stanford had no business even competing with USC.

Just for fun:

NFL Draft Picks (2007-2009)
Stanford (3, none the last 2 years)
Oregon State (11)
UCLA (4)

Should Florida have lost to Ole Miss last year? Teams lose to other teams they shouldn't have at least once a year most years. The difference is with the bias of the media (fueled by their contracts), SEC teams can lose 1 or even 2 games and still go to National Championship Games. USC generally doesn't have that luxury. If they did, I believe they would have won at least 1 more NC game.

Still, I agree that is PC's biggest weakness, he doesn't get his team ready to play every single week. I think USC needs to recruit more "glue" type guys who keep a team together every week and who are leader types and not just collect the most 5 and 4 star players every year.

[Kodos]

I wish Indiana could enjoy half the underachievement that USC has.

[ISiddiqui]

Personally, I think people who think USC has underachieved this decade either have an irrational hatred of the Trojans, or are suffering from a mild form of brain damage.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Carroll has done an unbelievable job with that program. I'm just saying that they should have 1 or 2 more National Championships during that stretch.

As much as you hate the BCS how can you possibly use BCS championships as your sole measuring stick here? Especially for USC, a team who was the odd man out in even getting a shot to play for a national title when there were 3 undefeated teams in 2003.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I wish Indiana could enjoy half the underachievement that USC has.

Hey they did make a bowl game this decade!

[Kodos]

Yay. And got our asses handed to us. IU football is so hopeless as long as Lynch is our coach. I really wish I could stop caring.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Balldog

You can sit there and honestly say that Stanford (2007), Oregon State (2008), and UCLA (2006) should've beat USC? During those years USC had ~30 players drafted. I don't think anyone can question the Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, and LSU. While USC's run this decade has been impressive, it could've been even better if they'd come to play every game. That's part of Carroll's problem, with his loose style...his teams have a tendency to sleep walk. That's the only reason I'd entertain the "underachievement" statement, UCLA and Stanford had no business even competing with USC.

Just for fun:

NFL Draft Picks (2007-2009)
Stanford (3, none the last 2 years)
Oregon State (11)
UCLA (4)

Why stop at harping on USC? How about all the other highly talented teams over the same stretch that have lost to inferior teams?

[Atocep]

The Gator Bowl apparently wants to match up WVU and FSU in Bowden's last game. It would require the loser of the ACC Championship game stepping aside and letting the Gator take FSU, though.

[Atocep]

And the FSU president just confirmed it's a done deal while announcing Bobby's retirement.

You'll see Gator Bowl tickets sell out in record time.

[Atocep]

Seems Wetherell jumped the gun a bit. All indications are that the matchup will be WVU/FSU but the Gator is spin mode now saying an announcement won't be made until the 6th of December.

However, WVU fans that have called the Gator ticket office are being told to go ahead and buy tickets.

[Recoil]

AJC: Annoyed by UGA fans? Tech's Johnson says go ahead and punch them

When asked about the psyche of Jackets fans in the wake of Saturday's loss, Johnson didn't skip a beat.

"Get a thick skin," he said. "Guy giving you a hard time and you get tired of it, punch him in the face."

[ISiddiqui]

How is that "[getting] a thick skin"?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

And the FSU president just confirmed it's a done deal while announcing Bobby's retirement.

You'll see Gator Bowl tickets sell out in record time.

How about all the bowl fanatics jump in and tell us how the regular season means so much.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

How about all the bowl fanatics jump in and tell us how the regular season means so much.

How about the fact that a bowl game featuring a 6-6 team will be guaranteed to set ticket sales records being proof that people actually care about these "meaningless games"?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Radii

As much as you hate the BCS how can you possibly use BCS championships as your sole measuring stick here? Especially for USC, a team who was the odd man out in even getting a shot to play for a national title when there were 3 undefeated teams in 2003.

Because that is the championship. I don't think Donovan McNabb hangs his hat on a bunch of division titles and some appearances in the NFC Championship game.

It is of my opinion that USC has had more talent than anyone in the nation since 2002. I believe with that said that they should have won another NC or two. I don't see how USC fans could be happy with the 2007 or 2008 season considering a couple bad losses cost them from the game.

Do you guys really think that USC was not able to match up talent wise with the 2007 Ohio State team or the 2008 Oklahoma team? If so, fine. I personally think they would have slaughtered both.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Why stop at harping on USC? How about all the other highly talented teams over the same stretch that have lost to inferior teams?

There was a nice piece at ESPN a while ago that made a great comparison between OSU and OU. Both win a lot but lose big in recent BCS games.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

How about the fact that a bowl game featuring a 6-6 team will be guaranteed to set ticket sales records being proof that people actually care about these "meaningless games"?

The argument was that every regular season game is like a playoff game. That a playoff would diminish the regular season. This just showed that the regular season meant absolutely nothing for FSU.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The argument was that every regular season game is like a playoff game. That a playoff would diminish the regular season. This just showed that the regular season meant absolutely nothing for FSU.

FSU was eliminated a long time ago. They're going to a bowl game that will sell out and have huge ratings now.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Because that is the championship. I don't think Donovan McNabb hangs his hat on a bunch of division titles and some appearances in the NFC Championship game.

It is of my opinion that USC has had more talent than anyone in the nation since 2002. I believe with that said that they should have won another NC or two. I don't see how USC fans could be happy with the 2007 or 2008 season considering a couple bad losses cost them from the game.

Do you guys really think that USC was not able to match up talent wise with the 2007 Ohio State team or the 2008 Oklahoma team? If so, fine. I personally think they would have slaughtered both.

Pretty much every college football program puts conference titles above everything else. It doesn't compare to the NFL.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Because that is the championship. I don't think Donovan McNabb hangs his hat on a bunch of division titles and some appearances in the NFC Championship game.

It is of my opinion that USC has had more talent than anyone in the nation since 2002. I believe with that said that they should have won another NC or two. I don't see how USC fans could be happy with the 2007 or 2008 season considering a couple bad losses cost them from the game.

Do you guys really think that USC was not able to match up talent wise with the 2007 Ohio State team or the 2008 Oklahoma team? If so, fine. I personally think they would have slaughtered both.

Huge difference. McNabb has a playoff and USC doesn't. There is something very wrong with a system that has an undefeated team NOT get to play for a title.

If college football had a playoff I think USC wins at least one more title.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Because that is the championship.

It just seems more than a little hypocritical and illogical to spend as much time as you do railing against the current system for determining a champion and then use that exact same supremely flawed system to judge the value of a program such as USC. Its especially ironic that the team you're judging is the one that was screwed by the existing system more than any other team in the history of the BCS system(the year LSU/OU/USC all went undefeated and USC got left out of the title game b/c of the computers).

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Atocep

FSU was eliminated a long time ago. They're going to a bowl game that will sell out and have huge ratings now.

And all I'm saying is to stop using the bullshit about how much the regular season means in college football when shit like this goes on.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

How is that "[getting] a thick skin"?

I have to admit that I had to read the entire article about his comments more than once to get it myself, so the isolated quote is even tougher to figure out.

Once I figured out that he meant punch the Georgia fan heckling, not punching CPJ himself & then added that he was pretty much laughing when he suggested it then it kind of made sense. The context was roughly along the lines of "just ask 'em what they've won in the last 29 years & that ought to shut 'em up". Works okay I guess ... until they figure out what the record between the two has been over that time.

The more CPJ talks about this, the deeper he seems to dig his hole afaic.
I don't think it'll ever reach Chan Gailey proportions but over the last ten days or so he's done a nice job of making me hope someone makes him an offer he can't refuse.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Radii

It just seems more than a little hypocritical and illogical to spend as much time as you do railing against the current system for determining a champion and then use that exact same supremely flawed system to judge the value of a program such as USC. Its especially ironic that the team you're judging is the one that was screwed by the existing system more than any other team in the history of the BCS system(the year LSU/OU/USC all went undefeated and USC got left out of the title game b/c of the computers).

The system does suck but that's what was chosen and what they have to work within. I believe USC would have won multiple NC with a playoff system in place.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And all I'm saying is to stop using the bullshit about how much the regular season means in college football when shit like this goes on.

Every week means a great deal to the serious fan & the bowl game too. A 6-6 season at FSU probably made the bowl seem less appealing for sure but it's not like they weren't going to watch it either.

Hell, I was looking forward to seeing whether they could get it together & upset Stanford already (presuming they end up going to the Emerald as some projections point to) but it being Bobby's last game makes it must-see-TV for me and that's despite the Criminoles being one of the teams I most enjoy seeing GT beat.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I have to admit that I had to read the entire article about his comments more than once to get it myself, so the isolated quote is even tougher to figure out.

Once I figured out that he meant punch the Georgia fan heckling, not punching CPJ himself & then added that he was pretty much laughing when he suggested it then it kind of made sense. The context was roughly along the lines of "just ask 'em what they've won in the last 29 years & that ought to shut 'em up". Works okay I guess ... until they figure out what the record between the two has been over that time.

The more CPJ talks about this, the deeper he seems to dig his hole afaic.
I don't think it'll ever reach Chan Gailey proportions but over the last ten days or so he's done a nice job of making me hope someone makes him an offer he can't refuse.

You can listen to the whole interview instead of just reading what the Urinal and Constipation writes. The question was one of the stupider ones I've ever heard, "but don't you think the game is important for your fans' quality of life issues"?

A question that stupid deserves a stupid response.

How you can continue to complain about a guy who has come in and won 19 football games in less than two seasons continues to mystify me. Yes, we lost to Georgia and it sucked. It still sucks. No one is happy with the performance Saturday night. But, the point Johnson continues to make is that he's trying to raise the program to a level where the measuring stick is not Georgia. It needs to be higher than that.

And he's absolutely right.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And all I'm saying is to stop using the bullshit about how much the regular season means in college football when shit like this goes on.

I don't see how FSU even matters in this discussion, though. They lost 6 games and were in a situation 2 weeks ago where if they hadn't come back against Maryland they'd be sitting at home this bowl season instead of giving Bobby Bowden one last bowl game to coach.

We have Florida and Alabama playing an elimination game. We had TCU and Boise facing must win situations to get into BCS games. Texas has to beat Nebraska to go to the title game. Cincy still has an outside shot of sliding into the title game. Pitt has a trip to a BCS bowl on the line and if they lose they're getting bumped down to the 3rd or 4th bowl game for the Big East. Clemson and Georgia Tech are playing for the ACC title with the loser now getting bumped down to the 4th bowl game for the ACC.

I could go on and on. There much more at stake this late in the season than any other sport really has in it's regular season. Most NFL teams are playing backups to rest starters. NBA teams doing the same. Baseball might have 2-3 team fighting for a spot by this point. College Basketball has the worst regular season of any sport out there.

Can you seriously argue that teams are playing for nothing right now?

[RainMaker]

They are playing for positioning in the various consolation games.

But if Boise State wins, they can still be left out of the BCS if they want another team (just like last year). So I don't see how the regular season matters much when the head of a bowl can just decide to pick whoever they want.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

They are playing for positioning in the various consolation games.

But if Boise State wins, they can still be left out of the BCS if they want another team (just like last year). So I don't see how the regular season matters much when the head of a bowl can just decide to pick whoever they want.

So if nothing is assured then it makes everything you do less important instead of more important?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I don't see how FSU even matters in this discussion, though. They lost 6 games and were in a situation 2 weeks ago where if they hadn't come back against Maryland they'd be sitting at home this bowl season instead of giving Bobby Bowden one last bowl game to coach.

We have Florida and Alabama playing an elimination game. We had TCU and Boise facing must win situations to get into BCS games. Texas has to beat Nebraska to go to the title game. Cincy still has an outside shot of sliding into the title game. Pitt has a trip to a BCS bowl on the line and if they lose they're getting bumped down to the 3rd or 4th bowl game for the Big East. Clemson and Georgia Tech are playing for the ACC title with the loser now getting bumped down to the 4th bowl game for the ACC.

I could go on and on. There much more at stake this late in the season than any other sport really has in it's regular season. Most NFL teams are playing backups to rest starters. NBA teams doing the same. Baseball might have 2-3 team fighting for a spot by this point. College Basketball has the worst regular season of any sport out there.

Can you seriously argue that teams are playing for nothing right now?

It's not particularly compelling drama, though. I mean, save for an upset or two or some meltdown scenario...all of this stuff is pretty much wrapped up already.

It's just as lame as the end of the season in other sports. And the post-season is even worse, because the championship has no buildup and there are a ton of consolation games prior. I like them, but...they're not even as good as the MLS playoffs.

[MrBug708]

I think USC, based on how they've done talent wise, has underacheived. I think USC, compared to any era of college football, has done quite well for themselves. Pete Carroll can win the big games. It's the small ones he has trouble not choking in

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by digamma

You can listen to the whole interview instead of just reading what the Urinal and Constipation writes. The question was one of the stupider ones I've ever heard, "but don't you think the game is important for your fans' quality of life issues"?

A question that stupid deserves a stupid response.

{shrug} Odd though it may sound, it's actually a pretty realistic question. There's absolute zero doubt that the win last year improved my outlook on life, however slightly, for about 365 days. When that clock ran out last year I literally fucking cried with one of the greatest senses of relief I've ever felt, to the extent that I don't know that I realized what a weight that streak was. And one of the very first things that struck me last Saturday night as the outcome became evident was what a miserable year was ahead each & every time college football came up in conversation (and you know how frequently that happens in this neck of the woods). Yeah, it IS a quality of life issue and while that shouldn't be his only focus, he's clueless if he doesn't recognize that at least to some extent and he's playing himself out of a job eventually if he continues to downplay it.

How you can continue to complain about a guy who has come in and won 19 football games in less than two seasons continues to mystify me.

Because 18 of those don't really mean shit without one of those in 2008? And because the ones this season are virtually worthless without the most recent one?

Because nobody here gives a flying fuck about ACC football? Or ACC titles? Or the Orange Bowl? At least not appreciably moreso compared to the Gator, Peach, Whatever.

And because they only thing that's bigger than the Georgia game is a national championship & the only way an ACC team gets that opportunity is to be literally perfect for 14 weeks. Okay, 13 weeks since I might concede occasionally losing in the NCS could trump beating Georgia, at least so long as they weren't getting embarrassed.

But, the point Johnson continues to make is that he's trying to raise the program to a level where the measuring stick is not Georgia. It needs to be higher than that.

And my point is that he's delusional to the point of being a little scary if he believes that's ever going to happen.

As much as I genuinely like the offense, I believe we've seen enough of it (both at GT & everywhere else) to realize that among the things unlikely to happen with it is 13 or 14 weeks of perfection. Just as defense's can't afford mistakes against it, the offense itself is not one that provides a high probability of error free football, there's simply too many opportunities for things to go very very wrong for perfection to be a reasonable standard. We can wish for it, he can wish for it, the players can wish for it, hell the players can even strive to their utmost for it ... but that doesn't make it a realistic expectation.

Like I said, it's not as though I'm ready to park a moving van outside his house at this point. But the best thing he can do for himself is STFO where this topic in concerned because he seems determined to stick his foot in his mouth when it comes up (and even if the UC does their best to get him to do it, he's not obligated to keep cooperating).

[Balldog]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Why stop at harping on USC? How about all the other highly talented teams over the same stretch that have lost to inferior teams?

I think you can look it up, other than Ohio State's loss this season at Purdue they haven't lost to a team with less talent than them since 2004. I don't think anyone ever said Ohio State had a National Championship caliber team this year either.

Sure Florida lost to Ole Miss last year, but Ole Miss was also 9-4 last season compared to Stanford (4-8, 2007) and UCLA (7-6, 2006)

[Balldog]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

I think USC, based on how they've done talent wise, has underacheived. I think USC, compared to any era of college football, has done quite well for themselves. Pete Carroll can win the big games. It's the small ones he has trouble not choking in

Bingo.

[Blade6119]

Originally Posted by Balldog

I think you can look it up, other than Ohio State's loss this season at Purdue they haven't lost to a team with less talent than them since 2004. I don't think anyone ever said Ohio State had a National Championship caliber team this year either.

Sure Florida lost to Ole Miss last year, but Ole Miss was also 9-4 last season compared to Stanford (4-8, 2007) and UCLA (7-6, 2006)

You think Illinois had more talent them Ohio State?? Come on, thats just ignorant

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Balldog

I think you can look it up, other than Ohio State's loss this season at Purdue they haven't lost to a team with less talent than them since 2004.

Why are you setting a cutoff date of 2004? The discussion was about Carroll's run from 2002 on. Cutting things off from 2005 on conveniently avoids talking about the losses in 2004 to Northwestern and Purdue.

[digamma]

Jon,

You're right about the quality of life issue in one sense: the relative increase or decrease in contributions to the Tech Fund, the A-T Fund and general university giving. I'm sure Dan Radakovich is well aware of any potential negative effect and will make his feelings known to Johnson if he thinks the comments are detrimental to the athletic association's budget.

I'm also sure D. Rad would welcome input from supporters on the topic. Heck, Georgia Tech is one of the easiest schools in the country to be a real supporter of and to have a real investment in the program (in addition to the emotional investment in our teams we all have). Two reasons: one, the alumni and fan base is relatively small; and two, Radakovich is one of the most responsive AD's in the country.

I am by no means a big donor--I do nothing more than make my somewhat modest annual contribution to the Tech Fund required to maintain my family's season tickets--but I've written Radakovich on two occasions. One was a personal ticket issue and one was a general complaint/question on football scheduling. In both cases I had a personal response within 24 hours, in the first case referring me to the right person in the department who completely rectified the situation and in the second giving me a detailed response on how the football schedule was created and why we ended up with a relatively unattractive slate. In talking to others, I don't think my experience is unique.

Radakovich gets that donors are the lifeblood of his athletic program. If enough donations are withheld because of a loss to Georgia or because CPJ says things people don't like, he'll take appropriate action. But, my guess is that if Tech wins the ACC and has a good showing in the Orange Bowl, he's going to have a lot more people telling him they're happy with the state of the program than not. And I'd also bet that those folks who are happy also do their talking with their check books. Even in this economy.

And as to whether Johnson's aim is realistic. A few years ago, the former AD said that Georgia Tech would never be a place where you could win 9 or 10 games consistently (to me that sounds a lot like your assessment of the situation). He was rightly criticized by the fan and alumni base and it was his first step on the way out of town. Now we have a coach who is doing just that.

Yes, he had an insanely frustrating loss against our biggest rival. The Jackets played one of their two worst games of the year, while Georgia played their best game this season, if not the past two seasons. That's what it took for Georgia to win. It sucks. It absolutely sucks, but that's a real step in the right direction.

I get the emotional tie to this game. I've sat through my share of terrible losses to Georgia, from the Kanon Parkman field goal that somehow made its way over the uprights, to the phantom pass interference in 1997 to the abortion of the 51-7 game. I've taken enough ribbing from my "friends" in red and black to last a lifetime. I'd agree with you that it's downright miserable. But not miserable enough for me not to enjoy the other 10 or 11 weeks of the season where I get to watch my Jackets play. And I'm more than thrilled I get an extra one of those this season.

Go Jackets.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by digamma

I'm sure Dan Radakovich is well aware of any potential negative effect and will make his feelings known to Johnson if he thinks the comments are detrimental to the athletic association's budget.

Even without specific connections I'd categorize as "close", I'd say we could both guess about how well the comments played within the various segments of the Tech boosters. It'll play with some, won't play with others, and the rest either haven't resumed writing checks yet or will write them out of loyalty/habit/whatever regardless of who says what. Probably not that different than a lot of other places in that regard.

But, my guess is that if Tech wins the ACC and has a good showing in the Orange Bowl, he's going to have a lot more people telling him they're happy with the state of the program than not. And I'd also bet that those folks who are happy also do their talking with their check books. Even in this economy.

And as to whether Johnson's aim is realistic. A few years ago, the former AD said that Georgia Tech would never be a place where you could win 9 or 10 games consistently (to me that sounds a lot like your assessment of the situation). He was rightly criticized by the fan and alumni base and it was his first step on the way out of town. Now we have a coach who is doing just that.

Nope, I was critical of that comment at the time & would remain so, even moreso today given the state of the conference. Hell, if you're not winning 9 or 10 in the ACC right now you're either a fairly middling team or you've had something go haywire with the scheduling. But 9 or 10 wins without consistently competing with Georgia? How long does that fly?
I'm thinking it eventually wouldn't but what the hell, it's GT, look how long Chan Failey lasted.

Here's the thing, this is twice in the last 13 games I've seen allegedly good to very good Tech teams under CPJ come out and get purely & undeniably embarrassed by decidedly average (or worse) SEC teams. Get your ass handed to you by Florida? That's one thing. But '08 LSU and '09 UGA? C'mon. That's a hell of a dose of perspective about those 19 wins.

[Atocep]

I have to say, Rutgers week is probably my favorite week as far as having fun with the opposing fans go. Rutgers fans have a pretty good sense of humor and the back and forth between the two fanbases is entertaining.

Unlike Pitt (no fans), Cincy (no fans), USF (maybe 10 fans), Syracuse (still a lot of hate because of Marvin Graves believe it or not), Louisville (a lot of self loathing right now), and UConn (never really seen a UConn football fan).

[Balldog]

Originally Posted by Blade6119

You think Illinois had more talent them Ohio State?? Come on, thats just ignorant

Considering what they lost the year before the gap wasn't very big, Illinois has had some great recruiting classes under Zook. Illinois was also 9-4 that year.

[Balldog]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Why are you setting a cutoff date of 2004? The discussion was about Carroll's run from 2002 on. Cutting things off from 2005 on conveniently avoids talking about the losses in 2004 to Northwestern and Purdue.

That 2004 team also wasn't all that good for OSU, it was very young. The only NFL caliber player that played on offense was Santonio Holmes. The only players drafted that offseason were a K and a DB in the 3rd round. That was also the only year Ohio State hasn't been to a BCS game since 2002 (Tressel's first year).

Funny how if I use a cutoff date of 2004 I'm given shit but somehow everyone ignores the fact that Ohio State started off with a BCS record of 4-0. Instead they get ripped for losing the last 3.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Even without specific connections I'd categorize as "close", I'd say we could both guess about how well the comments played within the various segments of the Tech boosters. It'll play with some, won't play with others, and the rest either haven't resumed writing checks yet or will write them out of loyalty/habit/whatever regardless of who says what. Probably not that different than a lot of other places in that regard.

Sure, it won't sit well with some, but my bet is that is the minority. We disagree on that point. That's ok.

My point here though, was that it is easy in a relative sense to get an ear at Georgia Tech--it's not Georgia or Tennessee or Ohio State or Texas, there just aren't that many of us. If you're unhappy, send D. Rad a note.

Nope, I was critical of that comment at the time & would remain so, even moreso today given the state of the conference. Hell, if you're not winning 9 or 10 in the ACC right now you're either a fairly middling team or you've had something go haywire with the scheduling. But 9 or 10 wins without consistently competing with Georgia? How long does that fly?
I'm thinking it eventually wouldn't but what the hell, it's GT, look how long Chan Failey lasted.

Jon, you said that he was delusional for thinking he could build a program that doesn't measure himself by the Georgia game. I'm not sure what else you can derive from your statement.

Smaller scale, but when Johnson got to Navy they had one 1 game in 2 years and completely measured themselves against Army. I think Navy compares itself more to Notre Dame than Army today.

Everyone realizes that for Johnson to build his program, he has to beat Georgia. But that isn't the end. It is the means to the end, which is building a program competitive on the national level.

And Johnson is competitive with Georgia at this very moment. He's 1-1 against them and had the ball with a chance to win in the loss. Heckuva lot better way to start than 51-7 and 34-17.

Here's the thing, this is twice in the last 13 games I've seen allegedly good to very good Tech teams under CPJ come out and get purely & undeniably embarrassed by decidedly average (or worse) SEC teams. Get your ass handed to you by Florida? That's one thing. But '08 LSU and '09 UGA? C'mon. That's a hell of a dose of perspective about those 19 wins.

This is fair, but time will tell. Johnson would tell you the team isn't where even he wants it to be. There are deficiencies on both lines, and a lot of smoke and mirrors to mask that. We'll see how he recruits. And time will tell.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Balldog

That 2004 team also wasn't all that good for OSU, it was very young. The only NFL caliber player that played on offense was Santonio Holmes. The only players drafted that offseason were a K and a DB in the 3rd round. That was also the only year Ohio State hasn't been to a BCS game since 2002 (Tressel's first year).

And Clarett. And he had 9 guys drafted the next year, including 5 1st rounders, and 8 more the year after that including 2 1st rounders.

Funny how if I use a cutoff date of 2004 I'm given shit but somehow everyone ignores the fact that Ohio State started off with a BCS record of 4-0. Instead they get ripped for losing the last 3.

The overall point here isn't so much that Ohio State has underachieved as it is to show that saying USC has underachieved over that time period is a gross exaggeration, especially in comparison with other programs that have arguably been as talented.

[Balldog]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

And Clarett. And he had 9 guys drafted the next year, including 5 1st rounders, and 8 more the year after that including 2 1st rounders.

You are arguing with me, then go on to say they had Clarett in 2004. When he didn't play at all that year and almost all of those guys drafted the following year were first year starters and/or underclassmen in 2004.

Ohio State also had some recruiting classes during that time that weren't at an elite level. Better than Northwestern and Purdue for sure, those two games were horrible. Justin Zwick was a complete bust at QB in 2004. I think you could argue that was Tressel's down year, they went 8-4 and 4-4 in the Big Ten. Both those teams were still bowl teams.

I guess I could bring up USC's losses to Stanford and Washington this year too but I was considering it a down year for USC. Mostly due to breaking in a bunch of new starters, similar to Ohio State's 2004 season.