AJC > Sports > Tech > Blog > Archives > 2009 > February > 10 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USShootin’ and recrootin’ ramblings
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
There’s been a good bit written already about the Jackets’ inability to score. That’s no surprise really since they have no fast break identity and the point guards struggle to run a half court offense. Just when are they supposed to score? From the foul line? We know how that’s gone this season.
Against Florida State, the Jackets won the first half by six points but lost the second half by ten points … thus the four point margin of victory for the Noles. But I’m looking at the stats and I’m seeing that the Noles shot 30.9 percent overall from FG range against Tech’s 34.4 percent. And they got out rebounded by 12 … 47 to 35.
And there it is … FSU had 12 steals en route to 18 GT turnovers and managed to get to the foul line 28 times against Tech’s 10 trips. Tech shot an impressive 80 percent from the charity stripe against FSU’s 70 percent. They just didn’t get there enough.
And why didn’t they get there enough? I can’t explain it. It looks like Aminu, Lawal, and Peacock took most of the shots for the Jackets. They can’t draw a defensive foul? That makes no sense … the strength of this team is the big men in the paint. Are they playing a finesse game down low? What happened to banging it in there and playing with physical aggression? That’s how the Jackets upset Wake Forest. Was that lesson forgotten so quickly?
Against Maryland, this past game, neither team seemed capable of scoring effectively and the loss came down to the fact that the Jackets committed 24 turnovers against just 14 assists. Maryland tried to give the game away, shooting 35 percent for the game (31 percent from three point range) and hitting only 64 percent of their free throws. But the Jackets couldn’t muster enough half court or fast break offense to break open the game and run away from a Terps team that scored only 57 points in the win …
Recrootin’
The people expecting Tech to pull classes ranked as highly as UGA need to ratchet down expectations. Tech doesn’t have the broad curriculum or the entry standards to consistently pull classes in the Top 10. And on top of that, Tech now has a head coach who will recruit offensive skill positions that don’t fall in line with the pro-style approaches that most recruiting services seem to be tailored for. Paul Johnson is going to recruit the best option style quarterbacks in the country and he’s going to look for hybrid backs that can play the A-back position where they are expected to block, run, and catch. He’s going to pull a receiver like Stephen Hill every now and then because some guys like the thought of playing against man coverage. And he’s going to pull big time running backs who want to play the B-back position that Jonathan Dwyer is about to make famous at the BCS level. But the remainder of the offensive guys are going ! to be “Paul Johnson Guys” and not Scout or Rivals guys.
Defensively Tech should still be able to pull highly rated players. Wommack doesn’t do anything unique on defense that differentiates Tech from anyone else. He’ll continue to pull guys like Sweeting and Lanier who are four star guys and rated Top 25 at their positions.
All in all, Tech fans CANNOT measure Coach Johnson by recruiting service “stars”. They can only measure him by the wins and losses.
And to be honest … Top 25 recruiting classes coupled with superior coaching and schemes by Paul Johnson will win A LOT of football games.
You don’t need Top 10 recruiting classes to be better than UGA … that much has already been proven. All Johnson needs is some freshmen and a few walk ons who can run and block in order to execute what some radio talking heads have called a “high school offense”.
Go Jackets!
THWG!
45-42!
Services »
Comments
By Big BCH 99
February 10, 2009 10:31 PM | Link to this
Chris, you are 100% right about CPJ and Recruiting. Scout & Rivals will never really like his recruiting classes that much, definitely not the offensive guys b/c he’s going after Option, Run first QBs, RB/Slot WR guys that can block a little to play the A (Slot_Back) Position, but he may be able to get some big names to come in & play the B-Back (Fullback) position that Dwyer currently plays and that Adrian Peterson played for PJ @ GA Southern.
Hill likes the idea of playing against man coverage, & he also likes the idea of playing right away, he should start opposite of BayBay next yr, & he would’ve had to sit & play special teams for a couple of yrs before getting any real PT @ WR.
Wommack should be able to get some decent defensive guys, I hope that we got some speed at the LB position for this next yr, b/c I noticed that was one thing we missed this yr. Our LBs weren’t that bad this yr, but we missed not having the speed & athleticism at that position that we had w/ the likes of KaMichael Hall, Philip Wheeler, & Gary Guyton.
By JD
February 10, 2009 10:36 PM | Link to this
THWG!!!!!!!!!
By Wrecker1
February 10, 2009 10:43 PM | Link to this
Chris you are exactly right, TECH has no offensive identity. Well actually their identity is a poor shooting poor ball handling team. Lawal and Aminu are their best and most consistent offensive threats but even on the limited number of times they touch the ball during a game they have a high turn-over rate. As much as I think these 2 play hard they aren’t physical in your face offensive players. Their points come from stick backs and turn around/fall away jumpers. TECH’s guards play with no conscience. There’s not a jumper they won’t take and we’re not exactly trotting out Mark Price/Dennis Scott type shooters. These kids play hard they just don’t play very smart too often.
By RealityYech
February 11, 2009 8:07 AM | Link to this
I’m on here to let everyone know that I’m OUT!!! Bruce I love you!!!
By Jack G
February 11, 2009 8:34 AM | Link to this
Chris You forgot a couple of things——CPJ needs a QB that can pass, and a couple of receivers that can catch. On demention offense wont cut it.
By GT45
February 11, 2009 8:40 AM | Link to this
We’re in the top 15 in almost all preseason rankings. We’re getting more national exposure, and kids are starting to take notice. Many writers are already picking VT to win the ACC this year, but the ones who follow the ACC are saying, “Not so fast. Don’t forget the team in the Atl!” We need to just keep recruiting in the state. There are too many intelligent and great players escaping every year, but that is changing. There is no better indicator than the comments by dog fans, and the kids are picking up on it. It’s great for the state-it’s great to be a Yellow Jacket-
By m
February 11, 2009 9:09 AM | Link to this
You are correct. You don’t need so-called Top 10 recruiting classes to beat ugag. What you need is a real college football coach. The last 5 times that we have played ugag WITH a real college football coach (O’leary and Johnson) we have won 4 out of 5….I repeat we have won 4 out of 5. Admittedly, the last 6 times we played ugag WITHOUT a real college football coach (Gomer Gailey) we lost 6 out of 6…I repeat we lost 6 out of 6. The bottom line is this…the hiring of Chan Gailey was the worst mistake in Tech history and anyone that supported Chan, then or now, is a FOOL. Paul Johnson is the real deal. And all you ugag idiots that think you can beat Paul Johnson the way you beat Chan Gailey are in for a real surprise. And, as always, thank God and Greyhound that the worst football coach in the history of the world is gone forever…you idiot dawgs are going to miss him.
By THWG
February 11, 2009 9:09 AM | Link to this
Tech does finish yearly higher than the recruiting services (especially Rivals that has Tech averaging 58th yearly over the past 10 years).
But to say that recruiting top players (rated 4 or 5 stars) is not our goal is ridiculous. Fact is most simply will not come to Tech because of the academics and the overwhelming sense that Ugag represents the state of Georgia sense its called “JoeJa”.
Here are the recruiting rankings for both Ugag and Tech over the past ten years… UGA 8.2 GT 37.9 - Scout UGA 6.75 GT 50.5 - Rivals
Average national ranking over the past ten years (post-season): UGA 12.3; GT 33.6
Tech has only one top 20 ranking in the past decade (17th the year we played Notre Dame in the Gator Bowl). We were 22nd last year after the Peach Bowl debacle.
UGa has finished top 5 twice and top 10 three other times or 50% of the decade in the top 10.
Thus…the ranking of recruiting classes does seem to hold some scientific validity as to where a team finishes. I was overjoyed at our recruiting class this year - largely due to the number of local kids but we really have to beat UGA head to head for the top 20 kids in the state to truly advance up the rankings and realistically beat them year to year. Before professional sports Tech was one of the top 5 programs in the nation but the modern world is a different place. Tech needs to open up more liberal arts classes if it hopes to compete with the best football programs.
By Huh?
February 11, 2009 12:02 PM | Link to this
“The people expecting Tech to pull classes ranked as highly as UGA need to ratchet down expectations. Tech doesn’t have the broad curriculum or the entry standards to consistently pull classes in the Top 10.”
It wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that Tech is a historically mediocre football program that rarely finds itself in the top 25, rarely finds itself in any kind of meaningful game, and rarely finds itself winning more than 7-9 games a year, would it Chris? No, of course not.
Tech fans are full of nothing but excuses.
By russell gold
February 11, 2009 12:23 PM | Link to this
Well, Ugag is below mediocre after this past year’s game!
By ccrider
February 11, 2009 12:31 PM | Link to this
To Huh?: Yes Tech has had a lot of mediocre seasons in the last 15 years. BUT: to use your words, HISTORICALLY Tech has won 4 National Championships to UGA’s 1, including the most recent championship in 1990. Program’s success runs hot and cold. Alabama, Southern Cal, LSU, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan, etc. can all point to down times in their programs; either present-Michigan, Notre Dame or past. So, don’t fool yourself into thinking that Tech can’t get to the top again, it just takes the right combination of coaching, talent to fit your system and luck.
By gt fan
February 11, 2009 12:34 PM | Link to this
thwg …. great stats.
m…… good point on the coaches. however, gailey wasn’t the biggest mistake that braineless made.
we passed over a very good hireable black coach for phew… a guy who is all suit and no coaching. that was a bigger mistake than gailey imo. look no further than Clemson and oliver pernell on how to build a program…. continuity and great hands-on coaching. our women’s team is following the exact same blueprint.with excellent results.
the women are now a top 25 team that is hanging in the middle of a very very difficult woman’s acc. they are now beating a perennial top 15 ugag team with regularity. AND all their players are graduating (unlike phew). they are on track to go to the ncaa’s for the second year in a row. way to go machelle and team..
at Clemson they have improved each and every year under op. no up n down yo yo ride like we experience at GT. they are on the verge of having their 3d 20+ win season. they are a legit top 15 team and they will go to the ncaa’s for the second year in a row. no one and dones at clemson. the clemson bb team is experiencing the same kind of success for the same kind of reasons that our fb team and women’s bb teams are experiencing.
meanwhile we have the best dressed FAILURE of a coach in American. a guy who personally admitted he was not the guy to draw up a play. the bill lewis of bb for gt.
many defenders of phew say he is a great recruiter. i say horse feathers. a great recruiter would be able to manage the makings of his team. a great recruiter would not depend on the player rankings to identify a prospect.. a great recruiter would be able take chemistry into account when choosing a player. uk sure got a good one that wanted to come to gt real bad for instance.
also… for some reason. phew is unable or not willing to recruit blue chip white players. players like oglesby of clemson would never get a sniff at gt for instance. phew begrudgingly allowed matt causey to play minutes last year. begrudgingly!
when you ask yourself why this is an issue the only answers that come to mind are… phew isn’t the great recruiter people think or he is a racist.
come on folks. gt recruit’s itself. any personable human being would recruit for gt very well especially for bb.
getting back to the biggest mistake braineless made…..
its the contact he awarded our empty suit. at least we could afford to can chan. with the buyout and rollover wording in phew’s contract we are basically STUCK with a putrid coach for life.
drad cant force phew to hire more experienced assistants. drad cant threaten phew for poor performance.drad has zero leverage. as far as our bb program goes… the only thing that drad can do is stfu or ask him to leave thanks to braineless.
as bb king once wrote….’ the thrill is gone, baby’!
By jackcan'tspell
February 11, 2009 12:56 PM | Link to this
Jack, is it “demention”, dimension or dementia?
(or the lack of a nap?)
ps….CPJ just received another good receiver for next year….did you know that?
By Huh?
February 11, 2009 1:00 PM | Link to this
“Yes Tech has had a lot of mediocre seasons in the last 15 years.”
Game, set, match. My point has been proven. So how do you expect recruits that were only born 18 years ago to remember anything before that? I know Tech was a powerhouse in the freaking 50’s and all, but my parents probably can’t even remember that far back.
Any high school football player these days has seen nothing but mediocrity, or worse, out of Tech football for their entire lives. Don’t you geniuses think that might enter in to the equation on why Tech can’t get a top 10 recruiting class? I don’t have an engineering degree so I am obviously an inferior human to you. Help me out here Einsteins.
By THWG
February 11, 2009 1:02 PM | Link to this
ccrider
TECH won the 1990 National Championship! YES…but what did it enable us to do afterwards? Most teams use it to boost recruiting and creating a scenario for later successes. We did not. UGA just kept getting the best local talent and we were forced to look nationally (that’s great if you only want 6-8 wins a year). The one class where we held our own in the state (beat UGAy according to Scout and finished two below them by Rivals) was Gailey’s last recruiting class! Nesbitt, Dwyer, etc. were in that class and many were four stars! Look how vital they were this past year! Imagine such players year in and year out like UGA gets but with our coach (Who has a proven record of coaching the players up!)
Maybe I’m dreaming…but that is what leaders of organizations are hired to do. They are also hired to direct an organization toward those dreams.
By To Huh?
February 11, 2009 1:44 PM | Link to this
How is stating the obvious “game set match”? No one here is claiming that GT has been a national powerhouse for the past 15 years, we know that its been pretty mediocre. We are just hoping for better with PJ, and after this past year, why shouldn’t we be optimistic? UGA had some pretty mediocre times as well, yet they seem to be doing fine with recruits. Its cyclical buddy, no team can stay on top forever.
By Huh?
February 11, 2009 1:58 PM | Link to this
To Huh?, if you had any kind of attention span whatsoever you would know that I was responding to Boggs’ claim that Tech can’t recruit Top 10 classes because of some supposed handicap posed by academics. This is a claim that Tech fans are quite fond of, so I thought I would take the opportunity to add some additional perspective. I simply pointed out that Tech’s performance on that place we call the football field doesn’t help them in the recruiting rankings either. I simply posed a theory that there may be more to Tech’s struggles in recruiting than academic challenges. Yet rarely does a Tech fan ever acknowledge this point. Its nothing but a littany of excuses about how your football players have to take calculus and get an 800 on the SAT, as if there are not 4 and 5 star recruits that can accomplish this feat. Tech fans act like high school football recruits that don’t choose their school are dumb as a bag of rocks. Perhaps this arrogance doesn’t help you in recruiting either? Just another theory. Take Advil for headaches.
By Gordon
February 11, 2009 2:59 PM | Link to this
gtfan,
Good post, but why can’t we force Hewitt to hire new assistants? Is that part of the contract as well?
The falling attendance will force DRad’s hand eventually.
By funny, huh?
February 11, 2009 3:06 PM | Link to this
Tech has been proven to be medium for a few years….Wow…must have been a dog to figure that one!
Did not Boggs indicated the lack of a broad curriculiam as a reason?
Did not CPJ get a good receiver recently (that uGa really wanted)? Is huh? worried about CPJ? We hope you are for a long time.
CMR did prove that the right coach does make a difference….Tech fans think CPJ is that right coach for Tech!
By jabster
February 11, 2009 3:20 PM | Link to this
To Huh?
Your point is well taken. But keep in mind that Tech really isn’t that bad of a program—ESPN ranked all programs, decade in and decade out, since 1933, and Tech came in at #18. See http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3846173
Granted, these numbers were a little inflated from Tech’s 1950s performance, but we did come in at #24 for the BCS era taken by itself. See http://myespn.go.com/blogs/acc/0-3-585/ACC-during-the-BCS.html
My point is that Tech’s program is nothing to sneeze at, no slouch, and nothing to be ashamed of. Just like TX A&M, Auburn, and UCLA, Tech is a very good program with a storied history (both “ancient” and recent) that unfortunately gets overshadowed by a larger nearby program with a better record.
And, yes, the variety of available degree programs does play a part.
By Huh?
February 11, 2009 4:28 PM | Link to this
Since 1990 Tech has won only 57% of its games and has won more than 8 games only 4 times. For the better part of two decades Georgia Tech football has been the very definition of mediocrity. I would just like a Techie to acknowledge that this might have something to do with your inability to recruit top prospects. I don’t want to hear a single solitary word about entrance requirements, calculus, or curriculum. Just freaking admit that your mediocre performance on the football field poses a challenge in recruiting. Why can you not admit this? I can go round and round with a Techie for hours and they will NEVER admit this. I swear its like you people are in a brainwashed cult. Geez.
By Jaded Jacket
February 11, 2009 4:39 PM | Link to this
On Tarrant, I’m glad the guy stuck it out and stayed in school. His situation reminds me of the lacrosse players at Duke who were false accused of rape a couple of years ago. It’s a amazing how much damage a woman can inflict on a man with false rape allegations. Women like her do more harm to the women that really are raped.
By To Huh?
February 11, 2009 4:52 PM | Link to this
Mediocrity has some, but certainly not everything to do with it. I would say it isn’t even the majority of it. If mediocrity scares kids away, then how come FSU, Miami, and UCLA pulled in top 15 classes this year? Yes, they are big programs…so how come South Carolina has brought in top 15 talent the last few years?? South Carolina? Honestly. Its b/c SOS and south carolina will accept a kid as long as he has a pulse.
It is a combo of mediocrity, academics (entrance requirements and lack of garbage majors), and now the TO that keeps GT from getting top 10 classes. Go ahead and pout about that now.
By to Huh?
February 11, 2009 5:26 PM | Link to this
Dear, sweet little ‘Huh?’ :
dude, you sure spend a lot of time on the Tech blogs … a school and sports program that every UGA fan dismisses as ‘irrelevant’. So what is it about GA Tech right now that keeps you posting on our blogs so incessantly?? I’m guessing that the ‘irrelevant’ Jackets have you worried ‘cause they are actually showing improvement on the football field …. and GOD FORBID anyone should be allowed to be happy about it. We dis-respectfully invite you to leave.
PS - get back to work … we have a management meeting and your timesheets are due.
By Jack G
February 11, 2009 5:48 PM | Link to this
Jackcantspell
All of the above. I can spell, just cant type. But as they say if you have smarts you can figure it out. You are right on no nap
By jeff grady
February 11, 2009 6:09 PM | Link to this
Know what SEC football players and fans are doing tonite?
Watching ACC basketball!
By Huh?
February 11, 2009 7:05 PM | Link to this
To Huh? at 4:52 P.M., thanks. That’s all I was asking for. That’s it. You are in a very small minority of Tech fans that has the courage to admit that mediocrity plays a part. In fact, if this blog is any indication, you are the only one.
to Huh? at 5:26 P.M., since when do I have a problem with Tech fans being happy about their 9-4 season? I love it. I think its hilarious, in a very sad and pathetic sort of way. Go ahead and pat yourselves on the back all you want. It seems that Georgia Tech was so busy patting itself on the back after the 3 point Georgia win (in which its defense gave up 42 points and over 500 yards of offense) that they forgot to prepare for the Chicken Bowl. That really worked well for you didn’t it? Happy happy joy joy!!!
“So what is it about GA Tech right now that keeps you posting on our blogs so incessantly??”
The same thing that has had me scratching my head for years now: The stupidity of Tech fans. You are so full of crap that its coming out of your ears. Nothing has changed, other than the fact that you won 9 games and think you are Super Bowl champions. That’s about it.
By Tech beat Georgia in football last season huh?
February 11, 2009 9:45 PM | Link to this
Is that bothering you?
Get used to it….it’s just started….Tech/Johnson is on a roll over the dogs. I would not be surprised if the streak went to seven in a row!
By The Big Bug
February 12, 2009 1:44 AM | Link to this
For all you doggies out there who can’t understand our euphoria about a 9-4 season, I can only say you must have never suffered through a season of watching your team carry the burden of a Chan Gailey on their backs. As for me, I can see lots of reasons a recruit would be attracted to Tech. It’s hard for a kid to visualise where he’ll be in 4-5 years.
By Navigator
February 12, 2009 8:15 AM | Link to this
I said when PJohnson came that Tech would be on the same level as Wake Forest. Maybe, this year will prove me wrong, but I can’t get over how LSU’s defense crushed Tech’s offense. About recruiting, Oklahoma always had highly rated drafts when Switzer coached the option offense, so you can’t make a broad statement like you made. What stopped the major schools from using the option was the sophisticated defenses that were designed. Now LSU has a very good defense, but don’t you expect VTech, FSU, Miami and NC to come up with similar quality. What makes option unstoppable is being able to pass out of it. So far PJohnson doesn’t have a good throwing QB, so maybe one of the new QB’s can run and pass.
By Too Easy
February 12, 2009 8:32 AM | Link to this
Navi: Don’t forget that UGA and LSU both crushed tech’s supposedly stellar defense, too. Concerns on both sides of the ball for the upcoming year, IMO.
By ga_tech_92
February 12, 2009 10:48 AM | Link to this
GT has not been a powerhouse for years, true. Times have changed and you can call the REASONS excuses if you want, but never the less, they are reality.
There is no sane person anywhere who doesn’t “get” the fact that:
Georgia Tech’s football players had the nation’s best average SAT score, 1028 of a possible 1600, and best average high school GPA, 3.39 of a possible 4.0 in the core curriculum.
http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/stories//2008/12/28/acadmain12283DOT.html
UGA special admit percentage for athletes 73.5. GT special admit percentage for athletes 6.2. I.E. if there are 75 players on the roster, 55 of UGA’s 75 didn’t even qualify to get into the school, where as only 4 of Techs 75 didn’t qualify. UGA should be ashamed for exploiting the athletes. College is supposed to be about getting an education first, athletics second. Clearly GT gets it, UGA does not. No wonder UGA has significantly better recruiting most years than GT…THEY WILL LET ANY DUMB HAY SEED ON THE TEAM, if they can ball it up!!!
http://www.newhaven.edu/news-events/27084.pdf
Let’s dispel the myth about academics for both uga and gt. Both schools are impressive for the average student. The schools are different worlds for athletics though. This is a very significant difference…if you can’t see that…then you are just too illogical to have a conversation with. If you think it makes no difference…why do you allow so many non-qualifiers!!?!? Do you know who allows more than you?…FLORIDA…who kicks your a* regularly. SO…on one hand…it’s factually a difference maker and you should be shamed. On the other hand. THWG
resources: UGA - MASSIVE budget compared to GT…meaning…you can steal any coach we ever get purely on dollars. Now, it is another fact that GT alumns donate more per person than almost any school in the country. The problem is, we don’t have that many alumns compared to UGA. UGA guys donate less on average, so they aren’t as good of fans…GT guys donate max…so they rock…but…we are a tiny little school compared to UGA…it is what it is. It’s not an excuse, it’s a fact…a reason. Never the less…we do not stop at the reason…we still try to kick Goliath’s a* every year. Sometimes we do…you should be ashamed.
UGA has every advantage possible…money…girls…majors…academic exceptions…
GT has never put football first…never will…UGA has for years put football first…it’s no coincidence that UGA wins more football games than GT. If the competition were “STUDENT athletes” then GT wins hands down, based on academic exceptions combined with recruiting rankings combined with where we finish in the poles. UGA is a one trick pony for football…just win games regardless of academics…GT tries to do both…it’s just a different view on what’s important.
The things I’ve said are facts, and backed up with references. The reality is, GT has a hell of a lot to be proud of……a lot more than can be measured with simply “W’s and L’s”. GT athletes are winners, because they were smart enough to get into GT in the first place..>AND<..because they represent the school very well athletically.
UGA football is like a deal with the devil. You will get good results on the field, but at a cost that’s fundamentally wrong. GT has the correct approach…have the highest incoming SAT scores…recruit high character guys…kick UGA’s a* every so often. Keep doing it right GT!
THWG…GO JACKETS!!!!!
By The Big Bug
February 12, 2009 1:22 PM | Link to this
WELL SAID gatech92!! You have pretty much summed it up.
By Huh?
February 12, 2009 1:23 PM | Link to this
gatech92, I’m having a hard time hearing you way up there on your freaking high horse you delusional clown. Why don’t you step down in to reality buddy? Where does that article say that GT’s special admit percentage is 6.2? Given the propensity of Tech fans to lie and make up their “facts” as they go along, I will take that with a grain of salt until proven otherwise. Even so, did you notice that the difference between a GT football players SAT score and the average GT student’s SAT score is even larger than Georgia’s? And you’re trying to tell me that Georgia Tech doesn’t make exceptions for athletes? Please do not make me laugh.
Did you also notice that the average SAT score for a UGA football player and a GT football player are only 79 points apart? Whoopdeefreakindoo!!! 79 points you clueless goob. Yet here you are calling UGA football players “dumb hay seeds” and acting like Tech football players on their way to a nobel freaking peace prize.
Did you even read the article you moron? Good grief.
“UGA has every advantage possible…money…girls…majors…academic exceptions…”
LOL. That’s what this is all about isn’t it? Pure unadulterated jealousy. You bet your arse we’ve got every advantage possible. Do you need a tissue? What is so “fundamentally wrong” with that crybaby?
By The Big Bug
February 12, 2009 2:00 PM | Link to this
To the poster who suggested we start a Liberal Arts school & dummy down the curriculum so we can compete with GA in recruiting: SPLENDID IDEA—-NOT!!!!
By Red GA Dawg
February 12, 2009 2:33 PM | Link to this
Big Bug - Tech already has the Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts! Need another excuse, most of my friends who graduated from Tech are not engineers, they have management degrees, College of Management another non engineering degree.
By Red GA Dawg
February 12, 2009 2:47 PM | Link to this
To gatech92 a 1028 did not get a student into Tech in 1970 when I graduated from high school. That is equivalent of a 928 then, 100 points was added in the last decade to SAT scores. Seems to me almost all Tech football recruits should be special admits as it takes a 700 math to safely be admitted from my understanding or it used to when Tech was really tough. Yes you are right that best donors are alumni from all male institutions, which Tech was for years and still primarily is, I think women are 25% of student body. In most households the gifts go to husbands alma mater, so if a GA gal marries a Bee guess where dollars go. By the way, when you are beating up on DAWG grads remember where you Attorney, Vet, Newpaper & TV talent, those who put food on your table and are trained to teach your children received thier degrees. Amazes me that the fact is 2/3 rds of your band are non students. Not only can you not fill up a 55,000 seat stadium, you can’t get enough students to fill a band.
By Conclusive Evidence
February 12, 2009 2:50 PM | Link to this
By Huh? February 12, 2009 1:23 PM
“LOL. That’s what this is all about isn’t it? Pure unadulterated jealousy. You bet your arse we’ve got every advantage possible. Do you need a tissue? What is so “fundamentally wrong” with that crybaby?”
This imbecile named ‘Huh?’ is so riled up about GT football that he feels the need to incessantly post about it on both the Tech AND UGA blogs. I can only conclude it is for one of the following reasons:
1) he wasn’t admitted to GT as a student (if he went to college at all is questionable).
2) he’s so eaten up about UGA’s 45-42 loss to Tech last season that we’ll be subjected to his driveling rants all year long (only making Tech fans smile that much more with pure satisfaction).
3) he just can’t stand the fact that, all charts/graphs/SAT scores analysis aside, GT has (and will always have) a higher academic standard for both its students AND its student-athletes than UGA.
Go ahead and retort now ‘Huh?’ with some more senseless mind-numbing drivel. I won’t be reading … we have a management meeting and your timesheets are due. THWG!!!
By The Big Bug
February 12, 2009 2:52 PM | Link to this
You are correct Red GA Dawg! Congratulations! There was no such college back in my day. At least that I ever heard of. I guess the poster I referred to had not either.
I myself am an engineer but as I have stated before The Industrial Mgmt degree was not a cakewalk by any means.
By Huh?
February 12, 2009 3:32 PM | Link to this
79 measly points. I mean really, am I missing something here? This is what Tech fans pound their chests about? Well, okay Techies. We’ve got a deal. You can have your 79 extra points on the SAT and I’ll take the BCS bowls, conference championships, and top 10 recruiting rankings. Whatever floats your boat nerds.
I must say that Conclusive Evidence really got me on one thing. I did not get admitted to Georgia Tech. Of course, in true Techie fashion, he only fills you in on half the story. The other half of the story is that I didn’t apply. I have a hard enough time spending a few hours every two years on that absolute dump of a campus to watch a football game. I couldn’t imagine spending 4 miserable years there. I would probably go crazy and start obsessing about 79 points on the SAT!!!
By jabster
February 12, 2009 3:51 PM | Link to this
“Management” is really a business program, because a long time ago the Board of Regents said that Tech couldn’t offer a business degree and UGA couldn’t offer an engineering degree (except AgE). GTCOM is comparable to Terry. And the Ivan Allen College doesn’t offer anywhere near the variety of libarts programs as UGA.
Huh?, you know, maybe we’d quit being so defensive if you and some of your Bulldog brethren quit trying to suck all of the oxygen out of the room…you’ve ceased to say anything useful and have become nothing but a complete troll on this blog.
I always find it interesting how those who don’t have standards to begin with always find ways to fault the supposed failings of those who do…it looks bad to miss your mark but the fact that you can’t fall off the floor doesn’t make you look better as a result.
By Huh?
February 12, 2009 4:08 PM | Link to this
I haven’t said anything useful to you because I haven’t said anything that you want to hear. In typical Tech fashion, any opinion that differs from their own goes in one ear and out the other. Tech fans do not want to hear about how lack of performance on the football field might contribute to their inability to recruit top talent. How is this point not useful? And what exactly are your “standards”? It appears to me that your “standards” are to dismiss opinions that differ from your own as “not useful.” Those aren’t very high standards. I would like you to explain to me how my point about Tech’s challenges in recruiting is “not useful.” The floor is yours.
By Well then
February 12, 2009 4:37 PM | Link to this
Christ Huh?, give it a rest. Maybe we can’t recruit well because we have yet to discover aliens. How does that theory sound? Your theory about mediocrity on the football field holds no water, b/c South Carolina gets great recruiting classes, and they are still terrible. Same thing with UCLA. We get it. You want to blame recruiting on the fact that we haven’t been a top 10 team. You can believe that all you want, but that doesn’t make it true, and you certainly aren’t going to have any luck by trying to cram it down peoples throats on this GT BLOG. You are on here attacking GT, and then you act suprised that people don’t bow down to you and declare you and uga to be superior?? Are you retarded or just dense?
By Huh?
February 12, 2009 5:16 PM | Link to this
“Maybe we can’t recruit well because we have yet to discover aliens. How does that theory sound?”
It sounds about as legitimate as blaming a 79 point differential in average SAT scores. I guess you’ve got a back up excuse if the crybaby academic excuse ever goes stale.
You can believe that mediocre football doesn’t lead to mediocre recruiting classes all you want, but it doesn’t make it true. Go ahead and stick your head in the sand Techie. No skin off my back.
Oh, and South Carolina has Steve Spurrier and UCLA has brand recognition. Georgia Tech has neither of these things. The list of schools with advantages over Georgia Tech goes on and on. Life is just so unfair isn’t it Techies?
By Well then
February 12, 2009 5:50 PM | Link to this
UCLA brand recognition in football? Right. Its not the 79 point SAT differential, its the lack of turf management and recreational activity planning majors at GT. I find it funny that you are over here complaining about GT and “techies” on the GT blog. Pretty pathetic. What, did Ramble On hurt your feelings on the uga blog?? He isn’t exactly a winner either…
By jabster
February 12, 2009 5:53 PM | Link to this
Huh? wrote: Oh, and South Carolina has Steve Spurrier and UCLA has brand recognition. Georgia Tech has neither of these things. The list of schools with advantages over Georgia Tech goes on and on. Life is just so unfair isn’t it Techies?
No, to put it nicely we just disagree with your assessment that the Tech football program is so bad. To each his own, but quit rocking your hobbyhorse on this blog already.
To put it not so nicely we think you’re full of it-period. If you want a butt-kissing, you’ve come to the wrong place. TTFN—I have nothing more to say.
By Tech beat Georgia in football last season huh?
February 12, 2009 6:09 PM | Link to this
huh?….don’t matter to most Tech fans what you think-loser.
By The Big Bug
February 12, 2009 9:34 PM | Link to this
Huh? Name recognition? GT has more overall name recognition than any school in the Southeast including Vandy & Duke. SC has Steve Spurrier? You just lost all your credibility. GA is not even on the radar. Face the facts. GA has a massive edge in the recruiting pool. If you can wipe your own nose you can be a GA athlete.
Even with Basket Weaving Management you have your hands full with Tech every year. SC has Steve Spurrier! I gotta go. You’re too funny.
By BIG bee
February 13, 2009 8:03 PM | Link to this
Huh, do we have to remindyou that your poor performance on the field last november resulted in 45-42. Now was it the players performance, the head coach, the assistants etc? As far as next year, we won’t know who won the game until the game is played. I have been waiting for you UGA people to take issue with that, but no takers yet. Guess we are finally in agreement.
By Red GA Dawg
February 14, 2009 8:34 AM | Link to this
Interesting tidbit in today’s AJC, the SEC coaches wonder if UGA can tie a record GA Tech holds alone. That is to go an entire season without a conference win, did accomplished this in 1953 -54. Kind of neat that the two state U’s can share a title, dubuous as it is. Tech is well on its way to claiming same in ACC. Wonder if there is an ACC team that went winless for a season?
By Vin Stooley
February 14, 2009 2:35 PM | Link to this
Red GA Dawg, Tech has already beaten Wake.
By Red GA Dawg
February 14, 2009 5:49 PM | Link to this
Yeh Tech beat Wake, GA beat FL so now the only team who has ever been in SEC to never win a conference game in a season is still TECH, “my well on way” comment is more a tribute to the leadership of PH and play of his “All Stars”, better luck next year with One and Done Favors, course Athens would have loved a one and done star. The state of collegiate basketball in GA is awful!
By fred
February 14, 2009 7:38 PM | Link to this
Bad—-sick—-embarassing—-
—-if bb was a business, the Company President would have been fired long ago (but, wait….this is…..a…….
THWG!!!
By Dennis Scott
February 15, 2009 12:52 AM | Link to this
GT basketball sucks the air biscuits out of my arse….WORSE TEAM IN THE ACC…..ONE OF THE WORSE TEAMS in D1A….WOW
By Red GA Dawg
February 15, 2009 10:05 AM | Link to this
Insult to injury, AJC reports today that TECH is not the only team to ever lose all SEC conference games which was 1954, TECH also lost all ACC conference games in 1981. Why do I continue to read that TECH has a glorious BB hsitory. We who are Bull Dawg bred acknowledge that the BB program in Athens is historically weak, yet we have been to final four and have never lost all conference games, must less in two different conferences! Some fans mix fantasy with reality, at least DE can try to make situation better with a new coach, DR at Tech is stuck with PH till death do them part.
By Navigator
February 17, 2009 1:37 PM | Link to this
What I really get tired of is the constant bickering on the blogs between UGA and Tech. This blog is about Tech sports good and bad, it’s not about knuckle heads arguing with knuckle dragging red necks. There’s a lot of people that wants to discuss the teams, coaches, schedules, etc., but can’t because the constant bickering about my thing is bigger than your thing. Tech is coming up in football, but has a long load to haul in BB. Due to the arrogance and despicable action of the previous AD, Tech is stuck with a horrible BB coach. Tech’s football recruiting is moving forward with the things needed to improve the football capabilities of the football team, namely big freakin linemen. Remember the first thing Bobby Ross did when he became coach was to recruit big freakin linement. Everything starts in the trenches, not with a few blue chip RB’s and receivers. Let’s see in the next three years how Tech is to handle top ranked teams, then there will be no argument, one way or the other.