College Football Week 13 (Rivalry Week) discussion

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by digamma

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.

I think we're both pretty cool with agreeing to disagree, which is good, but I'll confess to being confused by what seems to be a difference in interpretation of the "9-10 wins" criteria & how what I'm saying differs from what Dave Braine said.

The original quote, out of context, was "Georgia Tech can win nine or 10 games," Braine said. "They will never do that consistently. That's my feeling ... because of the type of program this is."

Added Braine: "A lot of people will take this as a cop-out, but it's tough to be a student-athlete at Georgia Tech."

The quote came, best I can tell after Googling to refresh my memory, after he extended Gailey's contract with the team sitting 6-5, coming off a loss to UVA with Miami & Georgia still to play. They would go on to beat Miami before losing to UGA & then getting blown out by Utah.

I'm not saying that they can't win 9-10 games consistently, which was his bottom line statement.

I'm saying that they can win 9-10 games consistently but that if going 10-2 includes regular losses to UGA then I really don't give much of a rat's ass about those 10 wins.

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.

I genuinely question whether he truly realizes that bolded part or not. At least some definition of "competitive on a national level" could include running the table in the ACC & running the table in the rest of the OOC schedule. That's damned near what they did this year & I don't see any reason (as long as recruiting is steady, etc) that the same scenario couldn't happen with regularity.

What I'm saying is that I would not be satisified with that scenario, that I wouldn't trade 10 straight ACC titles & 10 straight Orange Bowls for beating Georgia 7 out of 10. He might, every alum might, every donor might, that's cool as far as that goes. In the end I'm simply saying that I'd personally take the latter over the former without the slightest hesitation. I'm not doubting that CPJ goes into every season looking to be 14-0 with all the attendant hardware but based on his own statements I feel it's reasonable to believe that if he went down to the crossroads & was offered ten seasons of 13-1, ten ACC titles, and ten Orange Bowl berths that he'd consider that a pretty successful outcome even if those ten losses were all to UGA. And that's where he & I would be of two different minds.

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.

I fully acknowledge that he's just 1-1 to date against them & that the jury is still out on how it will play out over time. He may never lose to them again for all I know & if that's the case then obviously my concerns are unfounded. But sitting here right now that's what I've got: "concerns", both from the on field results & from his own comments. Those concerns will be elevated with two more losses to end the season, they'll only be relieved slightly (if at all) if they win Saturday, relieved a bit more if they win both of the next two.

But for me, after about 40 years filled largely with suffering for my fandom, 12-2 with an ACC title & an Orange Bowl trophy amounts to a nice consolation prize at the end of the day. It beats plenty of alternatives by a good margin, I'm not arguing that in the least, but I'm not satisfied or fulfilled by it either.

[MJ4H]

Looks like it will be the LIberty Bowl for Arkansas vs CUSA champion (TDB). Unofficial, but Liberty Bowl has posted an Arkansas video on their official site, their ticket office is all but confirming it will be Arkansas, etc.

CUSA representative will be Houston or E. Carolina. My God, the O/U if it is Houston might be near 100.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But for me, after about 40 years filled largely with suffering for my fandom, 12-2 with an ACC title & an Orange Bowl trophy amounts to a nice consolation prize at the end of the day. It beats plenty of alternatives by a good margin, I'm not arguing that in the least, but I'm not satisfied or fulfilled by it either.

I guess my problem here is wondering how these expectations changed overnight. IF the ACC remains near the bottom of the top 6 as far as BCS conferences go, and IF Georgia Tech only beats inferior ACC competition and I-AA level competition to get those 10 wins, and IF Georgia Tech continues to lose to UGA the vast majority of the time then surely a time would come where that would not be good enough and something would have to change to continue to progress the program.

But how do you arrive there in any sort of rational fashion right now for this program in this situation? Georgia Tech has two ACC titles in their history in the conference. They've never been to a BCS Bowl, and thus never won one. Seeing those things happen would be a hell of a lot more than a consolation prize to me! I would think for someone that has been following Ga Tech football for a lot longer than me it would mean even more, certainly enough to say that the first time it happens is satisfying, even if its in a year when Tech loses to UGA.


They need to beat Georgia. If the program is going to grow and consistently be in or near the top 10 and contend for BCS bowls and hopefully eventually national titles then they have to dominate UGA consistently. But getting there is a process isn't it? It isn't gonna happen overnight. I know I'm pretty damn pleased with where they are now in the grand scheme of things, despite feeling extremely letdown Saturday night after losing to Georgia.

I hope Tech gets to the point where only winning 10 games and making the ACC Championship game is a letdown, but that comes with years of success, not overnight.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Balldog

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.

You're picking at nits here in the larger discussion. The overarching point is the contention that USC was so vastly talented that their accomplishments over the period from 2002 on should be considered underachieving. Evidence cited for their superior talent was the NFL draft choices. I countered by pointing out other programs and their NFL draft choices, and noted that by that measure, Ohio State should be considered roughly equivalent to USC over the same time period, and yet they won no National Championships.

Yes, USC lost some games to inferior opponents. They also won just about every game they played against top opponents - Texas and Oregon being the only real exceptions.

My point is not to tear down Ohio State - it's to show that calling USC's performance "underachievement" is silly.

[Young Drachma]

Gary Patterson doesn't favor a playoff:

TCU's Gary Patterson signs extension through 2016, supports bowl system - ESPN Dallas

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Radii

I guess my problem here is wondering how these expectations changed overnight.

For me, I'd say "expectations" may not have changed so much as "level required for satisfaction".

Or maybe expectations did change for me, starting with 1985's 9-2-1 season under Coach Curry, including the bowl win over Michigan State despite missing the players suspended for breaking curfew. And certainly the bar was raised with 1990 & Coach Ross. Then the walking disaster known as Bill Lewis showed up and we know what followed over the next decade-plus.

Seeing those things happen would be a hell of a lot more than a consolation prize to me! I would think for someone that has been following Ga Tech football for a lot longer than me it would mean even more, certainly enough to say that the first time it happens is satisfying, even if its in a year when Tech loses to UGA.

I guess that cuts right to the heart of where we differ. And I'm okay with that difference.

[Balldog]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

You're picking at nits here in the larger discussion. The overarching point is the contention that USC was so vastly talented that their accomplishments over the period from 2002 on should be considered underachieving. Evidence cited for their superior talent was the NFL draft choices. I countered by pointing out other programs and their NFL draft choices, and noted that by that measure, Ohio State should be considered roughly equivalent to USC over the same time period, and yet they won no National Championships.

Yes, USC lost some games to inferior opponents. They also won just about every game they played against top opponents - Texas and Oregon being the only real exceptions.

My point is not to tear down Ohio State - it's to show that calling USC's performance "underachievement" is silly.

Ohio State has won just as many National Championships during the timeframe.

I suppose underachieving is a little much but I guess you have to wander what could've been had they shown up to play against Stanford and UCLA. It seems they left some Championships out there.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Balldog

Ohio State has won just as many National Championships during the timeframe.

Nit picking, but not true - USC has a consensus and a split championship in that time frame. Ohio State just has the one consensus title.

I suppose underachieving is a little much but I guess you have to wander what could've been had they shown up to play against Stanford and UCLA. It seems they left some Championships out there.

Sure, there are some puzzling losses in there. But they also did better in the big games than Ohio State did. Six of one, half a dozen of the other IMO.

[Balldog]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Nit picking, but not true - USC has a consensus and a split championship in that time frame. Ohio State just has the one consensus title.


Sure, there are some puzzling losses in there. But they also did better in the big games than Ohio State did. Six of one, half a dozen of the other IMO.

Sorry I guess during the BCS era, I didn't think anything else mattered.

The Ohio State losing big games is overplayed in my opinion, they are still 4-3 in BCS games. Split the home-home with Texas, dominated Penn State at Penn State this year, beat Iowa for the Big Ten title this year, etc. The sweep by USC is tough but it was awfully damn close to being a split. To get to the championship game in 2006 they had to beat #2 Michigan. I could go on but whats the point.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

You're picking at nits here in the larger discussion. The overarching point is the contention that USC was so vastly talented that their accomplishments over the period from 2002 on should be considered underachieving. Evidence cited for their superior talent was the NFL draft choices. I countered by pointing out other programs and their NFL draft choices, and noted that by that measure, Ohio State should be considered roughly equivalent to USC over the same time period, and yet they won no National Championships.

Yes, USC lost some games to inferior opponents. They also won just about every game they played against top opponents - Texas and Oregon being the only real exceptions.

My point is not to tear down Ohio State - it's to show that calling USC's performance "underachievement" is silly.

So it is of your belief that USC did not have the talent over that stretch to win another National Championship?

And hanging your hat on Pac-10 titles isn't showing much. I can't think of a single other Pac-10 team in that stretch that came even remotely close to the quality of talent USC has. Can you? If you have the best team in the conference, aren't you supposed to win it? I'm guessing if Texas loses in the NC this year they aren't going to say "well that doesn't matter since we won the Big 12".

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Gary Patterson doesn't favor a playoff:

TCU's Gary Patterson signs extension through 2016, supports bowl system - ESPN Dallas

If I was a head coach, I would prefer the bowl system too. Especially if I was at a school that isn't one of the 5-10 that have huge expectations. All you have to do is field a sub-par team with an easy schedule to get bowl eligibility and make your season look like a marginal success.

When half the teams can claim some kind of postseason success vs only 16 teams, it's much easier to keep your job.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So it is of your belief that USC did not have the talent over that stretch to win another National Championship?

Of course they had the talent to win more titles. That doesn't mean it was "underachieving" of them to not win more. I'm not sure how much you actually follow sports, but having the most talent doesn't guarantee anything - the differences at a high level of competition aren't that big.

The differences in talent between USC and the other major programs over that time aren't dramatic, and this seems to be where you are going off track. Yes, USC had a lot of talent. So did a lot of other programs.

Look at college football history - very few programs have had better runs over a similar period of time than USC.

And hanging your hat on Pac-10 titles isn't showing much. I can't think of a single other Pac-10 team in that stretch that came even remotely close to the quality of talent USC has. Can you? If you have the best team in the conference, aren't you supposed to win it? I'm guessing if Texas loses in the NC this year they aren't going to say "well that doesn't matter since we won the Big 12".

USC has quite likely been the most talented team in the Pac-10 over the last 8 seasons, yes. But USC has often been the most talented team in the conference, and that hasn't always translated into finishing 1st. Yes, Carroll has recruited quite well according to the websites and magazines, but so did John Robinson, Larry Smith & Ted Tollner. Even Paul Hackett recruited well - USC always recruits well.

What is remarkable is seeing how Carroll stacks up with past USC coaches, and right now, he's right there with John McKay for best ever. How about giving Carroll credit for recruiting well and actually dominating the conference with that talent.

Back in the '80's & '90's, the UW was the top program in the conference, but they rarely had what was considered better talent than USC.

Recently, one could argue that Oregon had a very talented team in 2007, but USC was still able to win the conference. Cal has had very talented teams since Tedford came on board.

Winning any major BCS conference 7 years in a row is a great accomplishment.

[Balldog]

We can argue all we want but losing to a 41 point underdog at home (potentially costing you another national championship) and winning the conference with 2 losses to mid to bottom level conference teams is underachieving. Whether you want to admit it or not, they play to the level of their competition and it cost them more than most. They seem to think that Trojan logo will win them games against inferior opponents.

[Karlifornia]

RainMaker.....while I appreciate your general intelligence, and agree with you on many subjects, I can't get behind what seems to be your undying thirst to be right by any way possible. I have never seen you appreciate another perspective. It just seems like you'd rather get behind a strawman and ride that thing until it burns to the ground, and then hop to something else. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Sometimes you're right. sometimes you're wrong. In this particular instance, you are dead wrong. Do you realize USC lost 6 games in Pete Carroll's first season? Do you know that they did not beat Notre Dame from 1983 to 1995? Do you know that they did not beat UCLA once during the years of 1991 through 1998? Do you know that the coach before Pete Carroll, Paul Hackett, finished with a record of 19-18 at USC?

USC was a program with history when Pete Carroll took over, but it was a program in a state of mediocrity. He did exactly what Michigan fans, Notre Dame fans, and Florida State fans wish for their programs. He did what Charlie Weis was supposed to do. Take a sleeping giant, and turn it into a monster. This THREE LOSS SEASON is considered awful. I know football (both pro and college) in Illinois is shitty nowadays, but shouldn't that make you more reverent of what Pete Carroll has done?

[BishopMVP]

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.

Under this system, Florida St was out of contention for the national title after week 1 (in retrospect) or week 4 going forward. Under your preferred system they were still alive November 7th vs. Clemson, and would still be alive today if they won that. Using FSU's 2009 season only helps prove that playoffs would devalue numerous early season games.

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).

I'd extend Rainmaker's arguments beyond hypocritical to being deliberately obtuse at this point, but you're confusing years here. The only year 3 BCS teams finished undefeated (2004) it was Auburn that was left out, and USC beat Oklahoma in the title game. In 2003 the three you mention were all 1-loss teams after OU lost the B12 title game (USC lost earlier to Cal in 3OT). 2007 is the other year USC could complain, with them and LSU both at 2 losses.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So it is of your belief that USC did not have the talent over that stretch to win another National Championship?

At the crux of it, it comes down to whether the 2004 team "underachieved"? I say no - they lost 1 game (to a damned good Texas team) and finished in the top 5 (#2). Did LSU's 2007 team achieve more - after all, they won the NC - even though they lost twice? Under Rainmaker's system at least 8-10 teams, "underachieve" in a season because they don't win the national championship, and only one succeeds. I (and pretty much every other person here) thinks that despite a couple upset losses over the last 8 years USC has "achieved" more than anyone could have expected or even dreamed.

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.

Well, no, the quote is that Ohio St hadn't lost to a BCS team since 2004. Using future NFL draftees as a proxy for talent, Ohio St was "the more talented team" in several of those games. It doesn't mean Ohio St choked or underachieved because 2 good teams can go up against one another without the loser being labeled an underachiever.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.

As much as I agree with this assessment of the offense (or really any aspect of any college team), for all the faults of the offense it was mostly your (terrible outside of Burnett, Morgan and maybe Tarrant) defense at fault in both losses. 454 yards and 33 points to Miami and 339 yards rushing for Georgia. Despite your starting QB being out for half the game you were driving for the game-winning score until your coach abandoned the offense and Demaryus Thomas dropped an easy 4th down conversion. As an outsider (and I know you're tempted to blow me off because I'll never understand how painful a single loss to UGA is), Johnson has done phenomenal the last two years considering the change in systems, lack of defensive talent and minimal seniors.