Paul Johnson sounded hopeful about it yesterday (will post later today). He may not be ready by the spring, but hopefully by the fall. It's obviously very early, though.
Not the Pinstripe, I feel pretty good about that. I'd say the most likely right now is the Orange.
I haven't spoken with anyone about it, but I feel pretty confident saying they're always trying to figure out that riddle. I think the "beat Georgia and win your bowl game" marketing strategy probably is the most effective, though.
Not sure what this means, but I was thinking the same thing just a couple days ago. I don't know that I've ever asked that of anyone, but, at least as far as a two-week break goes, I don't know that I put a ton of stock into it. Tech played Miami after its first bye, and that was easily one of the best offensive performances of the year. (which is, obviously, cherry picking, but the one example we have from this year. The two post-bye games last year were Duke (38 points, four TD passes by Vad Lee, I think) and Clemson (31 points). I think Tech goes live (full-speed contact with pads) a good bit in practice, more than most teams, so I think it counteracts it the layoff. Maybe it's more of a factor in bowl games, though. but i think that is probably the case for most teams.
I think it would have a much greater impact if Gurley's backup wasn't Nick Chubb. I confess I really haven't seen much of Georgia this year - probably about as much as Chip Towers has seen of Tech - but he sounds like he'll be a handful, also. And thanks for the kind words.
I admire your optimism. I'm guessing, but I'd bet Georgia is favored by around a touchdown.
I think it'll be similar to what Tech has done previously - load the box and try to force Hutson Mason to win the game. It's going to be tough.
You could also say N.C. State and Tech should have lost to Georgia Southern, FSU beat Oklahoma State (5-5) by six points, Clemson got smoked by Georgia, Boston College lost at home to Colorado State, Virginia Tech lost to East Carolina. I'm not saying I agree that the ACC is the weakest conference, but you can make arguments either way. that, and reputations are hard to outrun.
I've seen that postulated. It's an easy conclusion to draw, but I find it a little hard to believe that the other 11 members of the committee are going to be swayed by a guy talking about his own team, particularly a group that I'm going to think has some pretty strong personalities. I'd agree you'd think they'd fall a little more, but on the whole, it seems like the committee is less reactionary to one result than maybe the other polls are, plus I think they took Watson's injury into consideration.
Maybe not next spring, but probably eventually if Tech doesn't win enough to meet someone's satisfaction. After all, Tech won nine games in 2008 and went to the Orange Bowl in 2009 and I'd say sentiment was growing by 2011.
He didn't say that anything was changed, just that Clemson was making a lot of plays in the first half and that they weren't blocking well. (The line between opponent playing well/Tech not playing well is often a hard one to draw) I do think the offense has the tendency to wear on an opponent over the course of a game, though.
As I mentioned on the blog prior to the Clemson game, Quayshawn Nealy is someone I've relied on a great deal over the past few years to help me understand what is going on with the team and defense. There's a bunch of others. By and large, it's a good group - respectful, good attitudes and interesting to talk to. I hate to leave people out, but after Nealy, I've probably spoken with Synjyn Days, Zach Laskey and Shaquille Mason the most. All are very good representatives of the school. There's many others after those four.
It would hardly be implausible. He hasn't taken a hard hit or faced a live defense in about a month. Plus, he's a freshman. I think he sat out three games, though. I think Tech has a chance. It'll take some variables going their way, maybe a lot of them, but there's a decent chance.
Money is part of the issue about any marketing shortcomings. Personally, I don't think billboards are the answer. to get the attention of unaligned fans (and, perhaps more importantly, dormant Tech fans), I just think it comes down to beating Georgia on a semi-regular basis and winning noteworthy bowl games.
Could be. One thing is, because Tech's offense is as unorthodox as it is. sometimes a high ranking doesn't necessarily mean it will defend the option well. Miami is No. 6 in yards per play defense, for instance. (Speaking of Michigan, the Wolverines are 12th, remarkably.)
It'd be hard to give it to Days, as he's really only been starting for the past three games. I'd think it'd have to be Justin Thomas.
Not going to answer that one.
I don't believe Tech is in on any four- or five-stars, but I'm not positive. My colleague Michael Carvell would be much better informed on that.
It's funny - I don't know what made it happen, but I don't really consider myself a Michigan fan. this actually kind of started happening when I was still in college. I'm glad when Michigan wins, but the team's shortcomings don't really bother me much. Kind of sad, huh. For hopefully as long as I cover Tech, I hope I don't ever see myself as a fan. I suppose there are some writers who are fans of the teams they cover, just by happenstance, and I trust most or all of them try to separate that from their jobs, but in this case, it would be pretty unprofessional to become a fan having covered the team.
You should write feedback@ajc.com. I'm not what you'd call a "decision maker."
Clemson is OK, not great. They have 13 takeaways, which is 82nd in the country, and that despite the fact that the Tigers play more possessions than most teams. But Clemson is great at forcing punts. The Tigers are No. 1 in the country in third-down defense.
I agree he definitely deserves consideration. If Duke gets to the title game, I can definitely see David Cutcliffe winning again. Duke had a ton of key injuries prior to the season, plus it's Duke. Consider that Duke may play in two consecutive ACC title games before Miami, North Carolina and Virginia have ever played in one. But, back to Johnson. This is a group that lost a ton on defense, had a lot of new starters on offense, including the quarterback, and have exceeded just about everyone's expectations.
Don't know yet. I think he's got a chance, though.
I'd agree with you about Pitt and Virginia. there's probably something to that with Clemson. But they did play Florida State pretty well and held their own against Georgia until the fourth quarter. But I think they're pretty legit.
