Started By
Message
re: Do you think Tulane and Georgia Tech regret leaving the SEC in the 1960's?
Posted on 4/26/12 at 9:26 am to WG_Dawg
Posted on 4/26/12 at 9:26 am to WG_Dawg
No, the point is Tech is easily one of the 15-20 greatest programs of all time and historically speaking is comparable to UGA. They have decided to focus more on academics and and their football athleticism has thus suffered. However they still field competitive teams, albeit in a weaker conference than the SEC, they are still consistently better than any other school that has a focus more on academics - Vanderbilt, Purdue, Northwestern, Duke, Wake Forest, Navy, Army, and even Notre Dame.
They have a very rich, top 15 or 20 history, and are still respectable even with a focus more on academics. For a UGA fan of all people to call Tech wretched and pathetic is absolutely fricking retarded.
That's the point. Get it?
They have a very rich, top 15 or 20 history, and are still respectable even with a focus more on academics. For a UGA fan of all people to call Tech wretched and pathetic is absolutely fricking retarded.
That's the point. Get it?
This post was edited on 4/26/12 at 9:28 am
3
Posted on 4/26/12 at 9:28 am to FinleyStreet
quote:
Technically it's 2, but it's hard to care about the one we claim before the toaster was invented.
The automatic pop-up toaster, which ejects the toast after toasting it, was first patented by Charles Strite in 1919.
Georgia had a claim to the national championship in 1946 after finishing first in at least one national poll and/or rating system.
Technically the toaster was invented long before the Dawgs got their 1946 MNC.
Posted on 4/26/12 at 9:28 am to Swoopin
quote:
By the rules, they lost to Missouri.
They ended the game with more points, so they won.
"By the rules", we wouldn't have lost in 1999 because Jasper Sanks didn't fumble. "By the rules", we wouldn't have lost in 1998 because Joe Hamilton fumbled but they said he didn't. So if we're going by the book here, then tech has only beaten us twice in 21 years.
Posted on 4/26/12 at 9:29 am to genro
quote:
the point is Tech is easily one of the 15-20 greatest programs of all time
Tech is around the 20th best program of all time, and UGA is around the 10th best of all time. So I don't see how you can say the 2 programs are comparable football wise.
Posted on 4/26/12 at 9:30 am to WG_Dawg
Ok, im done.
Posted on 4/26/12 at 9:31 am to secfan123
quote:
no. i simply recognize the futility of pointing out that his back was turned so he could not see the fair catch signal and the whistle blew as he was throwing the block, and chick slacked up as the block was being thrown because he did see the fair catch signal as holt was throwing siad block. Its pointless to argue these things with you though.
I think you fail to recognize the point of the initial comment. it's a cheap shot to forearm to the face. or are you saying it's not?
yet you dwell on the fact that I misspoke and said tackle for block as your argument
Posted on 4/26/12 at 9:33 am to genro
Tech is a very historically rich program, and is right there with Auburn, Alabama, UGA, and Tennessee in the formative years of southern college football.
Getting skull-drug by UGA recently has definitely done something to ruin that reputation. Leaving the SEC, even for well-intended reasons, has left GT in the dust compared to the badass monsters the SEC has become.
Throughout this conference expansion I've hope and prayed that GT would be considered for an invitation, but I understand the reasons we're not. Besides UGA not wanting us there, we don't have as much direct economic value to add to the pie because of how we've retracted with the rise of the SEC.
But that doesn't change that at least 3 of the programs in the SEC (Auburn, Alabama, and GT) have very storied rivalries with GT, and that in itself makes it undeniable that aside from money, GT would inject a very high quality sense of tradition in the SEC.
But I'm not holding my breath. The unlikelihood doesn't change that I'd gladly go 7-5 every year in the SEC rather than 9-3 with the patchwork ACC (who our only true rival is Clemson).
Getting skull-drug by UGA recently has definitely done something to ruin that reputation. Leaving the SEC, even for well-intended reasons, has left GT in the dust compared to the badass monsters the SEC has become.
Throughout this conference expansion I've hope and prayed that GT would be considered for an invitation, but I understand the reasons we're not. Besides UGA not wanting us there, we don't have as much direct economic value to add to the pie because of how we've retracted with the rise of the SEC.
But that doesn't change that at least 3 of the programs in the SEC (Auburn, Alabama, and GT) have very storied rivalries with GT, and that in itself makes it undeniable that aside from money, GT would inject a very high quality sense of tradition in the SEC.
But I'm not holding my breath. The unlikelihood doesn't change that I'd gladly go 7-5 every year in the SEC rather than 9-3 with the patchwork ACC (who our only true rival is Clemson).
Posted on 4/26/12 at 9:34 am to WG_Dawg
We should create a mathematical formula for greatest teams ever, based on winning pct, bowl games, national titles, and strength of schedule.
Oh wait, they already did. LINK
Oh wait, they already did. LINK
quote:
The website has been cited as a source by The New York Sun,[6] The Fort Worth Star-Telegram,[7] The Columbus Ledger-Enquirer,[8] The State,[9] and The Lawrentian.[10] It has also been widely cited in historical college football books,[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] and in scholarly journals such as the Journal of Sports Economics,[19] the Utah Law Review,[20] the Tulsa Law Review,[21] the Oklahoma Law Review,[22] and Sports Law.[23]
Posted on 4/26/12 at 9:34 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
I think you fail to recognize the point of the initial comment. it's a cheap shot to forearm to the face. or are you saying it's not?
cheap means he intentionall went for the face. he was exploding upward as chick slacked off. had chick not slacked off, he would not have hit his face. i am not saying it is chick's fault. chick saw the fair catch while darwin did not. i am simply saying it was not his intention to catch him in the face.
quote:
yet you dwell on the fact that I misspoke and said tackle for block as your argument
confusing two seperate things is not misspeaking.
Posted on 4/26/12 at 9:36 am to WG_Dawg
I only mention that fact because so many of you pretend GT's claim is illegitimate.
And this mistake wasn't a judgement call like a fumble before good camera angles, this was an officiating error
My dad still hates Colorado because of that game
And this mistake wasn't a judgement call like a fumble before good camera angles, this was an officiating error
My dad still hates Colorado because of that game
Posted on 4/26/12 at 9:37 am to genro
Georgia Tech is just ahead of Auburn according to that formula. Too cool.
Posted on 4/26/12 at 9:37 am to Swoopin
quote:
I only mention that fact because so many of you pretend GT's claim is illegitimate.
And this mistake wasn't a judgement call like a fumble before good camera angles, this was an officiating error
My dad still hates Colorado because of that game
georgia tech's title is definitey legitimate but damn 90 was a weak year for football. kinda like 84 when byu won it.
Posted on 4/26/12 at 9:37 am to parkjas2001
quote:
what we saw at UF this week would never happen at Tech.
What happened at UF?
Posted on 4/26/12 at 9:38 am to Swoopin
quote:
And this mistake wasn't a judgement call like a fumble before good camera angles, this was an officiating error
Mother effing this. It is the job of the officials to keep track of what down it is. They failed to do this and gave Colorado five downs to score. And it is still hotly debated to this day as to whether the guy scored or not.
Posted on 4/26/12 at 9:39 am to Swoopin
quote:
My dad still hates Colorado because of that game
I do too.
Posted on 4/26/12 at 9:39 am to genro
quote:
They have a very rich, top 15 or 20 history, and are still respectable even with a focus more on academics. For a UGA fan of all people to call Tech wretched and pathetic is absolutely fricking retarded.
If I could rep you I would.
Look early in the game, the Vanderbilts, Tulanes, and Georgia Techs were the better teams in their respective states. Hell, the University of Chicago once was the monster of the B1G. Is it safe to say that none of these schools are what they once were in early football? It does not negate that all have gone on to academic excellence, and the country is better off for it.
In football Clemson is fast becoming the new Georgia Tech because of their decisions on SEC membership, but that does not mean their success in the past is no longer important to their fans and alumni. Sometimes folks have the attention span of gnats if something happened before the age of Twitter and Facebook.
Posted on 4/26/12 at 9:40 am to bona fide
quote:
what we saw at UF this week would never happen at Tech.
What happened at UF?
They cut a CIS program to add more to the athletic budget.
This post was edited on 4/26/12 at 9:41 am
Posted on 4/26/12 at 9:40 am to secfan123
quote:
confusing two seperate things is not misspeaking.
Yeah, tackling and blocking are no where near remotely being similar
quote:
cheap means he intentionall went for the face. he was exploding upward as chick slacked off. had chick not slacked off, he would not have hit his face. i am not saying it is chick's fault. chick saw the fair catch while darwin did not. i am simply saying it was not his intention to catch him in the face.
okay,
So lets think about this. they are running towards each other, correct. Now if you were lunging towards someone to block/tackle and they pulled up or slowed wouldnt you say you would be short or low rather than high? and why are you throwing your elbow
Posted on 4/26/12 at 9:40 am to RollTide1987
My favorite story of GT in the SEC days (can't find where I read it) is that the GT and Auburn fans (might have been Alabama) almost broke into a riot with fights at Grant Field, and then the bands started playing Dixie and everyone stopped fighting
Posted on 4/26/12 at 9:42 am to Swoopin
quote:
And this mistake wasn't a judgement call like a fumble before good camera angles, this was an officiating error
Losing track of downs is an officiating error too
The events that took place in that day at grant field in 1999 were well beyond just an error. First of all, Jasper's knees, waist, torso, and elbows were on the ground. A tech player then took the ball from his hands. It's laughable that that would be considered a fumble. So then, after that extreme insult to competent officiating, the tech a-hole runs backwards into his own endzone. He is in the process of getting tackled the the play is whistled dead. If it WAS a fumble (which it wasn't) shouldn't it have been a live ball? Then we would've had a safety and won anyway. There is no conceivable way in that situation for tech to get the ball on the 1 yard line.
Yes I'm mad. It still makes my blood boil just thinking about that play. I will go to my grave and enter the afterlife still furious about that play.
This post was edited on 4/26/12 at 9:44 am
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News