(06-22-2016 04:40 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  If PJ turns in another deeply losing campaign like they think he will, then his seat will combust. The question is, can we get the AD's set to burst into flames first? No point in firing PJ when the guy who'd hire his replacement just showed us those l33t Xavier skills by hiring Josh f'n Pastner. Based on that I'd expect Bobinski to hire Petrino or Muschamp or Orgeron to replace PJ. Can't fix the coaches until we fix the clown in charge of hiring them.

Comparing Petrino to those guys is beyond insulting. Off the field issues aside, Petrino has won at a very high rate everywhere he has been. GT would be lucky to have a coach of his caliber. Just seems like an extremely odd thing to mention him with those other 2.

(06-11-2016 04:54 PM)CollegeCard Wrote:  Cuse only at 83? Not sure about that.

Agree. And similarly, UVa was no lower than 71 at the end of last year in Sagarin and Massey ratings systems. With it's upgrade in coaching, it's seems more likely that Virginia would be up to 10 points higher this year. They are almost certainly going to win more games simply because the schedule is easier (and they were never out of a game but once all of last year).

I think there's a lot of wishful thinking here about the effects of new coaches. Yes, a coach can make a significant difference but, no, I don't think that anyone should just assume that a new coach you're enthusiastic about is going to make a dramatic difference. Sometimes that happens but usually not. There's far more continuity than we'd like to think.

(07-05-2016 10:46 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  I think there's a lot of wishful thinking here about the effects of new coaches. Yes, a coach can make a significant difference but, no, I don't think that anyone should just assume that a new coach you're enthusiastic about is going to make a dramatic difference. Sometimes that happens but usually not. There's far more continuity than we'd like to think.

Says the Duke fan whose team went from 6-45 in the 5 seasons before Cutcliffe to 48-53 since?

(07-05-2016 11:30 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 10:46 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  I think there's a lot of wishful thinking here about the effects of new coaches. Yes, a coach can make a significant difference but, no, I don't think that anyone should just assume that a new coach you're enthusiastic about is going to make a dramatic difference. Sometimes that happens but usually not. There's far more continuity than we'd like to think.

Says the Duke fan whose team went from 6-45 in the 5 seasons before Cutcliffe to 48-53 since?

I'm well aware that Duke hit the jackpot when it hired Cutcliffe. The odds don't favor that kind of success, however. Also, there have been other important factors at Duke: a much higher budget for assistant coach salaries and football operations generally as well as major investments in facilities.

(07-05-2016 12:34 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 11:30 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 10:46 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  I think there's a lot of wishful thinking here about the effects of new coaches. Yes, a coach can make a significant difference but, no, I don't think that anyone should just assume that a new coach you're enthusiastic about is going to make a dramatic difference. Sometimes that happens but usually not. There's far more continuity than we'd like to think.

Says the Duke fan whose team went from 6-45 in the 5 seasons before Cutcliffe to 48-53 since?

I'm well aware that Duke hit the jackpot when it hired Cutcliffe. The odds don't favor that kind of success, however. Also, there have been other important factors at Duke: a much higher budget for assistant coach salaries and football operations generally as well as major investments in facilities.

So whats stopping other programs that may be down now from also hitting the jackpot, after making significant investments in coaches and asst coaches salaries, as well as facilities. Why shouldn't folks have wishful thinking based on those facts as well as hiring proven successful coaches? Especially for programs who have won big before.

Personally, I'm very excited for Syracuse the next couple of years. The team has a really tough schedule this season but I expect them to be bowl eligible. The 2017 season is when I expect this team to make some noise. They have the entire defense returning in 2017 and almost the entire offense returning with a year of Babers offense under their belt. VT should be better right away with their new coach because that team has a lot of underutilized talent. Virginia, like Syracuse is more talented than their record suggested. I think Miami will be the team to make the biggest jump this season. 2017 season, the ACC will be very good. Why shouldn't folks be excited for the season?

(07-05-2016 12:34 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 11:30 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 10:46 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  I think there's a lot of wishful thinking here about the effects of new coaches. Yes, a coach can make a significant difference but, no, I don't think that anyone should just assume that a new coach you're enthusiastic about is going to make a dramatic difference. Sometimes that happens but usually not. There's far more continuity than we'd like to think.

Says the Duke fan whose team went from 6-45 in the 5 seasons before Cutcliffe to 48-53 since?

I'm well aware that Duke hit the jackpot when it hired Cutcliffe. The odds don't favor that kind of success, however. Also, there have been other important factors at Duke: a much higher budget for assistant coach salaries and football operations generally as well as major investments in facilities.

And fortunate scheduling for Cutliffe. Duke has not had FSU, Clem, or UL on its schedule for last two years and only had FSU in the year before that. Plus it has yet to have Notre Dame in the rotation that other schools have over the past 3 years. And add in the ooc cupcakes, and "voila!" - odds favoring success are good! The next few years it all flips with Duke having harder ACC opponents, plus ND. While UVa, for example has the easier acc schedule ahead, which will make Mendenhall hit the jackpot like Cutliffe did.

(07-05-2016 01:06 PM)cavman Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 12:34 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 11:30 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(07-05-2016 10:46 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  I think there's a lot of wishful thinking here about the effects of new coaches. Yes, a coach can make a significant difference but, no, I don't think that anyone should just assume that a new coach you're enthusiastic about is going to make a dramatic difference. Sometimes that happens but usually not. There's far more continuity than we'd like to think.

Says the Duke fan whose team went from 6-45 in the 5 seasons before Cutcliffe to 48-53 since?

I'm well aware that Duke hit the jackpot when it hired Cutcliffe. The odds don't favor that kind of success, however. Also, there have been other important factors at Duke: a much higher budget for assistant coach salaries and football operations generally as well as major investments in facilities.

And fortunate scheduling for Cutliffe. Duke has not had FSU, Clem, or UL on its schedule for last two years and only had FSU in the year before that. Plus it has yet to have Notre Dame in the rotation that other schools have over the past 3 years. And add in the ooc cupcakes, and "voila!" - odds favoring success are good! The next few years it all flips with Duke having harder ACC opponents, plus ND. While UVa, for example has the easier acc schedule ahead, which will make Mendenhall hit the jackpot like Cutliffe did.

You hope that will be the case. Other than the George Welsh years, the Cavs have been bad more often than they have been good. It's no sure thing that Mendenhall will be another Welsh (or even another Cutcliffe).

Updated with VT!!

(07-04-2016 10:54 PM)uofl05 Wrote:  

(06-22-2016 04:40 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  If PJ turns in another deeply losing campaign like they think he will, then his seat will combust. The question is, can we get the AD's set to burst into flames first? No point in firing PJ when the guy who'd hire his replacement just showed us those l33t Xavier skills by hiring Josh f'n Pastner. Based on that I'd expect Bobinski to hire Petrino or Muschamp or Orgeron to replace PJ. Can't fix the coaches until we fix the clown in charge of hiring them.

Comparing Petrino to those guys is beyond insulting. Off the field issues aside, Petrino has won at a very high rate everywhere he has been. GT would be lucky to have a coach of his caliber. Just seems like an extremely odd thing to mention him with those other 2.

Tech could only dream. Swagger's showing a little jealousy.

(07-26-2016 02:08 AM)L-yes Wrote:  

(07-04-2016 10:54 PM)uofl05 Wrote:  

(06-22-2016 04:40 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  If PJ turns in another deeply losing campaign like they think he will, then his seat will combust. The question is, can we get the AD's set to burst into flames first? No point in firing PJ when the guy who'd hire his replacement just showed us those l33t Xavier skills by hiring Josh f'n Pastner. Based on that I'd expect Bobinski to hire Petrino or Muschamp or Orgeron to replace PJ. Can't fix the coaches until we fix the clown in charge of hiring them.

Comparing Petrino to those guys is beyond insulting. Off the field issues aside, Petrino has won at a very high rate everywhere he has been. GT would be lucky to have a coach of his caliber. Just seems like an extremely odd thing to mention him with those other 2.

Tech could only dream. Swagger's showing a little jealousy.

To the contrary. The hire of Petrino would piss GT fans off specifically BECAUSE of his off field antics, to say nothing of the overlap between GT fans and Falcons fans.

Updated with PITT