Why do y'all say GT sucks?

#177
#177
Why do some keep saying because UT is a top tier team heading back to the top? As if GT is sooooo far behind UT? I agree over history UT on te field has been better, but not by a large margin.

GT 4 national championships UT 4
GT 16 conference championships UT 16
GT 44 bowl games UT 52
GT .568 bowl game winning percentage UT .538
GT 17th all time in wins with 723 UT 9th with 829 wins.
GT all time win percentage .593 UT .681

Obviously UT historically has been better, but it's not by this major margin as some have acted like.

If I'm wrong on any UT stats I apologize.
 
#178
#178
butchna said:
He was actually taking a shot at our coach with that...visitors. :rolls_eye: We play a tough SEC slate that (if we play almost perfect) could potentially have us playing Bama TWICE. You got nothing on us...GTFO with that weakass shizz!
Click to expand...

Ok
 
#179
#179
Techfan1 said:
I don't get it, we get this often from other teams as well. Is it because of the offensive system and because people don't like the cut blocks? up until 2015 we were tied for the most active consecutive bowl appearances. We won the orange bowl in 2014 with 11 wins. We have been below .500 only once in recent years. We had 9 wins last year with 3 coming against the sec east. We hold a 5-5 record against Clemson and a 5-5 record against FSU since Paul Johnson has been our coach. So why do people say we suck when these facts are more than most other teams can say that we play. Imo it's a misconception based on the fact that we run the offensive system we run, so a lot are just uninformed about us. If there is actually reason why people say this besides, because we cut block and run the system we run (which are not reasons a team would suck) please tell me. Not trying to start anything, this is a serious question.
Click to expand...

Because they aint THE TENNESSEE VOLUNTEERS.

Speak louder Bumblebee, i cant hear you, ROCKY TOP is playing.
 
#180
#180
Jaws said:
If I need a widget built, or industrial measurements, you're my team.

If I need football, I'll take any number of SEC schools.

You're Vanderbilt, minus the prestige.
Click to expand...

honestly, I would rather GT be back in the SEC instead of Vandy or Missouri, would atleast make the east a stronger division and makes more sense in a location standpoint.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#182
#182
jpope9 said:
honestly, I would rather GT be back in the SEC instead of Vandy or Missouri, would atleast make the east a stronger division and makes more sense in a location standpoint.
Click to expand...

Do you think vandy and UK are getting better? I'm not buying it for U.K., I could see vandy getting a little better though.
 
#184
#184
Techfan1 said:
Why do some keep saying because UT is a top tier team heading back to the top? As if GT is sooooo far behind UT? I agree over history UT on te field has been better, but not by a large margin.

GT 4 national championships UT 4
GT 16 conference championships UT 16
GT 44 bowl games UT 52
GT .568 bowl game winning percentage UT .538
GT 17th all time in wins with 723 UT 9th with 829 wins.
GT all time win percentage .593 UT .681

Obviously UT historically has been better, but it's not by this major margin as some have acted like.

If I'm wrong on any UT stats I apologize.
Click to expand...


UT claims 6 national championships.
 
#185
#185
Obviously most don't discount a real possibility of tech winning the game, and thus they don't think tech sucks. If the one look I had at a tech message board is any indication, tech fans are far more in the "how does anyone think UT can stay on the field with us" category than UT fans.

Here though are a couple of reasons tech isn't currently taken very seriously as a program:
1) Your recruiting sucks, and, by every metric available, we know you can't win a NC without very good recruiting.
2) Your offensive system, which is at least partially responsible for recruiting suckage, is an admission you'd rather win an occasional upset than compete for a NC. If run properly it can be effective against athletically superior teams which haven't the time, or coaching expertise, to practice for it, but that isn't a path to a NC.

I, and many others, understand why tech runs that style offense. It makes absolute sense to run it in order to win as many games as possible when you know you'll never have the talent to match up day in and day out. Basically, most believe you've settled for winning what you can while knowing you'll never win the ultimate prize, and that makes tech a second rate team in many minds. That's not said to disparage tech...it simply is. They may well beat UT, but they shouldn't.

My grandfather graduated from tech in 1930, and I grew up watching and listening to tech games as a fan. I like tech on that basis. Both of my parents though graduated from UT, so my state school was always just a little closer to my heart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#187
#187
Techfan1 said:
Why do some keep saying because UT is a top tier team heading back to the top? As if GT is sooooo far behind UT? I agree over history UT on te field has been better, but not by a large margin.

GT 4 national championships UT 4
GT 16 conference championships UT 16
GT 44 bowl games UT 52
GT .568 bowl game winning percentage UT .538
GT 17th all time in wins with 723 UT 9th with 829 wins.
GT all time win percentage .593 UT .681

Obviously UT historically has been better, but it's not by this major margin as some have acted like.

If I'm wrong on any UT stats I apologize.
Click to expand...

You played in a cupcake conference football wise until FSU and Miami joined you. Before that, Clemson and Maryland represented in stretches...sucked in others. Bobby Dodd upped your numbers in the SEC during the days of Caucasian corners and running backs. Since then you're barely mediocre and have to trick up a dirty scheme to compete. Keep your apologies...disband your program.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#189
#189
butchna said:
You played in a cupcake conference football wise until FSU and Miami joined you. Before that, Clemson and Maryland represented in stretches...sucked in others. Bobby Dodd upped your numbers in the SEC during the days of Caucasian corners and running backs. Since then you're barely mediocre and have to trick up a dirty scheme to compete. Keep your apologies...disband your program.
Click to expand...

Ok
 
#192
#192
zeppelin128 said:
1938, 1940, 1950, 1951, 1967, 1998

There is also one we don't claim from 1956. We don't claim phantom titles like Bama. Ha
Click to expand...

We should claim more. UT went undefeated 5 out of 6 years from 1927 to 1932. And we claim none of those? Then we don't claim 1939. And we don't claim 1956.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#194
#194
Techfan1 said:
Depends on who he is?
Click to expand...

tumblr_npytw5oadw1t1bfwbo1_500.gif
 
#198
#198
NeverWe'llSever said:
We should claim more. UT went undefeated 5 out of 6 years from 1927 to 1932. And we claim none of those? Then we don't claim 1939. And we don't claim 1956.
Click to expand...

Seven more championships? I like it.

What I've read regarding CFB history is that the Yankees were incredibly biased against Southern teams before the 50's, and would usually give the nod to a Northern team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top