clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Technical Tidbits 12/9

A healthy team could have clearly changed the entire 2015 season. What kind of impact could it have really made?

RVR Photos-USA TODAY Sports

Rating the performance of the 2015 football team is not a difficult task for anyone who watched games three through twelve. Rating them as the College Football Playoff Committee would, however, yields much more interesting results. Similar results for sure, but interesting in that the analysis is a bit deeper than "they sucked". That is exactly what the AJC's Ken Sugiura was aiming for when he wrote this excellent article on how the committee would theoretically grade Georgia Tech's 2015 campaign had the Jackets been in the playoff conversation at 3-9 for whatever reason. This is the point in the offseason where everyone is usually trying to keep football relevant by introducing numerous stats that point to the team actually being better than the record indicates, but it just doesn't work this season. Everything was ugly and nothing was particularly encouraging.

If there's one thing to look forward to in the 2016 football season it's that Tech's luck could not possibly be as bad as it was during 2015. The toughest part of the whole 2015 catastrophe for me to cope with is just the pure speculation about where the team would have finished with even half as many injuries as it sustained. Hindsight tells us that even a 100% healthy 2015 team was probably only an 8-game winner if that, but the sentiment still stands. I've never seen injuries derail an entire season for any team in any sport as much as they did Tech's 2015 campaign. Time to heal up and trudge on towards the light at the end of the tunnel.

One of my favorite parts of bowl season is seeing the various gifts that the 40-odd sponsors give out to the teams that participate in their respective games. In fact, the absence of Georgia Tech in postseason play this years means that bowl gifts (and the playoffs, I suppose) are all I have to enjoy. Let me start of by saying shame on Chick-fil-A for only giving participants $10 worth of Chick-fil-A gift cards for playing in the Peach Bowl. What kind of monster spends less than $10 on any given trip to Chick-fil-A? Also, the joke is on Mike Bobo for leaving UGA in favor of Colorado State -- his team gets nothing more than custom cowboy boots as a prize. I guess they are technically in vogue to some extent -- at least where I am -- but the people I see wearing them aren't exactly college football players.

Former USC head coach Steve Sarkisian has had a rough time lately. He was terminated from his position as head coach of the Trojans in the middle of the season after checking into rehab for alcoholism and remains in the unemployment line to this day, albeit in a self-described better state of health. His ominous dismissal from USC -- of which he was notified by athletic director Pat Haden via email, of all things -- has led him to file a wrongful termination lawsuit against USC. That alone is noteworthy, but what makes it truly interesting is that a main point of emphasis in Sarkisian's lawsuit is an article where a Bleacher Report writer gave him an "A+" for his coaching performance. Come on, Sark. I've cited Bleacher Report one time in my life and got obliterated for it. You just did it under much more dire circumstances. That's day one stuff, dude.

What do you think the ceiling of the 2015 football team would have been if the team had been fully healthy?