Tech in talks with ACC for Labor Day game
Georgia Tech is in discussions with the ACC to play in its nationally televised Labor Day night game, though chances do not appear good.
“We’re moderately interested in it, not crazy about it, but it’s got some interest to us,” associate athletic director Wayne Hogan said Tuesday. “It’s just a question of what makes sense.”
The league has interest in moving Tech’s game against Virginia Tech to that Sept. 3 date, Hogan said. The winner of that game has represented the Coastal Division in the ACC title game in each of the past seven seasons. The game would give the Yellow Jackets a national platform on a day and time slot in which it would have little, if any, competition.
However, Tech’s preference would be to not play Virginia Tech or any other Coastal Division team in that opening-week spot. Tech’s philosophy in recent years has been to play an FCS team in its opener as opposed to a more meaningful league game. For a Labor Day game to happen, the school would have to agree to it. Tech is scheduled to play Middle Tennessee State Sept. 8 and likely would want to move that game to avoid playing on a short week.
Miami and Maryland, who played on Labor Day in 2011, both had a bye week following their game. That game was the first of the ACC’s Labor Day games, part of the league’s 12-year contract with ESPN.
If a matchup with Virginia Tech or another Coastal team is in fact a deal breaker, that would leave Clemson, Maryland and Boston College, Tech’s Atlantic Division opponents in 2012. Only a matchup with Clemson would seem to have broad appeal – Maryland and Boston College were a combined 6-18 in 2011 – but the Tigers are scheduled to play Auburn in the Chick-fil-A Kickoff Game earlier that weekend at the Georgia Dome.
The ACC schedule is due to be released in early February.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
171 comments Add your comment
I get it...................
January 19th, 2012
2:55 pm
UTOAD doesn’t get it either. Do you really believe UGA can direct the SEC to make a schedule that is more favorable for them? If so why did they ask to play Florida every year without the advantage of a bye (Florida always had a bye) and why on earth would they ask to play SC early when the obvious advantage would be to play them late when injuries have depleted their thin depth.
You Tekies are so envious you are willing to throw anything on the wall – hoping to lessen the dominance UGA holds over Tek.
Tek needs to add some courses in logic – you guys need some help with your argument premise.
Supersize that order, mutt
January 19th, 2012
3:41 pm
UGAG has INPUT into the SEC scheduling, just like every team in every conference has INPUT into their conference scheduling. The league offices make the final decisions. However, UGAG has EVERYTHING to do with their OOC scheduling, and UGAG almost never plays any decent OOC teams other than Tech. Like UOAD said, you dropped Oregon. You only added Boise State because of the TV money and exposure; you originally had some OOC patsy scheduled at that time.
HighTech
January 19th, 2012
4:21 pm
I remember years ago when Auburn fired Terry Bowden, Auburn supposedly dropped FSU from their schedule the next year. The UGA bookstore in Athens had some hilarious t-shirts about Auburn being too scared to play daddy. Did Auburn drop FSU from their schedule or was it a conference deal?
Go Jackets!
January 19th, 2012
7:56 pm
Armpit U? Is that near Athens, Georgia? Sorry but Rick opened up with it early.
Go Jackets!
January 19th, 2012
8:04 pm
@ I get it……….
You do not get it and it’s doubtful you’ve ever had it.
Storyline topic: I say go for it as long as we don’t have to practice and play again 4 or 5 days later.
I get it...................
January 19th, 2012
10:22 pm
Sorry Go Jackets I do get it – the storyline = GT vs VT to start the season – it won’t happen – Tek does not want to start the season with a loss.
Super you might want to check UGA’s OOC schedule before you make such a bold statement. One other point you mistakenly said – “UGAG almost never plays any decent OOC teams other than Tech” – Tek isn’t a decent or quality opponent – hasn’t been for decades.
Supersize that order, mutt
January 19th, 2012
10:51 pm
I get it……., so, based on your logic, when Tech beat UGA in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2008, you lost to an inferior opponent. Awww, that means you can’t even play with inferior opponents. And where was I wrong about UGA’s OOC schedule? Other than one or two years with Ok State and Az State, and maybe one other, what QUALITY OOC opponents has UGA played? And you can’t count Boise State because TV scheduled that game; UGA didn’t.
I get it...................
January 19th, 2012
11:06 pm
Super stop digging – your hole is deep enough. WTF are you talking about not counting Boise? UGA agreed to play them and in fact did play them. What kind of twisted logic are you using – Tek logic.
98, 99, 00 & 08 even blind hogs find acorns
and it is difficult for a team to stay motivated after decades of dominance.
As an old timer I assume you attended Tek in what 1960? So in that span of time you have seen what – 15 Tek victories.
Go Jackets!
January 19th, 2012
11:28 pm
So it’s now officially the UGA “acorns”? Ohio State has the nut mascot lock up. Besides, you have to tell the Green Bay Packers you won’t be paying royalties on their LOGO. Can’t get a player to create a logo for your team (that would be a GT player) just rip off Green Bay (UGA athletic association).
Go Acorns! Instead of white and black bones you guys can have good or bad nuts. Seems appropriate.
Supersize that order, mutt
January 19th, 2012
11:34 pm
I get it…….. the logic is because originally you were scheduled to play another Coastal Carolina (I forget who…..northern Idaho or something), and dropped them because TV offered you the big bucks. That’s why I said you can’t count them, because you never would have played them had TV not come calling. And you lost BIG to them too. And what a silly, childish excuse for losing those 4 games to Tech. Yes, you “own” us right now, just like Tech “owns” Clemson, but all good things come to an end. I am sure that at some point Clemson will run off a string of wins against Tech, and I am equally sure Tech will run off a string of wins against UGA. S*it happens.
I get it...................
January 20th, 2012
12:09 am
actually Super I drop in here just to stir the pot (low hanging fruit) – much like I do with my family which has 5 Tek graduates 1 UGA graduate (not me) and one nephew-in- law (if that is a true term
) that played football at Tek (he fluked out and is as dumb as a box of rocks). We have some lively banter every year but recently it has become less fun.
Had to laugh at your good things come to an end comment – TEk has been waiting for good things to come to an end for over 50 years with very little promise on the horizon
I’d guess we are close to the same age and often wonder if the worm will turn in our lifetime.
Supersize that order, mutt
January 20th, 2012
1:38 am
I really thought the worm had turned in 2008, and I think it yet will. But hey, look at Clemson. At least Tech once was ahead in the series with UGA. I don’t think Clemson has ever come close to Tech in our series with them. I graduated from Tech in ‘66 and got my masters in ‘67. I have a nephew who graduated from Tech and a nephew-in-law (yep, that’s a good term) who made it till his senior year and transferred back to Augusta State (he didn’t flunk out of Tech, but he might as well have). My brother-in-law, who died 3 years ago, graduated from UGA but was a life-long Tech fan. So ALL of my family are Tech fans and always have been. You’ve probably gone to bed now, but I guess you will see this message in the morning. Obviously I am a nightowl. LOL
Supersize that order, mutt
January 20th, 2012
1:41 am
Really, Tech has only been waiting for 40 years. Until the streak of loser coaches started after Dodd retired, we were still “in it”. It really wasn’t until the mid 70s that things really got out of hand. We could have survived the Carson era, and even Fulcher, but from then on until Bobby Ross, it was just one loser coach after another. If O’Leary had stayed, things would have been more even over the past 10 years, and I still think Johnson can do it too. But we shall see.
I get it...................
January 20th, 2012
8:16 am
In my best Robin Williams voice – Gooooooood Mooooorning Tekies.
Super I understand your points on coaching which begs the question – why can’t Tek keep the promising coaches? Is it money or the difficulty of recruiting – I don’t get it – but I don’t get why we are stuck with Bobo. Speaking of Bobo – he is your best coach and player rolled into one.
Supersize that order, mutt
January 20th, 2012
10:34 am
Good morning, I get it…….. The filters have blocked my first two attempts to respond, so I will try again. Let’s see if at least this much goes through.
Supersize that order, mutt
January 20th, 2012
10:41 am
DAMMIT, that much made it through, but my attempt to say more did not. I stay up way too late at night, and even at 10:35, I have only been up for about 45 minutes. I’m not sure how coherent I am yet, but I AM getting PO’d at the stupid filter. Hopefully I can get across an intelligent response to your 8:16 post without the filters blocking it. First of all, thanks for bringing our conversation to a more level-headed tone. I’m always happy to talk about Tech, but when it devolves into name-calling and finger-pointing and other accusatory tactics, then I get ticked and lose my cool.
Supersize that order, mutt
January 20th, 2012
10:47 am
OK, so far so good with the filters. Hopefully I can continue. In Tech’s long string of coaches since Dodd retired, personally I only thought two were worth a damn…..Ross and O’Leary, and even O’Leary ticked me off at times. Carson was a BIG mistake, but strangely enough, it might have been a mistake to fire him too, since he seemed to be learning and improving. Fulcher is a total enigma. He COULD have been, and I think SHOULD have been, the perfect man for the job. He is originally from Augusta, so I am very familiar with his history. He played and coached under Dodd and had a stellar record as Tech freshman coach. He got screwed in the press during the Eddie McAshan affair, and apparently some alums jumped his case for some unknown reason, and he perceived pressure that should not have been there after only 2 years. And he was having marital problems, which I am sure did not help him. I’ll continue in a separate post.
Supersize that order, mutt
January 20th, 2012
10:50 am
Pepper could have done it, but he was such a goofball and had such a big ego, that he got worse every year after the first couple. His Wishbone offense was a thing of beauty, and we were loaded at running back. Then he got a superb passer in Mike Kelley, and coupled with Eddie Lee, the offense was almost unstoppable. But he almost seemed to neglect defense completely, and that was his ruin. I hated Curry from the start and still do. I was glad when he left for Bama—-what a STUPID thing to do!!!
Supersize that order, mutt
January 20th, 2012
10:58 am
Ross was the man, but the allure of the pros was too great. I imagine he would have made that jump no matter what school he coached for. Bill Lewis was the worst coach in history; enough said. O’Leary rebuilt the program, and even though he had faults, he knew how to hire coaches, how to recruit, and how to trust his assistants to do the right thing, thus making him look like a better coach than he actually was. I think if he had not been so in love with the idea of coaching at Notre Dame, he would probably still be at Tech and beating UGA at least 50% of the time. Chan was a bad hire. He was a good man, a football-smart man (I hear him speak twice and was very impressed), but he did not have a real college football mind. And he was too “loyal” to certain players, like Richt is to certain coaches. He needed to go when he was fired. I DO think Johnson will get it done. We need better recruiting, but I don’t think that should all be laid at his feet. Tech has NEVER had GREAT recruiting, but we have had a few REALLY GOOD players who could carry us to victory. Johnson has yet to find one of those players (Nesbitt was that kind of player, but Johnson didn’t recruit him), but I don’t think it’s for lack of trying, like some would suggest. I like his offense, and if we can build a good, if not great, defense, I think we will be fine….REAL FINE
Supersize that order, mutt
January 20th, 2012
11:02 am
I agree with you about BoBo, but I’m going to say something else that I know you are going to disagree with. I think Grantham is going to hurt you too. He is a jerk and a thug. His defenses may be better than Martinez’s, but not really much better. In spite of the final results the last two years, he still hasn’t really stopped Tech’s offense; he contained the inside game, but not the outside game. With any kind of passing threat, both games would have gone completely differently. I think Tech would have won in 2010. We might have lost this past season, but it would have been more competitive. OK, that’s my take on things. After doing all this typing, I hope the hell you come back and read it all, because I am not going to type it again. LOL
Later
Buzz
January 20th, 2012
12:09 pm
Virginia Tech is most vulnerable at the beginning of the season. They just get better as the season goes on.