Yeah, I know it's been a while. But I'm back now, and all it took was the rejuvenating and all too familiar feeling of laughing at Tech's misery.
Everyone has seen by now that the Buzzing Bees are on probation and have to vacate the only thing they've won in recent history (2009 ACC Title). Aside from the fact that everyone knows that UGA won the ACC in 2009, does anyone else find it funny that Tech's cheating and punishment was revealed the same day as the final Harry Potter movie is coming out in theaters? (tonight at midnight, or so I hear)
This has to be the most bittersweet day in Tech history, and for the Head Wizard, Paul "Punch 'em in the face" Johnson.
Showing posts with label Buzz Buzz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Buzz Buzz. Show all posts
Jul 14, 2011
Jul 22, 2010
Did You Know a Georgia Alum Created Buzz?
I took the above picture with my phone just before sitting next to "Buzz" on the Goliath roller coaster at Six Flags two years ago. I've never smelled such a pungent odor combination of whiskey, Clearasil, and mothballs.OK, so it's very possible that most older Georgia fans out there already know this, but I know that there are plenty in the Bulldog Nation who don't.
In 1983, an artist named Mike Lester designed a yellow jacket named Buzz. Mike Lester is a Georgia alumnus.
WHAT?
So the beloved mascot and logo of Georgia Tech, a school where most of the fans LIVE to hate Georgia, was created by a former Dawg?
My first question is: Why would Tech let this happen, even back in the 1980s? They have always hated Georgia, and when choosing their new mascot and logo, why did they HAVE to choose one created by a Georgia alumnus? Couldn't someone else in the state draw a bee and give it a cutesy name?
Now I don't know Mike Lester, and apparently a lot of Tech fans already know about this and act like they're fine with it. Hey, maybe Mike Lester actually hated Georgia even though he went to school there. Maybe he was always a Tech fan. I don't know at all. But even if he was, why would Tech choose a logo created by a Georgia alum?
Imagine if having a white English bulldog named Uga was an idea given to Sonny Seiler by a Tech grad. Or if a Tech grad designed Sanford Stadium. Wouldn't that be a constant teasing point for Tech fans to chuckle at Georgia?
I just thought it was interesting.
PS: This is not meant in any way to make fun of Mike Lester. Anyone would be happy to sell their work to a big school, even if it was a rival institution. I'm more confused as to why Tech would want to use a Georgia alum's work in the first place.
Jul 6, 2010
Steps to Being a Tech Fan: A Study of Forum Posts
"But I thought we ran this state..."
Today I have four message board threads for you that I found over the weekend that can illustrate the important steps in the normal progression of being a Tech fan.
The first step to being a Tech fan: confusion and onsetting inferiority. Below we have a topic where Tech fans simply cannot understand why such a crappy school (UGA) is considered by so many to be the leading institution in the state. Clearly, Tech is a better school! Right? Right guys?....
The second step is misplaced anger and childish behavior. These threads pop up ALL THE TIME. Tech fans often tend to see UGA merchandise sold at local stores (considering UGA is the largest and most supported college in the state). Then Tech fans assume two things:
#1. This clearly means the entire company is full of nothing but UGA supporters and they want to destroy everything good and decent in the world (my view of my school and myself).
#2. If I act in a childish manner about this, I will succeed and win the battle. (Often, a Tech fan will make up stories and lie about their exploits in order to gain admiration and reputation from other Tech fans.)
The third step is grasping for ammunition, or information that a Tech fan finds valuable to prove, once and for all, that Tech is the superior institution of higher learning, and that Georgia is worthless, even in athletics, due to its barbarian intelligence.
And the final step is realization of inferiority. Not many Tech fans are brave enough to make it to this step, and many will refuse to acknowledge it. But we found a rare glimpse into the final step here.
Research into this exciting new field is ongoing, and more steps may be revealed later.
Note: This post is intended for humor and not meant to offend Tech fans any more than the offense of my existence as a stupid redneck UGA fan.
P.S.: If Tech fans don't like Cracker Barrel, I'm fine with that. You keep the nasty Waffle House, and I'll keep delicious Cracker Barrel.
P.S.#2: And yes, that was meant to offend Waffle House. Please clean up your "restaurants".
Apr 20, 2009
What's all the buzz about?
Mark Bradley at the AJC wrote a nice little piece on Sunday fawning over the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets football team. The title of his article declares Tech's offense as "a given" with question marks on the defensive side of the ball.
The first line declares that "Georgia Tech’s offense is going to be great. Not pretty good, not really good —- flat-out great." Then, of course, the conclusion, that "If it can stop somebody when it matters, this team should play in a BCS game. Maybe even the BCS game."
I thought it would be interesting to take a look at how Georgia Tech's offense performed overall last season. (All stats and rankings below come from cfbstats.com)
First, in the ACC, Tech placed as follows in offensive categories:
Scoring offense: 6th with 24.4 points per game
Total Offense: 1st (372 yards per game)
Rushing Offense: 1st
Passing Offense: 12th
Nothing too unusual there, as you would expect Paul Johnson's triple option offense to rack up rushing yards with very little passing. The total offense is impressive as it topped the ACC in 2008. But when you look at the national stats, things are much more underwhelming.
Nationally Tech ranked as follows:
Also, just for fun, Georgia's 2008 rankings will be placed in parentheses:
Scoring Offense: 74th (UGA was 29th)
Total Offense: 50th (UGA was 22nd)
Rushing Offense: 4th (UGA was 56th)
Passing Offense: 117th (UGA was 16th)
In scoring and total offense, Georgia Tech was far from impressive in 2008. Their passing offense last season was 3 spots away from being the lowest in FBS college football, which is to be expected. The only statistic that does stand out nationally would be (surprise!) rushing offense, where Tech was 4th behind Navy, Oregon, and Nevada.
Just for reference, Navy went 8-5 in 2008, losing to Ball State, Duke, Pittsburgh, Notre Dame, and Wake Forest.
Nevada went 7-6, losing to New Mexico State and Hawaii along the way.
The best team in rushing ahead of Tech last season was by far Oregon, with a 10-3 record and bowl win over Oklahoma State. But take note that Oregon was also 67th nationally in passing offense which, while not amazing, is a LOT better than 117th.
Georgia Tech certainly has high expectations going into 2009 after a 9-4 season in 2008 which concluded with a 38-3 loss to the (at the time) unranked LSU Tigers. It's almost as if this finish to the season was purposefully forgotten by the sports media (and GT fans) who are convinced that the only way to go is up. They may be right. It's generally accepted that a unit returning most of its starters will improve with experience. But why assume that an offense that wasn't statistically spectacular last year will be able to lead a questionable defense to a BCS game, or even the BCS Championship?
Is it simply the allure of a run-only offense that is extremely rare in college football? Are people fooled by the rushing numbers that the team put up and ignoring the offensive struggles of parts of the season?
Keep in mind that Georgia Tech was held to 10 points or less 3 times in 2008, scoring 3 against LSU, 7 against North Carolina, and 10 against the juggernaut Gardner Webb.
I will concede that yes, Tech did beat Georgia last season for the first time in 8 years. Tech was a surprise in the ACC with a new coach and a new system. Georgia Tech COULD win the ACC next season, and even the national championship (as any team has that chance). But are they really deserving of such praise at this point? Is their offense clearly "flat out great?" I think we'll just have to wait and see this fall.
So why pretend like Tech's offense is "a given?" What's the buzz all about?
The first line declares that "Georgia Tech’s offense is going to be great. Not pretty good, not really good —- flat-out great." Then, of course, the conclusion, that "If it can stop somebody when it matters, this team should play in a BCS game. Maybe even the BCS game."
I thought it would be interesting to take a look at how Georgia Tech's offense performed overall last season. (All stats and rankings below come from cfbstats.com)
First, in the ACC, Tech placed as follows in offensive categories:
Scoring offense: 6th with 24.4 points per game
Total Offense: 1st (372 yards per game)
Rushing Offense: 1st
Passing Offense: 12th
Nothing too unusual there, as you would expect Paul Johnson's triple option offense to rack up rushing yards with very little passing. The total offense is impressive as it topped the ACC in 2008. But when you look at the national stats, things are much more underwhelming.
Nationally Tech ranked as follows:
Also, just for fun, Georgia's 2008 rankings will be placed in parentheses:
Scoring Offense: 74th (UGA was 29th)
Total Offense: 50th (UGA was 22nd)
Rushing Offense: 4th (UGA was 56th)
Passing Offense: 117th (UGA was 16th)
In scoring and total offense, Georgia Tech was far from impressive in 2008. Their passing offense last season was 3 spots away from being the lowest in FBS college football, which is to be expected. The only statistic that does stand out nationally would be (surprise!) rushing offense, where Tech was 4th behind Navy, Oregon, and Nevada.
Just for reference, Navy went 8-5 in 2008, losing to Ball State, Duke, Pittsburgh, Notre Dame, and Wake Forest.
Nevada went 7-6, losing to New Mexico State and Hawaii along the way.
The best team in rushing ahead of Tech last season was by far Oregon, with a 10-3 record and bowl win over Oklahoma State. But take note that Oregon was also 67th nationally in passing offense which, while not amazing, is a LOT better than 117th.
Georgia Tech certainly has high expectations going into 2009 after a 9-4 season in 2008 which concluded with a 38-3 loss to the (at the time) unranked LSU Tigers. It's almost as if this finish to the season was purposefully forgotten by the sports media (and GT fans) who are convinced that the only way to go is up. They may be right. It's generally accepted that a unit returning most of its starters will improve with experience. But why assume that an offense that wasn't statistically spectacular last year will be able to lead a questionable defense to a BCS game, or even the BCS Championship?
Is it simply the allure of a run-only offense that is extremely rare in college football? Are people fooled by the rushing numbers that the team put up and ignoring the offensive struggles of parts of the season?
Keep in mind that Georgia Tech was held to 10 points or less 3 times in 2008, scoring 3 against LSU, 7 against North Carolina, and 10 against the juggernaut Gardner Webb.
I will concede that yes, Tech did beat Georgia last season for the first time in 8 years. Tech was a surprise in the ACC with a new coach and a new system. Georgia Tech COULD win the ACC next season, and even the national championship (as any team has that chance). But are they really deserving of such praise at this point? Is their offense clearly "flat out great?" I think we'll just have to wait and see this fall.
So why pretend like Tech's offense is "a given?" What's the buzz all about?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)